Parent education program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A parent education program is a course that can be followed to correct and improve a person's
parenting skills. Such courses may be general, covering the most common issues parents may
encounter, or specific, for infants, toddlers, children and teenagers. These courses may also be
geared towards parents who are considering having a child, or adopting one, or are pregnant.

Some parent education programs are:

Parent Effectiveness Training is based on person-centered psychotherapy.

Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) is based on individual psychology.

Contents

1 Development

2 Landscape of parenting programs

3 Kess-erziehen

4 Starke Eltern - Starke Kinder

5 Summary of findings from parenting programs

6 Broadening the focus to include families

7 Sources

Development
Parenting education and support has always existed (e.g. through informal kinship and family
networks), but formal recognition of the need to support parents was established through the
International Year of the Family in 1994.[1] In understanding the history of parenting programmes,
it is necessary to highlight two global shifts. The first relates to significant changes in family
structure, where extended, tribal or community family models have given way to more nuclear –
and, in some societies, absent-parent – family models (e.g. due to conflict, disease and natural
disasters). The second shift involves demands on families due to societal changes in areas including
employment, inequity in incomes, exposure to disease and modern influences such as drug use,
technology and urbanization. These changes have made clear the need for support for parents or
their surrogates. As traditional structures dissipate and new parenting challenges arise, concerted
efforts are required to assist parents in fulfilling their role.[2]

Landscape of parenting programs

There are two broad categories of parenting programmes.

Parent education and support programmes not only include services that help parents in their role
but may also include information on other aspects (e.g. job training or adult literacy).

Parenting support programmes are those that are focused primarily on parenting. These two types
are differentiated because of their implications for policy and establishing appropriate entry points
for service provision. For example, social protection, health care and cash transfer programmes
could provide an entry point for parent education and support programmes.[3]

The landscape of parenting programmes is quite complex and can be differentiated on several
dimensions that have been associated with child outcomes. The variety and complexity of these
services and challenges in the identification of effective parenting models are highlighted
below.[3]

TIPURI DE PROGRAME
Some programmes are intended to improve parents’ knowledge and practices related to
caregiving, nutrition and child health,[4] while others focus on early education and learning.[5]
There are also programmes centred around the reduction of harsh parenting and violence at
home,[6] and a range of programmes that have more comprehensive or integrated designs, for
example, the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) – Care for Development.[7] There
is also a set of programmes in which parenting, although addressed, is not the primary focus (e.g.
social protection, cash transfer programmes or adult literacy programmes).[3]

Programmes can also be differentiated by the number of generations who are the target
beneficiaries. Single-generation programmes are designed to directly serve mothers (e.g.
breastfeeding programmes) and/or fathers,[8] while multi-generational programmes either serve
the parent and the child or the entire family.[9][3]

Programmes may also differ in their targeted stage of development. Some focus on parents with
children from birth to 3 years old (Hamadani et al., 2006),[10] but others are designed for parents
with children from 3 upwards.[11] Typically, programmes that focus on the younger age group have
a health, nutrition and/or stimulation focus and those for older children have a social, learning and
education focus.[3]

Programmes also differ based on setting. Some are home-based,[12] some clinic-based,[13] and
others community-based.[14][3]

The type of service provider involved in a programme is also a differentiating dimension.

Professional service providers include nurses and trained parent educators.[15] However, given
issues of low technical capacity and limited resources, most programmes use paraprofessionals or
community workers.[16] Depending on the type of programme, the credentials and training of the
service provider and supervision practices are critical to improving its quality.[3]

Another differentiating dimension is the manner in which services are delivered. Some parenting
programmes involve a one-to-one teaching or counselling model,[17] while others use a group
discussion format.[18] They may use one or multiple delivery mechanisms. For example, a very
common combination is home-based services and media in the form of posters and brochures or
radio announcements.[19][3]

Programmes can also be differentiated by the degree of standardization within their curriculum.
Some follow a very structured curriculum with weekly lessons plans and a detailed script for the
service providers, while others are less formal with topics generated based on participant needs and
interests.[3]

Finally, programmes can be distinguished from one another based on the critical dimension of
‘dose’ which includes the length of the programme from inception to culmination, the periodicity
(e.g. daily or weekly) and the length of each session. Programme dosage is important for
understanding effectiveness and resource requirements. Also, it has been noted that as programmes
get scaled up the dosage is often altered.[3]

This complex landscape of parenting programmes is represented across programmatic models as

either single site or demonstration interventions or national programmes supported by specific
sectors, such as health, education, women’s affairs or welfare.[3]

Kess-erziehen
Alfred Adlers individual psychology and the work of Rudolf Dreikurs are the scientific foundation of
kess-erziehen. In German "Kess" means breezy or perky. The abbreviation refers to cooperative,
encouraging, social and situation-oriented. The goal of the course is to promote a cooperative,
democratic educational style through common rules for family life and consensus that is reached in a
family council.

