what percentage of parents like homework

11 Surprising Homework Statistics, Facts & Data

The age-old question of whether homework is good or bad for students is unanswerable because there are so many “ it depends ” factors.

For example, it depends on the age of the child, the type of homework being assigned, and even the child’s needs.

There are also many conflicting reports on whether homework is good or bad. This is a topic that largely relies on data interpretation for the researcher to come to their conclusions.

To cut through some of the fog, below I’ve outlined some great homework statistics that can help us understand the effects of homework on children.

Homework Statistics List

1. 45% of parents think homework is too easy for their children.

A study by the Center for American Progress found that parents are almost twice as likely to believe their children’s homework is too easy than to disagree with that statement.

Here are the figures for math homework:

• 46% of parents think their child’s math homework is too easy.
• 25% of parents think their child’s math homework is not too easy.
• 29% of parents offered no opinion.

Here are the figures for language arts homework:

• 44% of parents think their child’s language arts homework is too easy.
• 28% of parents think their child’s language arts homework is not too easy.
• 28% of parents offered no opinion.

These findings are based on online surveys of 372 parents of school-aged children conducted in 2018.

2. 93% of Fourth Grade Children Worldwide are Assigned Homework

The prestigious worldwide math assessment Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) took a survey of worldwide homework trends in 2007. Their study concluded that 93% of fourth-grade children are regularly assigned homework, while just 7% never or rarely have homework assigned.

3. 17% of Teens Regularly Miss Homework due to Lack of High-Speed Internet Access

A 2018 Pew Research poll of 743 US teens found that 17%, or almost 2 in every 5 students, regularly struggled to complete homework because they didn’t have reliable access to the internet.

This figure rose to 25% of Black American teens and 24% of teens whose families have an income of less than $30,000 per year.

4. Parents Spend 6.7 Hours Per Week on their Children’s Homework

A 2018 study of 27,500 parents around the world found that the average amount of time parents spend on homework with their child is 6.7 hours per week. Furthermore, 25% of parents spend more than 7 hours per week on their child’s homework.

American parents spend slightly below average at 6.2 hours per week, while Indian parents spend 12 hours per week and Japanese parents spend 2.6 hours per week.

5. Students in High-Performing High Schools Spend on Average 3.1 Hours per night Doing Homework

A study by Galloway, Conner & Pope (2013) conducted a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California. 

Across these high-performing schools, students self-reported that they did 3.1 hours per night of homework.

Graduates from those schools also ended up going on to college 93% of the time.

6. One to Two Hours is the Optimal Duration for Homework

A 2012 peer-reviewed study in the High School Journal found that students who conducted between one and two hours achieved higher results in tests than any other group.

However, the authors were quick to highlight that this “t is an oversimplification of a much more complex problem.” I’m inclined to agree. The greater variable is likely the quality of the homework than time spent on it.

Nevertheless, one result was unequivocal: that some homework is better than none at all : “students who complete any amount of homework earn higher test scores than their peers who do not complete homework.”

7. 74% of Teens cite Homework as a Source of Stress

A study by the Better Sleep Council found that homework is a source of stress for 74% of students. Only school grades, at 75%, rated higher in the study.

That figure rises for girls, with 80% of girls citing homework as a source of stress.

Similarly, the study by Galloway, Conner & Pope (2013) found that 56% of students cite homework as a “primary stressor” in their lives.

8. US Teens Spend more than 15 Hours per Week on Homework

The same study by the Better Sleep Council also found that US teens spend over 2 hours per school night on homework, and overall this added up to over 15 hours per week.

Surprisingly, 4% of US teens say they do more than 6 hours of homework per night. That’s almost as much homework as there are hours in the school day.

The only activity that teens self-reported as doing more than homework was engaging in electronics, which included using phones, playing video games, and watching TV.

9. The 10-Minute Rule

The National Education Association (USA) endorses the concept of doing 10 minutes of homework per night per grade.

For example, if you are in 3rd grade, you should do 30 minutes of homework per night. If you are in 4th grade, you should do 40 minutes of homework per night.

However, this ‘rule’ appears not to be based in sound research. Nevertheless, it is true that homework benefits (no matter the quality of the homework) will likely wane after 2 hours (120 minutes) per night, which would be the NEA guidelines’ peak in grade 12.

10. 21.9% of Parents are Too Busy for their Children’s Homework

An online poll of nearly 300 parents found that 21.9% are too busy to review their children’s homework. On top of this, 31.6% of parents do not look at their children’s homework because their children do not want their help. For these parents, their children’s unwillingness to accept their support is a key source of frustration.

11. 46.5% of Parents find Homework too Hard

The same online poll of parents of children from grades 1 to 12 also found that many parents struggle to help their children with homework because parents find it confusing themselves. Unfortunately, the study did not ask the age of the students so more data is required here to get a full picture of the issue.

Get a Pdf of this article for class

Enjoy subscriber-only access to this article’s pdf

Interpreting the Data

Unfortunately, homework is one of those topics that can be interpreted by different people pursuing differing agendas. All studies of homework have a wide range of variables, such as:

• What age were the children in the study?
• What was the homework they were assigned?
• What tools were available to them?
• What were the cultural attitudes to homework and how did they impact the study?
• Is the study replicable?

The more questions we ask about the data, the more we realize that it’s hard to come to firm conclusions about the pros and cons of homework .

Furthermore, questions about the opportunity cost of homework remain. Even if homework is good for children’s test scores, is it worthwhile if the children consequently do less exercise or experience more stress?

Thus, this ends up becoming a largely qualitative exercise. If parents and teachers zoom in on an individual child’s needs, they’ll be able to more effectively understand how much homework a child needs as well as the type of homework they should be assigned.

Related: Funny Homework Excuses

The debate over whether homework should be banned will not be resolved with these homework statistics. But, these facts and figures can help you to pursue a position in a school debate on the topic – and with that, I hope your debate goes well and you develop some great debating skills!

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Does homework really work?

by: Leslie Crawford | Updated: December 12, 2023

Print article

You know the drill. It’s 10:15 p.m., and the cardboard-and-toothpick Golden Gate Bridge is collapsing. The pages of polynomials have been abandoned. The paper on the Battle of Waterloo seems to have frozen in time with Napoleon lingering eternally over his breakfast at Le Caillou. Then come the tears and tantrums — while we parents wonder, Does the gain merit all this pain? Is this just too much homework?

However the drama unfolds night after night, year after year, most parents hold on to the hope that homework (after soccer games, dinner, flute practice, and, oh yes, that childhood pastime of yore known as playing) advances their children academically.

But what does homework really do for kids? Is the forest’s worth of book reports and math and spelling sheets the average American student completes in their 12 years of primary schooling making a difference? Or is it just busywork?

Homework haterz

Whether or not homework helps, or even hurts, depends on who you ask. If you ask my 12-year-old son, Sam, he’ll say, “Homework doesn’t help anything. It makes kids stressed-out and tired and makes them hate school more.”

Nothing more than common kid bellyaching?

Maybe, but in the fractious field of homework studies, it’s worth noting that Sam’s sentiments nicely synopsize one side of the ivory tower debate. Books like The End of Homework , The Homework Myth , and The Case Against Homework the film Race to Nowhere , and the anguished parent essay “ My Daughter’s Homework is Killing Me ” make the case that homework, by taking away precious family time and putting kids under unneeded pressure, is an ineffective way to help children become better learners and thinkers.

One Canadian couple took their homework apostasy all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. After arguing that there was no evidence that it improved academic performance, they won a ruling that exempted their two children from all homework.

So what’s the real relationship between homework and academic achievement?

How much is too much?

To answer this question, researchers have been doing their homework on homework, conducting and examining hundreds of studies. Chris Drew Ph.D., founder and editor at The Helpful Professor recently compiled multiple statistics revealing the folly of today’s after-school busy work. Does any of the data he listed below ring true for you?

• 45 percent of parents think homework is too easy for their child, primarily because it is geared to the lowest standard under the Common Core State Standards .

• 74 percent of students say homework is a source of stress , defined as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss, and stomach problems.

• Students in high-performing high schools spend an average of 3.1 hours a night on homework , even though 1 to 2 hours is the optimal duration, according to a peer-reviewed study .

Not included in the list above is the fact many kids have to abandon activities they love — like sports and clubs — because homework deprives them of the needed time to enjoy themselves with other pursuits.

Conversely, The Helpful Professor does list a few pros of homework, noting it teaches discipline and time management, and helps parents know what’s being taught in the class.

The oft-bandied rule on homework quantity — 10 minutes a night per grade (starting from between 10 to 20 minutes in first grade) — is listed on the National Education Association’s website and the National Parent Teacher Association’s website , but few schools follow this rule.

Do you think your child is doing excessive homework? Harris Cooper Ph.D., author of a meta-study on homework , recommends talking with the teacher. “Often there is a miscommunication about the goals of homework assignments,” he says. “What appears to be problematic for kids, why they are doing an assignment, can be cleared up with a conversation.” Also, Cooper suggests taking a careful look at how your child is doing the assignments. It may seem like they’re taking two hours, but maybe your child is wandering off frequently to get a snack or getting distracted.

Less is often more

If your child is dutifully doing their work but still burning the midnight oil, it’s worth intervening to make sure your child gets enough sleep. A 2012 study of 535 high school students found that proper sleep may be far more essential to brain and body development.

For elementary school-age children, Cooper’s research at Duke University shows there is no measurable academic advantage to homework. For middle-schoolers, Cooper found there is a direct correlation between homework and achievement if assignments last between one to two hours per night. After two hours, however, achievement doesn’t improve. For high schoolers, Cooper’s research suggests that two hours per night is optimal. If teens have more than two hours of homework a night, their academic success flatlines. But less is not better. The average high school student doing homework outperformed 69 percent of the students in a class with no homework.

Many schools are starting to act on this research. A Florida superintendent abolished homework in her 42,000 student district, replacing it with 20 minutes of nightly reading. She attributed her decision to “ solid research about what works best in improving academic achievement in students .”

More family time

A 2020 survey by Crayola Experience reports 82 percent of children complain they don’t have enough quality time with their parents. Homework deserves much of the blame. “Kids should have a chance to just be kids and do things they enjoy, particularly after spending six hours a day in school,” says Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth . “It’s absurd to insist that children must be engaged in constructive activities right up until their heads hit the pillow.”

By far, the best replacement for homework — for both parents and children — is bonding, relaxing time together.

Homes Nearby

Homes for rent and sale near schools

How families of color can fight for fair discipline in school

Dealing with teacher bias

The most important school data families of color need to consider

Yes! Sign me up for updates relevant to my child's grade.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up!

Server Issue: Please try again later. Sorry for the inconvenience

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Credit: August de Richelieu

Does homework still have value? A Johns Hopkins education expert weighs in

Joyce epstein, co-director of the center on school, family, and community partnerships, discusses why homework is essential, how to maximize its benefit to learners, and what the 'no-homework' approach gets wrong.

By Vicky Hallett

The necessity of homework has been a subject of debate since at least as far back as the 1890s, according to Joyce L. Epstein , co-director of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University. "It's always been the case that parents, kids—and sometimes teachers, too—wonder if this is just busy work," Epstein says.

But after decades of researching how to improve schools, the professor in the Johns Hopkins School of Education remains certain that homework is essential—as long as the teachers have done their homework, too. The National Network of Partnership Schools , which she founded in 1995 to advise schools and districts on ways to improve comprehensive programs of family engagement, has developed hundreds of improved homework ideas through its Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork program. For an English class, a student might interview a parent on popular hairstyles from their youth and write about the differences between then and now. Or for science class, a family could identify forms of matter over the dinner table, labeling foods as liquids or solids. These innovative and interactive assignments not only reinforce concepts from the classroom but also foster creativity, spark discussions, and boost student motivation.

"We're not trying to eliminate homework procedures, but expand and enrich them," says Epstein, who is packing this research into a forthcoming book on the purposes and designs of homework. In the meantime, the Hub couldn't wait to ask her some questions:

What kind of homework training do teachers typically get?

Future teachers and administrators really have little formal training on how to design homework before they assign it. This means that most just repeat what their teachers did, or they follow textbook suggestions at the end of units. For example, future teachers are well prepared to teach reading and literacy skills at each grade level, and they continue to learn to improve their teaching of reading in ongoing in-service education. By contrast, most receive little or no training on the purposes and designs of homework in reading or other subjects. It is really important for future teachers to receive systematic training to understand that they have the power, opportunity, and obligation to design homework with a purpose.

Why do students need more interactive homework?

If homework assignments are always the same—10 math problems, six sentences with spelling words—homework can get boring and some kids just stop doing their assignments, especially in the middle and high school years. When we've asked teachers what's the best homework you've ever had or designed, invariably we hear examples of talking with a parent or grandparent or peer to share ideas. To be clear, parents should never be asked to "teach" seventh grade science or any other subject. Rather, teachers set up the homework assignments so that the student is in charge. It's always the student's homework. But a good activity can engage parents in a fun, collaborative way. Our data show that with "good" assignments, more kids finish their work, more kids interact with a family partner, and more parents say, "I learned what's happening in the curriculum." It all works around what the youngsters are learning.

Is family engagement really that important?

At Hopkins, I am part of the Center for Social Organization of Schools , a research center that studies how to improve many aspects of education to help all students do their best in school. One thing my colleagues and I realized was that we needed to look deeply into family and community engagement. There were so few references to this topic when we started that we had to build the field of study. When children go to school, their families "attend" with them whether a teacher can "see" the parents or not. So, family engagement is ever-present in the life of a school.

My daughter's elementary school doesn't assign homework until third grade. What's your take on "no homework" policies?

There are some parents, writers, and commentators who have argued against homework, especially for very young children. They suggest that children should have time to play after school. This, of course is true, but many kindergarten kids are excited to have homework like their older siblings. If they give homework, most teachers of young children make assignments very short—often following an informal rule of 10 minutes per grade level. "No homework" does not guarantee that all students will spend their free time in productive and imaginative play.

Some researchers and critics have consistently misinterpreted research findings. They have argued that homework should be assigned only at the high school level where data point to a strong connection of doing assignments with higher student achievement . However, as we discussed, some students stop doing homework. This leads, statistically, to results showing that doing homework or spending more minutes on homework is linked to higher student achievement. If slow or struggling students are not doing their assignments, they contribute to—or cause—this "result."

Teachers need to design homework that even struggling students want to do because it is interesting. Just about all students at any age level react positively to good assignments and will tell you so.

Did COVID change how schools and parents view homework?

Within 24 hours of the day school doors closed in March 2020, just about every school and district in the country figured out that teachers had to talk to and work with students' parents. This was not the same as homeschooling—teachers were still working hard to provide daily lessons. But if a child was learning at home in the living room, parents were more aware of what they were doing in school. One of the silver linings of COVID was that teachers reported that they gained a better understanding of their students' families. We collected wonderfully creative examples of activities from members of the National Network of Partnership Schools. I'm thinking of one art activity where every child talked with a parent about something that made their family unique. Then they drew their finding on a snowflake and returned it to share in class. In math, students talked with a parent about something the family liked so much that they could represent it 100 times. Conversations about schoolwork at home was the point.

How did you create so many homework activities via the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork program?

We had several projects with educators to help them design interactive assignments, not just "do the next three examples on page 38." Teachers worked in teams to create TIPS activities, and then we turned their work into a standard TIPS format in math, reading/language arts, and science for grades K-8. Any teacher can use or adapt our prototypes to match their curricula.

Overall, we know that if future teachers and practicing educators were prepared to design homework assignments to meet specific purposes—including but not limited to interactive activities—more students would benefit from the important experience of doing their homework. And more parents would, indeed, be partners in education.

Posted in Voices+Opinion

You might also like

News network.

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Antecedents and outcomes of parental homework involvement: how do family-school partnerships affect parental homework involvement and student outcomes.

• Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Recent studies have demonstrated that parental homework involvement may not always foster students’ desired school outcomes. Such studies have also concluded that the quality of parental homework involvement matters, rather than the quantity. Most importantly, previous studies have shown that strong family-school partnerships (FSPs) may help to improve parental involvement. However, there is little research on how FSP is related to homework involvement. The aim of the present study is to examine the link between an effective family-school communication (EFSC) – as one aspect of FSP – and the quality of parental homework involvement in the German context. For this purpose, we developed a new measure of EFSC. Taking a self-determination theory perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. We analyzed the data of 309 parents (82% mothers) of school students (52% girls) who participated in an online survey. The structural equation model revealed a positive relation between EFSC and the quality of parental homework involvement, which in turn was positively associated with school performance and well-being. Moreover, we found that the quality of parental homework involvement mediated the relations of EFSC with achievement and well-being. The results of our study highlight the role of EFSC as a key performance factor that helps to improve the quality of parental homework involvement, thereby promoting student achievement and well-being.

Introduction

Across the globe, students are set homework assignments on a regular basis since homework is generally believed to improve achievement ( Paschal et al., 1984 ; Cooper, 1989 ). In their meta-analysis of school effectiveness studies, Scheerens and Bosker (1997) found a mean effect size across 13 studies of Zr = 0.06 (Fisher’s Z ) for homework, indicating that this variable might indeed enhance school effectiveness. However, recent studies have provided evidence that homework assignments are not per se performance-enhancing. For instance, the effectiveness of homework seems to depend on the quality of the tasks assigned. Homework assignments that are perceived to be well selected and cognitively challenging are positively associated with students’ achievement ( Dettmers et al., 2010 ).

A further potential predictor of the effectiveness of homework assignments is parental homework involvement. Parental involvement in homework completion is commonly expected by schools, teachers, and parents ( Patall et al., 2008 ), all of whom believe that parental homework involvement is vital for students’ school performance ( Epstein, 1986 ; Trautwein et al., 2009 ). Thus, numerous guidelines for parents exist, aiming to improve parents’ abilities to successfully support homework completion (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2005 ). In the US, more than 80% of parents believe that homework is important for learning. Even though 51% of parents reported that students should do their homework on their own, on average, 73% of parents reported helping their child with homework completion. However, at the same time, 29% of parents perceived a negative impact of homework on family life ( Markow et al., 2007 ). Given this high percentage of parents who become involved in their children’s homework completion and a substantial number of parents who complained about family stress due to homework, the question arises concerning whether and under which conditions parental homework involvement is beneficial. Parental homework involvement is one facet of parental involvement in schooling, which is believed to be one of the key promoters of students’ school-related outcomes such as achievement, motivation, and well-being (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Epstein, 2005 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). The importance attached to parental behavior in their children’s education becomes apparent in the development of significant educational policies [e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2002 ] and projects fostering educational partnerships [e.g., teachers involve parents in schoolwork (TIPS, Van Voorhis, 2003 ), and teachers involving parents (TIP, Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002 )], which stresses the role that parents play in their children’s education. Indeed, meta-analyses have provided evidence that regardless of their socioeconomic background and race, students’ school achievement can be improved if their parents become involved in their education (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). However, parental involvement represents a multifaceted behavior that can take place in school (school-based involvement: e.g., community services at school) or at home (home-based involvement; Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994 , Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997 ). Previous studies analyzing the effectiveness of parental homework involvement have demonstrated mixed results about the link between this type of involvement and students’ school performance, with some studies having found a positive link (e.g., Van Voorhis, 2003 ; Xu, 2004 ; Silinskas and Kikas, 2011 ) while others have found a negative link (e.g., Xu et al., 2010 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ). These studies have suggested that one should consider how homework involvement is assessed. Most importantly, it is the quality (and not the amount) of homework involvement that is crucial for student outcomes (e.g., Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ).

The present study was built upon these previous studies, aiming to shed light on factors that might improve the quality of parental homework involvement and thereby student outcomes (achievement and students’ well-being). In recent years, the concept of FSP has become well known, as it is believed to foster parental abilities to help their children with learning. Studies have proven that a positive contact between schools and parents is related with higher parental school involvement ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Patrikakou and Weissberg, 2000 ). The aim of the present study was threefold. Our first research question concerned the relationship between the quality of parental homework involvement and four student outcomes: achievement in mathematics and reading as well as well-being at home and school. Second, we analyzed the association between effective family-school communication (EFSC) on the one hand and parental homework involvement and the four student outcomes on the other hand. Third, we investigated the interplay between our variables, namely whether parental homework involvement mediates the association between EFSC and the four student outcomes.

Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Homework Involvement

Past research has suggested that parental homework involvement is a multidimensional construct including two distinct types of help: quantitative help (e.g., doing homework with the child, providing answers) and qualitative help (e.g., avoiding distractions, providing rules for homework completion, providing support for finding answers) (e.g., Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ). Although the general term of parental involvement is accepted to be one of the key promoters of learning, parental homework involvement is not always positively related with desired school outcomes such as achievement. For example, Xu et al. (2010) found the frequency of parental homework help to be negatively related with student reading achievement and raised the question of how parents should help with homework. The authors concluded that parents should provide a suitable learning environment for homework completion to foster self-regulated learning and children’s autonomy. Moroni et al. (2015) operationalized parental involvement as a multidimensional construct in terms of quantity and quality and examined how the quantity and different qualities of homework involvement were associated with student achievement. Controlling for prior achievement and parental socioeconomic background, they found the frequency of help to be negatively associated with the development of student achievement. However, in terms of homework quality, the authors found opposing effects depending on how homework quality was operationalized. While supportive homework help had positive effects on students’ achievement, intrusive homework help was negatively related with later achievement. Dumont et al. (2014) analyzed longitudinal data of 2,830 student-parent dyads (grades 5 and 7) who reported about the quality of parental homework involvement, their socioeconomic background, and desired student outcomes (e.g., reading achievement, reading effort). Adopting the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT, Deci and Ryan, 1987 , 2000 ), parental homework involvement was conceptualized by three dimensions: parental control, parental responsiveness, and parental provision of structure. The analyses revealed a reciprocal relationship between parental homework involvement and student outcomes. Low achievement in grade 5 predicted higher later parental homework control in grade 7, while high parental control in grade 5 was related with lower achievement in grade 7. A positive reciprocal relationship was found for parental involvement in terms of structure and responsiveness on the one hand and desired student outcomes – such as high achievement – on the other hand. Types of parental involvement did not depend on parental socioeconomic background.

Supportive parental homework involvement – such as the parental provision of autonomy support or structure – is not only positively associated with students’ academic performance, but it is also believed to be beneficial for students’ well-being (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 ). It is assumed that supportive parental behavior fulfills students’ basic needs proposed by SDT, namely the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence ( Grolnick, 2009 ). Basic needs satisfaction may result in an internalization of uninteresting and boring activities such as doing homework into personally important activities, thereby fostering performance and well-being ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). To date, few studies have provided evidence of this linkage. Knollmann and Wild (2007b) conducted a survey with 181 German students concerning their parents’ provision of autonomy support, emotional support, and support for competence during parental instruction at home. The authors found autonomy and emotional support to be positively associated with joy. By contrast, lower levels of autonomy and emotional support predicted higher rates of students’ anger. Moreover, according to Kenney-Benson and Pomerantz (2005) , greater autonomy-supportive homework help of mothers was found to be associated with less depressive symptoms compared to controlling mothers.

To sum up, the quality of parental homework help seems to be related with differences in students’ well-being and academic achievement. In line with the assumptions of SDT, numerous studies suggest that autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework involvement may increase students’ experiences of autonomous and competent learning experiences, which in turn fosters desired (learning) outcomes. Hence, the question arises about factors that may influence the quality of parental homework involvement. Gonida and Cortina (2014) investigated predictors and consequences of parental homework involvement. The authors asked Greek parents to rate different types of parental homework involvement (autonomy-supportive homework involvement, controlling homework involvement, and interference). Moreover, parents and their children provided information on achievement goals, academic efficacy, and school grades. Structural equation models revealed that autonomy-supportive homework involvement was predicted by parent mastery goals while parent performance goals predicted controlling homework involvement. Moreover, the authors provided evidence that parental beliefs for children’s self-efficacy were negatively associated with parent control and interference, but positively related with parent encouragement for cognitive engagement as supplementary to homework. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that low parent beliefs in their children’s abilities to complete homework successfully may result in an inappropriate way of homework involvement in terms of control and interference.

However, to our knowledge, little is known about further factors that might promote the quality of parental homework involvement. Given the important role of parents in their children’s education, the present study addressed this research deficit and aims to shed light on potential predictors of parental homework involvement. Students and their parents spend a lot of time with homework, although parents report barriers to their homework involvement in the sense that – for instance – they sometimes feel unable to provide appropriate help and they tend to require recommendations from teachers about how to help with homework ( Kay et al., 1994 ). In the present study, we assume EFSC to be a potential predictor of the quality of parental homework involvement. A welcoming school climate and recommendations for homework involvement might act as an invitation to involve as they indicate that parental involvement is desired and important ( Becker and Epstein, 1982 ; Epstein, 1986 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ). In the next section, we present a theoretical model of parental involvement in schooling and corresponding empirical studies.

Defining Parental Involvement in Schooling

Parental involvement in schooling is seen as a key strategy to improve students’ success in school. Indeed, a strong body of evidence suggests that parental involvement in schooling is positively associated with various desired school-related outcomes such as school performance and positive affect (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). According to Epstein (1995) , supportive and event-independent communication between parents, school principals, and teachers may result in a deepened mutual understanding about school as well as improved support of students by their parents and teachers. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995 , 1997 , 2005) developed a theoretical model of parental involvement process that describes the antecedents and consequences of parental involvement in schooling. The model proposes five sequential levels to explain factors that might influence parents’ choice to become involved, their resulting forms of involvement and their consequences. The first level identifies three reasons for parents to become involved in their children’s schooling: parents’ perceived role construction (e.g., whether they feel obliged to help), their perceived invitations to involvement from the school, the teacher, and their child, as well as their sense of efficacy for helping their children. The second level suggests two forms of parental involvement, namely home- and school-based involvement, both of which include encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction. At the third level , children’s perceptions of the four types of parental involvement (encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction) are described. The fourth level describes mediating variables, namely child attributes and use of developmentally appropriate parental involvement. Finally, the fifth level focuses on school achievement (for a more detailed description, see Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 2005 ). The focus of the present study was on the first level of the model, which deals with the question of why parents become involved in their children’s schooling. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model identifies three sources of invitations for parents to become involved in schooling: invitations from the school, the child, and the child’s teachers. Invitations from the school might include a welcoming school climate and the perception that parental involvement is crucial and desired in supporting children’s learning and achievement. Teachers can foster parental involvement through direct requests for involvement in children’s education; for instance, by encouraging parents to talk about school activities with their child. Finally, children’s attributes (e.g., prior achievement in school) might act as an invitation to become involved. Numerous previous studies have provided evidence regarding the relationship between level 1 variables (reasons for becoming involved) and the amount of involvement in school and at home (e.g., Green et al., 2007 ). For example, Green and colleagues used the data of 853 parents of elementary and middle school students to examine associations between antecedent factors (level 1) and different forms of parental involvement (level 2) proposed in the theoretical model by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler. Regression analyses revealed that parental self-efficacy, child invitations, and parents’ time and energy were positively associated with the amount of home- and school-based involvement. Moreover, teacher invitations predicted the quantity of parents’ school-based involvement. Yotyodying and Wild (2014) examined whether parental perceptions of invitations for involvement from the school and teachers in a German and Thai sample as one among other predictors variables would predict two distinct forms of home-based parental involvement: authoritative (greater autonomy support and responsiveness) and authoritarian (greater control and structure). In the German sample, the significant results showed that parental perceptions of invitations from the school and teachers were negatively associated with both authoritative and authoritarian ways of involvement. This means that parents who prefer either authoritative or authoritarian ways of involvement tend to neglect becoming involved if they feel less invited by the school and teachers.

However, it should be critically noted that Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model as well as most related empirical studies have focused particularly on the quantity (how often parents become involved) of parental involvement, while the quality (the ways in which parents become involved) of parental involvement has been neglected in many studies.

The present study aims to expand the existing body of knowledge by taking the quality (instead of the quantity) of parental involvement into account. In order to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms of parental involvement, we concentrated on one subdimension of parental involvement in schooling: parental homework involvement. Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. The following research questions arise from the above explanations: is high-quality parental homework involvement positively associated with students’ achievement and well-being? Moreover, how can high-quality parental involvement be fostered?

Family-School Partnerships in Germany

Given the importance of improving parental involvement, scholars have attempted to identify variables that increase beneficial parental involvement. In recent years, the concept of family-school partnerships (FSPs) has become well known as an instrument that might foster parental choice to become involved in their children’s education and parental abilities to help their children with learning. Indeed, studies have proven that successful FSPs are positively associated with students’ performance (see Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ). A positive contact between teachers and parents increases the probability that parents become involved in their children’s education ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Walker, 2002 ). Moreover, information from teachers about classroom learning and instruction shape parental strategies to become involved ( Ames et al., 1993 ). In order to strengthen successful FSP, in 1997, the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) published the National Standards for Family-School Partnership for the US context. These standards build upon Epstein’s typology of parental involvement (see Epstein, 2001 ) and provide a practical guideline to implement FSP. The PTA proposed six standards: (1) welcoming all families into the school community, (2) communicating effectively, (3) supporting student success, (4) speaking up for every child, (5) sharing power, and (6) collaborating with community (for more information, see Parent-Teacher Association, 2009 ). Compared to the US, to our knowledge, in Germany, much less is known about the concept and the benefits of well-functioning FSP ( Wild and Yotyodying, 2012 ). To date, contacts between schools and parents are rare and not very effective and mostly take place at parent evening events ( Wild and Hofer, 2002 ; Sacher, 2008 ). Moreover, conversations between teachers and parents mainly concern learning problems and students’ grades ( Wild and Lorenz, 2010 ; Wild and Yodyodying, 2012 ). For this reason, the Vodafone Foundation in collaboration with a scientific expert committee (see Sacher et al., 2013 ) recently proposed a compass for family-school partnerships for the German context comprising four different standards. The development of the four indicators is based on the six PTA standards described above, although the standards were adapted to the German context and the sixth standard “collaborating with community” was excluded for Germany. Standard A “Welcoming and Meeting Culture” describes a welcoming and friendly school climate that can be characterized by mutual respect and the inclusion of all stakeholders. Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” is characterized by a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents, the use of various ways of information, and a regular information exchange between all stakeholders. Standard C “Educational Cooperation” focuses on parental participation in school life, the encouragement of parents to support their children with learning, the information about external school-related offers, and it emphasizes the role of parents as interceders of their child. Finally, Standard D “Parent Participation” describes the provision of information about parents’ participatory rights, the possibility for parents to participate in school decisions, and the inclusion of social, political, and external networks in school life. To our knowledge, little is known about whether the proposed standards would be met in German schools and whether they would help to ensure parental involvement, especially parental help with homework. For this reason, we developed and validated a parental questionnaire to assess parental perceptions on different aspects of FSP based on the proposals of Vodafone’s scientific committee.

The aim of the present study was to identify factors that might promote the quality of parental homework involvement. In consideration of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model, which identifies three reasons for parents to become involved (their role construction, their perceived invitations, and their sense of competence to help) and previous studies (e.g., Becker and Epstein, 1982 ; Epstein, 1986 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ), we proposed that EFSC would foster the quality of parental homework involvement. In order to operationally characterize EFSC, we relied on three indicators of Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” and developed three scales (15 items) assessing EFSC. B1 “Information Exchange” describes a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents. Standard B2 “Various Forms of Communication” focuses on the use of the variety of ways of communication between the school and parents (e.g., email, homepage, etc.). B3 “School Transitions” refers to a regular knowledge transfer and information exchange between schools, teachers, and parents during school transitions.

The Present Study

The present study addresses three research deficits. First , parental school involvement is a multidimensional construct comprising both parental involvement at school and parental involvement at home. Research findings on parental school-based involvement are not transferable to home-based involvement, given that the context of the two forms of involvement differs. The present study concentrates on home-based involvement, more precisely on homework involvement as one facet of it. Research on parental homework involvement has provided evidence for the need to distinguish between the quality and quantity of parental involvement, whereby it is the quality (rather than the quantity) of involvement that matters for desired student outcomes (e.g., Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ). Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. Our first research question concerned the relationship between parental homework involvement and four different student outcomes: well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement. Second , the concept of FSP is well known and has been much studied in the US context. There is clear consensus that parental involvement in schooling is beneficial and that a successful implementation of FSP fosters parental involvement, thereby promoting student achievement ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Walker, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ; Epstein, 2005 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). However, theoretical models and much FSP research have concentrated on the effects of FSP on the quantity (the amount) of involvement, while the relationship between FSP and the quality of parental school involvement and student outcomes remains unclear. Moreover, to our knowledge, in Germany, much less is known about effects of the implementation of successful FSP. The four standards of FSP proposed by the Vodafone Foundation and a scientific expert committee ( Sacher et al., 2013 ) are the first theoretical compass for FSP in the German context. To date, the concept has not been empirically analyzed in Germany and it is unclear whether a successful implementation of FSP is related to parental school- and home-based involvement. Our second research question thus concerned the relationship between EFSC (as one facet of FSP) and parental homework involvement and the different student outcomes. Finally, our third research question focuses on the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the relationship between EFSC and the four student outcomes. In order to investigate these relationships, we assumed that socioeconomic status and student gender may act as barriers to parental homework involvement (e.g., Hornby and Lafaele, 2011 ). Thus, there is a need to control for both variables.

Materials and Methods

Data source and sample.

Between winter 2015 and spring 2018, we conducted an online survey with parents of primary and secondary school students. The sample included 309 parents (82% mothers; M age = 42 years) of school students. Of the participants’ children ( M age = 12 years, SD = 3.58), 55% were girls and 44% attended elementary schools. Parents were asked to rate the amount of EFSC and their homework support. Moreover, parents rated children’s well-being and school achievement. The percentage of missing data was low for the variables analyzed here (on average 0.91%).

Instruments

Effective family-school communication.

EFSC was assessed with three indicators of Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” and comprises: (1) “Regular and event-independent information exchange” [five items, e.g., “If I am (or my child is) concerned about something, I can discuss this with the teachers, the school principal, or other parents.”], (2) “various forms of communication” [six items, e.g., “The school communicates with parents in different ways (e.g., email, telephone, and website).”], and (3) “school transitions” [five items, e.g., “The school management and teachers actively inform parents and children about the possibilities when making their school decisions.”]. All items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for EFSC was 0.91. The psychometric properties of the subscales are shown in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies for all study variables.

Parental Homework Involvement

Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior ( Katz et al., 2011 ): (1) autonomy-supportive homework involvement was assessed with five items (e.g., “While working on homework, I am willing to hear my child provide answers that are different from mine.”); and (2) competence-supportive homework involvement comprised three items (e.g., “I am glad if my child provides an answer in homework that is different from what is expected but is interesting.”). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for parental homework support was 0.83.

In the present study, we differentiated between student well-being at home and in school. Using two different 10-point ladders ( Cantril, 1965 ) ranging from 1 (they are doing really poorly in school/at home ) to 10 ( they are doing really well in school/at home ), parents were asked to rate how their children feel about their lives in school (well-being at school) and at home (well-being at home).

School Achievement

School achievement was assessed with two indicators. Parents were asked to rate their children’s mathematics achievement in mathematics with three items on a 4-point Likert scale: (a) my child is (1) not good ...(4) very good in arithmetic, (b) my child makes (1) many mistakes ...(4) very few mistakes in arithmetic, (c) arithmetic is (1) difficult ...(4) easy for my child . Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.95. Language achievement comprised six items about the reading and writing abilities of their children. Parents were asked to judge the items on a 4-point Likert scale, (e.g., a) my child makes (1) so many mistakes ...(4) very few mistakes when reading, (b) writing is (1) difficult ...(4) easy for my child . Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.92.

Socioeconomic Status

Parental socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed using the CASMIN classification (Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations; König et al., 1988 ), a comparative educational scale. Parents provided information on their school education (e.g., A-level) and their professional education (e.g., university degree). In order to build a CASMIN index, both variables of each parent were combined and then distinguished into three different educational levels (elementary, intermediate, and higher level). According to this classification, 2% of the parents reported having a SES at the elementary level, 15% at the intermediate level, and 83% at the higher level. We created a dummy variable for the SES, coded as 1 if participants reported a CASMIN at the higher level, and 0 if participants reported a lower CASMIN.

Statistical Analyses

In order to test our hypotheses empirically, structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were performed. SEM allows testing the relationships postulated in the present study. All analyses were performed using MPlus 7.4 ( Muthén and Muthén, 2012–2014 ). EFSC was operationalized as a latent construct, measured by three manifest indicators (regular and event-independent information exchange, various forms of communication, and school transitions). Parental homework involvement was measured by two indicators: autonomy- and competence-supportive homework involvement. In order to control for parental SES and student gender, we estimated the links between both variables and the mediator (parental homework involvement), as well as the outcomes (achievement and well-being). Standardized parameter estimates of models with good fit were reported. Model fit was evaluated by considering the χ 2 test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual SRMR, and the root mean square error of approximation RMSEA. According to Schreiber et al. (2006) , a nonsignificant χ 2 test, and a value of 0.95 or higher for the GFI and CFI indicates an acceptable model fit. The average percentage of missing data ranged from 0 to 3.2%. Since the proportion of missing values was low and could be assumed to be missing at random (MAR), it was dealt with the full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) implemented in MPlus. In FIML, all information available is considered to estimate the parameters. FIML produces unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors and is superior to traditional deletion methods (e. g., listwise and pairwise deletion) ( Schafer and Graham, 2002 ).

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha for the study variables. Parents’ average ratings of EFSC were moderately above the scale midpoint, indicating a rather frequent contact between schools and parents and a “well-functioning information flow.” Parents report a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents. Moreover, as perceived by parents, most schools used various forms to communicate with parents, e.g., email, homepage, etc. Finally, parents perceived a regular knowledge transfer and information exchange between schools, teachers, and parents during school transitions. Parental ratings of homework support were significantly above the scale midpoint. Hence, from a self-determination perspective on parental need support, parents reported a rather high quality of parental homework involvement. They reported being autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. Achievement was rated on a 4-point Likert scale. As shown in Table 1 , on average, parents rated their children’s achievement in mathematics and reading high. While well-being was also rated high. On a 10-point ladder with high values indicating high well-being, parents perceived their children to feel rather well in school and very well at home.

In order to gain insights into the association between the research variables, Table 2 presents the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between all analyzed variables. The significant correlations ranged from r  = 0.14 ( p  < 0.05) to r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01). As expected, EFSC was positively associated with supportive parental homework involvement ( r  = 0.39, p  < 0.01), indicating that a well-functioning contact and information flow between schools, teachers, and parents is related with autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework behavior. Moreover, high values in EFSC were related with well-being at school ( r  = 0.35, p  < 0.01) and home ( r  = 0.14, p  < 0.05). Finally, EFSC was positively associated with achievement in mathematics ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.01) and language ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.01). The same holds for autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework behavior. The variable was positively related with well-being at school ( r  = 0.16, p  < 0.01) and home ( r  = 0.42, p  < 0.01) and with school achievement (mathematics: r  = 0.24, p  < 0.01; language: r  = 0.47, p  < 0.01). In sum, the intercorrelations revealed that our research variables are related to each other in the expected way. In order to draw further conclusions about their relationship and answer our research questions, we estimated regression analyses and a structural equation model to predict parental homework involvement, school achievement, and well-being, as well as to test the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the potential association between EFSC and our outcome variables.

Table 2 . Intercorrelations among study variables.

The Relationship Between Parental Homework Involvement and Student Outcomes

In the first step, we performed a regression analyses to predict students’ well-being at school and home and their achievement in mathematics and language. The results are shown in Table 3 , model 1. Model fit was rated based on the χ 2 test, the CFI, the TLI, the SRMR, and the RMSEA. The model revealed good model fit to the data, χ 2 (522, N  = 309) = 5.03, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.01. As can be seen in Table 3 , controlling for socioeconomic status and gender (female), parental homework involvement predicted well-being at school ( β  = 0.15, p  < 0.05), well-being at home ( β  = 0.42, p  < 0.01), mathematics achievement ( β  = 0.24, p  < 0.01), and language achievement ( β  = 0.46, p  < 0.01). Hence, according to their parents, students whose parents are autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion feel more well at school and home and achieve better results in mathematics and language compared to other students. The variance explained was between 3% (for well-being at school) and 23% (for language achievement).

Table 3 . Associations among effective family-school communication, parental homework involvement, well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement after controlling for child gender and parental SES.

The Relationship Between Effective Family-School Communication and Parental Homework Behavior and Student Outcomes

The next section presents the findings of regression analyses to empirically test the assumed relationships between EFSC and the other variables of this study. Table 3 , model 2, shows the results for the prediction of parental homework involvement, well-being at school and home, as well as achievement in mathematics and language. The model revealed good model fit to the data, χ 2 (22, N  = 309) = 32.21, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.04. As can be seen in Table 3 , after controlling for socioeconomic status (CASMIN) and gender (female), regression analysis indicated that EFSC predicts parental homework support ( β  = 0.40, p  < 0.01). Thus, parents whose children visit schools with a well-functioning EFSC reported being more autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. The variance explained was 16% for this model.

