Parenting Programmes What the Parents Say

5 HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES … 89 Behavioural Development One of the most noteworthy areas of development that was evident from the data analysis across all three programmes was behavioural. This was especially notable from parents who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes and could be attributed to parental attendance on these programmes being largely motivated by concerns around their child’s behaviour. …they are a lot calmer and enjoy playing with a variety of things PEEP (Q-year) They are able to talk about their feelings, and be kinder The Incredible Years (Q-post) …much happier and more compliant The Incredible Years (Q-post) The questionnaire responses suggest that behavioural development is being assisted by parents adopting strategies taught on the programme: …they are taking more notice of what I say. Their faces light up with positive praise. Triple-P (Q-post) The parents interviewed also report how a change in their own behaviour is having an impact on their child’s behaviour: It does seem to have more of an impact if you say ‘right you’ve done this, now I’m going to take away something’, and they’re like [in squealy voice] ‘no’. Whereas if you’re shouting at them they start shouting back, and I think it then escalates the whole situation. Emma Isabella tries to employ many of the strategies learnt during her sessions and has found they have helped her son better manage “tricky” situations. Olivia considers using the strategies has had a positive impact on all of her children’s behaviour, not just the two she had concerns with. Ava agrees with Olivia and has found that since adopting the strategies she has observed a positive difference in her grandchildren’s behaviour.

90 K. SMART From the questionnaires and interviews we can conclude that parents, across all three programmes, have reported improvements in their child’s behavioural development since they attended the programme. Improved Confidence Many PEEP parents reported an increase in their child’s confidence since attending sessions with their child, particularly regarding socialising with other children: Gaining confidence and making friends PEEP (Q-post) They are more confident while playing with other children PEEP (Q-post) Confidence and we have made some friends for life PEEP (Q-post) More confident in playing with other children PEEP (Q-year) She became more confident around new people PEEP (Q-year) These last two quotations came from the one-year-on questionnaire and suggest that improved confidence was still a noteworthy factor for the parents 12 months after completing the programme. Sophia found other parents had also noted and commented on her son’s increase in confidence: Other people who have seen him at the child-minder’s see him, oh it’s great, oh suddenly ‘couldn’t see you with him but he was confident’, … and that’s what’s great, is that you kinda, um, you can’t always be with them so it’s nice to sometimes hear that kinda, actually yeah, he looks really confident. Jacob had observed that an increase in his son Ethan’s confidence had resulted in his son becoming more independent, and he no longer felt the need to be holding on to him all the time at PEEP . During my initial

5 HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES … 91 visits to this particular PEEP group, Ethan would be next to his father all the time—however during the post-programme interview he moved freely between the two group rooms: …he wouldn’t have been happy with me going off into another room, he’d miss me a lot quicker Jacob At his one-year-on interview Jacob talked about when he first attended a group with his older son: Noah was really quite … a lot quieter when we first started coming here with him but now he’s quite self-confident Jacob’s older son, Noah, is home-schooled and their youngest Ethan will be too. Although Jacob takes his sons to a weekly home-school group, contact with other children is limited compared to going to school. However having attended PEEP session both sons appears to have developed their confidence which seems to have helped them interact with other children. When she started PEEP , Emma’s daughter Ella would not speak during group activities. However at the post-programme interview Emma reported how she will now contribute: …my daughter is her confidence. Because she was really shy before, and she didn’t like to have her say in like what song she would want to sing or anything like that. But now she like, she if, when we come up here they say ‘do you want any songs’ she’ll speak up and she’ll choose a song she wants to sing. So I think definitely with her it’s her confidence. Ella was due to start school the September following this interview so having the confidence to say what she wants and how she is feeling was going to be important during this transition phase and thereafter. Emily reported that: …my eldest is quite confident now at school. For Adelajda she found that an increase in her daughter’s confidence meant that when she started school she was able to explain to her mother that she was unhappy:

92 K. SMART She’s more confident with that because she- she- she can explain what- what- what was really happening. Adelajda was then able to work in partnership with the school to resolve this. School Readiness and Education Analysis of the questionnaire and interview data has already identified increased confidence as being a key element in helping a child settle in school: He settled better into pre-school and became more confident about attending the new school. PEEP (Q-year) PEEP parents have reported a number of other developmental skills learnt from attending sessions with their child that have also contributed to their child’s school readiness: Concentration has improved and my child enjoys playing with toys in an appropriate way not just trashing everything! PEEP (Q-post) New ideas on how to play and ways to encourage learning in a way that appeals to her PEEP (Q-post) Play different learning games at home PEEP (Q-post) She’s better with numbers and colours PEEP (Q-post) One year on, this parent reported how skills learnt on the PEEP programme were helping now her child was in school: …better in school with listening, just into other activities PEEP (Q-year)

5 HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES … 93 For many of the parents who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes their children were already in school—these parents reported that adopting positive parenting strategies had a positive impact on their child’s schoolwork: A more calmer environment to do homework et cetera The Incredible Years (Q-post) Emily shared that: …my eldest is quite confident now at school and I try and praise him. And I try and do his homework in a positive frame rather than try and force him if he doesn’t want to do it. I’m trying to keep everything on a positive as he does get really, both of them do, get really excited if you do say [puts on more enthusiastic voice] ‘well done’. They get really excited about them achieving something rather than just brush it under the carpet; they really, like, beam. From the data it appears that children whose parents have attended a parenting programme are well-prepared for learning in schools. However my research could not tell us if there was an impact to their educational attainment; this would require a more longitudinal study following the children into the school system. What This Tells Us An interesting observation within this theme, “How children benefit from opportunities that promote their development ”, is that many of the devel- opmental areas spontaneously highlighted by PEEP parents align well with the targets identified in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) standards: communication and language; physical; personal, social and emotional; literacy; mathematics; understanding the world; expressive arts and design. This suggests that PEEP groups are in general succeeding in addressing the EYFS goal of preparing children for school. Parents have observed developmental improvements in the areas of their child’s speech and language, social skills, behaviour and confi- dence.This is important because these are the mechanisms which will help support the child with their transition into, and subsequent progres- sion through, the education system. This finding supports Kiernan et al.’s

94 K. SMART (2008) research which recognised the importance of the parents’ role in their child’s school readiness. Whilst the findings of this study are unable to draw any direct conclusions regarding the impact of the parenting programmes on educational attainment outcomes, the findings do demonstrate that parents, having attended a parenting programme, recognise the advantages of providing opportunities to promote their child’s development. This not only further supports the findings of Hattie (2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the impor- tance of parental engagement in the child’s developmental and lifelong learning outcomes but also demonstrates that having attended a parenting programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of their engage- ment. This is important as it advocates the value of the role of parenting programmes in improving child outcomes. The research literature suggests that parental engagement with a child’s education can have a positive impact on their behavioural, developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and Lucas 2015). From my own professional experience of teaching both in the early years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a child’s education can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes. A child who has spent quality time playing with their parent, where the play has been structured and reinforced by a parental appreciation of child development, or who has had support at home with their homework often reaches develop- mental and educational milestones ahead of their peers. Hattie (2009) goes further and suggests that parental support could add the equivalent of an extra two to three years to the child’s education. Although parents may not directly identify the changes in their behaviour and interactions with their child as necessarily supporting their child’s education, from my professional experience I have found that indirectly they are making a positive impact in this area. Finally, and most importantly, the parents who took part in this research, are themselves reporting a difference in how they are interacting with their child and the positive impact this is having on their child. They are seeing how their child has benefitted from how they interact and how this in turn has promoted the child’s development.

5 HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES … 95 References Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn. Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House Publishing. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K., & Sabates, R. (2004). A model of the inter- generational transmission of educational success (Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 10). London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education, University of London. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting inter- ventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education. Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2006). Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: An examination of practice in five case study local authorities. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 107–113. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter? A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, London. New York: Routledge. Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32. Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 119–144. Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410. Rogers, L., Hallam, S., & Shaw, J. (2008). Parenting programmes: Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school? The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 16–25.

