Abstract

     The existing evidence shows that parental engagement is one of the most effective educational interventions. Most parents, carers, and teachers are aware of that and wish to engage with their children’s education. However, most parents are still only peripherally involved through parent–teacher evenings, school activities, or by helping their children keep up with their homework. In this review paper, we summarize the evidence about the impact of parental engagement, as opposed to involvement, on the learning of children. Via that, we critically look at the design choice of most western mainstream public education systems to distance parents from their children’s education, which, as the review results indicate, can be detrimental to children’s learning. Based on these results, we reframe parental engagement in the light of two global shifts: (1) the implications of the school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic for the role of parents in their children’s learning; and (2) the increased use of educational technologies for learning, and specifically, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. We conclude by calling for a renewed conversation about parents’ and families’ roles in their children’s learning and their interface with schools and teachers.

Introduction

     The idea of a mandatory-attendance public education system based on out-of-home institutions called schools has its roots from at least the 16th century [1]. This initiated the daily routine of school-aged children exiting their homes every morning, leaving their parents, cultures, and familial beliefs behind to go into schools. Once there, they adhere to the schools’ standards of curriculum and conform to their behavioural schemas, rewards, and implications. This journey was, and still is, designed and realised by various stakeholders: such as governments, employers, religious institutions, industry leaders, and education policymakers [1], each with their own agenda, led by their own political, economic, or pedagogical interests, not all of which have to do with children’s wellbeing and learning.

     The original aims of national educational systems from around the world differed in time and location. These ranged from producing obedient soldiers in Prussia to efficient assembly line workers in the US during the 19th century, to eradicating the original culture of “first nation” children in Australia in the 20th century, and onto today’s national education systems in western countries such as the US and the UK, who strive to prepare young people as future members of a workforce, whose needs are hard to predict (see, for example [2,3]).

Concluding Remarks

     This review paper’s aim is to bring a non-systematic critical overview of the current state of research and practice around parents’ and carers’ roles in their children’s education. We do that by synthesizing the existing evidence in light of recent global shifts that are challenging the current design principles and opening new opportunities for radical changes in schooling–parents relationships. In this concluding section, we summarize our findings and provide recommendations.

     Most western governments and schools today would state that supporting their students’ wellbeing and effective learning are their first priority. Whether or not schools are best designed to support either is debatable, but what is evidentially clear is that actively engaged parents and pulling the learning experience away from being regulated solely within schools into a home–school–community continuum are what would most benefit children. School is just one element in every child’s ZPD, just one form of education out of many, and just one milestone in a life-long journey. Supportive parents, carers, families, and the community surrounding children shape and hold their ZPD way before school starts and are likely to play a significant role long after school ends. If we accept that at least some of our educational system’s aims are to support learners in developing self-regulated skills for learning, we should bring their ZPD “closer to home”. In normative and supportive homes reside those people who understand where the children are coming from, what they have gone through, whether they slept tight at night, and whether they had a nutritious breakfast in the morning. Moreover, the students themselves, with the support of their parents are eventually those who will be making decisions regarding their potential future. Therefore, if schools’ priority is children’s learning, it is essential that children’s ZPD space is integratively built on top of a partnership, and, in that, it would be influenced by those factors that are most personal and relevant to each child.