The next two columns show the results for the prediction of students’ well-being. After controlling for socioeconomic status and gender, the results revealed a positive relationship between parental homework support and well-being at school ( β  = 0.34, p  < 0.01), as well as well-being at home ( β  = 0.16, p  < 0.01). Hence, the results indicate that children whose parents perceive themselves as being autonomy- and competence-supportive during their children’s homework completion feel more well at school and home compared to other children. The variance explained was 14% for well-being at school and 4% for well-being at home. The last two columns in Table 3 present the results for the prediction of mathematics and language achievement. Mathematics achievement was predicted by EFSC ( β  = 0.22, p  < 0.01) and female gender ( β  = −0.12, p  < 0.05). Language achievement was predicted by EFSC ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.05) and female gender ( β  = 0.12, p  < 0.05). The results thus indicate that a well-functioning communication between schools, teachers, and parents may improve students’ achievement in mathematics and the language domain. The percentage of variance explained was 6% for mathematics achievement and 6% for language achievement. In sum, the study provided first evidence for the German context that EFSC may improve the quality of parental homework support in terms of autonomy and competence support. Moreover, EFSC proved to be beneficial for students’ well-being at home and may foster mathematics and language achievement.

Mediating Role of Parental Homework Help

In order to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms of the relationships found in the previous section, our third research question concerned the mediating role of parental homework involvement in the relationship between EFSC and well-being as well as school achievement. Figure 1 shows the results of a structural equation model. For the sake of easier readability, only significant pathways are shown. Overall, the model shows excellent model fit to the data: χ 2 (22, N  = 309) = 32.21, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.04.

Figure 1 . Structural model for the associations between effective family-school communication, quality of parental homework involvement, and students’ desired outcomes after controlling for parental SES and student gender. Note: N  = 309, * p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001. For reasons of simplification, only significant path coefficients are shown.

After controlling for socioeconomic status and female gender, EFSC was found to be positively associated with parental homework involvement ( β  = 0.40, p  < 0.001). Compared with the regression coefficients found in regression analyses (see Table 3 , model 2), the relationship between EFSC and well-being at school remained at a substantial level ( β  = 0.35, p  < 0.001). However, the coefficient for the relationship between EFSC and mathematics achievement slightly decreased from β  = 0.19 to β  = 0.15 ( p  < 0.05). Moreover, the inclusion of parental homework involvement in our analyses led to reduced coefficients for the relationship between EFSC and well-being at home ( β  = −0.01) and language achievement ( β  = 0.00). These relationships were no longer statistically significant.

In addition to the direct effects, indirect effects of the predictor EFSC on well-being and achievement as mediated by parental homework support were examined. The inclusion of the mediator variables partly led to different regression coefficients for EFSC, indicating the mediating role of parental homework involvement. The indirect effect of EFSC on well-being at home was statistically significant ( β  = 0.17, p  < 0.01), indicating a full mediation of the relationship. The indirect relationship between EFSC and mathematics achievement was statistically significant ( β  = 0.07, p  < 0.01), indicating a partial mediation. Furthermore, the indirect effect of EFSC on language achievement was statistically significant ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.001), indicating a full mediation. Because the link between parental homework involvement and well-being at school was not found, the indirect effect was not examined.

Together, the results demonstrated that the quality of parental homework support fully mediated the relations of EFSC with well-being at home and language achievement, while it partially mediated the relations of EFSC with mathematics achievement. Hence, EFSC had significant positive indirect effects on well-being at home and student’s achievement.

The primary aim of the present study was to analyze predictors and consequences of high-quality parental homework involvement. More precisely, we tested whether EFSC would predict the quality of parental homework involvement and in turn students’ well-being and school achievement. The participants of the study were 309 parents of primary and secondary school students in Germany who participated in an online survey. Three research questions were addressed. Our first research question addressed the role of parental homework involvement. With respect to the SDT, parental homework involvement was operationalized as autonomy- and competence-supportive. Based on regression analyses, we tested the relationship between parental homework involvement and four different student outcomes: well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement. Our second research question focused on the associations among EFSC, the quality parental homework involvement, students’ well-being, and school achievement in two domains. Our third research question concerned the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the relationship between EFSC and the four student outcomes.

In line with our assumptions made for the first research question, we found high-quality parental homework involvement to be positively associated with students’ well-being at school and at home, as well as with students’ achievement in mathematics and language. This result supports the results of earlier studies concluding that the effectiveness of parental homework involvement depends on its quality (e.g., Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ).

Past research has suggested that (the quantity of) parental involvement in schooling is beneficial for different student outcomes (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). Building upon Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model of parental involvement process ( Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995 , 1997 , 2005 ) and recent studies (e.g., Green et al., 2007 ), we assumed an EFSC to be positively associated with parental homework involvement and different student outcomes. Using a recently developed instrument to assess parental perceptions of EFSC, our second research question focused on the relationship between EFSC and parental homework involvement and the four student outcomes. Our results of regression analyses provided evidence for the predictive power of EFSC for the quality of parental homework involvement and all four different student outcomes. As previously mentioned, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model underlines specific invitations from school (teachers’ attempt to invite parents to become involved) as one of crucial predictors of the quantity of parental involvement. Our results added to this model in the sense that EFSC – which might function as a reason to become involved – predicts the quality of parental involvement in schooling. Our study extends previous research on the model as it considers the need to distinguish between the quantity and quality of involvement. To our knowledge, our study is the first to provide evidence of the predictive power of EFSC for high-quality parental homework involvement. Contrary to our results, Yotyodying and Wild (2014) found teacher invitations to be related with the amount of parental home-based involvement but not with differences in the quality of home-based involvement. The authors concluded that teachers presumably increase parents’ awareness of the importance to become involved in schooling, but that they possibly do not provide information about how parents might help their children in school-related topics. In their study, the authors asked parents to rate the extent to which they perceive that their school involvement is expected and requested. In the present study, parents were asked to rate an EFSC in a way that a regular and event-independent information exchange exists, that the schools and teachers use various forms of communication and that information about school transitions is provided. An EFSC might not only act as an invitation to help but it also possibly provides parents with information concerning how to help their children in school-related topics. In addition, our results indicated that EFSC positively contributed to all four student outcomes. These results were also in line with previous studies finding that successful FSPs help to improve students’ performance (e.g., Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ).

In order to address our third research question, we examined the mediating role of the quality of parental homework involvement. Controlling for socioeconomic status and students’ gender, SEM analyses showed that the associations between EFSC and three of the four student outcome variables (well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement) were (partially) mediated by the quality of parental homework involvement. The results of the present study thus highlight the role of EFSC as a key performance factor that helps to improve the quality of parental homework involvement, thereby promoting student outcomes. In addition, our findings on the crucial mediating role of parental homework involvement in the associations between EFSC and well-being at home and school achievement were in line with the assumptions of self-determination theory (SDT: Deci and Ryan, 1987 , 2000 ). Accordingly, the parental provision of autonomy and competence support tend to satisfy the basic needs of their children (autonomy and competence), and in turn it might thus result in improved well-being. Indeed, earlier studies ( Chirkov and Ryan, 2001 ; Niemiec et al., 2006 ; Yotyodying, 2012 ) have provided evidence for the relationship between parental autonomy support and well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, school satisfaction, positive academic emotions). Our results suggest that an EFSC results in a higher quality of parental homework involvement (in terms of autonomy and competence support), which in turn leads to increased well-being at home compared to other children. Concerning achievement, our results were in line with previous studies providing evidence of a positive relationship between parental involvement in schooling and students’ achievement (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ), although they extend these studies by showing the mediating role of parental homework involvement for this relationship. Hence, EFSC results in high-quality parental homework involvement and is in turn related to achievement.

Practical and Scientific Implications of the Study

Recent studies have shown that strong family-school partnerships (FSPs) may help to improve parental involvement. From a scientific view, the findings of the present study supplement this research in two aspects: first, to our best knowledge, to date only little is known about the relationship between FSP and parental homework involvement. We were able to confirm that EFSC (as an indicator of FSP) may help to improve the quality of parental involvement at home, which in turn supports well-being and school achievement of students. Second, compared to the US, in Germany, much less is known about the benefits of FSP ( Wild and Yotyodying, 2012 ). We have been able to show that German parents evaluate the communication between families and schools positively. However, according to Hoover-Dempsey and Walker (2002) , various barriers might hinder well-functioning FSP such as parents having a low level of education, inflexible working hours, or low language skills. For schools, structural elements such as personnel resources influence FSP. Hence, our results of the present study hold strong importance for different groups. Administrators may use our results to implement teacher and parent training programs aiming to promote the awareness of teachers and parents about the consequences of parental involvement. Such programs should accentuate the need to become involved in an autonomy- and competence-supportive manner, as this study and recent studies ( Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ) have provided evidence of the need to particularly promote the quality rather than quantity of involvement. Hence, teachers should not only learn how to encourage parents to become highly involved; moreover, they should also learn how to assist parents to be more autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. Moreover, parent training programs might help parents to be informed about different parenting styles and their effects on students’ learning and achievement.

Limitations of the Present Study

First, the generalization of our results is limited due to different attributes of the sample. All analyses were based on parental self-reports. Future studies should assess the study variables by taking other perspectives into account (e.g., school principals, teachers, and students). In these studies, teachers and school principals should be investigated as an additional source of information on EFSC. Their perspectives might differ from parents’ perspectives as teachers and school principals may consider other aspects of EFSC as particularly important than parents. Moreover, in order to improve EFSC in the school, there is a need to identify possible barriers from the school (e.g., teachers’ characteristics) or family (e.g., available time to effectively communicate, etc.) that may undermine teachers’ and parents’ abilities to communicate effectively with each other. Finally, students should rate their well-being in school and at home in future studies. In addition, the generalization of our results is limited due to the high socioeconomic status and the high proportion of mothers in our sample. In our study, the socioeconomic status was not related with parental homework involvement. However, previous studies suggest that high-SES parents tend to be more involved in schooling than other parents. Compared with low-SES parents, their higher education might be associated with feelings of being competent to help leading in higher amounts of involvement ( Lee and Bowen, 2006 ). In the present study, the participants reported on average a comparatively high socioeconomic status. Future studies should take this limitation of the analyzed sample into account and investigate a more representative sample of parents. In future studies, also children with different achievement levels should be considered, as parents of low achieving children or children with special needs might employ other parenting strategies in face of difficulties in school. For these parents and their children, strong FSP might be particularly important. In Germany, cooperation between schools and parents often takes place in the form of short meetings during parent-teacher conferences in school ( Sacher, 2008 ). Commonly, teachers and parents discuss learning problems and children’s grades ( Wild and Lorenz, 2010 ; Yotyodying, 2012 ). Strong FSP and effective communication might result in a deeper understanding of children’s needs for learning and how parents might support their children’s learning at home. Second, no conclusions on the causality could be drawn due to a cross-sectional research design. Hence, a longitudinal research design should be employed in future studies. Third, the study has exclusively focused on functional ways of parenting (autonomy- and competence-supportive homework involvement), while other parenting styles were not considered here. For instance, according to the SDT perspective on parenting, other forms of parenting such as responsiveness (providing emotional support) and structure (providing clear guidelines and expectations) are related with desired students’ outcomes (for an overview, see Grolnick, 2009 ) and should thus be analyzed in future studies. Finally, future studies should investigate both qualitative and quantitative ways of parental homework involvement to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms and differences between the two dimensions of involvement.

Ethics Statement

An ethics approval for this research was not required as per the ethical guidelines of the Faculty of Psychology at FernUniversität in Hagen and regulations of the German Psychological Society due to the noncontroversial nature of the content and the administration of the study. All subjects were parents (adults aged above 21 years). Before their participation, all subjects were informed about the research purposes. Also, they were informed that participation in this research is anonymously and voluntarily. Furthermore, they were informed about the applicable data protection guidelines and the possibility to quit participation whenever they wanted without any disadvantages. Informed consent of the participants was implied through survey completion.

Author Contributions

SD contributed to the design of the study and the data collection, carried out the analyses and data interpretation, drafted and finalized the manuscript. SY and KJ contributed to the design of the study, parts of the analyses, and data interpretation and provided input for revisions of the manuscript draft.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ames, C., Khoju, M., and Watkins, T. (1993). Parent involvement: The relationship between school-to-home communication and parents’ perceptions and beliefs . Report No.: 15. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362271.pdf . (Retrieved from: 15.01.2019)

Google Scholar

Becker, H., and Epstein, J. (1982). Parent involvement: a survey of teacher practices. Elem. Sch. J. 83, 85–102. doi: 10.1086/461297

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).

Chirkov, V. I., and Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: common effects on well-being and academic motivation. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 32, 618–635. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032005006

Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. (White Plains, NY: Longman).

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 1024–1037. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., and Baumert, J. (2010). Homework works, if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 467–482. doi: 10.1037/a0018453

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2012). Familiaerer Hintergrund und die Qualitaet elterlicher Hausaufgabenhilfe [Family background and the quality of parental homework involvement]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 59, 109–121. doi: 10.2378/peu2012.art08d

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., and Nagengast, B. (2014). Quality of parental homework involvement: predictors and reciprocal relations with academic functioning in the reading domain. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 144–161. doi: 10.1037/a0034100

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elem. Sch. J. 86, 277–294. doi: 10.1086/461449

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School-Family-Community Partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).

Epstein, J. L., and Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 181–193. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4

Epstein, J. (2005). School-initiated family and community partnerships. In T. Erb (Ed.), This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. 77–96. (Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association).

Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 13, 1–22. doi: 10.1023/A:1009048817385

Gonida, E. N., and Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: relations with parent and student achievement-related motivational beliefs and achievement. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 376–396. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12039

Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: an empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 532–544. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532

Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education. Theory Res. Educ. 7, 164–173. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104321

Grolnick, W. S., and Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Dev. 65, 237–252. doi: 10.2307/1131378

Henderson, A. T., and Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. (Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory).

Hill, N. E., and Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Dev. Psychol. 45, 740–763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: why does it make a difference? Teach. Coll. Rec. 97, 310–331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Rev. Educ. Res. 67, 3–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (2005). Final performance report for OERI grant#R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement . Presented to Project Monitor (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education).

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Walker, J. M. T. (2002). Family-school communication: A report for the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (Tennessee: Paper prepared for the Research Committee of the Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County Board of Public Education).

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Jones, K. P., and Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teach. Teach. Educ. 18, 843–867. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00047-1

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., and Sandler, H. M. (2005). “Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s education” in School-family partnerships for children’s success. eds. E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, and H. J. Walberg (New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University), 40–56.

Hornby, G., and Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model. Educ. Rev. 63, 37–52. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049

Katz, I., Kaplan, A., and Buzukasshvily, T. (2011). The role of parents’ motivation in students’ autonomous motivation for doing homework. Learn. Individ. Differ. 21, 376–386. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.001

Kay, P. J., Fitzgerald, M., Paradee, C., and Mellencamp, A. (1994). Making homework work at home: The parent's perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities 27, 550–561. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700902

Kenney-Benson, G. A., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfectionism: implications for the development of children’s depressive symptoms. J. Pers. 73, 23–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00303.x

Knollmann, M., and Wild, E. (2007a). Quality of parental support and students’ emotions during homework: moderating effects of students motivational orientations. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 22, 63–76. doi: 10.1007/BF03173689

Knollmann, M., and Wild, E. (2007b). Alltägliche Lernemotionen im Fach Mathematik: Die Bedeutung emotionaler Regulationsstrategien, motivationaler Faktoren und der Instruktionsqualität [Daily learning emotions in mathematics: the role of emotion regulation, motivation, and quality of instruction]. Unterrichtswissenschaft 35, 334–354.

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., and McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parental involvement in school: conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. J. Sch. Psychol. 38, 501–523. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00050-9

König, W., Lüttinger, P., and Müller, W. (1988). A comparative analysis of the development and structure of educational systems. Methodological foundations and the construction of a comparative educational scale. CASMIN Working Paper No. 12. (Mannheim: University of Mannheim).

Lee, J., and Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. Am. Educ. Res. J. 43, 193–218. doi: 10.3102/00028312043002193

Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., and Yuan, J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning outcomes and parental involvement during early childhood education and early elementary education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 771–801. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1

Markow, D., Kim, A., and Liebman, M. (2007). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: The homework experience. (New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company).

Moroni, S., Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., and Baeriswyl, F. (2015). The need to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parental involvement: the example of parental help with homework. J. Educ. Res. 108, 417–431. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.901283

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2012–2014). Mplus user’s guide. (Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén).

Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: a self-determination theory perspective on socialization. J. Adolesc. 29, 761–775. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.02.002

Parent-Teacher Association (2009). PTA National Standards for Family-School Partnerships: An implementation guide. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-pta/files/production/public/National_Standards_Implementation_Guide_2009.pdf

Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: a quantitative synthesis. J. Educ. Res. 78, 97–104.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: a research synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1039–1101. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325185

Patrikakou, E. N., and Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 20, 103–119. doi: 10.1300/J005v20n01_08

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ. Psychol. 37, 91–105. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

Sacher, W. (2008). Elternarbeit: Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten und Grundlagen für alle Schularten [Parental involvement: Scope for design and basic principles for all school types]. (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt).

Sacher, W., Sliwka, A., Tschöpe-Scheffler, S., Walper, S., and Wild, E. (2013). Qualitätsmerkmale schulischer Elternarbeit: Ein Kompass für die partnerschaftliche Zusammenarbeit von Schule und Elternhaus [Quality characteristics of family-school involvement: A compass for the partnership between school and family]. (Düsseldorf: Vodafone Stiftung).

Schafer, J. L., and Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 7, 147–177. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

Scheerens, J., and Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. (Oxford: Pergamon).

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., and King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J. Educ. Res. 99, 323–337. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338

Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Rev. 35, 149–165. doi: 10.1023/A:1023713829693

Silinskas, G., and Kikas, E. (2011). Parental Involvement in math homework: links to children’s performance and motivation. Scand. J. Educ. Res. , 1470–1170. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2017.1324901

Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). Betweenteacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 176–189. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176

U.S. Department of Education (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2005). Helping your child with homework. 3rd Edn . Washington, DC: Author. Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/homework/homework.pdf . (Retrieved from: 15.01.2019)

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle schools: effects on family involvement and science achievement. J. Educ. Res. 96, 323–338. doi: 10.1080/00220670309596616

Wild, E., and Hofer, M. (2002). “Familien mit Schulkindern [Families with school-age children]” in Lehrbuch Familienbeziehungen. eds. M. Hofer, E. Wild, and P. Noack (Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe), 216–240.

Wild, E., and Lorenz, F. (2010). Elternhaus und Schule [Parents’ house and school]. (Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh).

Wild, E., and Yodyodying, S. (2012). “Studying at home: with whom and in which way? Homework practices and conflicts in the family” in The politicization of parenthood. eds. M. Richter and S. Andresen (Berlin, Germany: Springer), 165–180.

Xu, J. (2004). Family help and homework management in urban and rural secondary schools. Teach. Coll. Rec. 106, 1786–1803. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00405.x

Xu, M., Kushner Benson, S., Mudrey-Camino, R., and Steiner, R. (2010). The relationship between parental involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: a path analysis using the ECLS-K database. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13, 237–269. doi: 10.1007/s11218-009-9104-4

Yotyodying, S. (2012). The quality of home-based parental involvement: antecedents and consequences in German and Thai families. Doctoral dissertation. Germany: Bielefeld University. Available at: http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func=downloadFile &recordOId=2508819&fileOId=2508820

Yotyodying, S., and Wild, E. (2014). Antecedents of different qualities of home-based parental involvement: findings from a cross-cultural study in Germany and Thailand. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 3, 98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.002

Keywords: homework, parental involvement, family-school communication, achievement, well-being

Citation: Dettmers S, Yotyodying S and Jonkmann K (2019) Antecedents and Outcomes of Parental Homework Involvement: How Do Family-School Partnerships Affect Parental Homework Involvement and Student Outcomes? Front. Psychol . 10:1048. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01048

Received: 31 January 2019; Accepted: 23 April 2019; Published: 09 May 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Dettmers, Yotyodying and Jonkmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Swantje Dettmers, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

How important is homework, and how much should parents help?

Please try again

A version of this post was  originally published  by Parenting Translator. Sign up for  the newsletter  and follow Parenting Translator  on Instagram .

In recent years, homework has become a very hot topic . Many parents and educators have raised concerns about homework and questioned how effective it is in enhancing students’ learning. There are also concerns that students may be getting too much homework, which ultimately interferes with quality family time and opportunities for physical activity and play . Research suggests that these concerns may be valid. For example, one study reported that elementary school students, on average, are assigned three times  the recommended amount of homework.

So what does the research say? What are the potential risks and benefits of homework, and how much is too much?

Academic benefits

First, research finds that homework is associated with higher scores on academic standardized tests for middle and high school students, but not elementary school students . A recent experimental study in Romania found some benefit for a small amount of writing homework in elementary students but not math homework. Yet, interestingly, this positive impact only occurred when students were given a moderate amount of homework (about 20 minutes on average).