96 K. SMART Russell, K., & Granville, S. (2005). Parents’ views on improving parental involve- ment in children’s education: Executive summary and conclusions. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Sampson, W. A. (2002). Black student achievement: How much do family and school really matter? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Sampson, W. A. (2003). Poor Latino families and School Preparation: Are they doing the right things? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Sampson, W. A. (2004). Black and Brown: Race, ethnicity, and school preparation. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Sampson, W. A. (2007). Race, class, and family intervention: Engaging parents and families for academic success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

CHAPTER 6 The Significance of the Family Working Together Abstract This chapter presents a new and unexpected finding from my research regarding the importance of whole family engagement with the parenting programme. Parents report the need for consistency and conti- nuity in their parenting and how this is best assured by both parents adopting the same positive strategies. This highlights the danger of one parent becoming the “expert” and the other feeling disempowered. Keywords Transplant Model · Expert Model · Family engagement · Triple-P · The Incredible Years · PEEP This chapter looks at the importance of the family working together to adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not doing so. In most parts whether it is Triple-P , The Incredible Years or PEEP , usually only one parent attends the parenting group. However as part of my study I did meet several parents, especially for the PEEP programme, where either both parents attended together or they alternated around their work schedules. One PEEP parent commented that her partner wanted to see what all the fuss was about and co-ordinated his work so that he could join a session. He enjoyed it so much that he decided to factor this in when booking in his work. During my visits, specifically PEEP ones, it was really good to see that it was not only the mums, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to 97 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_6

98 K. SMART childminders or grandparents that were taking their children along but also the dads. For many it was that they had taken on the role of the main carer whilst their partner went to work; for others it was a shared role and was dependent on work timetables and for some it was because they wanted to take an active role in their child’s activities. The interview data revealed that some of the parents considered that whole family engagement was an important element in ensuring the success of parenting programmes. Parents reported that different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children, displaying a fractured unit—one that the children could play upon. When only one parent attends a parenting programme my research highlighted that there is the danger of that parent becoming the “expert”, leading to an imbalance in parenting. An interesting aspect of this theme, the significance of the family working together, is that it developed from the analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this. Before I share the parents’ views which led to the development of this theme, I will first refer to the literature which discusses some of the concerns around parenting programmes. Parenting Programme Critique There have been a number of research findings that have identified potentially negative aspects of parenting programmes. In terms of such critiques, Furedi (2008) proposes that research into parenting is inevitably influenced by what is considered to be culturally normal. Forehand and Kotchick (1996) also identify that the significance of cultural values on parenting is not yet taken into account within parenting training. This highlights the danger of parenting programmes being designed with one view of what is culturally normal and applied universally without taking into consideration local social expectations. This sense of normal- isation implies there is a need to correct the individuals and turn them into normal parents (O’Malley 1996)—although referring to schools, Foucault’s (1977) description of “disciplinary power” could equally be

6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER 99 applied to parenting programmes as they are trying to ensure parents comply with the criteria of the programmes. The prescriptive nature of many accredited structured parenting programmes means that they are not designed in a way that allows trainers the flexibility to respond or adapt the programme in acknowledgement of what a parent already knows, how they already interact with their child or even their cultural or religious background. In fact they tend to operate from the microsystem paradigm, mainly focusing on “changing or improving the one-on-one interaction between child and parent” (Mapp and Hong 2010, p. 350) suggesting that they bring skills to the parent. This would place parenting programmes within the Expert classification of Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert , Transplant and Consumer models: “Professionals use this model if they view themselves as having total expertise in relation to the parent. Here essentially professionals take total control and make all the decisions” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 10). In my experience trainers often identify more with the Transplant model “where they view themselves as having expertise, but also recog- nize the advantage of the parent as a resource” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 11), however the prescriptive nature of many programmes can make this difficult. Ideally a parenting programme would have sufficient structure to ensure that the relevant expertise was passed on but would be flexible enough to take account of parents’ existing knowledge and accommo- date alternative social and cultural norms. West et al.’s (2013) exploratory study of three major evidence-based parenting programmes (Strength- ening Multi-Ethnic Families, Triple-P and The Incredible Years ) found that the six urban local authorities taking part in the study did try to address the diverse range of cultures and faith of the families within their community. For those local authorities that had a particularly large ethnically mixed community they chose the Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families programme as it was considered more flexible in meeting the needs of families from different faiths, cultures and settings. Miller (2010) suggests the need for trainers to look for opportunities to tailor the support so that they meet the individual circumstances of the parents. Another concern with parenting programmes is the potential for them to be perceived as a corrective measure for “inadequate parents”. Recom- mending attendance on a programme suggests that the parent is not doing their best for their child or that they lack the basic skills required in parenting. Indeed it could be seen as though the parent is failing

100 K. SMART their child thus disempowering them in their parental role (Furedi 2008; Cottam and Espie 2014). Such a perception could then result in lower parental engagement with the programme leading to poorer outcomes or potentially the parent dropping out of the programme altogether. Furthermore the parent is often perceived as “hard-to-reach” (Feiler 2010; Mapp and Hong 2010), a secondary negative implication towards the parent. Miller (2010) proposes that all parents at some point could find that they do not have the finances or physical, mental or emotional energy to meet their child’s needs. This idea that parents are failing in their role and need to attend specialised classes characterises parenting programmes within a deficit model; this is supported by Goldberg who found parenting programmes assumed “a parenting skills deficit” (Gold- berg 2000, p. 358) through their delivery. Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) agree that parents seemed to consider that by attending a parenting programme this would be considered as an admission of failing as a parent. However Miller (2010) suggests that parents should be encour- aged to seek out help when they need it and that by doing so it is not an indication that they are failing in their role. Crozier (1998) raises the issue that sometimes partnership with parents actually looks like surveillance on the ground and that professionals have a deficit view of parents and that they, the professionals, know best; this sits comfortably within Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model. This deficit view of parents was something I needed to be very cautious about addressing in my research: I specifically constructed my interview sched- ules with parents to examine the extent to which this theme emerged and the extent to which this was perceived as a negative aspect of the programme. Additionally I included opportunities for parents to discuss any elements from the programme that they liked or disliked and whether they felt their own skills were taken into account, moving away from the Expert model and instead towards the Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985). Although many programmes try to be pre-emptive rather than purely applied to “failing” parents, in my experience such an aspiration is frequently unsuccessful because of the constraints of budgets, resources and the prerequisite to target certain parental categories. Miller also suggests that although attending a parenting programme could poten- tially be useful to any parent, they tend to be accessed by parents “with a very wide range of needs” (Miller 2010, p. 67). The issue then becomes self-sustaining; once in the mind-set that the programme is there for

6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER 101 targeted parents it becomes much harder to change that view. My research accommodated these potentially negative issues by soliciting parents’ own perspectives on the value and effectiveness of the programmes; if the parents were made to feel disempowered by attending the course this may well have had implications on their engagement with the programme and subsequent interaction with their child. In my professional experience I have found that most parents, not just those who have a wide range of needs, experience at some time a need for advice and support but find that they often do not know where they can go for it. Miller (2010) adds: The ride is never straight-forward, there will be good times and bad ones and parents will, at times, feel elated and at others desperate. (Miller 2010, p. 72) Miller and Sambell (2003) interviewed 37 parents (25 parents with teenage children, six parents with children with special needs, four parents with preschool and primary aged children and two parents who were teenagers themselves) from seven focus groups to find out their views on their parenting needs and their perceptions of how they felt they were being addressed. From the analysis of the interview data Miller and Sambell (2003) reported that parents identified three distinct models of parenting support and learning: the dispensing model, whereby the child is targeted directly; the relating model, where the parent is the recipient of the attention and the reflecting model, in which the parent develops an understanding of the parent–child relationship. My research similarly sought the views of parents regarding the effectiveness of the parenting programmes, and investigated the subsequent changes in parental behaviour and child development. Given the potential for a parenting programme to be disempowering, it was particularly interesting that the significance of the family working together was a notable finding that developed within my research. This was highlighted by the unforeseen consequence of one parent attending the programme, creating an imbalance in the parenting structure within the family; inconsistent parenting and the perception of one parent being the “expert” could potentially lead to conflict. But what do the parents say?

