Investigation about Impact of Parents Education on Children

Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, good judgment and wisdom. Education has as one of its fundamental goals the imparting of culture from generation to generation (see socialization). Education is not only important in tangible development but also play key role in attaining the height of humanity. As Allah Almighty said in Holy Quran:

“…Say: ‘Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endowed with understanding that receive admonition” (Qur’an, 39:9).

An educated person is also respectful of others regardless of their power and status, responsible for the results of their actions, and resourceful at getting what they need, both, personality and for their family, organization, and/or society (Berg, 2011).

The education of parents is probably the most essential factor in explaining the child’s success in school. A natural question to elevate then is why this is. Is it because more talented parents have more talented children? Or is it because more educated parents have more resources caused by their higher education to provide a better environment for their children to do well in school? Recently that experiential study has begun to focus on establishing a causal relationship between the education of parents and their children (Haveman and Wolfe, 1995). Parents are the prime educators until the child attends an early years setting or starts school and they remain a major influence on their children’s learning throughout school and beyond. The school and parents both have crucial roles to play. Parent’s education tends to attach more importance to educational outcomes as a measure of school quality than students, teachers or principals (Gaziel, 1998).

There is massive cross-sectional evidence that children of more educated parents do better than their schoolmates, both in terms of test and exam results, grade repetition and educational attainment. Many mechanisms could explain such correlations. Education may influence parents’ development skills in terms of investment in children and preferences for education. The correlation may also reproduce common pre-birth factors such as genetic influence on cognitive skills and childrearing capabilities. Understanding the mechanisms that drive the intergenerational transmission in education is critical in order to design educational policies. For instance, the scope for educational reforms such as increasing the length of compulsory schooling will be much larger if there is a fundamental link between the education level of parents and the schooling achievement of children (Haegeland et al, 2010).

The common observation is that more educated parents provide an environment, which improves their children’s opportunities and decision processes. This hypothesis was, for example, the base of World Bank programs to improve female education with evidence that more educated parents have healthier children. There is also a wealth of support on the positive relationship between parental education, especially mother’s education, and offspring’s education. Policies increasing education become visible to have a positive effect on the second generation (Dearden et al, 1997).

Many experts agree that in order for parents to be effective caregivers for their children, they should possess certain knowledge, skills, attitudes and interpersonal abilities that promote parental effectiveness. There is a strong consensus that parent-child interaction is enhanced when parents display qualities of sensitivity, responsiveness, reciprocity and support. These basic parental behaviors are believed to be universally applicable and cut across ethnic and economic classes. However, it must be recognized that how parents of diverse backgrounds learn and practice parenting is highly individualized and associated with social, cultural and economic factors (Garcia et al, 1995).

Parental education not only influences parent-child interactions related to learning, but also affects parents’ income and need for help in the home or field help that often comes at the expense of keeping children in school (Carron and Chau, 1996). It is very well known that children’s educational outcomes vary sharply with their parents’ socio-economic conditions. Differences in outcomes with educated parents conditions emerge early at the pre-school level and are reinforced in childhood and the teenage years (OECD, 2008, Machin, 2009). The home environment is one of the determinants of academic achievement motivation. An academically favorable home environment is likely to enhance the child’s motivation to achieve academic success which in turn will contribute to good performance in school (Muola, 2010).

Parental schooling effects withdraw when controlling for the genetic background. In their simpler model, each year of adoptive maternal education adds 0.05 years of schooling to the child or increases the likelihood of attending university by 6 percentage points. Paternal effects are about 40% higher (Bjorklund et al, 2004).

They may not always have the tools and background to support their children’s cognitive and psychosocial development all over their school years. Parents’ level of education, for example, has a comprehensive impact on children’s ability to learn in school. In one study, children whose parents had primary school education or less were more than three times as likely to have low test scores or grade repetition than children whose parents had at least some secondary schooling (Willms, 2000). Mother education and father education do not play radically different roles. Studies which use data for adoptees, under the presupposition that the “inheritable traits” are not relevant due to the absence of a genetic relationship between child and parent, and weak effects for the adoptive mothers schooling and lager effects for the adoptive father schooling (Plug, 2004).

The power of identification can be seen in the healthy relation between the educational level of the parents, which is a good key of the social class of the family, and many psychological outcomes, including level of school achievement, frequency of aggressive behavior, and attitude toward authority. The psychological differences between young adults born to college graduates, compared with those born to parents who never graduated from high school, cannot be explained completely as a result of direct interactions between parents and children. These psychological products also involve the child’s identification with the family’s social class. The features that define social class, as distinct from ethnicity, include place of residence, nature of the neighborhood, and material possessions. But because most parents do not remind their children of their social class and signs of family’s social class position can be subtle, a child’s discovery of the family’s class is conceptually more difficult than discovery of his/her gender or ethnicity and usually is not articulated before 7Â years of age ( Brooks, 1996).

V. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Heller and Fantuzzo (1993) described high correlation between the level of parent education and the intellectual achievement of their children in school. They feel children and schools will be benefited if parents will be encouraged through education enhancing programs. Uneducated parents, already at a disadvantage because of the language barrier, can benefit the most by teaching them how to become more involved in their child’s education. Parents play a key role in enhancing the cognitive development and school achievement of their children. The age of 18, children only spend 13% of their waking hours in school and 87% of their time with families.

Qadiri and Manhas (2000) stated that parents have an obvious vital role in promoting their children’s well-being. Parents’ educational expectations of their children have a strong impact on children’s academic achievement. Parental expectations of children’s academic performance have been shown to positively correlate with children’s grades. 43% parents thought that children get multiple benefits from early childhood education. 25% of parent’s emphasis on the need to develop pre literacy skills. According to them children must first learn early literacy concepts as it could help them to face the later years with more confidence and ease. Parents perceive that apart from learning all such foundational skills children develop ability to communicate with others and also express their feelings and ideas with each other.

Behrman and Rosenzweig (2002) studied that use pairs of twin parents and compare the educational choices of their respective children. Assuming the exogeneity of parental education, each year of maternal schooling increases her children’s years of education by 0.13 years while the outcome of paternal schooling is about twice as large. Parents’ education simultaneously indicates that the partial effects of both parents’ schooling fall, yet always remain positive. The effects of unobserved inherited abilities on the child’s schooling, but, instead of twinning, obtain identification from adopted children. If adopted children share only their parents’ environment and not their parents’ genes, any relation between the schooling of adoptees and their adoptive parents is driven by the influence parents have on their children’s environment, and not by parents passing on their genes.

Chevalier (2004) described that the impact of parental education on their offspring’s schooling attainment using a discontinuity in the parental educational attainment. Interventions on the parental generation will generate social returns on the second generation only if the intergenerational educational link is fundamental, due to nurture, rather than just reflecting a nature (selection) effect.

Englund et al. (2004) found that parents with higher (vs. lower ) educational attainment provided more support for their children in problem-solving situations at preschool level, had higher expectations of educational attainment for their children in first grade level , and were more involved in their children’s school in first grade. They found that higher academic achievement in early school may contribute to a process that supports high academic achievement at later ages.

Hoover et al. (2005) described that the way in which parents feel about schools and the emotional connections that they had to school may influence the kinds of attitudes to school and learning that their children assume. These feelings may be positive or negative, depending on the nature of those previous experiences. Negative feelings about school may prevent parents from making connections with their children’s schools. Positive feelings about school experiences are likely to enhance parental involvement. Additionally, the expectations that parents hold for their children’s future achievement are important. If parents expect high levels of academic achievement and commitment to schooling, the child is more likely to adopt these positive attitudes. Parental participation may be active because parents believe that they bear the primary responsibility for children’s educational achievement. Other parents may hold a notion of partnership with schools that responsibilities for children’s learning are shared between parents and schools. Still other parents may not believe that they should take an active role or may lack the confidence to be involved. For these latter parents, developing personal self-efficacy beliefs that one can be effective in supporting children’s learning at home and at school requires encouragement by teachers and schools, as well as opportunities to participate.

Bjoerklund et al. (2006) compared the correlation between parental schooling and the outcomes of biological children, with the association between foster parents’ schooling and adopted children’s schooling. Adoption studies inform the debate by separating the effect of environmental and genetic factors (although their standard design can be challenging if there are substantial interactions between genes and environments), but they do not tell us directly about the fundamental effect of parental schooling on child outcomes. These studies cannot distinguish between the role of parental schooling and ability in the condition of better environments.

Heinrich and Riphan (2007) reported that maternal education has weaker effects for sons’ than for daughters’ outcomes’. The flexibility in the way both children’s and parents’ levels of education are entered in the models, but they become visible to show father’s education having a greater association with sons than does mother’s education while the reverse is true for daughters but, father’s education is more important for sons, mother’s education is more important for daughters’ although the differences are not strongly significant.

Carneiro et al. (2007) concluded that parent’s education increases the child’s performance in both math and reading at ages 7-8, but these effects are not seen at ages 12-14. Parent’s education also reduces the incidence of behavioral problems and reduces grade repetition, but we find no effect on obesity. More educated parent’s delay childbearing, are more likely to be married, have substantially better educated spouses and higher family income. They are more likely to invest in their children through books, providing musical instruments, unique lessons, or availability of a computer.