Non-academic benefits

The goal of homework is not simply to improve academic skills. Research finds that homework may have some non-academic benefits, such as building responsibility , time management skills, and task persistence . Homework may also increase parents’ involvement in their children’s schooling. Yet, too much homework may also have some negative impacts on non-academic skills by reducing opportunities for free play , which is essential for the development of language, cognitive, self-regulation and social-emotional skills. Homework may also interfere with physical activity and too much homework is associated with an increased risk for being overweight . As with the research on academic benefits, this research also suggests that homework may be beneficial when it is minimal.

What is the “right” amount of homework?

Research suggests that homework should not exceed 1.5 to 2.5 hours per night for high school students and no more than one hour per night for middle school students. Homework for elementary school students should be minimal and assigned with the aim of building self-regulation and independent work skills. Any more than this and homework may no longer have a positive impact. 

The National Education Association recommends 10 minutes of homework per grade and there is also some experimental evidence that backs this up.

Overall translation

Research finds that homework provides some academic benefit for middle and high school students but is less beneficial for elementary school students. Research suggests that homework should be none or minimal for elementary students, less than one hour per night for middle school students, and less than 1.5 to 2.5 hours for high school students. 

What can parents do?

Research finds that parental help with homework is beneficial but that it matters more how the parent is helping rather than  how often  the parent is helping.

So how should parents help with homework, according to the research? 

• Focus on providing general monitoring, guidance and encouragement, but allow children to generate answers on their own and complete their homework as independently as possible . Specifically, be present while they are completing homework to help them to understand the directions, be available to answer simple questions, or praise and acknowledge their effort and hard work. Research shows that allowing children more autonomy in completing homework may benefit their academic skills.
• Only provide help when your child asks for it and step away whenever possible. Research finds that too much parental involvement or intrusive and controlling involvement with homework is associated with worse academic performance . 
• Help your children to create structure and develop some routines that help your child to independently complete their homework . Have a regular time and place for homework that is free from distractions and has all of the materials they need within arm’s reach. Help your child to create a checklist for homework tasks. Create rules for homework with your child. Help children to develop strategies for increasing their own self-motivation. For example, developing their own reward system or creating a homework schedule with breaks for fun activities. Research finds that providing this type of structure and responsiveness is related to improved academic skills.
• Set specific rules around homework. Research finds an association between parents setting rules around homework and academic performance. 
• Help your child to view homework as an opportunity to learn and improve skills. Parents who view homework as a learning opportunity (that is, a “mastery orientation”) rather than something that they must get “right” or complete successfully to obtain a higher grade (that is, a “performance orientation”) are more likely to have children with the same attitudes. 
• Encourage your child to persist in challenging assignments and emphasize difficult assignments as opportunities to grow . Research finds that this attitude is associated with student success. Research also indicates that more challenging homework is associated with enhanced academic performance.
• Stay calm and positive during homework. Research shows that mothers showing positive emotions while helping with homework may improve children’s motivation in homework.
• Praise your child’s hard work and effort during homework.   This type of praise is likely to increase motivation. In addition, research finds that putting more effort into homework may be associated with enhanced development of conscientiousness in children.
• Communicate with your child and the teacher about any problems your child has with homework and the teacher’s learning goals. Research finds that open communication about homework is associated with increased academic performance.

Cara Goodwin, PhD, is a licensed psychologist, a mother of three and the founder of  Parenting Translator , a nonprofit newsletter that turns scientific research into information that is accurate, relevant and useful for parents.

HU Budapest

Recently viewed courses

Recently viewed.

Find Your Dream School

This site uses various technologies, as described in our Privacy Policy, for personalization, measuring website use/performance, and targeted advertising, which may include storing and sharing information about your site visit with third parties. By continuing to use this website you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

   COVID-19 Update: To help students through this crisis, The Princeton Review will continue our "Enroll with Confidence" refund policies. For full details, please click here.

Enter your email to unlock an extra $25 off an SAT or ACT program!

By submitting my email address. i certify that i am 13 years of age or older, agree to recieve marketing email messages from the princeton review, and agree to terms of use., homework wars: high school workloads, student stress, and how parents can help.

Studies of typical homework loads vary : In one, a Stanford researcher found that more than two hours of homework a night may be counterproductive. The research , conducted among students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities, found that too much homework resulted in stress, physical health problems and a general lack of balance.

Additionally, the  2014 Brown Center Report on American Education , found that with the exception of nine-year-olds, the amount of homework schools assign has remained relatively unchanged since 1984, meaning even those in charge of the curricula don't see a need for adding more to that workload.

But student experiences don’t always match these results. On our own Student Life in America survey, over 50% of students reported feeling stressed, 25% reported that homework was their biggest source of stress, and on average teens are spending one-third of their study time feeling stressed, anxious, or stuck.

The disparity can be explained in one of the conclusions regarding the Brown Report:

Of the three age groups, 17-year-olds have the most bifurcated distribution of the homework burden. They have the largest percentage of kids with no homework (especially when the homework shirkers are added in) and the largest percentage with more than two hours.

So what does that mean for parents who still endure the homework wars at home?

Read More: Teaching Your Kids How To Deal with School Stress

It means that sometimes kids who are on a rigorous college-prep track, probably are receiving more homework, but the statistics are melding it with the kids who are receiving no homework. And on our survey, 64% of students reported that their parents couldn’t help them with their work. This is where the real homework wars lie—not just the amount, but the ability to successfully complete assignments and feel success.

Parents want to figure out how to help their children manage their homework stress and learn the material.

Our Top 4 Tips for Ending Homework Wars

1. have a routine..

Every parenting advice article you will ever read emphasizes the importance of a routine. There’s a reason for that: it works. A routine helps put order into an often disorderly world. It removes the thinking and arguing and “when should I start?” because that decision has already been made. While routines must be flexible to accommodate soccer practice on Tuesday and volunteer work on Thursday, knowing in general when and where you, or your child, will do homework literally removes half the battle.

2. Have a battle plan.

Overwhelmed students look at a mountain of homework and think “insurmountable.” But parents can look at it with an outsider’s perspective and help them plan. Put in an extra hour Monday when you don’t have soccer. Prepare for the AP Chem test on Friday a little at a time each evening so Thursday doesn’t loom as a scary study night (consistency and repetition will also help lock the information in your brain). Start reading the book for your English report so that it’s underway. Go ahead and write a few sentences, so you don’t have a blank page staring at you. Knowing what the week will look like helps you keep calm and carry on.

3. Don’t be afraid to call in reserves.

You can’t outsource the “battle” but you can outsource the help ! We find that kids just do better having someone other than their parents help them —and sometimes even parents with the best of intentions aren’t equipped to wrestle with complicated physics problem. At The Princeton Review, we specialize in making homework time less stressful. Our tutors are available 24/7 to work one-to-one in an online classroom with a chat feature, interactive whiteboard, and the file sharing tool, where students can share their most challenging assignments.

4. Celebrate victories—and know when to surrender.

Students and parents can review completed assignments together at the end of the night -- acknowledging even small wins helps build a sense of accomplishment. If you’ve been through a particularly tough battle, you’ll also want to reach reach a cease-fire before hitting your bunk. A war ends when one person disengages. At some point, after parents have provided a listening ear, planning, and support, they have to let natural consequences take their course. And taking a step back--and removing any pressure a parent may be inadvertently creating--can be just what’s needed.

Stuck on homework?

Try an online tutoring session with one of our experts, and get homework help in 40+ subjects.

Try a Free Session

Explore Colleges For You

Connect with our featured colleges to find schools that both match your interests and are looking for students like you.

Career Quiz

Take our short quiz to learn which is the right career for you.

Get Started on Athletic Scholarships & Recruiting!

Join athletes who were discovered, recruited & often received scholarships after connecting with NCSA's 42,000 strong network of coaches.

Best 389 Colleges

165,000 students rate everything from their professors to their campus social scene.

SAT Prep Courses

1400+ course, act prep courses, free sat practice test & events,  1-800-2review, free digital sat prep try our self-paced plus program - for free, get a 14 day trial.

Free MCAT Practice Test

Thank you! Look for the MCAT Review Guide in your inbox.

I already know my score.

Enrollment Advisor

1-800-2REVIEW (800-273-8439) ext. 1

1-877-LEARN-30

Mon-Fri 9AM-10PM ET

Sat-Sun 9AM-8PM ET

Student Support

1-800-2REVIEW (800-273-8439) ext. 2

Mon-Fri 9AM-9PM ET

Sat-Sun 8:30AM-5PM ET

Partnerships

• Teach or Tutor for Us

College Readiness

International

Advertising

Affiliate/Other

• Enrollment Terms & Conditions
• Accessibility
• Cigna Medical Transparency in Coverage

Register Book

Local Offices: Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM

• SAT Subject Tests

Academic Subjects

• Social Studies

Find the Right College

• College Rankings
• College Advice
• Applying to College
• Financial Aid

School & District Partnerships

• Professional Development
• Advice Articles
• Private Tutoring
• Mobile Apps
• Local Offices
• International Offices
• Work for Us
• Affiliate Program
• Partner with Us
• Advertise with Us
• International Partnerships
• Our Guarantees
• Accessibility – Canada

Privacy Policy | CA Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information | Your Opt-Out Rights | Terms of Use | Site Map

©2024 TPR Education IP Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The Princeton Review is not affiliated with Princeton University

TPR Education, LLC (doing business as “The Princeton Review”) is controlled by Primavera Holdings Limited, a firm owned by Chinese nationals with a principal place of business in Hong Kong, China.

Analyzing ‘the homework gap’ among high school students

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, michael hansen and michael hansen senior fellow - brown center on education policy , the herman and george r. brown chair - governance studies @drmikehansen diana quintero diana quintero former senior research analyst, brown center on education policy - the brookings institution, ph.d. student - vanderbilt university @quintero05diana.

August 10, 2017

Researchers have struggled for decades to identify a causal, or even correlational, relationship between time spent in school and improved learning outcomes for students. Some studies have focused on the length of a school year while others have focused on hours in a day and others on hours in the week .

In this blog post, we will look at time spent outside of school–specifically time spent doing homework–among different racial and socio-economic groups. We will use data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) to shed light on those differences and then attempt to explain those gaps, using ATUS data and other evidence.

What we know about out-of-school time

Measuring the relationship between out-of-school time and outcomes like test scores can be difficult. Researchers are primarily confounded by an inability to determine what compels students to choose homework during their time off over other activities. Are those who spend more time on homework just extra motivated? Or are they struggling students who need to work harder to keep up? What role do social expectations from parents or peers play?

Previous studies have examined the impact of this outside time use on educational outcomes for students. A 2007 study using data from Berea College in Kentucky identified a causal relationship between hours spent studying and a student’s academic performance through an interesting measure. The researchers took advantage of randomly assigned college roommates, paying attention to those who came to campus with a video game console in tow. They hypothesized students randomly assigned to a roommate without a video game console would study more, since all other factors remained equal. That hypothesis held up, and that group also received significantly higher grades, demonstrating the causal relationship.

Other research has relied on data collected through the American Time Use Survey, a study of how Americans spend their time, and shown the existence of a gender gap and a parental education gap in homework time. Other studies have looked at the relationship between holding a job and student’s time use in discretionary activities , like sleep, media consumption, and time spent on homework. We are curious about out-of-school differences in homework time by race and income.

Descriptive statistics of time use

We began with a general sample of 2,575 full-time high school students between the ages of 15 and 18 from the ATUS, restricting the sample to their answers about time spent on homework during weekdays and school months (September to May). Among all high school students surveyed (those that reported completing their homework and those that did not), the time allocated to complete homework amounted to less than an hour per day, despite the fact that high school teachers report they assign an average of 3.5 hours of homework per day.

To explore racial or income-based differences, in Figure 1, we plot the minutes that students reporting spending on homework separately by their racial/ethnic group and family income. We observed a time gap between racial groups, with Asian students spending the most time on homework (nearly two hours a day). Similarly, we observe a time gap by the students’ family income.

We can also use ATUS data to isolate when students do homework by race and by income. In Figure 2, we plot the percentage of high school students in each racial and income group doing homework by the time of day. Percentages remain low during the school day and then expectedly increase when students get home, with more Asian students doing more homework and working later into the night than other racial groups. Low-income students reported doing less homework per hour than their non-low-income peers.

Initial attempts to explain the homework gap

We hypothesized that these racial and income-based time gaps could potentially be explained by other factors, like work, time spent caring for others, and parental education. We tested these hypotheses by separating groups based on particular characteristics and comparing the average number of minutes per day spent on homework amongst the comparison groups.

Students who work predictably reported spending less time on educational activities, so if working disproportionately affected particular racial or income groups, then work could help explain the time gap. Students who worked allocated on average 20 minutes less for homework than their counterparts who did not work. Though low-income students worked more hours than their peers, they largely maintained a similar level of homework time by reducing their leisure or extracurricular activities. Therefore, the time gap on homework changed only slightly with the inclusion of work as a factor.

We also incorporated time spent taking care of others in the household. Though a greater percentage of low-income students take care of other household members, we found that this does not have a statistically significant effect on homework because students reduce leisure, rather than homework, in an attempt to help their families. Therefore, this variable again does not explain the time gaps.

Finally, we considered parental education, since parents with more education have been shown to encourage their children to value school more and have the resources to ensure homework is completed more easily. Our analysis showed students with at least one parent with any post-secondary degree (associate or above) reported spending more time on homework than their counterparts whose parents do not hold a degree; however, gaps by race still existed, even holding parental education constant. Turning to income levels, we found that parental education is more correlated with homework time among low-income students, reducing the time gap between income groups to only eight minutes.

Societal explanations

Our analysis of ATUS could not fully explain this gap in time spent on homework, especially among racial groups. Instead, we believe that viewing homework as an outcome of the culture of the school and the expectations of teachers, rather than an outcome of a student’s effort, may provide some reasons for its persistence.

Many studies, including recent research , have shown that teachers perceive students of color as academically inferior to their white peers. A 2016 study by Seth Gershenson et al. showed that this expectations gap can also depend on the race of the teacher. In a country where minority students make up nearly half of all public school students, yet minority teachers comprise just 18 percent of the teacher workforce, these differences in expectations matter.

Students of color are also less likely to attend high schools that offer advanced courses (including Advanced Placement courses) that would likely assign more homework, and thus access to rigorous courses may partially explain the gaps as well.

Research shows a similar, if less well-documented, gap by income, with teachers reporting lower expectations and dimmer futures for their low-income students. Low-income students and students of color may be assigned less homework based on lower expectations for their success, thus preventing them from learning as much and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy .

In conclusion, these analyses of time use revealed a substantial gap in homework by race and by income group that could not be entirely explained by work, taking care of others, or parental education. Additionally, differences in educational achievement, especially as measured on standardized tests, have been well-documented by race and by income . These gaps deserve our attention, but we should be wary of blaming disadvantaged groups. Time use is an outcome reflecting multiple factors, not simply motivation, and a greater understanding of that should help raise expectations–and therefore, educational achievement–all around.

Sarah Novicoff contributed to this post.

Related Content

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

October 5, 2016

Sarah Novicoff, Matthew A. Kraft

November 15, 2022

September 10, 2015

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Phillip Levine

April 12, 2024

Hannah C. Kistler, Shaun M. Dougherty

April 9, 2024

Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Michael Hansen

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

A parent's view of homework: I waver between tolerance and outright hatred

From new mathematical methods to the appropriate level of help, mother-of-three Toni Hargis shares her pet peeves about homework

L ike many parents, I have a complicated relationship with homework. One day I’m reminding my children to get to work – vocabulary doesn’t happen by osmosis – and the next I’m struggling to understand the work myself, let alone find the time to help.

I’ve had nearly two decades of helping my children (now aged 22, 19 and 12) with everything from simple addition to Spanish verb endings. Homework has covered the gamut of straightforward memorization or comprehension, to detailed research of family matters, complete with photographs and tales supplied by me.

There are some things I accept about homework: teachers can’t spend the entire lesson making sure all children keep up and most students need time for new topics to sink in. Unfortunately, however, there are a few items on my dislike list too.

Parental involvement

First there’s the dreaded instruction to “Ask a parent to help”. Many of us also work full-time, have other children needing homework help, dinner or a lift somewhere. While we love helping our children learn, we don’t always have the time to build a small scale ark at the end of a long day.

Inviting parental involvement can also be a slippery slope. My approach is usually to brainstorm ideas then see how much the child can do on their own. But I’m well aware of parents who roll their sleeves up and do 99% of it themselves. Therein lies the dilemma – I don’t want to do my child’s homework for them, but I also don’t want their lovingly created ark to get laughed off the playground just because it looks like a child made it.

An introductory email at the beginning of the school year, spelling out exactly how you’d like us to help our children, would be extremely useful. Do you want to see all their mistakes or should we go over homework, catch mistakes and have them try again? How much of their homework should we help with? Is it okay to write a note on the homework pointing out the exact place where the penny didn’t drop?

New information

My pet peeve is the extra questions or challenges thrown in at the end of a homework sheet. This can range from an extra set of brackets suddenly appearing in the order of operations maths homework, to a newer verb added to the “Use this verb in a sentence” assignment.

It may seem harmless – a good exercise in independent learning, even – but parents have a one in three chance of this ending well. Some children rise to the challenge and give it a go, others are frustrated they can’t do the work, and the last third simply say “Why do optional homework?” and resist all persuasion. Most of us aren’t teachers and simply don’t know how to introduce new concepts or topics without tears – theirs and ours. What’s more, while many children are quite happy to take instruction in the classroom, bristle when their parent tries it around the kitchen table. I get that sometimes it’s a race against the syllabus, but if parents are expected to cover new material, please give us tips on how to teach.

New methods

It appears I can no longer do long division and multiplication. Or at least, I can’t do it the way my children are taught. If I’m going over their homework, I can tell them whether their answers are right or wrong, but for the life of me I can’t tell them why in terms they understand. (The phrase “Carry the one” is like a foreign language to them.) For me to help them, they first have to teach me their method so that I can see where they’ve gone wrong. If they don’t fully understand that method, it all falls apart very quickly.

Cheat sheets – where teachers share their method with parents – would be really useful. There are now excellent internet tutorials on many academic subjects; sending us links to these if they use the same methods would be extremely helpful. Last year, when my youngest was studying operations of arithmetic (Brackets, Operation, Divide, Multiply, Add, Subtract, or BODMAS to me), his terminology was so different to mine, I had to email his teacher to confirm that I had remembered the method correctly. Her availability to me was much appreciated – I know teachers have a life outside of school.

Too many subjects per night

The kids may have five or more lessons a day but problems arise when subject-specific teachers all give homework on the same night. Even if students don’t have after-school activities, life (in the form of a sibling trip to A&E or a panic shop for new gym shoes) can get in the way, making hours of homework a challenge.

Teachers can help by allowing students a day or two extra to hand the work in work so that they can plan when they’ll do each assignment. After all, time management is a life skill we all need. Alternatively, collaborate with colleagues to ensure that pupils aren’t being given every single subject for homework on the same night.

As I said, it’s complicated. Most parents want what’s best for their children; we want to help them do well, but we vacillate between tolerance and outright hatred of homework, depending on what else we have to juggle. Teachers can’t win either as there are usually complaints when there’s no homework at all. We need a middle ground, where teachers teach and parents support the learning at home, both parties respect each other’s’ roles and communicate regularly about the how best to help the individual child.

Toni Hargis is a British author and blogger, currently living in Chicago, US.

Follow us on Twitter via @GuardianTeach . Join the Guardian Teacher Network for lesson resources, comment and job opportunities , direct to your inbox.

• Teacher Network
• US education
• Primary schools
• Secondary schools
• Parents and parenting

Most viewed

• Our Mission

What’s the Right Amount of Homework?

Decades of research show that homework has some benefits, especially for students in middle and high school—but there are risks to assigning too much.

Many teachers and parents believe that homework helps students build study skills and review concepts learned in class. Others see homework as disruptive and unnecessary, leading to burnout and turning kids off to school. Decades of research show that the issue is more nuanced and complex than most people think: Homework is beneficial, but only to a degree. Students in high school gain the most, while younger kids benefit much less.

The National PTA and the National Education Association support the “ 10-minute homework guideline ”—a nightly 10 minutes of homework per grade level. But many teachers and parents are quick to point out that what matters is the quality of the homework assigned and how well it meets students’ needs, not the amount of time spent on it.

The guideline doesn’t account for students who may need to spend more—or less—time on assignments. In class, teachers can make adjustments to support struggling students, but at home, an assignment that takes one student 30 minutes to complete may take another twice as much time—often for reasons beyond their control. And homework can widen the achievement gap, putting students from low-income households and students with learning disabilities at a disadvantage.

However, the 10-minute guideline is useful in setting a limit: When kids spend too much time on homework, there are real consequences to consider.

Small Benefits for Elementary Students

As young children begin school, the focus should be on cultivating a love of learning, and assigning too much homework can undermine that goal. And young students often don’t have the study skills to benefit fully from homework, so it may be a poor use of time (Cooper, 1989 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Marzano & Pickering, 2007 ). A more effective activity may be nightly reading, especially if parents are involved. The benefits of reading are clear: If students aren’t proficient readers by the end of third grade, they’re less likely to succeed academically and graduate from high school (Fiester, 2013 ).