102 K. SMART What the Parents Say Some of the parents considered that whole family engagement is an important element in ensuring the success of the strategies learnt on the parenting programmes; this was particularly evident in the responses from parents attending The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. Although there was no explicit question asking whether the parents felt it important or necessary that there was a whole family engagement in the parenting programme, three out of the eight parents spontaneously referred to this topic, commenting on the importance of both parents being engaged in the programme. Isabella, a mother of teenage boys who attended a Triple-P Teens programme, felt particularly strongly that it would be beneficial: “this is where I think you need something where you do as a famil y”, identi- fying that “some aspects of the programme more with the child” should be attended together. One benefit she considered of involving the whole family was: The older sibling as well, so that actually if we’re not rememb-, you know if different members of the family are not remembering the right strategy someone else can say ‘mum go away and sit down’. Isabella not only felt this about the Triple-P programme she attended during this research but also for the ASK programme she had previously attended. Well when I did the ASK one we took it in turns to go, so that the other half had some exposure, um and that’s why I’m thinking now, I think you need to do things, you need probably a couple of sessions as a whole family. So.. so that the.. the child can see that these are some of the suggestions for parents got to follow. So that the child could come along and say to mum ‘you haven’t been following that strategy; you haven’t been putting my rewards up on the wall. Why haven’t you been putting my rewards up on the wall? You should be!’ I would really like some family sessions. Isabella identifies here one important aspect of family engagement; that is the recognition that sometimes you can forget to use the strategies and may need the occasional prompt. This was something that Emily,

6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER 103 who attended the Triple-P Primary programme, also brought up at her one-year-on interview: When I forget it’s more chaotic because they haven’t got any expectations of what they they’re supposed to be doing when you go somewhere. Strategies which Emily had previously used which were effective, but had not used for several months, were now forgotten. Had her partner attended then maybe these would not be lost. Olivia, a mother of four who attended The Incredible Years parenting programme, also commented that “it would be beneficial for partners ” to attend the programme. Emily, a mother of two young sons (one in nursery and one in Key Stage 1 primary) suggested at her post-programme interview that: I think it’s helpful if you both to go ‘cause it’s harder for one parent to tell the other parent what to do. Emily went on to share that she had a very different parenting style to her partner, however for her it would always be her partner’s position that would be enforced. Different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children. Continuity and consistency was certainly a contentious issue for Isabella and one which she thought the course could help address: Um I realise now when he starting to get tired, that’s a flash, that’s a real anger flash point when he’s starting to get tired. So because he had a very sporty day yesterday, I tried to get him to bed early; I say early I mean eight o’clock. And at quarter to nine I’m telling his dad off because they’ve been up there playing games, and I said ‘I’m trying to get him to go to bed’… That’s why I think the group, the group work, the family and child together is probably quite important. Olivia’s husband, at the time of this interview, was working with the trainer on a one-to-one basis on the strategies that were taught on The Incredible Years programme. For Olivia this:

104 K. SMART …was absolutely brilliant, ‘cause all these changes were happening and I felt I was equipped but he wasn’t, and it’s a very difficult um time to tell your husband… it can be a bit condescending isn’t it. From talking to one of the other mothers on this programme, it became evident that her husband was also going to be working with the same trainer on a one-to-one basis. Having both parents taking part in the programme and adopting the same positive strategies would certainly promote continuity and consistency in their parenting. Although this theme developed from the interviews with parents attending the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, PEEP parents could equally find it important. The reason it was not discussed was that there were no specific questions included in the interview schedule that investigated their thoughts around this. A note to self or other interested researchers in this area: this would certainly be worth further exploration. What This Tells Us An interesting aspect of this theme is that it developed from the anal- ysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this. Conversely, at this stage of the data gathering, PEEP parents did not mention during their interview that they considered it important that the whole family took part or were involved in the programme. This could be attributed to the parents not consid- ering PEEP to be a parenting programme; several parents wrote on their questionnaire that they did not realise or did not know it was a parenting programme. However on one of my visits a mum commented on how her husband adjusted his work hours one week to attend the PEEP group as he was keen to find out what all the excitement was about. He enjoyed it so much that he regularly co-ordinated his hours so that he could attend the group. From both the literature review and my own professional experience, it was expected that certain themes would probably develop from the anal- ysis of the questionnaire and interview data as they had been the focus of previous research: themes such as an improvement in children’s behaviour

6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER 105 (Thomas et al. 1999; Barlow and Parsons 2005; Hutchings et al. 2007; Furlong et al. 2012) or parents adopting positive parenting strategies (Coren and Barlow 2009; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012). What was interesting from the interviews with Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engage- ment in the programme; a completely new and unexpected finding. This is important because it is about providing continuity and consistency in parenting and reducing family conflict, and was identified by the parents as being more likely to take place if both parents adopted the same posi- tive parenting strategies. For one parent to be perceived as the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting, could place a strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel disempowered. It seems the concerns raised in the literature review around Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model could apply more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship. You may ask how could I identify this as a theme when it arose in just three out of the eight interviews. It is important to note that the number of occurrences of a topic does not alone make it a theme; rather it is about whether the topic has captured something important that is related to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). The questions on the questionnaires and the interviews did not specifically ask anything around whole family engagement yet the subject was introduced by three of the parents during their interview; three out of the four Triple-P and The Incredible Years interviews. You will have noted from Chapter 2 that I carried out a rigorous analysis of both the questionnaire and interview data, and seeing this theme develop from the data and the significance and impact it can have on the family, I made sure this was recognised within my findings. My research progress was guided by Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model: from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the experiences of parents and trainers to understand more about the underlying reality of parenting programmes; through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the data with a recognition of how absences and negative power are an important part of the process regarding changes in parenting behaviours and child devel- opment; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at the whole picture through multiple perspectives, identifying themes that represent the totality. This finding, of the value placed on whole family engagement in the parenting programme, is an important aspect of my research and has taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) of Bhaskar’s MELD model: it

106 K. SMART provides us with new knowledge and understanding which could lead to the refocusing of how parenting programmes are offered and delivered by integrating a whole family philosophy into their design. To summarise, parents, particularly those who attended the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, consider it important that both parents should have the opportunity to attend at least some parts of the programme, be it in a joint group or separate one-to-one sessions. This would promote continuity and consistency in parenting. This in turn could promote a more relaxed, calm home environment. References Barlow, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1, 1–59. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualita- tive Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD002964 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002964. Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children & Society, 28, 465–477. Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy, 13, 125–136. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Feiler, A. (2010). Engaging ‘hard to reach’ parents: Teacher-parent collaboration to promote children’s learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy, 27, 187–206. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. Furedi, F. (2008). Paranoid parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child. London: Continuum. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, 1–239. Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London: Arnold.

6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER 107 Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education. Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., et al. (2007). Parenting intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678. Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the parenting early inter- vention programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Mapp, K. L., & Hong, S. (2010). Debunking the myth of the hard to reach parent. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships. New York: Routledge. Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Miller, S., & Sambell, K. (2003). What do parents feel they need? Implications of parents’ perspectives for the facilitation of parenting programmes. Children & Society, 17, 32–44. O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and the rationalities of government. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Thomas, H., Camiletti, Y., Cava, M., Feldman, R., Underwood, J., & Wade, K. (1999). Effectiveness of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcome. Effective Public Health Practice Project. Toronto: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health. West, A., Mitchell, L., & Murphy, T. (2013). Implementing evidence-based parenting programmes in a small sample of English urban local authorities: Eligibility, fidelity and intensity. Children & Society, 27, 471–483.

CHAPTER 7 The Importance of the Right Environment to Share Parenting Experiences with Other Parents Abstract This chapter captures the final theme that developed from my study, where parents reported that one of the most important aspects of the parenting programme was the opportunity to meet, share with and learn from other parents. This demonstrates how trainers were successfully adopting a Transplant model of parent-professional practice, creating the right environment for parents to share information and then build on that existing knowledge. Keywords Parenting programme · Learning environment · Transplant Model · Triple-P · The Incredible Years · PEEP This chapter discusses the significance of the right parenting programme environment , one in which participants are encouraged to share parenting experiences with other parents—what aspects of the environment did the parents consider to be particularly important? The last, but perhaps the most surprising and encouraging theme that developed from my analysis of parents’ data was the importance of the right learning environment. What I’m talking about here is the way in which the parenting programme was delivered, how the trainer approached the subject, and how the parents taking part were made to feel, rather than, say, the details of the venue in which the course was © The Author(s), under exclusive license to 109 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_7

110 K. SMART held. With this in mind I found that what parents were telling me could be summarised into three phases: the recognition of the importance of parents’ pre-existing knowledge; the facilitation of the sharing of this knowledge with other parents; the building on this knowledge-base by application of a Transplant as opposed to an Expert model of parent- professional practice. In this chapter I’ll be using the parents’ voices to explain more about what I mean by each of these three phases. This was one of the key themes that developed from the parents’ interviews to help answer my first research question, and a particularly noteworthy theme; the parents’ perception that the environment needs to be right to share parenting experiences with other parents. This theme developed from seven of the parents’ interviews making this an especially important aspect of the parenting programme. The parents talked about the importance of a number of factors such as friendly, approachable and helpful staff; a clean and safe place for children to play; the structure and calmness of group and being able to spend quality time with their child—all of which contributed to an environment in which they could get together to share experiences and ideas. Without this opportunity they could feel isolated, as if they are the only one who was experiencing these difficulties and, in some cases, even doubt their abilities to be a good parent. This was a particularly interesting finding as the importance of the environment where the parenting programme is delivered was not an area that was discussed in the literature. One key aspect of this theme was having the right environment to talk to and learn from other parents. The Government had specific targets at whom they aimed these programmes, fathers, teenage mothers and parents with low socio-economic status, and although all the programmes I attended actively encouraged participation from each of these targeted groups they did however also allow parents who did not come under any of these specific categories to attend. From what I saw and heard from the parents, this wider and more inclusive approach to attendance created a much more fertile environment in which a broader range of parental experiences were brought together to be shared for the benefit of all. This new knowledge of the importance the parents place on the trainers creating the right environment is especially valuable as it could help trainers in ensuring that they are creating a space where parents want to come to and don’t feel threatened or undermined in their role.

7 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT … 111 What the Parents Say To ensure that I had parents representing all the government targeted groups (fathers, teenage mothers and parents with low socio-economic status) in the interview phase of my research, I included a series of demo- graphic questions on the pre-programme questionnaire. You will note a representation from all the demographic groups in the quotations below; all adding evidence to the importance of the right environment to share parenting experiences. A key element in creating the right atmosphere where parents feel comfortable and safe to share their experiences is the staff. One parent wrote on her post-programme questionnaire: The staff have been amazing and the structure has been really good. PEEP (Q-post) Another added: Chatting to the staff and other parents regarding everything from sleep to diet, behaviour etc. PEEP (Q-post) A year after the first interview Jacob still remembered the value of being able to talk to other parents: I think you can kind of just exchange ideas and just be comforted to know that everybody’s just got the same problems. This was a common theme that was evident both in the questionnaires and during the interviews. For some parents having the right environment gave them somewhere to go where they could meet other parents: PEEP was hugely beneficial to both Lily and me. Always stimulating and friendly. Much of Lily’s childcare has always fallen to me due to my wife’s severe illnesses since Lily’s birth. Organised groups were fun in themselves and also gave me good contact with other parents. PEEP (Q-year) For many parents, not just dads, the parenting groups might be the only time they get to meet other parents. This was especially the case

112 K. SMART with PEEP parents who did not have an older child as they would not get to meet other parents at the school gate. For some parents these sessions could become a lifeline to help them through some very difficult times: Making friends as I suffered from postnatal depression. PEEP (Q-post) Although not one of the government’s specific targets, it was recog- nised by professionals working with parents that mothers suffering from postnatal depression could also benefit from joining a parenting programme. As this was a particularly sensitive area to include on a ques- tionnaire, and as it was not the focus of my research, I did not incorporate any questions either on the questionnaire or in the semi-structured inter- view schedule around mental health. However a couple of parents shared how attending a parenting programme helped support them during this difficult time. Meeting and sharing parenting experiences with other parents is so very important in supporting mums and dads through some very difficult times. Having the trainer can also mean that vital help can be signposted. Attending a session with other mothers with children of a similar age to my son to talk through concerns. PEEP (Q-post) That I am not the only one with dealing with sharing and tantrums. PEEP (Q-post) Meeting new people. Sometimes I thought I was not good with my children, I trying. PEEP (Q-post) Making new friends and discussing how people deal with different situations that arise with the child. PEEP (Q-post) Emma, a young mother of two, found that by talking to other parents she was able to add to her toolkit of strategies in managing her children’s behaviour:

7 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT … 113 …for me speaking to other adults has helped me as well because I have learnt like different ways to manage their behaviour and stuff, and obvi- ously at that age like to put rules down and I learnt and feel more confident and that. For many parents the analysis of the data suggests that without groups where they can get together to share experiences and ideas, they could feel isolated, as if they are the only one who is experiencing these difficulties and, in some cases, even doubt their abilities to be a good parent. For Jacob, his wife worked from home and was the main wage earner. Jacob home tutored his sons and looked after the main household chores. He shared that if it was not for attending the children’s centre he “wouldn’t see anybody during the day”. Jacob went on to say that the PEEP group was a “calmer group, there’s more opportunity to talk to each other” and for Jacob this was one of the three key themes that developed from his interview, being able to share and talk to other parents: …but at this group the people talk to each other more so I think that’s an important thing about coming to these groups as well, for the parents to get out and talk to each other as well as children. Adelajda also felt that the PEEP group was an important part of her weekly routine: If it wasn’t for groups like that I would be just at home because I cannot afford to pay for, I dunno, softplace every day, it’s horrendous it’s like £7 now. So this is great, this is for free, it’s always open. For Adelajda she found talking to other parents especially valuable, having come from Eastern Europe she did not have any family nearby so turned to these sessions to extend her knowledge around child develop- ment and also the English school system. As a primary school teacher I have found parents who have moved to England often find our school system very different from that in their own countries and their own childhood experience; unless a relationship between the parent and the educational setting has been developed this can be overlooked.

114 K. SMART What This Tells Us Having the right environment to share information with other parents was a recurring theme across all three parenting programmes. The data suggest one of the most important benefits of attending a parenting programme is the meeting, sharing, talking and learning from other parents. Seven out of the eight parents’ data had this as a devel- oping theme, despite there being no questions specifically asking whether parental interaction was an important aspect of the parenting programme. The one exception was Ava, a grandmother who attended the programme with her daughter Olivia (a mother of four children); although this theme did not develop from the analysis of Ava’s interview, she did however comment that she would have welcomed the opportunity to have attended a parenting programme when her own children were young. It is interesting to note that this theme, the importance of other parents on the programme, was not found to diminish the role of the parenting programme trainer. The parents recognised the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times in addition to providing general parenting advice and informa- tion. Concerns expressed in the literature around parenting programmes being regarded as an Expert model (Cunningham and Davis 1985) with parents being told what to do by the parent programme trainer, was not evident in my research. Conversely the data strongly suggest that the parenting programmes I studied fall within the domain of being a Trans- plant model, with parents and parenting programme trainers working in partnership. Further analysis of the parents’ post-programme interviews revealed other aspects of parental preference regarding the environment in which the programme was delivered. Interestingly for Olivia, reflecting back on what elements she would have liked from a parenting programme which she could have attended when her children were toddlers, she was quite adamant that she would have preferred for it to be held in a village or church hall rather than a children’s centre. This was quite contrary to all the parents I spoke to who attended a PEEP group, not just in the post-programme interviews but also during the groups I visited. This could suggest that perhaps Olivia had a negative previous experience or her preconception of a children’s or family centre was not a positive one. Interestingly Ava, Olivia’s mother, also agreed that had she had the opportunity to attend a group with her children when they

7 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT … 115 were toddlers, she would have preferred a village or church hall, however she gave no indication that she had recently visited a children’s centre. Were the daughter’s views regarding a children’s centre those passed on from the mother, or had the daughter passed on a negative experience to the mother? This aspect, the nature of the course setting, could be an area for further exploration in a follow-on study, with parents who attend parenting groups held in children’s centres or alternative venues. Another important point raised by Isabella was around who could access the programme: …if you come from a particular socio-economic group there will be support there for you; if you come from different socio-economic groups you are not perceived as requiring any support and there are not any issues. She was not the only parent who raised this as an issue: If you have got enough money coming in and got enough things you’re meant to be able to just kinda, sometimes I just feel like you just get on with it. Where’s if I was someone who had more issues kinda going on I would get more support of how to bring up my child. Sophia From the interviews we can conclude that parents value parenting programmes as an opportunity for them to meet and share informa- tion with other parents at least as much as they appreciate them for their intrinsic educational value. Additionally for some parents, particu- larly those with preschool children, it might be the only opportunity they get to interact with other parents and indeed “get out of the house”. For The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes, parents in most cases attend because they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and by the end of the programme they have developed a toolkit of strategies to support them. For PEEP parents the suggestion is it is more about going to a toddler group to meet other parents, play with their child and for their child to socialise. However from talking to parents and analysing the data it seems that they come away with much more; they have learnt about child development, the importance of sharing stories and rhymes, healthy eating and a myriad of other topics that are covered in the programme. Parents value the role of the trainers in creating the right environ- ment: trainers need to be friendly, approachable, non-judgemental and