Beller et al. (2008) studied that how might the impact of mothers’ and fathers’ education differ within this support? Much of the interest to date in distinguishing the separate contributions of each parent to intergenerational diffusion of socio economic status has been motivated by a desire to give due recognition to the role of women. More educated mothers, it is argued, are more likely than fathers with the same levels of education to make higher inputs of time and goods into the production and role of their children’s cognitive achievement, both in terms of quality of inputs. The more educated the parent’s, the more efficient their use of time spends with the children.

Jerrim and Micklewright (2009) suggested that parents may be more effective at transferring their human capital to children of the same gender. Mother’s and father’s education have independent effects on children’s cognitive ability. This would mean the effect of having a well educated mother is smaller if the father is also well educated. On the other hand, mother’s and father’s education could be complementary. Educated mothers are more effective at passing on their human capital to children if the father is also well educated. More educated mothers, it is argued, are more likely than fathers with the same level of education to make higher inputs of time and goods into the production function of their children’s cognitive achievement, both in terms of quantity and quality of inputs. The more educated parents, the more efficient their use of time spent with the children. Parents schooling has a greater association with the ability scores of high school children, this could reflect the particular advantage (if that is the case) of a more educated parents in early childhood, e.g. in time spent reading to the child, books in the home, and in use made of pre-schooling or choice of elementary school.

Blanden et al. (2010) reported that Parental education is of course just one aspect of family background that influences children’s subsequent achievements as adults, but an important one. For instance, parents’ educational attainments have a large impact on their earnings; they may alter the ‘productivity’ of their time investments in children, such as reading to the child; and they may affect children’s ambitions.

Haan (2010) described that regressing child’s schooling on parents’ schooling generally gives large positive and significant estimates. This recent literature has not reached consensus, especially not regarding the relative importance of mother’s and father’s schooling for the schooling outcomes of their children’s. By using a nonparametric bounds analysis, the causal impact of mother’s and father’s schooling on the schooling of their children’s. Although the upper bounds on the impact of father’s schooling tend to be a bit higher than the upper bounds on the impact of mother’s schooling, the results provide no evidence that fathers matter more than mothers for the schooling outcomes of their children’s. There are many causes to expect a positive impact of increasing parents’ schooling on children’s schooling; more income, better help with homework, role model effects, etc.

Holmlund et al. (2010) described that one natural mechanism to propose is income higher education leads to higher parental resources that can be used to invest in children’s education. But education could also affect characteristics such as parenting style and tolerance that in turn influence child outcomes. Parents are most likely also the important role models that you can think of, and education can be passed on by this mechanism if children seek to reach the educational achievements of their parents.

VI. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The main objective of methodology is to explain a system of principle and method of organization, construction theoretical and practical activity and also the teaching about system. According to Nachmias and Nachmias (1981) “scientific methodology is a system of explicit rules and procedures upon which research is based and against which the claims for knowledge are evaluated.”

The aim of present study is to investigate the impact of parent’s education on children schooling. For this purpose Tehsil Dera Ghazi Khan will be selected as universe and two urban union councils will be selected through simple random sampling technique. From each union council two blocks/colonies will be selected through simple random sampling technique and 30 respondents from each block/colony will be selected through simple random sampling technique. Over all 120 respondents will be selected to investigate the impact of parents’ education on children schooling. Data will be collected through well structured interviewing schedule to check the accuracy and suitability of research tool, 10 respondents will be pretested. After making correction, final data will be gathered and collected information will be analyzed through appropriate statistical techniques. The recommendations will be suggested for future research and policy makers to formulate suitable and practicable policies.

VII. LITERATURE CITED:

Beller, E. 2008. ‘Bringing Inter Generational Social Mobility Research into the 21st Century: Why Mothers Matter’ University of California, Berkeley.

Behrman, J. and M. Rosenzweig. 2002. ‘Does increasing women’s schooling raise the schooling of the next generation?’ The American Economic Review, 92(1): 323-334.

Berg, D. 2011. Deffination of Education. http:www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/defiation-of- education.html.

Bjorklund, A., M. Lindhal and E. Plug. 2004. “Intergenerational effects in Sweden: What can we learn from adoption data?” IZA Discussion Paper No.1194.

Bjorklund, A., M. Lindahl and E. Plug. 2006. “The Origins of Intergenerational Associtions: Lessons from Swedish Adoption Data?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(3): 999-1028.