The course promotes the ability of the participants to understand the social needs of children, the
disregard of which can lead to undesirable behaviors. Adults and children are seen as equal and the
mutual approval of needs is emphasized. Parents and educators learn to develop cooperation,
conflict management and to set borders through logical consequences. Consistent, encouraging
action is used to promote independence and to allow children to accept responsibility for their own
actions.

The participants are guided to act situation-oriented, to offer choices to children and to notice
positive behaviors, instead of reacting primarily to undesirable behaviors. Thereby self-esteem and
responsible action in partnership are promoted.
Starke Eltern - Starke Kinder

Starke Eltern – Starke Kinder is the parent education course of the German Child Protection Alliance
(DKSB). The program is based on humanistic psychology.

The target audience of the program are all parents but adaption to more specific target audiences,
as for instance single parents, stepfamilies, certain age groups or educators is possible. The course
uses a model of guided education, which allows the parents to try out what they learned at home.
The participants are guided to improve the communication between parents and child, to
strengthen the self-esteem of the child, to reflect on educational goals and to recognize and solve
problems.

Summary of findings from parenting programs

Findings from a recently published review of eleven effectiveness trials and four scaled-up parenting
programmes reflect a range in delivery settings, generation of target beneficiaries, curricula and key
messages.[20] All programmes report substantial positive outcomes for children (e.g. cognitive,
social and emotional development) and two of the programmes report significant improvements in
adult parenting knowledge and the home environment. There are also some interesting patterns to
the results that have important implications for future programme design. First, the findings suggest
that programmes that employ more than one delivery mechanism are more effective than those
that rely on a single mechanism, and programmes that address the parent and child (i.e. two-
generation programmes) are more effective than those that only focus on the parent. The effects of
the evaluated programmes were also stronger among younger children; this result demonstrates
support for the hypothesis that earlier intervention yields better outcomes. Also, results were
stronger for poorer children when compared with their wealthier peers; this finding validates
previous work on programme impact and disadvantage.[21]

Finally, some interventions improve parenting practices even when their primary focus is not
parenting. For instance, social protection conditional cash transfer programmes that combine cash
and parenting services have demonstrable impact on parenting knowledge and practice.[22][23]
These evaluations, predominantly from Latin America, are important because they address
parenting directly through support and education but also indirectly by altering a family’s poverty
status – a contextual influence on parenting. Adult and family literacy programmes have also
demonstrated a positive impact on parent and child outcomes.[24] These results are not unexpected
given the established link between maternal education and child health and development
outcomes.[21]

In summary, parenting programmes exist within a complex landscape and

represent a myriad of designs, making it difficult to isolate and compare
effective mechanisms. In addition, the strong influence of context is
important in the interpretation of results. In general, these programmes have
been effective in improving parenting practices, knowledge and attitudes and
in supporting children’s positive health, growth, development, learning and
protection.[21]

Broadening the focus to include families

It has been speculated that ‘parenting’ is an academic term to represent the reality, which is
‘families’. The suggested shift in approach from parenting to family might be useful in increasing the
impact of the interventions. This recommendation stems not only from the shifting definition of who
is a parent because of health, demographic and economic changes in society, but also the
recognition that the immediate context of a young child consists of several key individuals who
constitute a family. Also, ‘family’ as an institution is recognized across sectors, and, particularly in
times of conflict and disaster, is often the only institution that is able to support the child. UNESCO’s
report contained an important set of approaches that resonate even today, for example with respect
to the Millennium Development Goals.[25] The shift will allow for multiple sectors to provide a
coordinated focus on the institution of ‘family’ in a cohesive manner. Family intervention
programmes, although primarily from high-income countries, have been very effective in improving
well-being in a service and cost-effective manner.[9]

Sources

Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This article incorporates text from a free content
work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 License statement: Investing against Evidence: The Global
State of Early Childhood Care and Education, 159-164, Marope, P.T.M., Kaga, Y., UNESCO. UNESCO.
To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see Wikipedia:Adding open
license text to Wikipedia. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of
use.