116 K. SMART helpful. Parents feel that trainers create the right environment where they can share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of the group. It is the interaction with the other parents on the programme that is particularly important to them. During my research I witnessed the effects of Government and local authority withdrawal of funding, resulting in a complete or partial reduc- tion in parenting programmes offered. First, funding for PSAs was withdrawn resulting in a dramatic reduction in parenting programmes being offered to parents of school-aged children. For many of the chil- dren’s centres which were still able to offer parenting programmes, this meant that the groups they ran had to be restructured so that they were now predominantly for targeted parents—specifically parents living in areas of socio-economic deprivation, teenaged parents and fathers. The danger of this is that the perception of children’s centres and parenting programmes could return to the view that they are there for “failing” parents, an erroneous view that I have found has taken years to over- come since the roll out of Phase One children’s centres which were built only in disadvantaged areas. During my time as a local authority Parent Support and Children’s Centre Advisor, and throughout this research, I witnessed how hard children’s centre staff had worked to counter this image. From the one-year-on questionnaire data and my more recent visits to children’s centres, it was quite apparent that parents were well aware of the changes that were happening in their area. This process of reduction and re-targeting of parenting programmes will not only limit the attendance of middle-class parents, who for some reason are viewed as not needing parenting support, but would also discourage targeted parents who do not want to be viewed as failing in their role. This will result in a negative change to the environment for parents, which they value so highly, to one in which they can no longer benefit so much from sharing information with other parents. During one of my last visits to a group for this research I met two parents who had previously been to and enjoyed attending a PEEP group with their older children, and had found it incredibly difficult to find one to go to with their younger children. In another group attended by a mix of mothers and fathers, cut-backs meant that the children’s centre decided to close this group and replace it with a fathers-only group. Sophia, one of the parents I interviewed, met with one of the fathers from the group they both used to attend and asked how he found the new group; his reply was “like tumbleweed”, with the new fathers-only group apparently

7 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT … 117 suffering from very low numbers and limited group interaction. Maybe this group grew since I carried out that interview and maybe more fathers attended, but what happened to all the mothers and their children? None of the fathers had asked for a specific group for them, no-one asked them if they wanted it, Government funding and targets had simply dictated it. From the one-year-on questionnaire responses it was evident that the parents who could no-longer attend these targeted groups struggled to find PEEP groups that they were able to attend. To summarise, there are two key findings from this theme that address my first research question about parents views of the parenting programme process: firstly how parents valued the role of the trainers in creating the right environment, where they could share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of a parenting group; secondly how parents valued the role of other parents on the programme. Importantly, although the perspectives and experiences of other parents were viewed as a critical element of the programme, this was not found to diminish the role of the parenting programme trainer. Seven out of the eight parents interviewed recognised the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times in addition to providing general parenting advice and information. The parents spoke positively of their experience of attending a parenting programme and considered that they worked in partnership with the trainers rather than being told what they should or should not be doing. I would like to emphasise this point because it suggests trainers are not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and Davis’ Expert model, but rather are working in partnership with parents as in their Transplant Model. For one particular PEEP group I visited, it could be suggested that they had gone one step further and were moving towards the Consumer model where participants choose what they want included in their session, as there was provision for parents to suggest what topics were covered in the group. This is important because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than disempowered by being made to feel inadequate as suggested could be the case (Cottam and Espie 2014). This also indicates that the concerns raised by Crozier (1998), whereby trainers view themselves as the expert and have a deficit view of the parents, may have been successfully overcome—at least on the programmes which formed part of my research. Consequently, as a result of adopting this Transplant model, trainers are reporting that parents are

118 K. SMART leaving the course with increased confidence, not only in parenting but also in other aspects of their lives. References Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477. Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy, 13, 125–136. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

CHAPTER 8 Discussion and Conclusion Abstract This final chapter revisits the key findings from my research, presenting them in the context of the existing literature and my own expe- rience, and proposes that parenting programmes are an effective example of the Transplant model of parent-professional practice. Additionally, I go on to highlight some key components of my methodology which I feel can be beneficial to other social science researchers. Keywords Parenting programme · Transplant model · Learning environment · Family engagement · Critical realism · Social science What I’ve learned, what went well, what this means and what we can do next. In this, the last, chapter I will summarise the key findings from my research. This doesn’t just include the specific answers to my research questions, but also relates to how my research is part of a bigger picture. With that in mind I will organise my findings into three distinct categories. Firstly, I will summarise what the parents thought about the parenting programmes. Secondly, I will propose how parenting programmes are a real-world example of a Transplant model in practice. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to 119 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_8

120 K. SMART And finally, I will look at ways in which elements of my methodology can be applied more widely within the context of general social science research. In the first section I will be discussing what the parents thought about the parenting programmes in the context of my second and third research questions: • What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme? • From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children? I will discuss how these questions are addressed by the key findings from my study, in the context of other relevant literature and my own professional experience. What Parents Thought About the Impact of Parenting Programmes Research Question 2: Parents’ Views Regarding Parental Changes Addressing my second research question, we can see from Chapter 3 that parents reported positive changes in parental behaviour, especially the effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management strate- gies, along with increased parental confidence. This was seen to also impact other aspects of their lives, including giving parents the confidence to approach their child’s school with concerns or going on to further training to develop their career, all of which will have a direct impact on the child. This outcome aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model (1979), whereby factors with which the child does not directly interact can still have an impact on them. In the context of my study, Bron- fenbrenner’s exosystem would include the two parenting programmes where the child does not attend with their parent: The Incredible Years and Triple-P . According to Bronfenbrenner, interactions within the exosystem, in this case between parents and trainers, have the poten- tial to indirectly impact the child through induced changes in parental approach, attitude and behaviour. Although the child does not attend the sessions, the strategies parents are learning and using at home are

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 121 having a positive impact on their child and their family. Similarly, the PEEP programmes would fall into Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem, where the parents and trainers interact with each other and also directly with the child. Here the parents are interacting with the trainers, growing their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies, and then using what they have learnt not only during group sessions but also at home. My findings add further support to the evidence (Coren and Barlow 2009; Al-Hassan and Lansford 2011; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012) that parenting programmes can be successful in encouraging the learning and adoption of new parenting skills and strategies. One key parenting skill reported by parents in my research was the use of positive parenting techniques to manage children’s behaviour; strategies included verbal praise, kindness chart, listening to their child, negotiation and providing options. Additionally, parents reported a new understanding on the value of play in their child’s development. The outcome of this new knowledge has led to parents reporting changes around the time and activities they share with their child; these included sharing stories, singing, cooking and playing with their child. My research also demon- strated two key outcomes arising from the adoption of these positive parenting strategies: firstly an improved parent–child relationship, again echoing the findings of Coren and Barlow (2009); secondly a reported increase in general parental confidence, supporting the findings of Manby (2005) who reported improvements in parental confidence as they were able to successfully apply strategies to address their children’s behaviour. In addition to the learning of new parenting skills, my findings demon- strated that parents were also learning more about child development and the importance of the role they play in this area. This supports the earlier findings of Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011). The subsequent parental behavioural changes reflect how an increased understanding of their child’s development can help improve their parenting skills; in partic- ular it helps them to create a safer and more stimulating environment within which their child can thrive. This ranged from an understanding of healthy eating and physical play to the value of singing, reading stories and playing even with the very youngest infants. From my professional experience I have found that most parents want to do their best for their child; this is further supported by them agreeing to or choosing to attend a parenting programme, often to help them develop their knowledge around child development and positive

122 K. SMART parenting strategies. I have also found in the years that I have been in the education system, specifically early years and primary, that working in partnership with parents and respecting their knowledge as a parent, helps encourage them to develop their parenting skills. There have been many occasions where I have found parents wanting to do their very best for their child but not knowing how to go about it and have welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with me to help improve their knowl- edge in this area. This is supported by Crittenden (2005) who agrees that parents have a desire to do the right thing but sometimes do not know how. My findings relating to this research question demonstrate that parents are adopting positive strategies learnt on the programmes and are becoming more confident in their role. This is important because it demonstrates how the desire of parents to do their best for their child is being met by the parenting programmes; they are being supported in improving their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies resulting in increased parental confidence. Research Question 3: Parents’ Views on the Impact to the Children Key to my research has been the role the parents play in their child’s devel- opment and this maps to the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model, the microsystem, which represents the immediate environ- ment surrounding the child. In the context of my research, this level maps primarily to include the child’s interaction with their parents, although for those who attend the PEEP programmes this would also include the exchanges between the trainer and child during the programme sessions. It is through the interactions between the layers in this model, from the exosystem through the mesosystem to the microsystem, that the parenting programme can be seen to have an impact on the children of the parents attending. Answering this third research question, two key outcomes regarding impact on the child are identified: an improved relationship with their parent (Chapter 4) and an increased degree of school readiness (Chapter 5). The first of these is facilitated and supported by the parent learning new skills and strategies coupled with them spending more quality time together. Adoption of strategies learnt on the programme is found to be contributing to an improved bond between parent and child, with their relationship being reported as happier, less stressful and more constructive. This is another key outcome of attendance on a parenting