For second-grade teacher Jacqueline Fiorentino, the minor benefits of homework did not outweigh the potential drawback of turning young children against school at an early age, so she experimented with dropping mandatory homework. “Something surprising happened: They started doing more work at home,” Fiorentino writes . “This inspiring group of 8-year-olds used their newfound free time to explore subjects and topics of interest to them.” She encouraged her students to read at home and offered optional homework to extend classroom lessons and help them review material.

Moderate Benefits for Middle School Students

As students mature and develop the study skills necessary to delve deeply into a topic—and to retain what they learn—they also benefit more from homework. Nightly assignments can help prepare them for scholarly work, and research shows that homework can have moderate benefits for middle school students (Cooper et al., 2006 ). Recent research also shows that online math homework, which can be designed to adapt to students’ levels of understanding, can significantly boost test scores (Roschelle et al., 2016 ).

There are risks to assigning too much, however: A 2015 study found that when middle school students were assigned more than 90 to 100 minutes of daily homework, their math and science test scores began to decline (Fernández-Alonso, Suárez-Álvarez, & Muñiz, 2015 ). Crossing that upper limit can drain student motivation and focus. The researchers recommend that “homework should present a certain level of challenge or difficulty, without being so challenging that it discourages effort.” Teachers should avoid low-effort, repetitive assignments, and assign homework “with the aim of instilling work habits and promoting autonomous, self-directed learning.”

In other words, it’s the quality of homework that matters, not the quantity. Brian Sztabnik, a veteran middle and high school English teacher, suggests that teachers take a step back and ask themselves these five questions :

• How long will it take to complete?
• Have all learners been considered?
• Will an assignment encourage future success?
• Will an assignment place material in a context the classroom cannot?
• Does an assignment offer support when a teacher is not there?

More Benefits for High School Students, but Risks as Well

By the time they reach high school, students should be well on their way to becoming independent learners, so homework does provide a boost to learning at this age, as long as it isn’t overwhelming (Cooper et al., 2006 ; Marzano & Pickering, 2007 ). When students spend too much time on homework—more than two hours each night—it takes up valuable time to rest and spend time with family and friends. A 2013 study found that high school students can experience serious mental and physical health problems, from higher stress levels to sleep deprivation, when assigned too much homework (Galloway, Conner, & Pope, 2013 ).

Homework in high school should always relate to the lesson and be doable without any assistance, and feedback should be clear and explicit.

Teachers should also keep in mind that not all students have equal opportunities to finish their homework at home, so incomplete homework may not be a true reflection of their learning—it may be more a result of issues they face outside of school. They may be hindered by issues such as lack of a quiet space at home, resources such as a computer or broadband connectivity, or parental support (OECD, 2014 ). In such cases, giving low homework scores may be unfair.

Since the quantities of time discussed here are totals, teachers in middle and high school should be aware of how much homework other teachers are assigning. It may seem reasonable to assign 30 minutes of daily homework, but across six subjects, that’s three hours—far above a reasonable amount even for a high school senior. Psychologist Maurice Elias sees this as a common mistake: Individual teachers create homework policies that in aggregate can overwhelm students. He suggests that teachers work together to develop a school-wide homework policy and make it a key topic of back-to-school night and the first parent-teacher conferences of the school year.

Parents Play a Key Role

Homework can be a powerful tool to help parents become more involved in their child’s learning (Walker et al., 2004 ). It can provide insights into a child’s strengths and interests, and can also encourage conversations about a child’s life at school. If a parent has positive attitudes toward homework, their children are more likely to share those same values, promoting academic success.

But it’s also possible for parents to be overbearing, putting too much emphasis on test scores or grades, which can be disruptive for children (Madjar, Shklar, & Moshe, 2015 ). Parents should avoid being overly intrusive or controlling—students report feeling less motivated to learn when they don’t have enough space and autonomy to do their homework (Orkin, May, & Wolf, 2017 ; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008 ; Silinskas & Kikas, 2017 ). So while homework can encourage parents to be more involved with their kids, it’s important to not make it a source of conflict.

• S&E Indicators 2014
• For questions or feedback, please contact [email protected] ' data-original-title="STEM Education Data and Trends Help">Help

How often do parents help their children with homework?

More parents of minority students than parents of white students reported providing help with homework.

• More than 40% of parents of black and Hispanic students reported providing help with homework 3 or more times a week.
• Thirty-four percent of parents of white students reported helping with homework fewer than once a week, compared with 20% of parents of black students and 22% of parents of Hispanic students.
• Nearly 80% of black and Hispanic parents reported helping with homework at least one day a week, compared with 66% of white parents.

Share this page:

Chart Data:

Chart Image:

• Pre-Kindergarten
• Primary School
• Middle School
• High School
• Engineering Profile
• State Data Tool
• SEI iPad App
• Connect with Us
• [email protected]

Homework Inequality: The Value of Having a Parent Around After School

When it comes to schoolwork, there is a chasm separating students with parents who have predictable work schedules and those whose parents don’t.

At 4 p.m., when Veronica Marentes gets off work, she rushes to pick up her 4-year-old from daycare and her 12-year-old from school. If she’s late for the little one, she risks being charged a dollar for every minute she’s tardy. If she’s slow to pick up the older one, who waits for her in his school’s library, his homework will suffer because there’s no one there to make sure he completes his assignments.

Still, Marentes is often late to pick up her sons, because her manager sometimes asks her to do extra tasks at the end of her shift. As a single mother, these changes add to other stresses in her life. She works 35 hours a week, receives no child support, and lives with her three children in a garage that she rents.

Marentes, who came to America from Mexico roughly 12 years ago, now says she’s angry with McDonald’s because the franchise “doesn’t respect their own schedule—it affects my son a lot, when he doesn’t know when I am coming to pick him up.” (McDonald’s did not respond to a request for comment.) Recently, one of his assignments asked him to make a model the solar system, with small, painted balls as the planets. But when her boss changed her schedule at the last minute, she came home late from work and wasn’t able to help him get the materials he needed for the project. Lately, his grades have been getting worse because he’s been missing assignments.

Much has been written lately about homework: There’s too much of it; it’s stressing out parents, kids, and teachers; the time it takes is overwhelming. Many of the critiques of homework focus on how valuable it actually is: Do rote teaching-to-the-test worksheets truly improve students’ understanding? But far less discussed is how some children do their homework without the luxury of parental attention and assistance, or even just quiet time at home to complete assignments. There is not nearly as much being said about how increasing amounts of homework unduly affect poor families and exacerbate inequality.

Recommended Reading

The Case for Nagging Kids About Their Homework

The Six Main Arcs in Storytelling, as Identified by an A.I.

How an 18th-Century Philosopher Helped Solve My Midlife Crisis

According to a recent OECD study , higher-income 15-year-olds tended to do more homework than lower-income 15-year-olds in almost all of the 38 countries surveyed, and kids who were doing more homework also tended to get higher test scores. Parents inevitably play a role in managing their kids’ schoolwork, but many find themselves stretched. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study , close to half of parents with school-age children say they wish they could be more involved in their kids’ education, but aren’t able to be. Many complain that they don’t have the time to keep tabs on their children’s assignments, and that wealthier families with stay-at-home parents or nannies are more likely to. On top of that, parents, especially wealthier ones, frequently hire tutors to help their children along.

But for many working-class parents, especially those with on-call or non-traditional schedules, today’s homework load can be impossible to manage. Journalists and academics already refer to a “homework gap”—a divide between families who have computers and access to the internet at home, and those who do not. But there is also a chasm separating students with parents who control their own work schedules and those whose parents don’t. A 2014 report from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth noted that nonstandard work schedules affected children’s cognitive development and success.

Unpredictable work schedules like Marentes’s and others govern the lives of 17 percent of American workers, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute . As Joshua Freeman, a professor of history at the City University of New York Graduate Center, puts it, “only a tiny number of Americans now have a normal five-day, 40-hour workweek.” Many companies ask their employees to make themselves available at the last minute, with little regard for how such scheduling affects their workers’ family lives. As a result, their kids’ science projects are less likely get done properly, and their math worksheets may never be surveyed by parents’ eyes.

Parents who push back against schedules that don’t give them enough time with their kids often find that their employers are resistant. When Nique Williams started working at a Target in Emeryville, California, she says she told her employer that she need a “very strict” daily schedule, from 10 in the morning to 2 in the afternoon, so that she could drop off and pick up her 5-year-old, Nyla, from school every day. Williams, who is 27, and her partner, who works for Greyhound cleaning buses, couldn’t afford a car until recently, so at the time Williams could only work those hours because they would allow her to catch two buses to travel between Nyla’s school and her job. In return for those weekday hours, she says she told her manager, she could work whenever she was needed on weekends.

Soon, though, Williams says, she was asked to work later and later, which in turn hurt Nyla’s performance in school. While the demands of kindergarten can seem light, Williams herself has a learning disability, as do her partner and Nyla. This requires Nyla and her mother to put in extra effort to keep up with schoolwork, and it will only get harder as Nyla gets older and her homework grows more challenging.

Williams told me that in the end, she lost her job for refusing to work the schedules she was presented with. Anya Svanoe, an Oakland-based organizer for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment believes that Target let go of Williams, along with other workers, because the chain was displeased that their employees’ schedules were, in Svanoe’s words, “dictated by childcare needs.” It’s flexible scheduling that only goes one way, Svanoe says: in the employer’s direction. (Target declined to comment on Williams’s employment beyond clarifying that she was a seasonal hire.)

That’s why, alongside vocal campaigns for states and cities to raise the minimum wages, another movement focused not on pay, but time and hours, is gaining traction . While some companies—J. Crew, Urban Outfitters, and the Gap—have recently ended computerized, on-call scheduling and a proposed federal bill and pending bills in seven states would require that employers take measures to stabilize their workers’ schedules, erratically scheduled jobs remain widespread.

Last-minute scheduling and extreme hours represent a reversal of gains won decades ago by the labor movement, according to Freeman. “One of the workers’ central demands back then were shorter and more predictable hours,” he says. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 imposed overtime rules and helped regularize hours. Unions built on that success, but, Freeman says, “One of the big changes from the 1970s onward has been the breakdown of the old-fashioned hours and the defined workweek.” Freeman, though, is optimistic, believing that the movement for a better-defined workweek will follow the relative success of the fights for family leave and a higher minimum wage.

Nique Williams now makes less per hour as a teller at a credit union than she did at Target. But she says she loves her job. It’s within walking distance of her house and her new boss has been understanding of her parental obligations, especially when it comes to Nyla’s education. Williams has accepted a pay cut—her job at Target paid nearly $15 an hour—for the stability that allows her to focus more on her daughter’s homework after school. “Nyla is my number-one priority,” she says.

This story was produced with support from Capital & Main and the Economic Hardship Reporting Project .

Does Parent Involvement Really Help Students? Here’s What the Research Says

• Share article

Parental involvement has been a top priority for school leaders for decades, and research shows that it can make a major difference in student outcomes.

But a parents’ rights movement that has captured headlines over the past few years and become a major political force has painted a particular picture of what parents’ involvement in their children’s education looks like.

Policies that have passed in a number of individual school districts, states, and the U.S. House have spelled out parents’ rights to inspect curriculum materials and withdraw their children from lessons they deem objectionable; restricted teaching about race, gender identity, and sexuality; and resulted in the removal of books from school libraries, including many with LGBTQ+ characters and protagonists of color.

The parents’ rights movement has been divisive and attracted the ire of some teachers who feel censored. But it has also opened up the conversation around parent involvement in school, said Vito Borrello, executive director of the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement.

And that’s a good thing, he said.

“The parents’ rights bills in and of themselves, I wouldn’t suggest are entirely focused on best practice family engagement,” said Borrello, whose group works to advance effective family, school, and community engagement policies and practices. “However, what the parents’ rights bills have done is elevated the important role that parents have in their child’s education.”

For decades, research from around the world has shown that parents’ involvement in and engagement with their child’s education—including through parent-teacher conferences, parent-teacher organizations, school events, and at-home discussions about school—can lead to higher student achievement and better social-emotional outcomes.

Here are five takeaways from the research.

1. Studies show more parental involvement leads to improved academic outcomes

When parents are involved in their children’s schooling, students show higher academic achievement, school engagement, and motivation, according to a 2019 American Psychological Association review of 448 independent studies on parent involvement.

A 2005 study from researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships , for example, showed that school practices encouraging families to support their child’s math learning at home led to higher percentages of students scoring at or above proficiency on standardized math tests.

And research shows that parent involvement with reading activities has a positive impact on reading achievement, language comprehension, and expressive language skills, as well as students’ interest in reading, attitudes toward reading, and level of attention in the classroom, according to a research summary by the National Literacy Trust.

“When parents become involved at school by, for example, attending events such as open houses or volunteering in the classroom, they build social networks that can provide useful information, connections to school personnel (e.g., teachers), or strategies for enhancing children’s achievement,” the APA research review said. “In turn, parents with heightened social capital are better equipped to support their children in succeeding in school as they are able to call on resources (e.g., asking a teacher to spend extra time helping their children) and utilize information they have gathered (e.g., knowing when and how their children should complete their homework).”

2. Parent involvement changes social-emotional outcomes, too

The APA study showed that not only does parental involvement lead to improved academic outcomes, but it also has a positive impact on students’ social and emotional skills and decreases instances of delinquency.

That finding also applies internationally.

A 2014 International Education Studies report on parental involvement among 9th and 10th graders in Jordan showed that parental involvement had a positive impact on students’ emotional engagement in school. That means students with more involved parents are more likely to have fun, enjoy school, have high self-esteem, and perceive school as a satisfying experience.

And when parents visit their children’s school, that contributes to a sense of safety among the students, ultimately improving school engagement, the study said. Although conducted in Jordan, the study provides insight into how parental involvement affects students’ social-emotional development in other countries, including the United States.

Parent involvement also gives teachers the tools to better support their students, Borrello said.

“When teachers understand what their students are going through personally and at home and any challenges they may have, then that improves their teaching,” he said. “They’re able to support their student in ways they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.”

3. Not all parental involvement is created equal

Different levels and types of parent involvement led to varying outcomes for students, according to the American Psychological Association study.

For example, school-based involvement, such as participation in parent-teacher conferences, open houses, and other school events, had a positive impact on academics in preschool, middle school, and high school, but the size of the impact was much lower in high school than in preschool. That may be because parents have fewer opportunities to be involved in the high school environment than in younger students’ classrooms where parents might volunteer.

At-home discussions and encouragement surrounding school also have a positive impact on students’ academic achievement at all developmental stages, with that type of parent involvement being most effective for high schoolers, according to the study. Reading with children and taking them to the library have a positive impact as well.

But one common form of parental involvement, helping kids with their homework, was shown to have little impact on students’ academic achievement.

In fact, homework help had a small negative impact on student achievement, but positive impacts on student motivation and engagement in school, according to the APA study.

The research shows the value of encouraging parents to be involved in their student’s learning at home, and not just attending school events, Borrello said.

“In the past, schools either had an event that wasn’t connected to learning or only measured the engagement of a family based on how often they came to the school,” he said. “What families are doing to create an environment of learning and supporting learning at home, is probably even more important than how many times they’re coming to school.”

4. Results of parent involvement don’t discriminate based on race or socioeconomics

Research has shown a consensus that family and parent involvement in schools leads to better outcomes regardless of a family’s ethnic background or socioeconomic status.

Parent involvement has led to higher academic outcomes both for children from low and higher socioeconomic status families.

When comparing the impact of parent involvement on students of different races and ethnicities, the APA found that school-based involvement had a positive impact on academics among Black, Asian, white, and Hispanic children, with a stronger impact on Black and white families than families from other demographics. The finding also extended internationally, with similar effects on children outside of the United States.

5. Schools can encourage parent involvement in person and at home

Parent involvement doesn’t have to end with parent-teacher conferences. There are many ways for schools to encourage parents to be more involved both in school and at home, Borrello said.

The best way to start, he said, is by creating a school culture that is welcoming to families.

“That starts with the principal, and that starts with school leadership that is welcoming to families, from how they’re engaging parents in the classroom to what policies they have in schools to welcome families,” Borrello said.

Parent gathering spaces or rooms in school buildings, scheduled parent engagement meetings and office hours, and at-school events held outside of the school day are all good places to start, Borrello said. From there, schools can work to include parents in more decision-making, give parents resources to support learning at home, and equip teachers with the tools to engage and connect with parents.

“If the school is not welcoming and families don’t feel welcome at the school, then you’re not going to get them to come to school no matter what you do,” Borrello said. “Then it’s really thinking about who you’re creating those relationships with families so that they can be heard.”

Coverage of strategies for advancing the opportunities for students most in need, including those from low-income families and communities, is supported by a grant from the Walton Family Foundation, at www.waltonk12.org . Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage. A version of this article appeared in the August 16, 2023 edition of Education Week as Does Parent Involvement Really Help Students? 5 Key Takeaways Based on The Research

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Homework help from Aussie parents ranks low on list from global survey

A global survey of parents has reignited debate about the value, or otherwise, of homework for schoolchildren.

The survey of more than 27,000 parents was conducted by the Varkey Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to improving education standards for underprivileged children.

Parents were questioned about their attitudes towards education, the quality of local schools and their concerns for their children's futures.

They were also asked how much time, on average, they spent helping their children academically per week.

When ranked from most time spent to least, Australia ranked 23rd of the 29 countries surveyed, with 13 per cent of parents saying they spent seven hours or more reading to their children or helping them with homework.

India was ranked first, with 62 per cent of parents surveyed spending more than seven hours a week helping their children.

Dr Misty Adoniou, an associate professor in language and literacy at the University of Canberra, told ABC Radio Melbourne 's Jacinta Parsons and Sami Shah that she found the survey results "very interesting".

"It showed us that those countries that are spending a lot of time with their kids doing homework are also the countries that are performing lowest on international scores of reading and writing," she said.

Dr Adoniou said it was possible Australian parents felt less compelled to help their children academically because the country's schools were "doing their job well".

Homework a contentious issue

Homework has been a part of the Australian school experience for more than 100 years .

Some experts say homework is beneficial if it reinforces learning that has happened at school.

However, Dr Adoniou pointed to research showing there was little or no value in setting homework for primary school students.

When asked why primary teachers were still setting homework, she said it was "a really good question" that she often asked both teachers and parents.

"Teachers answer saying it's parents that want it, and parents answer by saying it's the teachers that send it home, so perhaps there's a bit of a communication gap happening there."

Listeners to ABC Radio Melbourne were divided over whether children should be set homework and whether parents should be involved.

One listener said homework should be done in after-school care, while another listener, Liz, said parents should not help children with homework.

"The whole point of homework is to test if what was taught in school has been absorbed and can be done independently," she said.

Others accused parents of being lazy, with one listener saying those objecting to helping with homework had "given up on parenting".

"It doesn't have to be onerous or a chore. You won't find a report on the planet that says reading at primary school age is a waste of time."

Spelling tests 'don't teach spelling'

Another listener said a lack of homework had led to younger generations being less literate than their forebears.

"In the '60s we were issued with a spelling list from which we were expected to learn a few words each night. The next morning our teacher would test us ... I guess that's why the majority of my generation can spell and read well where latter generations are falling behind in this area."

Dr Adoniou said a student who was given 10 words to learn to spell each week would have learned to spell around 4,000 words by the end of their schooling.

"Yet we know how to spell 60,000 words as educated adults, so I don't think it was the spelling tests that helped us learn to spell."

Despite objecting to homework, Dr Adoniou said parents did have a role to play in impressing upon their children the value of education.

"It's important that parents are interested in what their kids are doing at school and they pass on an attitude that learning is important."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Study finds homework has limited value.

Homework quality more important than quantity, expert says

• Community and Society
• Family and Relationships
• Human Interest
• Primary Schools
• Secondary Schools
• University of Canberra

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

About half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction.

About half of U.S. adults (51%) say the country’s public K-12 education system is generally going in the wrong direction. A far smaller share (16%) say it’s going in the right direction, and about a third (32%) are not sure, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in November 2023.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand how Americans view the K-12 public education system. We surveyed 5,029 U.S. adults from Nov. 9 to Nov. 16, 2023.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos for Pew Research Center on the Ipsos KnowledgePanel Omnibus. The KnowledgePanel is a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey is weighted by gender, age, race, ethnicity, education, income and other categories.

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

A majority of those who say it’s headed in the wrong direction say a major reason is that schools are not spending enough time on core academic subjects.

These findings come amid debates about what is taught in schools , as well as concerns about school budget cuts and students falling behind academically.

Related: Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12 Schools

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the public K-12 education system is going in the wrong direction. About two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (65%) say this, compared with 40% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. In turn, 23% of Democrats and 10% of Republicans say it’s headed in the right direction.

Among Republicans, conservatives are the most likely to say public education is headed in the wrong direction: 75% say this, compared with 52% of moderate or liberal Republicans. There are no significant differences among Democrats by ideology.

Similar shares of K-12 parents and adults who don’t have a child in K-12 schools say the system is going in the wrong direction.

A separate Center survey of public K-12 teachers found that 82% think the overall state of public K-12 education has gotten worse in the past five years. And many teachers are pessimistic about the future.

Related: What’s It Like To Be A Teacher in America Today?

Why do Americans think public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction?

We asked adults who say the public education system is going in the wrong direction why that might be. About half or more say the following are major reasons:

• Schools not spending enough time on core academic subjects, like reading, math, science and social studies (69%)
• Teachers bringing their personal political and social views into the classroom (54%)
• Schools not having the funding and resources they need (52%)

About a quarter (26%) say a major reason is that parents have too much influence in decisions about what schools are teaching.

How views vary by party

Americans in each party point to different reasons why public education is headed in the wrong direction.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say major reasons are:

• A lack of focus on core academic subjects (79% vs. 55%)
• Teachers bringing their personal views into the classroom (76% vs. 23%)

In turn, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to point to:

• Insufficient school funding and resources (78% vs. 33%)
• Parents having too much say in what schools are teaching (46% vs. 13%)

Views also vary within each party by ideology.

Among Republicans, conservatives are particularly likely to cite a lack of focus on core academic subjects and teachers bringing their personal views into the classroom.

Among Democrats, liberals are especially likely to cite schools lacking resources and parents having too much say in the curriculum.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

‘Back to school’ means anytime from late July to after Labor Day, depending on where in the U.S. you live

Among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Anxious Parents Are the Ones Who Need Help

By Mathilde Ross

Dr. Ross is a senior staff psychiatrist at Boston University Health Services.

This month, across the country, a new cohort of students is being accepted into colleges. And if recent trends continue, the start of the school year will kick off another record-breaking season for anxiety on campus.

I’m talking about the parents. The kids are mostly fine.

Let me explain. Most emotions, even unpleasant ones, are normal. But the word is out about increasing rates of mental health problems on campus, and that’s got parents worrying. Fair enough. The statistics are startling — in 2022, nearly 14 percent of 18-to-25-year-olds reported having serious thoughts about suicide.

But parents are allowing their anxiety to take over, and it’s not helping anyone, least of all their children. If a child calls home too much, there must be a crisis! And if a child calls too little, there must be a crisis! Either way, the panicked parent picks up the phone and calls the college counseling center to talk to someone like me.

I am a psychiatrist who has worked at a major university’s mental health clinic for 16 years. Much of next year’s freshman class was born the year before I started working here. Technically, my job is to keep my door open and help students through crises, big and small. But I have also developed a comprehensive approach to the assessment and treatment of anxious parents.

The typical call from a parent begins like this: “I think my son/daughter is suffering from anxiety.” My typical reply is: “Anxiety in this setting is usually normal, because major life transitions like living away from home for the first time are commonly associated with elevated anxiety.” Parents used to be satisfied with this kind of answer, thanked me, hung up, called their children and encouraged them to think long-term: “This too shall pass.” And most everyone carried on.

But these days this kind of thinking just convinces parents that I don’t know what I’m talking about. In the circular logic of mental health awareness, a clinician’s reassurance that situational anxiety is most likely normal and time-limited leads a parent to believe that the clinician may be missing a serious mental health condition.

Today’s parents are suffering from anxiety about anxiety, which is actually much more serious than anxiety. It’s self-fulfilling and not easily soothed by logic or evidence, such as the knowledge that most everyone adjusts to college just fine.

Anxiety about anxiety has gotten so bad that some parents actually worry if their student isn’t anxious. This puts a lot of pressure on unanxious students — it creates anxiety about anxiety about anxiety. (This happens all the time. Well-meaning parents tell their kid to make an appointment with our office to make sure their adjustment to college is going OK.) If the student says she’s fine, the parents worry that she isn’t being forthright. This is the conundrum of anxiety about anxiety — there’s really no easy way to combat it.

But I do have some advice for parents. The first thing I’d like to say, and I mean it in the kindest possible way, is: Get a grip.

As for your kids, I would like to help you with some age-appropriate remedies. If your child calls during the first weeks of college feeling anxious, consider saying any of the following: You’ll get through this; this is normal; we’ll laugh about this phone call at Thanksgiving. Or, say anything that was helpful to you the last time you started something new. Alternatively, you could say nothing. Just listening really helps. It’s the entire basis of my profession.

If the anxiety is connected to academic performance — for instance, if your child is having difficulty following the professor and thinks everyone in class is smarter — consider saying, “Do the reading.” Several times a semester, a student I’ve counseled tells me he or she discovered the secret to college: Show up for class prepared! This is often whispered rather sheepishly, even though my office is private.

Anxiety about oral presentations is also quite common. You know what I tell students? “Rehearse your speech.” Parents, you can say things like this, too. Practice it: “Son, you wouldn’t believe how helpful practice is.”

I can prepare you for advanced topics, too. Let’s say your child is exhausted and having trouble waking up for class; he thinks he has a medical problem or maybe a sleep disorder. Consider telling him to go to bed earlier. Common sense is still allowed.

What if a roommate is too loud or too quiet, too messy or too neat? Advise your kid to talk to the roommate, to take the conversation to the problem’s source.

If your child is worrying about something more serious, like failing out of college: This is quite common in the first few weeks on campus. Truth be told, failing all of one’s classes and being expelled as a result, all within the first semester, is essentially impossible and is particularly rare among those students who are worrying about it. The administrative process simply doesn’t happen that fast. Besides, you haven’t paid enough tuition yet.

I’m making my job sound easy, and it’s not. I’m making kids sound simple, and they’re not. They are my life’s work. Some kids walk through my door in serious pain. But most don’t. Most just need a responsible adult to show them the way. And most of what I do can be handled by any adult who has been through a thing or two, which is to say, any parent.

I worry that the current obsession with mental health awareness is disempowering parents from helping their adult children handle ordinary things. People are increasingly fearful that any normal emotion is a sign of something serious. But if you send your adult children to a mental health professional at the first sign of distress, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to strengthen your relationship with them. This is the beginning of their adult relationship with you. Show them the way.

The transition to college is full of excitement and its cousin, anxiety. I enjoy shepherding young people through this rite of passage. Parents should try enjoying it, too.

Mathilde Ross is a senior staff psychiatrist at Boston University Health Services.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Antecedents and Outcomes of Parental Homework Involvement: How Do Family-School Partnerships Affect Parental Homework Involvement and Student Outcomes?

Recent studies have demonstrated that parental homework involvement may not always foster students’ desired school outcomes. Such studies have also concluded that the quality of parental homework involvement matters, rather than the quantity. Most importantly, previous studies have shown that strong family-school partnerships (FSPs) may help to improve parental involvement. However, there is little research on how FSP is related to homework involvement. The aim of the present study is to examine the link between an effective family-school communication (EFSC) – as one aspect of FSP – and the quality of parental homework involvement in the German context. For this purpose, we developed a new measure of EFSC. Taking a self-determination theory perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. We analyzed the data of 309 parents (82% mothers) of school students (52% girls) who participated in an online survey. The structural equation model revealed a positive relation between EFSC and the quality of parental homework involvement, which in turn was positively associated with school performance and well-being. Moreover, we found that the quality of parental homework involvement mediated the relations of EFSC with achievement and well-being. The results of our study highlight the role of EFSC as a key performance factor that helps to improve the quality of parental homework involvement, thereby promoting student achievement and well-being.

Introduction

Across the globe, students are set homework assignments on a regular basis since homework is generally believed to improve achievement ( Paschal et al., 1984 ; Cooper, 1989 ). In their meta-analysis of school effectiveness studies, Scheerens and Bosker (1997) found a mean effect size across 13 studies of Zr = 0.06 (Fisher’s Z ) for homework, indicating that this variable might indeed enhance school effectiveness. However, recent studies have provided evidence that homework assignments are not per se performance-enhancing. For instance, the effectiveness of homework seems to depend on the quality of the tasks assigned. Homework assignments that are perceived to be well selected and cognitively challenging are positively associated with students’ achievement ( Dettmers et al., 2010 ).

A further potential predictor of the effectiveness of homework assignments is parental homework involvement. Parental involvement in homework completion is commonly expected by schools, teachers, and parents ( Patall et al., 2008 ), all of whom believe that parental homework involvement is vital for students’ school performance ( Epstein, 1986 ; Trautwein et al., 2009 ). Thus, numerous guidelines for parents exist, aiming to improve parents’ abilities to successfully support homework completion (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2005 ). In the US, more than 80% of parents believe that homework is important for learning. Even though 51% of parents reported that students should do their homework on their own, on average, 73% of parents reported helping their child with homework completion. However, at the same time, 29% of parents perceived a negative impact of homework on family life ( Markow et al., 2007 ). Given this high percentage of parents who become involved in their children’s homework completion and a substantial number of parents who complained about family stress due to homework, the question arises concerning whether and under which conditions parental homework involvement is beneficial. Parental homework involvement is one facet of parental involvement in schooling, which is believed to be one of the key promoters of students’ school-related outcomes such as achievement, motivation, and well-being (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Epstein, 2005 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). The importance attached to parental behavior in their children’s education becomes apparent in the development of significant educational policies [e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2002 ] and projects fostering educational partnerships [e.g., teachers involve parents in schoolwork (TIPS, Van Voorhis, 2003 ), and teachers involving parents (TIP, Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002 )], which stresses the role that parents play in their children’s education. Indeed, meta-analyses have provided evidence that regardless of their socioeconomic background and race, students’ school achievement can be improved if their parents become involved in their education (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). However, parental involvement represents a multifaceted behavior that can take place in school (school-based involvement: e.g., community services at school) or at home (home-based involvement; Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994 , Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997 ). Previous studies analyzing the effectiveness of parental homework involvement have demonstrated mixed results about the link between this type of involvement and students’ school performance, with some studies having found a positive link (e.g., Van Voorhis, 2003 ; Xu, 2004 ; Silinskas and Kikas, 2011 ) while others have found a negative link (e.g., Xu et al., 2010 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ). These studies have suggested that one should consider how homework involvement is assessed. Most importantly, it is the quality (and not the amount) of homework involvement that is crucial for student outcomes (e.g., Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ).

The present study was built upon these previous studies, aiming to shed light on factors that might improve the quality of parental homework involvement and thereby student outcomes (achievement and students’ well-being). In recent years, the concept of FSP has become well known, as it is believed to foster parental abilities to help their children with learning. Studies have proven that a positive contact between schools and parents is related with higher parental school involvement ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Patrikakou and Weissberg, 2000 ). The aim of the present study was threefold. Our first research question concerned the relationship between the quality of parental homework involvement and four student outcomes: achievement in mathematics and reading as well as well-being at home and school. Second, we analyzed the association between effective family-school communication (EFSC) on the one hand and parental homework involvement and the four student outcomes on the other hand. Third, we investigated the interplay between our variables, namely whether parental homework involvement mediates the association between EFSC and the four student outcomes.

Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Homework Involvement

Past research has suggested that parental homework involvement is a multidimensional construct including two distinct types of help: quantitative help (e.g., doing homework with the child, providing answers) and qualitative help (e.g., avoiding distractions, providing rules for homework completion, providing support for finding answers) (e.g., Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ). Although the general term of parental involvement is accepted to be one of the key promoters of learning, parental homework involvement is not always positively related with desired school outcomes such as achievement. For example, Xu et al. (2010) found the frequency of parental homework help to be negatively related with student reading achievement and raised the question of how parents should help with homework. The authors concluded that parents should provide a suitable learning environment for homework completion to foster self-regulated learning and children’s autonomy. Moroni et al. (2015) operationalized parental involvement as a multidimensional construct in terms of quantity and quality and examined how the quantity and different qualities of homework involvement were associated with student achievement. Controlling for prior achievement and parental socioeconomic background, they found the frequency of help to be negatively associated with the development of student achievement. However, in terms of homework quality, the authors found opposing effects depending on how homework quality was operationalized. While supportive homework help had positive effects on students’ achievement, intrusive homework help was negatively related with later achievement. Dumont et al. (2014) analyzed longitudinal data of 2,830 student-parent dyads (grades 5 and 7) who reported about the quality of parental homework involvement, their socioeconomic background, and desired student outcomes (e.g., reading achievement, reading effort). Adopting the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT, Deci and Ryan, 1987 , 2000 ), parental homework involvement was conceptualized by three dimensions: parental control, parental responsiveness, and parental provision of structure. The analyses revealed a reciprocal relationship between parental homework involvement and student outcomes. Low achievement in grade 5 predicted higher later parental homework control in grade 7, while high parental control in grade 5 was related with lower achievement in grade 7. A positive reciprocal relationship was found for parental involvement in terms of structure and responsiveness on the one hand and desired student outcomes – such as high achievement – on the other hand. Types of parental involvement did not depend on parental socioeconomic background.

Supportive parental homework involvement – such as the parental provision of autonomy support or structure – is not only positively associated with students’ academic performance, but it is also believed to be beneficial for students’ well-being (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 ). It is assumed that supportive parental behavior fulfills students’ basic needs proposed by SDT, namely the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence ( Grolnick, 2009 ). Basic needs satisfaction may result in an internalization of uninteresting and boring activities such as doing homework into personally important activities, thereby fostering performance and well-being ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). To date, few studies have provided evidence of this linkage. Knollmann and Wild (2007b) conducted a survey with 181 German students concerning their parents’ provision of autonomy support, emotional support, and support for competence during parental instruction at home. The authors found autonomy and emotional support to be positively associated with joy. By contrast, lower levels of autonomy and emotional support predicted higher rates of students’ anger. Moreover, according to Kenney-Benson and Pomerantz (2005) , greater autonomy-supportive homework help of mothers was found to be associated with less depressive symptoms compared to controlling mothers.

To sum up, the quality of parental homework help seems to be related with differences in students’ well-being and academic achievement. In line with the assumptions of SDT, numerous studies suggest that autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework involvement may increase students’ experiences of autonomous and competent learning experiences, which in turn fosters desired (learning) outcomes. Hence, the question arises about factors that may influence the quality of parental homework involvement. Gonida and Cortina (2014) investigated predictors and consequences of parental homework involvement. The authors asked Greek parents to rate different types of parental homework involvement (autonomy-supportive homework involvement, controlling homework involvement, and interference). Moreover, parents and their children provided information on achievement goals, academic efficacy, and school grades. Structural equation models revealed that autonomy-supportive homework involvement was predicted by parent mastery goals while parent performance goals predicted controlling homework involvement. Moreover, the authors provided evidence that parental beliefs for children’s self-efficacy were negatively associated with parent control and interference, but positively related with parent encouragement for cognitive engagement as supplementary to homework. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that low parent beliefs in their children’s abilities to complete homework successfully may result in an inappropriate way of homework involvement in terms of control and interference.

However, to our knowledge, little is known about further factors that might promote the quality of parental homework involvement. Given the important role of parents in their children’s education, the present study addressed this research deficit and aims to shed light on potential predictors of parental homework involvement. Students and their parents spend a lot of time with homework, although parents report barriers to their homework involvement in the sense that – for instance – they sometimes feel unable to provide appropriate help and they tend to require recommendations from teachers about how to help with homework ( Kay et al., 1994 ). In the present study, we assume EFSC to be a potential predictor of the quality of parental homework involvement. A welcoming school climate and recommendations for homework involvement might act as an invitation to involve as they indicate that parental involvement is desired and important ( Becker and Epstein, 1982 ; Epstein, 1986 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ). In the next section, we present a theoretical model of parental involvement in schooling and corresponding empirical studies.

Defining Parental Involvement in Schooling

Parental involvement in schooling is seen as a key strategy to improve students’ success in school. Indeed, a strong body of evidence suggests that parental involvement in schooling is positively associated with various desired school-related outcomes such as school performance and positive affect (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). According to Epstein (1995) , supportive and event-independent communication between parents, school principals, and teachers may result in a deepened mutual understanding about school as well as improved support of students by their parents and teachers. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995 , 1997 , 2005) developed a theoretical model of parental involvement process that describes the antecedents and consequences of parental involvement in schooling. The model proposes five sequential levels to explain factors that might influence parents’ choice to become involved, their resulting forms of involvement and their consequences. The first level identifies three reasons for parents to become involved in their children’s schooling: parents’ perceived role construction (e.g., whether they feel obliged to help), their perceived invitations to involvement from the school, the teacher, and their child, as well as their sense of efficacy for helping their children. The second level suggests two forms of parental involvement, namely home- and school-based involvement, both of which include encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction. At the third level , children’s perceptions of the four types of parental involvement (encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction) are described. The fourth level describes mediating variables, namely child attributes and use of developmentally appropriate parental involvement. Finally, the fifth level focuses on school achievement (for a more detailed description, see Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 2005 ). The focus of the present study was on the first level of the model, which deals with the question of why parents become involved in their children’s schooling. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model identifies three sources of invitations for parents to become involved in schooling: invitations from the school, the child, and the child’s teachers. Invitations from the school might include a welcoming school climate and the perception that parental involvement is crucial and desired in supporting children’s learning and achievement. Teachers can foster parental involvement through direct requests for involvement in children’s education; for instance, by encouraging parents to talk about school activities with their child. Finally, children’s attributes (e.g., prior achievement in school) might act as an invitation to become involved. Numerous previous studies have provided evidence regarding the relationship between level 1 variables (reasons for becoming involved) and the amount of involvement in school and at home (e.g., Green et al., 2007 ). For example, Green and colleagues used the data of 853 parents of elementary and middle school students to examine associations between antecedent factors (level 1) and different forms of parental involvement (level 2) proposed in the theoretical model by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler. Regression analyses revealed that parental self-efficacy, child invitations, and parents’ time and energy were positively associated with the amount of home- and school-based involvement. Moreover, teacher invitations predicted the quantity of parents’ school-based involvement. Yotyodying and Wild (2014) examined whether parental perceptions of invitations for involvement from the school and teachers in a German and Thai sample as one among other predictors variables would predict two distinct forms of home-based parental involvement: authoritative (greater autonomy support and responsiveness) and authoritarian (greater control and structure). In the German sample, the significant results showed that parental perceptions of invitations from the school and teachers were negatively associated with both authoritative and authoritarian ways of involvement. This means that parents who prefer either authoritative or authoritarian ways of involvement tend to neglect becoming involved if they feel less invited by the school and teachers.

However, it should be critically noted that Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model as well as most related empirical studies have focused particularly on the quantity (how often parents become involved) of parental involvement, while the quality (the ways in which parents become involved) of parental involvement has been neglected in many studies.

The present study aims to expand the existing body of knowledge by taking the quality (instead of the quantity) of parental involvement into account. In order to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms of parental involvement, we concentrated on one subdimension of parental involvement in schooling: parental homework involvement. Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. The following research questions arise from the above explanations: is high-quality parental homework involvement positively associated with students’ achievement and well-being? Moreover, how can high-quality parental involvement be fostered?

Family-School Partnerships in Germany

Given the importance of improving parental involvement, scholars have attempted to identify variables that increase beneficial parental involvement. In recent years, the concept of family-school partnerships (FSPs) has become well known as an instrument that might foster parental choice to become involved in their children’s education and parental abilities to help their children with learning. Indeed, studies have proven that successful FSPs are positively associated with students’ performance (see Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ). A positive contact between teachers and parents increases the probability that parents become involved in their children’s education ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Walker, 2002 ). Moreover, information from teachers about classroom learning and instruction shape parental strategies to become involved ( Ames et al., 1993 ). In order to strengthen successful FSP, in 1997, the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) published the National Standards for Family-School Partnership for the US context. These standards build upon Epstein’s typology of parental involvement (see Epstein, 2001 ) and provide a practical guideline to implement FSP. The PTA proposed six standards: (1) welcoming all families into the school community, (2) communicating effectively, (3) supporting student success, (4) speaking up for every child, (5) sharing power, and (6) collaborating with community (for more information, see Parent-Teacher Association, 2009 ). Compared to the US, to our knowledge, in Germany, much less is known about the concept and the benefits of well-functioning FSP ( Wild and Yotyodying, 2012 ). To date, contacts between schools and parents are rare and not very effective and mostly take place at parent evening events ( Wild and Hofer, 2002 ; Sacher, 2008 ). Moreover, conversations between teachers and parents mainly concern learning problems and students’ grades ( Wild and Lorenz, 2010 ; Wild and Yodyodying, 2012 ). For this reason, the Vodafone Foundation in collaboration with a scientific expert committee (see Sacher et al., 2013 ) recently proposed a compass for family-school partnerships for the German context comprising four different standards. The development of the four indicators is based on the six PTA standards described above, although the standards were adapted to the German context and the sixth standard “collaborating with community” was excluded for Germany. Standard A “Welcoming and Meeting Culture” describes a welcoming and friendly school climate that can be characterized by mutual respect and the inclusion of all stakeholders. Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” is characterized by a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents, the use of various ways of information, and a regular information exchange between all stakeholders. Standard C “Educational Cooperation” focuses on parental participation in school life, the encouragement of parents to support their children with learning, the information about external school-related offers, and it emphasizes the role of parents as interceders of their child. Finally, Standard D “Parent Participation” describes the provision of information about parents’ participatory rights, the possibility for parents to participate in school decisions, and the inclusion of social, political, and external networks in school life. To our knowledge, little is known about whether the proposed standards would be met in German schools and whether they would help to ensure parental involvement, especially parental help with homework. For this reason, we developed and validated a parental questionnaire to assess parental perceptions on different aspects of FSP based on the proposals of Vodafone’s scientific committee.

The aim of the present study was to identify factors that might promote the quality of parental homework involvement. In consideration of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model, which identifies three reasons for parents to become involved (their role construction, their perceived invitations, and their sense of competence to help) and previous studies (e.g., Becker and Epstein, 1982 ; Epstein, 1986 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ), we proposed that EFSC would foster the quality of parental homework involvement. In order to operationally characterize EFSC, we relied on three indicators of Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” and developed three scales (15 items) assessing EFSC. B1 “Information Exchange” describes a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents. Standard B2 “Various Forms of Communication” focuses on the use of the variety of ways of communication between the school and parents (e.g., email, homepage, etc.). B3 “School Transitions” refers to a regular knowledge transfer and information exchange between schools, teachers, and parents during school transitions.

The Present Study

The present study addresses three research deficits. First , parental school involvement is a multidimensional construct comprising both parental involvement at school and parental involvement at home. Research findings on parental school-based involvement are not transferable to home-based involvement, given that the context of the two forms of involvement differs. The present study concentrates on home-based involvement, more precisely on homework involvement as one facet of it. Research on parental homework involvement has provided evidence for the need to distinguish between the quality and quantity of parental involvement, whereby it is the quality (rather than the quantity) of involvement that matters for desired student outcomes (e.g., Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ). Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior: autonomy support and competence support. Our first research question concerned the relationship between parental homework involvement and four different student outcomes: well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement. Second , the concept of FSP is well known and has been much studied in the US context. There is clear consensus that parental involvement in schooling is beneficial and that a successful implementation of FSP fosters parental involvement, thereby promoting student achievement ( Ames et al., 1993 ; Kohl et al., 2000 ; Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Walker, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ; Epstein, 2005 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). However, theoretical models and much FSP research have concentrated on the effects of FSP on the quantity (the amount) of involvement, while the relationship between FSP and the quality of parental school involvement and student outcomes remains unclear. Moreover, to our knowledge, in Germany, much less is known about effects of the implementation of successful FSP. The four standards of FSP proposed by the Vodafone Foundation and a scientific expert committee ( Sacher et al., 2013 ) are the first theoretical compass for FSP in the German context. To date, the concept has not been empirically analyzed in Germany and it is unclear whether a successful implementation of FSP is related to parental school- and home-based involvement. Our second research question thus concerned the relationship between EFSC (as one facet of FSP) and parental homework involvement and the different student outcomes. Finally, our third research question focuses on the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the relationship between EFSC and the four student outcomes. In order to investigate these relationships, we assumed that socioeconomic status and student gender may act as barriers to parental homework involvement (e.g., Hornby and Lafaele, 2011 ). Thus, there is a need to control for both variables.

Materials and Methods

Data source and sample.

Between winter 2015 and spring 2018, we conducted an online survey with parents of primary and secondary school students. The sample included 309 parents (82% mothers; M age = 42 years) of school students. Of the participants’ children ( M age = 12 years, SD = 3.58), 55% were girls and 44% attended elementary schools. Parents were asked to rate the amount of EFSC and their homework support. Moreover, parents rated children’s well-being and school achievement. The percentage of missing data was low for the variables analyzed here (on average 0.91%).

Instruments

Effective family-school communication.

EFSC was assessed with three indicators of Standard B “Various and Respectful Communication” and comprises: (1) “Regular and event-independent information exchange” [five items, e.g., “If I am (or my child is) concerned about something, I can discuss this with the teachers, the school principal, or other parents.”], (2) “various forms of communication” [six items, e.g., “The school communicates with parents in different ways (e.g., email, telephone, and website).”], and (3) “school transitions” [five items, e.g., “The school management and teachers actively inform parents and children about the possibilities when making their school decisions.”]. All items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for EFSC was 0.91. The psychometric properties of the subscales are shown in Table 1 .

Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies for all study variables.

Parental Homework Involvement

Adopting a self-determination perspective on parental need support, the quality of parental homework involvement was differentiated into two dimensions of parental supportive behavior ( Katz et al., 2011 ): (1) autonomy-supportive homework involvement was assessed with five items (e.g., “While working on homework, I am willing to hear my child provide answers that are different from mine.”); and (2) competence-supportive homework involvement comprised three items (e.g., “I am glad if my child provides an answer in homework that is different from what is expected but is interesting.”). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for parental homework support was 0.83.

In the present study, we differentiated between student well-being at home and in school. Using two different 10-point ladders ( Cantril, 1965 ) ranging from 1 (they are doing really poorly in school/at home ) to 10 ( they are doing really well in school/at home ), parents were asked to rate how their children feel about their lives in school (well-being at school) and at home (well-being at home).

School Achievement

School achievement was assessed with two indicators. Parents were asked to rate their children’s mathematics achievement in mathematics with three items on a 4-point Likert scale: (a) my child is (1) not good ...(4) very good in arithmetic, (b) my child makes (1) many mistakes ...(4) very few mistakes in arithmetic, (c) arithmetic is (1) difficult ...(4) easy for my child . Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.95. Language achievement comprised six items about the reading and writing abilities of their children. Parents were asked to judge the items on a 4-point Likert scale, e.g., (a) my child makes (1) so many mistakes ...(4) very few mistakes when reading, (b) writing is (1) difficult ...(4) easy for my child . Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.92.

Socioeconomic Status

Parental socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed using the CASMIN classification (Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations; König et al., 1988 ), a comparative educational scale. Parents provided information on their school education (e.g., A-level) and their professional education (e.g., university degree). In order to build a CASMIN index, both variables of each parent were combined and then distinguished into three different educational levels (elementary, intermediate, and higher level). According to this classification, 2% of the parents reported having a SES at the elementary level, 15% at the intermediate level, and 83% at the higher level. We created a dummy variable for the SES, coded as 1 if participants reported a CASMIN at the higher level, and 0 if participants reported a lower CASMIN.

Statistical Analyses

In order to test our hypotheses empirically, structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were performed. SEM allows testing the relationships postulated in the present study. All analyses were performed using MPlus 7.4 ( Muthén and Muthén, 2012–2014 ). EFSC was operationalized as a latent construct, measured by three manifest indicators (regular and event-independent information exchange, various forms of communication, and school transitions). Parental homework involvement was measured by two indicators: autonomy- and competence-supportive homework involvement. In order to control for parental SES and student gender, we estimated the links between both variables and the mediator (parental homework involvement), as well as the outcomes (achievement and well-being). Standardized parameter estimates of models with good fit were reported. Model fit was evaluated by considering the χ 2 test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual SRMR, and the root mean square error of approximation RMSEA. According to Schreiber et al. (2006) , a nonsignificant χ 2 test, and a value of 0.95 or higher for the GFI and CFI indicates an acceptable model fit. The average percentage of missing data ranged from 0 to 3.2%. Since the proportion of missing values was low and could be assumed to be missing at random (MAR), it was dealt with the full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) implemented in MPlus. In FIML, all information available is considered to estimate the parameters. FIML produces unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors and is superior to traditional deletion methods (e. g., listwise and pairwise deletion) ( Schafer and Graham, 2002 ).

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha for the study variables. Parents’ average ratings of EFSC were moderately above the scale midpoint, indicating a rather frequent contact between schools and parents and a “well-functioning information flow.” Parents report a regular and routine information exchange between the school, teachers, and parents. Moreover, as perceived by parents, most schools used various forms to communicate with parents, e.g., email, homepage, etc. Finally, parents perceived a regular knowledge transfer and information exchange between schools, teachers, and parents during school transitions. Parental ratings of homework support were significantly above the scale midpoint. Hence, from a self-determination perspective on parental need support, parents reported a rather high quality of parental homework involvement. They reported being autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. Achievement was rated on a 4-point Likert scale. As shown in Table 1 , on average, parents rated their children’s achievement in mathematics and reading high. While well-being was also rated high. On a 10-point ladder with high values indicating high well-being, parents perceived their children to feel rather well in school and very well at home.

In order to gain insights into the association between the research variables, Table 2 presents the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between all analyzed variables. The significant correlations ranged from r  = 0.14 ( p  < 0.05) to r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01). As expected, EFSC was positively associated with supportive parental homework involvement ( r  = 0.39, p  < 0.01), indicating that a well-functioning contact and information flow between schools, teachers, and parents is related with autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework behavior. Moreover, high values in EFSC were related with well-being at school ( r  = 0.35, p  < 0.01) and home ( r  = 0.14, p  < 0.05). Finally, EFSC was positively associated with achievement in mathematics ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.01) and language ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.01). The same holds for autonomy- and competence-supportive parental homework behavior. The variable was positively related with well-being at school ( r  = 0.16, p  < 0.01) and home ( r  = 0.42, p  < 0.01) and with school achievement (mathematics: r  = 0.24, p  < 0.01; language: r  = 0.47, p  < 0.01). In sum, the intercorrelations revealed that our research variables are related to each other in the expected way. In order to draw further conclusions about their relationship and answer our research questions, we estimated regression analyses and a structural equation model to predict parental homework involvement, school achievement, and well-being, as well as to test the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the potential association between EFSC and our outcome variables.

Intercorrelations among study variables.

Note: EFSC = Effective family-school communication, N = 309, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

The Relationship Between Parental Homework Involvement and Student Outcomes

In the first step, we performed a regression analyses to predict students’ well-being at school and home and their achievement in mathematics and language. The results are shown in Table 3 , model 1. Model fit was rated based on the χ 2 test, the CFI, the TLI, the SRMR, and the RMSEA. The model revealed good model fit to the data, χ 2 (522, N  = 309) = 5.03, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.01. As can be seen in Table 3 , controlling for socioeconomic status and gender (female), parental homework involvement predicted well-being at school ( β  = 0.15, p  < 0.05), well-being at home ( β  = 0.42, p  < 0.01), mathematics achievement ( β  = 0.24, p  < 0.01), and language achievement ( β  = 0.46, p  < 0.01). Hence, according to their parents, students whose parents are autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion feel more well at school and home and achieve better results in mathematics and language compared to other students. The variance explained was between 3% (for well-being at school) and 23% (for language achievement).

Associations among effective family-school communication, parental homework involvement, well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement after controlling for child gender and parental SES.

Note: N = 309, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.01

The Relationship Between Effective Family-School Communication and Parental Homework Behavior and Student Outcomes

The next section presents the findings of regression analyses to empirically test the assumed relationships between EFSC and the other variables of this study. Table 3 , model 2, shows the results for the prediction of parental homework involvement, well-being at school and home, as well as achievement in mathematics and language. The model revealed good model fit to the data, χ 2 (22, N  = 309) = 32.21, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.04. As can be seen in Table 3 , after controlling for socioeconomic status (CASMIN) and gender (female), regression analysis indicated that EFSC predicts parental homework support ( β  = 0.40, p  < 0.01). Thus, parents whose children visit schools with a well-functioning EFSC reported being more autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. The variance explained was 16% for this model.

The next two columns show the results for the prediction of students’ well-being. After controlling for socioeconomic status and gender, the results revealed a positive relationship between parental homework support and well-being at school ( β  = 0.34, p  < 0.01), as well as well-being at home ( β  = 0.16, p  < 0.01). Hence, the results indicate that children whose parents perceive themselves as being autonomy- and competence-supportive during their children’s homework completion feel more well at school and home compared to other children. The variance explained was 14% for well-being at school and 4% for well-being at home. The last two columns in Table 3 present the results for the prediction of mathematics and language achievement. Mathematics achievement was predicted by EFSC ( β  = 0.22, p  < 0.01) and female gender ( β  = −0.12, p  < 0.05). Language achievement was predicted by EFSC ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.05) and female gender ( β  = 0.12, p  < 0.05). The results thus indicate that a well-functioning communication between schools, teachers, and parents may improve students’ achievement in mathematics and the language domain. The percentage of variance explained was 6% for mathematics achievement and 6% for language achievement. In sum, the study provided first evidence for the German context that EFSC may improve the quality of parental homework support in terms of autonomy and competence support. Moreover, EFSC proved to be beneficial for students’ well-being at home and may foster mathematics and language achievement.

Mediating Role of Parental Homework Help

In order to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms of the relationships found in the previous section, our third research question concerned the mediating role of parental homework involvement in the relationship between EFSC and well-being as well as school achievement. Figure 1 shows the results of a structural equation model. For the sake of easier readability, only significant pathways are shown. Overall, the model shows excellent model fit to the data: χ 2 (22, N  = 309) = 32.21, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.04.

Structural model for the associations between effective family-school communication, quality of parental homework involvement, and students’ desired outcomes after controlling for parental SES and student gender. Note: N  = 309, * p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001. For reasons of simplification, only significant path coefficients are shown.

After controlling for socioeconomic status and female gender, EFSC was found to be positively associated with parental homework involvement ( β  = 0.40, p  < 0.001). Compared with the regression coefficients found in regression analyses (see Table 3 , model 2), the relationship between EFSC and well-being at school remained at a substantial level ( β  = 0.35, p  < 0.001). However, the coefficient for the relationship between EFSC and mathematics achievement slightly decreased from β  = 0.19 to β  = 0.15 ( p  < 0.05). Moreover, the inclusion of parental homework involvement in our analyses led to reduced coefficients for the relationship between EFSC and well-being at home ( β  = −0.01) and language achievement ( β  = 0.00). These relationships were no longer statistically significant.

In addition to the direct effects, indirect effects of the predictor EFSC on well-being and achievement as mediated by parental homework support were examined. The inclusion of the mediator variables partly led to different regression coefficients for EFSC, indicating the mediating role of parental homework involvement. The indirect effect of EFSC on well-being at home was statistically significant ( β  = 0.17, p  < 0.01), indicating a full mediation of the relationship. The indirect relationship between EFSC and mathematics achievement was statistically significant ( β  = 0.07, p  < 0.01), indicating a partial mediation. Furthermore, the indirect effect of EFSC on language achievement was statistically significant ( β  = 0.19, p  < 0.001), indicating a full mediation. Because the link between parental homework involvement and well-being at school was not found, the indirect effect was not examined.

Together, the results demonstrated that the quality of parental homework support fully mediated the relations of EFSC with well-being at home and language achievement, while it partially mediated the relations of EFSC with mathematics achievement. Hence, EFSC had significant positive indirect effects on well-being at home and student’s achievement.

The primary aim of the present study was to analyze predictors and consequences of high-quality parental homework involvement. More precisely, we tested whether EFSC would predict the quality of parental homework involvement and in turn students’ well-being and school achievement. The participants of the study were 309 parents of primary and secondary school students in Germany who participated in an online survey. Three research questions were addressed. Our first research question addressed the role of parental homework involvement. With respect to the SDT, parental homework involvement was operationalized as autonomy- and competence-supportive. Based on regression analyses, we tested the relationship between parental homework involvement and four different student outcomes: well-being at school, well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement. Our second research question focused on the associations among EFSC, the quality parental homework involvement, students’ well-being, and school achievement in two domains. Our third research question concerned the mediating role of parental homework involvement for the relationship between EFSC and the four student outcomes.

In line with our assumptions made for the first research question, we found high-quality parental homework involvement to be positively associated with students’ well-being at school and at home, as well as with students’ achievement in mathematics and language. This result supports the results of earlier studies concluding that the effectiveness of parental homework involvement depends on its quality (e.g., Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ).

Past research has suggested that (the quantity of) parental involvement in schooling is beneficial for different student outcomes (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ). Building upon Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model of parental involvement process ( Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995 , 1997 , 2005 ) and recent studies (e.g., Green et al., 2007 ), we assumed an EFSC to be positively associated with parental homework involvement and different student outcomes. Using a recently developed instrument to assess parental perceptions of EFSC, our second research question focused on the relationship between EFSC and parental homework involvement and the four student outcomes. Our results of regression analyses provided evidence for the predictive power of EFSC for the quality of parental homework involvement and all four different student outcomes. As previously mentioned, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model underlines specific invitations from school (teachers’ attempt to invite parents to become involved) as one of crucial predictors of the quantity of parental involvement. Our results added to this model in the sense that EFSC – which might function as a reason to become involved – predicts the quality of parental involvement in schooling. Our study extends previous research on the model as it considers the need to distinguish between the quantity and quality of involvement. To our knowledge, our study is the first to provide evidence of the predictive power of EFSC for high-quality parental homework involvement. Contrary to our results, Yotyodying and Wild (2014) found teacher invitations to be related with the amount of parental home-based involvement but not with differences in the quality of home-based involvement. The authors concluded that teachers presumably increase parents’ awareness of the importance to become involved in schooling, but that they possibly do not provide information about how parents might help their children in school-related topics. In their study, the authors asked parents to rate the extent to which they perceive that their school involvement is expected and requested. In the present study, parents were asked to rate an EFSC in a way that a regular and event-independent information exchange exists, that the schools and teachers use various forms of communication and that information about school transitions is provided. An EFSC might not only act as an invitation to help but it also possibly provides parents with information concerning how to help their children in school-related topics. In addition, our results indicated that EFSC positively contributed to all four student outcomes. These results were also in line with previous studies finding that successful FSPs help to improve students’ performance (e.g., Henderson and Mapp, 2002 ; Sheldon, 2003 ).

In order to address our third research question, we examined the mediating role of the quality of parental homework involvement. Controlling for socioeconomic status and students’ gender, SEM analyses showed that the associations between EFSC and three of the four student outcome variables (well-being at home, mathematics achievement, and language achievement) were (partially) mediated by the quality of parental homework involvement. The results of the present study thus highlight the role of EFSC as a key performance factor that helps to improve the quality of parental homework involvement, thereby promoting student outcomes. In addition, our findings on the crucial mediating role of parental homework involvement in the associations between EFSC and well-being at home and school achievement were in line with the assumptions of self-determination theory (SDT: Deci and Ryan, 1987 , 2000 ). Accordingly, the parental provision of autonomy and competence support tend to satisfy the basic needs of their children (autonomy and competence), and in turn it might thus result in improved well-being. Indeed, earlier studies ( Chirkov and Ryan, 2001 ; Niemiec et al., 2006 ; Yotyodying, 2012 ) have provided evidence for the relationship between parental autonomy support and well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, school satisfaction, positive academic emotions). Our results suggest that an EFSC results in a higher quality of parental homework involvement (in terms of autonomy and competence support), which in turn leads to increased well-being at home compared to other children. Concerning achievement, our results were in line with previous studies providing evidence of a positive relationship between parental involvement in schooling and students’ achievement (e.g., Fan and Chen, 2001 ; Hill and Tyson, 2009 ; Ma et al., 2016 ), although they extend these studies by showing the mediating role of parental homework involvement for this relationship. Hence, EFSC results in high-quality parental homework involvement and is in turn related to achievement.

Practical and Scientific Implications of the Study

Recent studies have shown that strong family-school partnerships (FSPs) may help to improve parental involvement. From a scientific view, the findings of the present study supplement this research in two aspects: first, to our best knowledge, to date only little is known about the relationship between FSP and parental homework involvement. We were able to confirm that EFSC (as an indicator of FSP) may help to improve the quality of parental involvement at home, which in turn supports well-being and school achievement of students. Second, compared to the US, in Germany, much less is known about the benefits of FSP ( Wild and Yotyodying, 2012 ). We have been able to show that German parents evaluate the communication between families and schools positively. However, according to Hoover-Dempsey and Walker (2002) , various barriers might hinder well-functioning FSP such as parents having a low level of education, inflexible working hours, or low language skills. For schools, structural elements such as personnel resources influence FSP. Hence, our results of the present study hold strong importance for different groups. Administrators may use our results to implement teacher and parent training programs aiming to promote the awareness of teachers and parents about the consequences of parental involvement. Such programs should accentuate the need to become involved in an autonomy- and competence-supportive manner, as this study and recent studies ( Knollmann and Wild, 2007a , b ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ) have provided evidence of the need to particularly promote the quality rather than quantity of involvement. Hence, teachers should not only learn how to encourage parents to become highly involved; moreover, they should also learn how to assist parents to be more autonomy- and competence-supportive during homework completion. Moreover, parent training programs might help parents to be informed about different parenting styles and their effects on students’ learning and achievement.

Limitations of the Present Study

First, the generalization of our results is limited due to different attributes of the sample. All analyses were based on parental self-reports. Future studies should assess the study variables by taking other perspectives into account (e.g., school principals, teachers, and students). In these studies, teachers and school principals should be investigated as an additional source of information on EFSC. Their perspectives might differ from parents’ perspectives as teachers and school principals may consider other aspects of EFSC as particularly important than parents. Moreover, in order to improve EFSC in the school, there is a need to identify possible barriers from the school (e.g., teachers’ characteristics) or family (e.g., available time to effectively communicate, etc.) that may undermine teachers’ and parents’ abilities to communicate effectively with each other. Finally, students should rate their well-being in school and at home in future studies. In addition, the generalization of our results is limited due to the high socioeconomic status and the high proportion of mothers in our sample. In our study, the socioeconomic status was not related with parental homework involvement. However, previous studies suggest that high-SES parents tend to be more involved in schooling than other parents. Compared with low-SES parents, their higher education might be associated with feelings of being competent to help leading in higher amounts of involvement ( Lee and Bowen, 2006 ). In the present study, the participants reported on average a comparatively high socioeconomic status. Future studies should take this limitation of the analyzed sample into account and investigate a more representative sample of parents. In future studies, also children with different achievement levels should be considered, as parents of low achieving children or children with special needs might employ other parenting strategies in face of difficulties in school. For these parents and their children, strong FSP might be particularly important. In Germany, cooperation between schools and parents often takes place in the form of short meetings during parent-teacher conferences in school ( Sacher, 2008 ). Commonly, teachers and parents discuss learning problems and children’s grades ( Wild and Lorenz, 2010 ; Yotyodying, 2012 ). Strong FSP and effective communication might result in a deeper understanding of children’s needs for learning and how parents might support their children’s learning at home. Second, no conclusions on the causality could be drawn due to a cross-sectional research design. Hence, a longitudinal research design should be employed in future studies. Third, the study has exclusively focused on functional ways of parenting (autonomy- and competence-supportive homework involvement), while other parenting styles were not considered here. For instance, according to the SDT perspective on parenting, other forms of parenting such as responsiveness (providing emotional support) and structure (providing clear guidelines and expectations) are related with desired students’ outcomes (for an overview, see Grolnick, 2009 ) and should thus be analyzed in future studies. Finally, future studies should investigate both qualitative and quantitative ways of parental homework involvement to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms and differences between the two dimensions of involvement.

Ethics Statement

An ethics approval for this research was not required as per the ethical guidelines of the Faculty of Psychology at FernUniversität in Hagen and regulations of the German Psychological Society due to the noncontroversial nature of the content and the administration of the study. All subjects were parents (adults aged above 21 years). Before their participation, all subjects were informed about the research purposes. Also, they were informed that participation in this research is anonymously and voluntarily. Furthermore, they were informed about the applicable data protection guidelines and the possibility to quit participation whenever they wanted without any disadvantages. Informed consent of the participants was implied through survey completion.

Author Contributions

SD contributed to the design of the study and the data collection, carried out the analyses and data interpretation, drafted and finalized the manuscript. SY and KJ contributed to the design of the study, parts of the analyses, and data interpretation and provided input for revisions of the manuscript draft.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Ames C., Khoju M., Watkins T. (1993). Parent involvement: The relationship between school-to-home communication and parents’ perceptions and beliefs Report No.: 15. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362271.pdf . (Retrieved from: 15.01.2019)
• Becker H., Epstein J. (1982). Parent involvement: a survey of teacher practices . Elem. Sch. J. 83 , 85–102. 10.1086/461297 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantril H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Chirkov V. I., Ryan R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: common effects on well-being and academic motivation . J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 32 , 618–635. 10.1177/0022022101032005006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (1989). Homework. (White Plains, NY: Longman; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 , 1024–1037. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior . Psychol. Inq. 11 , 227–268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Kunter M., Baumert J. (2010). Homework works, if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 467–482. 10.1037/a0018453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumont H., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2012). Familiaerer Hintergrund und die Qualitaet elterlicher Hausaufgabenhilfe [Family background and the quality of parental homework involvement] . Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 59 , 109–121. 10.2378/peu2012.art08d [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumont H., Trautwein U., Nagy G., Nagengast B. (2014). Quality of parental homework involvement: predictors and reciprocal relations with academic functioning in the reading domain . J. Educ. Psychol. 106 , 144–161. 10.1037/a0034100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement . Elem. Sch. J. 86 , 277–294. 10.1086/461449 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L. (1995). School-Family-Community Partnerships: Caring for the children we share . Phi Delta Kappan 76 , 701–712. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L., Van Voorhis F. L. (2001). More than minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework . Educ. Psychol. 36 , 181–193. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. (2005). School-initiated family and community partnerships . In Erb T. (Ed.), This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. 77–96. (Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan X., Chen M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 13 , 1–22. 10.1023/A:1009048817385 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonida E. N., Cortina K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: relations with parent and student achievement-related motivational beliefs and achievement . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 84 , 376–396. 10.1111/bjep.12039, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green C. L., Walker J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Sandler H. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: an empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement . J. Educ. Psychol. 99 , 532–544. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grolnick W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education . Theory Res. Educ. 7 , 164–173. 10.1177/1477878509104321 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grolnick W. S., Slowiaczek M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model . Child Dev. 65 , 237–252. 10.2307/1131378, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson A. T., Mapp K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. (Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill N. E., Tyson D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement . Dev. Psychol. 45 , 740–763. 10.1037/a0015362, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Sandler H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: why does it make a difference? Teach. Coll. Rec. 97 , 310–331. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Sandler H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Rev. Educ. Res. 67 , 3–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Sandler H. M. (2005). Final performance report for OERI grant#R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement . Presented to Project Monitor (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Walker J. M. T. (2002). Family-school communication: A report for the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (Tennessee: Paper prepared for the Research Committee of the Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County Board of Public Education; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Walker J. M., Jones K. P., Reed R. P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement . Teach. Teach. Educ. 18 , 843–867. 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00047-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover-Dempsey K. V., Walker J. M. T., Sandler H. M. (2005). “ Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s education ” in School-family partnerships for children’s success. eds. Patrikakou E. N., Weissberg R. P., Redding S., Walberg H. J. (New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University; ), 40–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hornby G., Lafaele R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model . Educ. Rev. 63 , 37–52. 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz I., Kaplan A., Buzukasshvily T. (2011). The role of parents’ motivation in students’ autonomous motivation for doing homework . Learn. Individ. Differ. 21 , 376–386. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kay P. J., Fitzgerald M., Paradee C., Mellencamp A. (1994). Making homework work at home: The parent's perspective . Journal of Learning Disabilities 27 , 550–561. 10.1177/002221949402700902 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenney-Benson G. A., Pomerantz E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfectionism: implications for the development of children’s depressive symptoms . J. Pers. 73 , 23–46. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00303.x, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knollmann M., Wild E. (2007a). Quality of parental support and students’ emotions during homework: moderating effects of students motivational orientations . Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 22 , 63–76. 10.1007/BF03173689 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knollmann M., Wild E. (2007b). Alltägliche Lernemotionen im Fach Mathematik: Die Bedeutung emotionaler Regulationsstrategien, motivationaler Faktoren und der Instruktionsqualität [Daily learning emotions in mathematics: the role of emotion regulation, motivation, and quality of instruction] . Unterrichtswissenschaft 35 , 334–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohl G. O., Lengua L. J., McMahon R. J. (2000). Parental involvement in school: conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors . J. Sch. Psychol. 38 , 501–523. 10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00050-9, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• König W., Lüttinger P., Müller W. (1988). A comparative analysis of the development and structure of educational systems. Methodological foundations and the construction of a comparative educational scale. CASMIN Working Paper No. 12. (Mannheim: University of Mannheim; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J., Bowen N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children . Am. Educ. Res. J. 43 , 193–218. 10.3102/00028312043002193 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma X., Shen J., Krenn H. Y., Hu S., Yuan J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning outcomes and parental involvement during early childhood education and early elementary education . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28 , 771–801. 10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markow D., Kim A., Liebman M. (2007). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: The homework experience. (New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Moroni S., Dumont H., Trautwein U., Niggli A., Baeriswyl F. (2015). The need to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parental involvement: the example of parental help with homework . J. Educ. Res. 108 , 417–431. 10.1080/00220671.2014.901283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (2012–2014). Mplus user’s guide. (Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Niemiec C. P., Lynch M. F., Vansteenkiste M., Bernstein J., Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: a self-determination theory perspective on socialization . J. Adolesc. 29 , 761–775. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.02.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent-Teacher Association (2009). PTA National Standards for Family-School Partnerships: An implementation guide. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-pta/files/production/public/National_Standards_Implementation_Guide_2009.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Paschal R. A., Weinstein T., Walberg H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: a quantitative synthesis . J. Educ. Res. 78 , 97–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patall E. A., Cooper H., Robinson J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: a research synthesis . Rev. Educ. Res. 78 , 1039–1101. 10.3102/0034654308325185 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrikakou E. N., Weissberg R. P. (2000). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and parent involvement in children’s education . Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 20 , 103–119. 10.1300/J005v20n01_08 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Goetz T., Titz W., Perry R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research . Educ. Psychol. 37 , 91–105. 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sacher W. (2008). Elternarbeit: Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten und Grundlagen für alle Schularten [Parental involvement: Scope for design and basic principles for all school types]. (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Sacher W., Sliwka A., Tschöpe-Scheffler S., Walper S., Wild E. (2013). Qualitätsmerkmale schulischer Elternarbeit: Ein Kompass für die partnerschaftliche Zusammenarbeit von Schule und Elternhaus [Quality characteristics of family-school involvement: A compass for the partnership between school and family]. (Düsseldorf: Vodafone Stiftung; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Schafer J. L., Graham J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art . Psychol. Methods 7 , 147–177. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheerens J., Bosker R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. (Oxford: Pergamon; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreiber J. B., Nora A., Stage F. K., Barlow E. A., King J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review . J. Educ. Res. 99 , 323–337. 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests . Urban Rev. 35 , 149–165. 10.1023/A:1023713829693 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silinskas G., Kikas E. (2011). Parental Involvement in math homework: links to children’s performance and motivation . Scand. J. Educ. Res. , 1470–1170. 10.1080/00313831.2017.1324901 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Niggli A., Schnyder I., Lüdtke O. (2009). Betweenteacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement . J. Educ. Psychol. 101 , 176–189. 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Education (2005). Helping your child with homework. 3rd Edn . Washington, DC: Author; Available at: https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/help/homework/homework.pdf . (Retrieved from: 15.01.2019) [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Voorhis F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle schools: effects on family involvement and science achievement . J. Educ. Res. 96 , 323–338. 10.1080/00220670309596616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wild E., Hofer M. (2002). “ Familien mit Schulkindern [Families with school-age children] ” in Lehrbuch Familienbeziehungen. eds. Hofer M., Wild E., Noack P. (Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe; ), 216–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wild E., Lorenz F. (2010). Elternhaus und Schule [Parents’ house and school]. (Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Wild E., Yodyodying S. (2012). “ Studying at home: with whom and in which way? Homework practices and conflicts in the family ” in The politicization of parenthood. eds. Richter M., Andresen S. (Berlin, Germany: Springer; ), 165–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2004). Family help and homework management in urban and rural secondary schools . Teach. Coll. Rec. 106 , 1786–1803. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00405.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu M., Kushner Benson S., Mudrey-Camino R., Steiner R. (2010). The relationship between parental involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: a path analysis using the ECLS-K database . Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13 , 237–269. 10.1007/s11218-009-9104-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yotyodying S. (2012). The quality of home-based parental involvement: antecedents and consequences in German and Thai families. Doctoral dissertation. Germany: Bielefeld University. Available at: http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func=downloadFile &recordOId=2508819&fileOId=2508820
• Yotyodying S., Wild E. (2014). Antecedents of different qualities of home-based parental involvement: findings from a cross-cultural study in Germany and Thailand . Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 3 , 98–110. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

I tutor the children of some of Dubai's richest people. One of them paid me $3,000 to do his homework.

• A 25-year-old private tutor told BI about his experiences working in the UAE.
• He said he had taught the children of some of Dubai's richest people.
• One of his pupils paid him $3,000 to do his homework, he said.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with a 25-year-old private tutor and academic governor in Dubai. They were granted anonymity to speak freely about their experiences. This essay has been edited for length and clarity. The names of children have been removed to protect their identity.

I moved to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2020 to work for an international tutoring agency.

I've since taught children from some of Dubai's most elite families — millionaires and billionaires who had made their money from oil investments, tech startups, and other entrepreneurial ventures.

One of the families I taught lived in one of Dubai's most expensive apartments, which boasted an art room, a massage room, a gym, and a cinema. It was spread over five floors and also had a private elevator and guard dogs on the door.

Families like these often had dozens of staff, including security, maids, drivers, cooks, nannies, and, of course, tutors.

The parents often weren't around, but those I did encounter were almost always friendly to me.

I had most contact with the nannies, who were at the children's beck and call.

They would cook me dinner and bring me drinks, and I almost felt like I was a part of the family, sort of like a big brother.

One of my younger pupils had his own bespoke classroom in the family house — it was better equipped than anything you'd ever see in a normal school.

Having finished an arts and crafts class with him one time, I said we needed to clean up the mess.

"Absolutely not," he said. "I do not pay you to clean. I pay her to clean," as he pointed at the nanny.

With another child, who was around seven at the time, we had been studying birds in biology and he demanded we get an owl to observe it.

The next time I went to the house, an owl was perched on the kitchen counter.

Another student was told by his brother to "not bother doing any work" because "Dad would sort it out." He then paid me $3,000 to do his homework for him.

But this was normal behavior in Dubai, as the kids were used to extreme wealth.

The families would give me with gifts

These sorts of financial "incentives" were by no means rare.

Sometimes, the parents would go to great lengths to start a bidding war with one another.

If they knew I would be at one client's house at a time they wanted, they would offer to pay double, triple, or even more to convince me to come to them instead.

And each time I thought I'd seen it all, the job would find new ways of surprising me.

One time, my car broke down, and I turned up late for a lesson with one of my regular pupils. I told the mother the reason I was late, and the next time I had a class with that child, she gave me $7,000 in cash to pay for repairs.

The same family gave me a huge tip of more than $20,000 at the end of the year.

I spent the summer sailing the Italian coast on a yacht

Last summer, I was hired to look after two brothers, who were four and six years old. Their family had planned a trip on their private yacht and were looking to sail along the Italian coast for two months.

A few weeks after signing the contract, I found myself in a speedboat heading across the Mediterranean toward a superyacht the size of a ferry.

As I joined my new employers on the deck, uniformed staff offered Champagne (although I was not allowed to drink while working), and I spent the next few months jet-skiing, paddle-boarding, touring vineyards, and eating expensive foods.

This family was from Russia, and there was a marked difference in the way they treated me, often wanting to keep me out of sight.

While they partied on the upper levels, I was told to stay below deck.

They had hired me to be a kind of glorified babysitter for their kids, playing with them and keeping them entertained while speaking English to them.

For the Russian elite, having someone who speaks English with a native accent is a big boasting point.

Perhaps one of the funnier moments was when we returned to their villa on the south coast of France. On either side of the front door were two stone busts of the father's face.

If you enjoyed this story, be sure to follow Business Insider on Microsoft Start.

What O.J. Simpson meant to Black America

Nearly 30 years later, O.J. Simpson’s arrest and murder trial in Los Angeles still evokes strong memories. There was the glove. The Bronco chase . The minute-by-minute national television coverage.

And, for many Americans, Simpson’s case will also be remembered for how it exposed the deep divisions between Black and White Americans.

The nation’s view of his 1995 acquittal for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and a friend, Ronald Goldman, largely cleaved along racial lines, though time has bridged some of the gap. Simpson died on April 10 at 76 years old .

Coming just a few years after the acquittal of four officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King in 1992 and the 1991 killing of Black teenager Latasha Harlins by a store clerk in Los Angeles, Simpson’s treatment by the police and media was viewed by many in the Black community as proof that even wealthy celebrities couldn’t escape racism in America, said Amilcar Shabazz, a professor of Afro-American Studies at the University Massachusetts at Amherst.

“When the verdict was reached we had one side of the screen with White people crestfallen and crying and then we had on the other side of the screen, Black people jumping up and down for joy,” said Shabazz.

Those racial divisions remain, he said. “It’s because we haven’t repaired the social fabric in a way that we like to pretend we have because we fall back on race and racism at the drop of a hat or a drop of the glove in this case,” Shabazz said.

While the reaction to the verdict was largely portrayed in the media along racial lines at the time, it was always more complicated than that, said James Lance Taylor, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco. “The truth is many millions of Black people thought O.J. Simpson was probably guilty,” said Taylor. “There was just so much wrapped up in the O.J. case that was connected to the Black experience in America.”

Twenty years after the verdict, a 2015 Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Black Americans were less likely to believe Simpson was guilty, compared to White Americans, though by 2007 the gap had started to narrow. In 1997, 31 percent of Black Americans said that they were “definitely” or “probably” sure of Simpson’s guilt. By 2015, that share had risen to 57 percent. In comparison, 83 percent of White Americans said Simpson was guilty in 2015, about the same share as had held that position in 1997.

Podcast episode

It’s not that Black people have changed their minds about Simpson’s innocence, Taylor said. “I think in the barbershops today, Black people are saying, ‘he got away with it, but the police got away with killing a lot more of us,’” said Taylor. “That’s the mentality.”

Taylor was living in Los Angeles at the time of the murders and said he remembers the day that Simpson led police on a car chase and how tens of thousands of people, including many White people, lined the streets and highways yelling, “Go, O.J., Go.”

But far before the trial, many Black Americans already felt that Simpson had turned his back on the Black community, Taylor said, noting that he reportedly liked to tell friends, “I’m not Black, I’m O.J.”

Local police prepared for riots if Simpson was convicted, Taylor said. “But Black people didn’t love O.J. like that. This wasn’t about O.J. the person,” he said. “O.J. was just an extension of the general polarization between Black America and law enforcement.”

“The sympathy for O.J. is not as deep as we think it is” in the Black community, Taylor said.

Kevin B. Blackistone, ESPN panelist and professor of the practice at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, wrote in a 2016 Washington Post column, “Simpson didn’t transcend his race; he escaped it like it was a would-be tackler. He came from the black working-poor side of town, but his athleticism trumped that and landed him in an exclusive white university in Los Angeles.”

“Every Black celebrity knows that, whether they like it or not, they represent the entire Black community,” NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said on X , the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday. “Sadly, despite admirable accomplishments as an athlete, OJ Simpson was not able to live up to that responsibility.”

Rev. Amos Brown of San Francisco’s Third Baptist Church, a longtime friend of Eunice Simpson, Simpson’s mother, said it’s difficult for him to disentangle the football star’s crimes from the challenges he faced, including the ever-present threat of violence in his neighborhood growing up. “O.J. Simpson and far too many young Black males to this day have been met with attitudes and practices that define them as being less than human,” he said.

Simpson was introduced to a new audience in 2016 when two television series about the former running back captivated a generation too young to have known him as a Heisman Trophy winner and one of the most recognizable personalities in the country.

Phillip Lamarr Cunningham, an assistant professor of media studies at Wake Forest University, said many of his students view Simpson as a true-crime figure rather than the athlete he remembers.

Cunningham, who was a young man during the trial, said that he still struggles with the not guilty verdict. “Just like everybody else, I had to wrestle with the reality that he very well may have done it, alongside the fact that he is this Black man who had for all intents and purposes, made it,” Cunningham said.

Los Angeles was a “powder keg” at the time of Simpson’s trial, still reeling from the Rodney King acquittal and other racially divisive cases, said Marc Watts, who covered the Simpson trial for CNN and is currently the chief brand officer for the African American Leadership Forum.

“Many African Americans believed that O.J. Simpson was the revenge verdict,” Watts said. “It was the one Black people had won in response to some of the ones Black people had lost.”

For many Black people, the trial turned on the testimony of investigating detective Mark Fuhrman , who denied using a racial profanity on the witness stand, Watts said. Simpson’s defense team produced audiotapes of Fuhrman using the word multiple times and Fuhrman later pleaded no contest to committing perjury during the trial. He couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.

“That was the day I felt the jury, which was predominantly African American, pretty much bought the idea from the dream team that Fuhrman was a racist rogue White cop,” Watts said.

Watts says he will never forget the day of the verdict, Oct. 3, 1995, when he stood on risers outside of the Los Angeles courthouse and heard the roar of the crowd gathered outside with the media. When he arrived home that evening he watched news footage of joyous Black Americans and frustrated White Americans reacting to the verdict.

“It showed us even back then that our country was tragically racially polarized. And that is still true today,” Watts said.