See also
Triple P (parenting program)

Active Parenting

SafeCare

Parent Management Training

The Incredible Years

Nurse-Family Partnership

References

UNESCO, 1995. International Year of the Family: Final Report and Calendar of Events.
Marope, P.T.M.; Kaga, Y. (2015). Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood
Care and Education (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 159–164. ISBN 978-92-3-100113-0.

Marope, P.T.M.; Kaga, Y. (2015). Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood
Care and Education (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 159–164. ISBN 978-92-3-100113-0.

Aboud, F. and Akhter, S. 2011. A cluster-randomized evaluation of a responsive stimulation and

feeding intervention in Bangladesh. Pediatrics, 127, e1191-e1197.

Kagitcibasi, C., Sunar, D. and Bekman, S. 2001. Long-term effects of early intervention: Turkish low-
income mothers and children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, pp. 333-361.

Al-Hassan, S. M. and Lansford, J. E. 2011. Evaluation of the better parenting programme in Jordan.
Early Child Development and Care, 181(5), pp. 587-598.

World Health Organization. 2012. Care for Development: Improving the Care of Young Children.
Geneva, WHO.

Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., Pruett, M. K. and Pruett, K. 2007. An approach to preventing co-
parenting conflict and divorce in low-income families: Strengthening couple relationships and
fostering fathers’ involvement. Family Process, 46(1), pp. 109-121.

Wasik, B. H. (ed.) 2012. Handbook of Family Literacy. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Hamadani, J. D., et al. 2006. Psychosocial stimulation improves the development of undernourished
children in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Nutrition, 136, pp. 2645-2652.

Johnson, U. Y., Martinez-Cantu, V., Jacobson, A. L. and Weir, C. M. 2012. e Home Instruction for
Parents of Preschool Youngsters program’s relationship with mother and school outcomes. Early
Education & Development, 23(5), pp. 713-727.

Mother Child Education Foundation. 2012. Mother Child Education Program Introduction. Istanbul,
Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Needlman, R., Freid, L., Morley, D., Taylor and S., Zuckerman, B. 1991. Clinic-based intervention to
promote literacy: A pilot study. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 1345, pp. 881-884.

Thompson, M. E. and Harutyunyan, T. L. 2009. Impact of a community-based integrated

management of childhood illness (IMCI) programme in Gegharkunick, Armenia. Health Policy and
Planning, 24, pp. 101-107.

Olds, D. 2011. Evidentiary Foundations of Nurse-Family Partnership. Nurse-Family Partnership

http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/about/ program-history

Daro, D. and Dodge, K. A. 2010. Strengthening home-visiting intervention policy: Expanding reach,
building knowledge. In Haskins, R. and Barnett, W. S. (eds). New Directions for America’s Preschool
Policies. Washington, DC, Center on Children and Families - National Institute for Early Education
Research Policy Briefs, Brookings Institution.

Powell, C. 2004. An Evaluation of the Roving Caregivers Programme of the Rural Family Support
Organization. Jamaica, UNICEF.

Koçak, A. 2004. Evaluation Report of the Father-Support Program. Istanbul, Mother-Child Education
Foundation Publications.
Britto, P. R., Engle, P. and Alderman, H. 2007. Early intervention and caregiving: Evidence from the
Uganda nutrition and child development program. Child Health Education, 1(2), pp. 112-133.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., de Mello, M.C.,
Hidrobo, M., Ulkuer, N., Ertem I., Iltus S., and e Global Child Development Steering Group. 2011.
Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in
low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 378(9799), pp. 1339-1353.

Marope, P.T.M.; Kaga, Y. (2015). Investing against Evidence: The Global State of Early Childhood
Care and Education (PDF). Paris, UNESCO. pp. 159–164. ISBN 978-92-3-100113-0.

Behrman, J. R. and Hoddinott, J. 2005. Programme evaluation with unobserved heterogeneity and
selective implementation: The Mexican PROGRESA impact on child nutrition. Bulletin of Economics
and Statistics, 67, pp. 547-569.

Macours, K., Schady, N. and Vakis, R. 2012. Cash transfer, behavioral changes and cognitive
development in early childhood: evidence from a randomized experiment. Applied Economics, 4, pp.
247-272.

Padak, N. and Rasinski, T. 2003. Family Literacy Programs: Who Benefits? Kent, OH, Ohio Literacy
Resource Center, Kent State University.

Roylance, S. (ed.) 2012. The Family and the MDGs: Using Family Capital to