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 123 programme and further supports the findings of Simonicˇ and Poljanec (2014) who researched mothers’ views having attended a young mother’s group. This outcome is important to note because this improved relation- ship feeds back into promoting the child’s behaviour and confidence, and indirectly increases their school readiness. Improvement in school readiness is the second notable outcome for children; an increase in positive parenting skills and parental knowledge of child development can lead to an improvement in the child being ready to start school. Examples of school readiness include language development, social development, confidence and behaviour. These are the foundations which will help support the child as they move into and subsequently through the education system. This finding supports Kiernan et al.’s (2008) research where the importance of the parents’ role in their child’s school readiness is recognised. Although the findings of this study are unable to capture any association between parenting programmes and educational attainment outcomes, the findings do demonstrate that having attended a parenting programme, parents are recognising the advantages of providing opportunities to promote their child’s develop- ment. This supports the findings of Hattie (2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the importance of parental engagement in the child’s developmental and lifelong learning outcomes, and also demon- strates that having attended a parenting programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of their engagement. This further advocates the value of the role of parenting programmes in improving child outcomes. From the literature review the suggestion is that parental engagement with a child’s education can have a positive impact on their behavioural, developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and Lucas 2015). From my own professional experience of teaching both in the early years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a child’s educa- tion can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes. A parental appreciation of child development can help lead to structured quality play opportunities for the child and is likely to promote a home envi- ronment where educational support is more forthcoming—a child raised in this environment often reaches developmental and educational mile- stones ahead of their peers. Hattie (2009) goes further and suggests that parental support could add the equivalent of an extra two to three years to the child’s education. These changes in parental behaviour and inter- actions with their child may not necessarily be seen by the parents as

124 K. SMART directly supporting their education, however from my professional expe- rience I have found that indirectly they are making a positive impact in this area. In the next section I will look at the findings that address my first research question: • What are the views of parents regarding the parenting programme? Specifically, I will focus on what the parents told me about the learning environment and how this enabled them to get the most out of the programmes. Parenting Programmes as a Real-World Example of a Transplant Model in Practice Research Question 1: Parents’ Views on Parenting Programmes My first research question was addressed by two key findings: firstly how parents valued the role of the trainers in creating the right environ- ment, where they could share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of a parenting group, and secondly how parents valued the role of other parents on the programme. It is however important to note that although the views and experiences of other parents were seen as a vital component of the programme, this did not reduce the importance of the role of the parenting programme trainer. The vast majority of the interviewed parents identified the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times as well as providing general parenting advice and information. The parents considered that they worked in partnership with the trainers rather than being dictated to. It is important that I highlight this point again because it suggests the trainers were not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and Davis’ Expert model, but rather were working in partnership with parents as in their Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985). As I mentioned in Chapter 7 for one of the PEEP groups I visited, it could be suggested that they had even gone one step further and were moving towards the Consumer model where parents were encouraged to choose what they want included in their session. This is important because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 125 approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than disem- powered as indicated in Cottam and Espie’s (2014) research. Further this also suggests that, for the programmes that formed part of my research, the concerns regarding trainers identifying themselves as the expert and having a deficit view of the parent were unfounded. As highlighted in Chapter 6 I anticipated that a number of themes, such as an improvement in children’s behaviour, would probably develop from the analysis of the data especially as they had been a focus of previous research. However what was particularly interesting from the interviews with the Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the programme. This is not only important because it would provide continuity and consis- tency in parenting and reduce family conflict but also because it was reported that for one parent to be perceived as the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting could place a strain on their relation- ship or possibly make the other parent feel disempowered. Interestingly the concerns raised in the literature review around Cunningham and Davis Expert model appear to apply more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship. Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model guided my research process. MELD took my research from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the percep- tions of parents through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the data with an acknowledgement of how absences and negative power are a vital part of the process regarding changes in parenting behaviours and child devel- opment; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at the whole picture through several perceptions, identifying themes that represent the totality. The key findings uncovered by my research, specifically the importance of the right learning and sharing environment and the value placed on whole family engagement in the parenting programme, have taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) providing us with new knowledge and under- standing. This new knowledge could be capitalised on in terms of the delivery of not only parenting programmes but also other parent focused initiatives through sharing groups rather than one-to-one interventions and by encouraging whole family engagement. I will now move on to the third stage of my conclusion and look at how elements of my methodology can provide valuable knowledge in a wider social science research context.

126 K. SMART How My Methodology Can Serve as an Example for General Social Science Research Critical Realism as a Philosophy As discussed in Chapter 4, an important strength of my research was how I used Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy Critical Realism to guide my research methodology. Ontologically I acknowledge that objects exist in and of themselves, independent of our knowledge of them. Additionally I recog- nise that our understanding of them might change over time, or between observers, but that the underlying reality remains constant. By collecting multiple perspectives, specifically different individuals, different methodologies, different times, in order to assemble a full picture of the “actual” events, leading to an understanding of the under- lying reality, aligned perfectly with Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism. DCR also offered me with a framework, MELD, to guide my method- ology to the desire of using the new knowledge and understanding of parenting programmes to pursue real change. Revisiting how my research fitted within the MELD framework, we can see how the parents’ views helped me reach 4D: • 1M was the start of the MELD process. Here I observed and collected the views of parents and trainers on the parenting programme process, changes in their parental behaviour and the impact on the child. I used these to help understand how each individual’s experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality. • 2E was where I identified what was the nature of the changes reported by parents, and recognised the nature of both becoming and “be-going”. I looked for what was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child development. I compared the data from the parents and trainers to see whether there were any contra- dictions in what they were saying. Although this book does not include the trainers’ perspectives this was an important element of my research as it provided triangulation to the data and promoted trustworthiness of the findings. The trainers’ views aligned with what the parents were reporting. • 3L is the point where I looked at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the parenting programme process. I examined

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 127 this totality through multiple time points, multiple views, both parents and trainers, and multiple methodologies (questionnaires and interviews). • 4D is the final stage where I am now using this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real change; I want to refocus the Government and local authorities’ attention to addressing these changes. By using Bhasker’s MELD I have taken individual parent’s perspec- tives, combined it with others, analysed it critically looking for deeper implications and meanings. To really embrace 4D and to pursue real change I now share the knowledge and understanding that I have gained with others, this book being one important example. I hope that by sharing how I used Bhaskar’s MELD to provide struc- ture to my methodology this will provide valuable knowledge to future researchers and professionals, and that it can act as a real example for how Critical Realism can be applied within social science research. Maximising Participation Through Anonymity and Confidentiality An additional strength of my methodological approach is the technique I discussed in Chapter 5 for helping to increase questionnaire returns through anonymity, and I believe that it may provide new knowledge to the field of collecting longitudinal data, particularly from possibly vulner- able groups. By assigning index numbers to questionnaires and having the gatekeeper allocate a parent to an index, I guaranteed the parents anonymity whilst still providing a system to gather further data from them at a later date, thus allowing anonymous comparisons between pre-intervention and post-intervention data. Additionally, by providing envelopes in which the questionnaires were to be returned, I guaran- teed that the parents’ responses were kept confidential from the parent programme trainers. This combination of anonymity and confidentiality helped reduce any worries the parents may have had and so promoted participation. This novel approach will, I hope, support future researchers and professionals in maximising participation rates, especially amongst more vulnerable groups.

128 K. SMART Engaging to Maximise Participation Another particular strength of my questionnaire data collection was investing time to visit the parenting groupspersonally to introduce my research and spend time interacting with the parents and children. Although I emphasised that taking part in my research was completely voluntary and that there would be no negative implications if they did not, the questionnaire returns from these visits were almost 100%. One of the poorest responses I had was from a Baby PEEP group where there were 19 parents with their babies, all moving around various rooms to complete activities between feeding their babies; it was a particularly hectic session for the trainers and there was understandably little oppor- tunity for parents to complete questionnaires, however I still received 16 (84%) completed forms. Although I offered a visit to all the groups taking part in my research, some of the trainers chose to tell their parents about my research them- selves; in these instances I provided a briefing sheet outlining my research. For these groups the returns were not so high. This could be attributed to a number of reasons: not being present meant that I was unable to provide any additional information to answer parents’ questions or address their particular concerns, and did not give me the opportunity to convey the enthusiasm I brought to my research when I talked about it. For one local authority, I visited a The Incredible Years group and received 100% returns on the pre-programme questionnaire. However for the post-programme questionnaire, and pre-programme questionnaire for subsequent groups, the local authority advisor decided that the trainers would co-ordinate the questionnaires on my behalf; the returns were very poor. This is impor- tant as it demonstrates that by investing time and going into groups to talk to parents and explain the value of the research, the level of parents’ engagement is increased and they are much more likely to complete the associated questionnaires. It is recognised and expected that for a longitu- dinal study there will be a natural loss of participants during the research (Robson 2002; Oppenheim 2005; Thomas 2009), so by maximising participant engagement at the start of the research process it is more likely that there will continue to be a sufficient number of participants taking part in the final stage of data collection.

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 129 Respecting the Data The final point I would like to emphasise is another particular strength of my research method, which was the combination of using open-ended questions in the questionnaires and interviews, coupled with the adoption of a thematic approach to analyse the data. This enabled parents to express their views in areas which I may not have considered as they had not arisen during my professional experience or during the literature review, and which could have easily been overlooked had I used different methods of collecting and analysing the data. This is important because it provided me with a more complete picture of the value parents have placed on being able to attend a parenting programme. To promote trustworthiness of the data I analysed responses from both parents and, although not discussed in this book, trainers on some common issues; this helped make my analysis more robust. This process of triangulation, in combination with coding of the data, helped minimise any biases in my interpretation which could potentially arise coming to this study with 30 plus years of professional experience. Methodolog- ical triangulation was achieved as results from the interview analysis were reinforced by considering questionnaire responses too. Braun and Clarke acknowledge that as a qualitative researcher you come with “identities and experiences” (Braun and Clarke 2013, p. 21) and do not consider that you should try to be rid of it but rather take account of it. It was important for me to look for indicators that bias might be creeping into the analysis and then influencing the rest of the research design; at any point where I considered this appeared to be happening it was necessary to step back and re-evaluate the analysis with a more objective perspective. I used this self-awareness to minimise any bias in my analysis. Working with recorded interviews is a time-consuming process. Having typed up the transcripts I embraced the familiarisation phase and devised nodes of data which I then cut out on strips of paper and physically moved around my dining room table, creating groups and then themes. Looking back at these nodes I can see effective initial coding identifying features of the data which eventually led to the development of the themes discussed in this book. I am confident that the themes that developed from the data are robust, supported by data collection from both parents and trainers. This stage took many weeks as I would step away from the data and then revisit it, looking through a fresh lens, making sure that I really captured the essence of what the parents said in the themes that I developed. As a

130 K. SMART result of this extended duration and the physical tactile nature of moving conversational snippets around in space, I became totally immersed in the data and far more familiar with it than I feel would have been possible in a purely digital environment. I urge researchers to respect their data and factor in sufficient time to properly analyse it. The danger of rushing this stage of the process is the researcher potentially “cherry picking” the themes that they expected, or even worse mistakenly imposing their own meaning on what has been said. As researchers it is important that we demonstrate rigour and trust- worthiness in our analysis. Stepping away and giving time before revisiting the data again can help to minimise biases and promote objectivity in the analysis. Current Parenting Programme Availability Although the Government policy of introducing parenting programmes provision may appear to be removed from the child, in that the child is not the direct recipient of the programme, my research has shown that it can still have an impact on them. This aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model, where the interactions within and between the macrosystem, exosystem and mesosystem have an ultimate impact on the microsystem. What becomes evident from my research is the causal relationship between Government policy focus, funding of parenting programmes, parents attending those programmes, parents applying the knowledge and strategies learnt at home—and how this interplay between the levels can impact the child. This is important because changes in Government focus frequently lead to a change in where funding is allocated: Following the evaluation of the PEIP the government decided to fund a further roll out across all 150 LAs in England, the Parenting Early Inter- vention Programme (2008-2011). One of the roles expected to be fulfilled by PSAs was to support the delivery of parenting programmes. (Lindsay et al. 2009, p. 22) From the themes that developed through my research, there is a clear overlap around several aspects of the parenting programmes including changes in parental behaviours and the associated positive impact on the child. What can be concluded is that almost all parents are reporting a

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 131 positive impact for the parent, for the child and in many cases for the family of the parent attending the parenting programme. I would like to emphasise this point because it suggests that there is a real need for parenting programmes; a need that should be addressed across all parents and not just targeted at a specific group. I would agree with Field (2010) when he says: There is an increasing range of specific programmes aimed at disadvantaged families with young children which demonstrate that improvements can be made to the home learning environment, parenting, and child outcomes more widely. (Field 2010, p. 58) I would however suggest that this support should not only be offered to a limited group of targeted parents but that it should be universally available. The Government’s objective of targeting certain parents has imposed restrictions on trainers regarding how many parents they can accept who do not fall within these target groups—and these restrictions are becoming increasingly tight as further cuts are made to funding. Yet in my interviews, parents spontaneously commented on how they felt it important that the programmes need to be available to all parents; the need for practical parenting skills is universal and not just confined to specific target groups. Back in 2011, a UK Government report from the House of Commons Education Committee stated that: The Sure Start programme as a whole is one of the most innovative and ambitious Government initiatives of the past two decades. We have heard almost no negative comment about its intentions and principles; it has been solidly based on evidence that the early years are when the greatest difference can be made to a child’s life chances, and in many areas it has successfully cut through the silos that so often bedevil public service delivery. Children’s Centres are a substantial investment with a sound ratio- nale, and it is vital that this investment is allowed to bear fruit over the long term. (House of Commons 2011, p. 4) And yet throughout this research I watched the acceleration of cuts to Government and local authority funding. Millions of pounds had been invested across the country in children’s centre builds and training staff

132 K. SMART and yet within only a few years these centres were being closed down (Sylva et al. 2015). The result was that closures to children’s centres impacted on the very families that the Government and local authorities said they were trying to support; these families are now expected to travel further to access centres. One head-teacher whose school is considered to be in a more deprived area shared that her families will simply not cross town to access a group. In December 2015 (BBC 2015) a county council in the south-west of the UK released its plans to close half of its 30 children’s centres. In the same article one of its local authorities announced that it proposed to close its last five remaining children’s centres; there had been 14 in 2013. The resulting consultation with local parents in January 2016 demonstrated that there was overwhelming support to keep the children’s centres open (Smith 2016). Despite pleas from parents, in February 2016 it was announced (BBC 2016) that all five children’s centres, along with their parenting classes and support groups, would be closing. Services to support vulnerable children would now be through health visitors and home visits. This directly contradicts one of the key findings from my research where parents reported the importance of parents being able to get together and share their experiences in a friendly and supportive envi- ronment. In addition to learning parenting skills, parents, both mothers and fathers, shared stories of how attending a group had: helped them cope with postnatal depression; make new friends; improve their rela- tionship with their child; realise that they were not the only one with questions around parenting. There were reports that without the group they would be isolated and not see anyone all day. The recommendations from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2006) provide further supporting evidence of the importance of group-based parenting programmes rather than individual-based programmes. It is essential to maintain offering parenting support within a group environment; this was one of the most important themes arising from my research, and empha- sises the value that parents place on sharing experiences and knowledge with other parents. The important points here, based on the evidence from my research, are that funding needs to be restored for community-based parenting programmes and that the programmes need to be made more universally available.

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 133 Conclusion The purpose of this research was to provide parents the opportunity to express their views on parenting programmes; this is also the strength of this study. The reason for this book was to make sure those voices were heard. This is important as my research gave parents the opportu- nity to express what they thought of the parenting programme process, whether they considered there had been any changes in their parenting since attending a course and whether they felt it had benefitted their child—an opportunity that had been seriously neglected. I think it is important to emphasise again that the methodolog- ical strategy that I developed meant that parents were provided with the opportunity to complete questionnaires anonymously thereby not only maximising participation, whilst still being able to collect data over multiple time points, but also promoting honest views. Parents were also given the chance to speak freely at interviews knowing that their identity would not be disclosed. I made it clear when introducing my research that I was not trying to advocate or promote parenting programmes I simply wanted to hear their perspectives. There was no indication from any of the parents that they felt disempowered since attending the programme, on the contrary parents reported feeling more confident. Positive outcomes reported by parents have included a better under- standing of supporting their child’s development, spending more quality time with their child and an improved parent-child relationship. From my own professional experience I would suggest that a positive parent–child interaction is the key to promoting the child’s educational, behavioural and developmental outcomes. My research has also highlighted some valuable new knowledge regarding the delivery of parenting programmes and similar initiatives, re-iterating the importance of the Transplant model. Information is best delivered in an environment which acknowledges and builds on parents’ pre-existing knowledge and skills, allowing them to share with others whilst embracing the new ideas being presented on the programme. I have also uncovered the importance of whole family engagement in such initiatives; the most effective dissemination of information needs to reach into the whole family and not just attempt to create a single expert within the household. It is important that these aspects of my findings are taken into consideration by local authorities and other organisations when designing and delivering parent-facing programmes.

134 K. SMART In conclusion, given the right learning environment, parenting programmes can offer a successful route to increasing parental knowledge on child development as well as introducing strategies and techniques to support and promote the child’s behaviour, development, school readi- ness and education. This increase in parental knowledge and subsequent change in parental behaviour often results in a more harmonious home atmosphere, an improved parent–child relationship and a more supportive home learning environment. I hope my research and this book help to promote the principle that the evaluation of a policy or intervention needs to consider the impact on the individuals concerned and that it is important to spend time to actually listen to what they say. References Al-Hassan, S. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Evaluation of the better parenting programme in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598. BBC. (2015). Swindon council set to close all its children centres [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-34983055. Accessed 1st April 2016. BBC. (2016). Swindon budget: Children centres axed as council tax rises [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-356 66916. Accessed 1st April 2016. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn. Carmarthen, UK: Crown House Publishing. Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477. Crittenden, P. M. (2005). Attachment and Cognitive Psychotherapy International Congress on cognitive psychotherapy. Sweden: Gøtengorg. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with Parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 135 Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and New York: Routledge. House of Commons. (2011). Sure start children’s centres: Government response to the fifth report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 119–144. Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Inter- vention Programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick. Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton Parent- Child Videotape Series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001–2002. Children and Society, 19, 316–328. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2006). Parent training/education programmes in the management of children with conduct disorders. London: A Health Technology appraisal. Oppenheim, A. N. (2005). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Simonicˇ, B., & Poljanec, A. (2014). Building motherhood in the young mothers’ group. Child Care in Practice, 20, 270–285. Smith, S. (2016). Desperate parents plead with council not to close children’s centres [Online]. Available: http://m.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/142

136 K. SMART 18326.Desperate_parents_plead_with_council_not_to_close_childrens_cen tres/. Accessed 1st April 2016. Sylva, K., Goff, J., Eisenstadt, N., Smith, T., Hall, J., & Evangelou, M. (2015). Organisation, services and reach of children’s centres. Oxford: University of Oxford. Thomas, G. (2009). How to do Your Research Project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. London: Sage.

Index A Braun, Virginia, 29, 30, 105, 129 Abouchaar, Alberto, 2, 5, 7, 36, 42, Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 37–39, 58, 72, 80, 82, 83, 94, 123 83, 85, 120–122, 130 achievement, 2, 3, 42, 46, 81 Ainsworth, Mary, 8, 43, 64 C anonymity, 23, 47, 78, 79, 127, 133 child development, 1, 3, 5–7, 12, anonymous. See anonymity attachment, 8, 21, 42, 64, 65 21, 25, 27, 36–41, 43–45, 49, attainment, 2–5, 7, 21, 40, 45, 65, 56–59, 65, 72, 73, 79, 80, 83–85, 94, 101, 105, 113, 115, 79–81, 83–85, 93, 94, 123 121–123, 125, 126, 133, 134 attendance, 3, 18, 41, 72, 84, 89, 99, childminders, 98 children’s centres, 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, 110, 116, 122 22, 28, 115, 116, 132 children’s development. See child B development basic needs of a child, 2, 36 Clarke, Victoria, 29, 30, 105, 129 behaviour, 3, 7, 24, 27, 28, 41, Claxton, Guy, 84, 85, 94, 123 cognitive, 4, 5, 36, 84 43–45, 48, 51–58, 64–67, confidence, 24, 25, 36, 42–44, 46, 73, 80, 87–89, 93, 94, 98, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 73, 85, 86, 104, 111–113, 115, 120, 121, 88, 90–93, 118, 120–123 123–125, 134 confidential. See confidentiality Bhaskar, Roy, 9–12, 73, 74, 105, confidentiality, 47, 78, 79, 127 125–127 Consumer Model, 99, 117, 124 boundaries, 4, 36 Bowlby, John, 8, 64 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive 137 license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9

138 INDEX Critical Realism, 9–13, 73, 74, 126, environment, 5, 6, 14, 28, 32, 36–38, 127 41, 44, 45, 48, 59, 72, 84, 93, 109–111, 114–117, 121, 122, Actual, 10 124, 125, 130–134 Empirical, 10 epistemic fallacy, 11, 12 epistemological, 11, 73 Real, 9–11 exosystem, 37, 38, 58, 72, 120, 122, underlying reality, 9, 11, 12, 73, 130 105, 126 expert, 98, 101, 105, 117, 124, 125, cultural, 36, 38, 98, 99 133 Eastern Europe, 68, 113 Expert Model, 99, 100, 105, 110, Cunningham, Cliff, 99, 100, 105, 114, 117, 124, 125 114, 117, 124, 125 F D family, 2, 14, 20–22, 27, 32, 37–39, dad. See father Davis, Hilton, 99, 100, 105, 114, 57, 58, 64, 65, 82, 83, 87, 97, 98, 101–105, 113, 114, 121, 117, 124, 125 125, 131, 133 deductive, 29 whole family engagement, 98, 102, deficit model, 100 Desforges, Charles, 2, 5, 7, 25, 36, 105, 125 father, 4, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30, 40, 42, 80, 82, 83, 94, 123 Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), 53, 98, 103, 110–112, 116, 117, 132 73, 126. See also MELD fathers’ group, 18, 24, 26 disadvantaged, 6, 20, 21, 45, 83, 116, Field, Frank, 6, 18, 21, 22, 36, 131 131 G disempowered, 101, 105, 117, 125, gatekeeper, 78, 127 Goodall, Janet, 4, 5, 25, 42, 80, 81, 133 disempowering. See disempowered 83, 94, 100, 123 domestic violence, 8 good parenting, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41 Government policy, 20, 130 E grandparents, 98 early years, 6, 41, 59, 94, 122, 123, group-based, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47, 66, 131 106, 110, 111, 116, 121, 125, Early Years Foundation Stage, 80, 93 132 ecological system model. See ecological H systems theory Harris, Alma, 4, 25, 80, 81, 94, 123 ecological systems theory, 37, 38, 58, Hattie, John, 80–82, 84, 94, 123 home environment, 81, 84, 106, 134 72, 120, 122, 130 home learning, 5, 6, 36, 45, 131, 134 emotional, 4, 5, 7, 36, 43, 45, 80, 93, 100 engagement. See parental engagement

INDEX 139 I totality, 11–13, 73, 105, 125–127 Incredible Years. See The Incredible mental health, 8, 83, 112 Years postnatal depression, 112, 132 The Incredible Years, 7, 18, 19, 23, mesosystem, 37–39, 58, 72, 121, 122, 26, 27, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 130 55, 57, 58, 66, 71, 87–89, 93, microsystem, 37–39, 72, 85, 99, 122, 97–99, 102–106, 115, 120, 125, 128 130 inductive, 29 mixed methods, 22 interviews, 9, 13, 17, 22, 24, 27–29, mother, 3, 4, 8, 18–21, 27, 28, 31, 47, 49, 55, 74, 90, 98, 104, 105, 110, 111, 114, 115, 125, 38, 40, 41, 43, 49, 51–53, 127, 129, 131, 133 56, 64–66, 70, 72, 82, 91, 97, involvement. See parental involvement 102–104, 112, 114, 116, 117, 123, 132 mum. See mother K N Key Stage 1, 103 nursery, 20, 23, 27, 28, 37, 86, 103 L O learning environment, 36, 44, 134 one-year-on, 9, 24, 46, 47, 53, 56, longitudinal, 7, 24, 40, 46, 79, 93, 67, 69, 90, 91, 103, 116, 117 127, 128 ontological, 9–12, 73, 126 Lucas, Bill, 84, 85, 94, 123 ontologically. See ontological M P macrosystem, 37, 38, 130 parent–child, 2, 4, 7, 36, 41, 42, 44, Meadows, Sara, 20, 38 MELD, 11, 12, 73, 74, 105, 125–127 45, 58, 65, 80, 101, 121, 134 parental behaviour, 7, 9, 12, 24, 58, absences, 11, 105, 125 be-going, 12, 73, 126 67, 73, 101, 120, 126, 134 First Moment, 11, 12, 73, 105, parental confidence, 42–44, 46, 56, 125, 126 59, 121 Fourth Dimension, 12, 13, 73, 74, parental engagement, 2–5, 13, 22, 25, 105, 125–127 39, 42, 44, 80, 81, 83, 85, 94, negative power, 11, 105, 125 100, 123 positive power, 12 parental involvement, 2, 4, 5, 81 Second Edge, 11, 12, 73, 105, 125, parental knowledge, 41, 123, 134 parental support, 2, 81, 94, 123 126 parent-child, 38, 133 Third Level, 11–13, 73, 105, 125, parenting behaviour, 12, 40, 42, 51, 73, 105, 125, 126, 130 126