Blanden, J., P. Gregg and L. Macmillan.2007. ‘Accounting for Intergenerational Income

Peristence: Noncognitive Skills, Ability and Education’. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2554.

Blanden, J., K. Wilson, R. Haveman and T. Smeeding. 2010. Understanding the Mechanisms behind Intergenerational Persistence: A Comparison Between the US and UK. Website: http://www.iariw.org

Brooks, G. J and P. K. Klebanoff. 1996. Duncan GJ Ethnic differences in children’s test scores. Child Dev. 67:396-408 [CrossRef][Medline].

Carron, G. and T. N. Chau. 1996. The quality of primary schools in different development contexts. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris.

Chevalier, A. 2004. Parental Education and Child’s Education: A Natural Experiment. IZA, Discussion Paper No. 1153.

Dearden, L., S. Machin and H. Reed. 1997. Intergenerational Mobility in Britain, the Economic Journal. 107: 47-66.

Haan, M. D. 2010. “The effect of parents’ schooling on child’s schooling: A Nonparametric bounds analysis.” Mimeo, University of Amsterdam.

Englund, M., E. Luckner, J. L.Whaley, Gloria and B. Egeland. 2004. Children’s Achieve ment in Early Elementary School: Longitudinal effects of Parental Involve ment, Expectations, and Quality of Assistance Journal of Educational

Psychology Vol. 96 (4): 723-730.

Garcia, C. C., E. C. Meyer and L. Brillon. 1995. Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. J. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on Parent Education. New York: Academic Press. Page no.189- 209

Gaziel, H. 1998. School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness. International Review of Education, 44(4): 319-333.

Haegeland, T., L. J. Kirkeboen, O. Raaum and K.G. Salvanes. 2010. “Why Children of

College Graduates Outperform their Schoolmates: A study of cousins and

adoptees.” Mimeo University of Bergen.

Haveman, R and B. Wolfe. 1995. ‘The Determinants of Children Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings.’ Journal of Economic Literature, 33(4): 1829-1878.

Heineck, G. and T. Riphahn. 2007. ‘Intergenerational Transmission of Educational

Attainment in Germany: The Last Five Decades’ IZA Discussion Paper No. 2985.

Heller, L. R and J. Fantuzzo. 1993. Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a difference? School Psychology Review, 22(3): 517-534.

Holmlund, H., M. Lindahl and E. Plug. 2010. The Causal Effect of Parent’s Schooling on Children’s Schooling: A Comparison of Estimation Methods. IZA Discussion Paper No.3630.

Hoover, D. K. V., J. M. T. Walker, H. M. Sandler, D. Whetsel, C. L. Green, A. S. Wilkins and K. E. Closson. 2005. Why do parents become involved? Research

findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2): 105-130.

Jerrim, J and J. Micklewright. 2009. ‘Children’s education and parents’ socioeconomic

status: distinguishing the impact of mothers and fathers.’ Paper presented at the Conference on Intergenerational Transmission, Madison, Wisconsin. www.econ.ceu.hu/download/BESS/19Nov09.pdf

Mashin, S. 2009. ‘Inequality and education’ in W. Salvverda, B. Nola, and T. Smeedig (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mueller, D. P. 1993. Family supports of Southeast Asian refugee children upon kindergarten entry, Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 356 899).

Muola, J.M. 2010. A Study of the relationship between academic achievement motivation and home environment among standard eight pupils. Educational Research and Re views 5(5): 213-217.

OECD. 2008. Education at a Glance. Organizational for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008

Plug, E. 2004. “Estimating the Effect of Mother’s Schooling on Children’s Schooling using a Sample of Adoptees.” The American Economic Review, 94(1): 358-368.

Qadiri, F and S. Manhas. 2000. Parental Perception Towards Preschool Education Imparted at Early Childhood Education Centers. Vol. 3(1): 19-24

Qur’an, Surat Az-Zumar 39: Ayat no 9.

Willms, J. D. 2000. Standards of care: Investments to improve children’s educational out comes in Latin America. Paper presented at the “Year 2000 Conference of Early Childhood Development” sponsored by the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Signature:

Student: Irfan Haider _______

Supervisory Committee:

Mr. Muhammad Ali Tarar (Chairman) __

Miss. Sumaira Bano (Member) ___

Mr. Muhammad Imran (Member) ___

Forwarded:

_______________

Head of Section,

Social Sciences and Rural Development

College of Agriculture, Dera Ghazi Khan

Scrutiny Committee,

_

Prof.Dr. Shafqat Nawaz (b) Dr. Muhammad Mudassar Maqbool

__

Dr. Fida Hussain (d) Mr. Muhammad Shahid Nisar

__________________

Principal: