See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276263768

'Good' Parenting Practices: How Important are Poverty, Education and Time
Pressure?

Article in Sociology · January 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0038038514560260

CITATIONS READS

121 591

2 authors:

Esther Dermott Marco Pomati

University of Bristol Cardiff University
33 PUBLICATIONS 932 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 703 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Pomati on 27 October 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff University's institutional
repository: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/70848/

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted to / accepted for publication.

Citation for final published version:

Dermott, Esther and Pomati, Marco 2016. 'Good' parenting practices: how important are poverty,
education and time pressure? Sociology 50 (1) , pp. 125-142. 10.1177/0038038514560260 file

Publishers page: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038514560260

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038514560260>

Please note:
Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page
numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please
refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite
this paper.

This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See
http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications
made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders.
Title
Good pare ti g pra ti es: how important are poverty, education and time pressure?

Authors
Esther Dermott
Marco Pomati

Abstract
This paper examines how pa e ti g p a ti es popula l lassed as good are related
to economic disadvantage, education, and time pressure. Using the 2012 UK Poverty
and Social Exclusion (PSE) survey we argue that parenting practices such as reading,
playing games and eating meals together are not absent among those who are less
well educated, have lower incomes, or are more deprived of socially accepted
necessities: therefore, political lai s of idesp ead poo pa e ti g a e ispla ed.
Further, we suggest that the dominant trope of poor people being poor at parenting
may arise because the activities of the most educationally advantaged parents – who
do look different to the majority – are accepted as the benchmark against whom
others are assessed. This leads us to suggest that the renewed interest in sociological
research on elites should be extended to family life in order that the exceptionality
of the most privileged is recognised and analysed.

Key words
Class; concerted cultivation; education; home learning environment; income;
parenting; poverty; PSE 2012; time; troubled families

1
Introduction
Parenting is increasingly foregrounded in discussions of how to promote social
renewal (Jensen 2010:1) in order to ensure that children become active citizens of
the future. In current popular and political discourse it is parents who must take
responsibility for hild e s so ial, e otio al a d edu atio al su ess o failu e ; as
the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg phrased it in 2010 Pa e ts hold the fo tu es
of the hild e the i g i to this o ld i thei ha ds (The Telegraph, 18th
August). The association made between the actions of parents and outcomes for
hild e has justified the atego isatio of pa e ti g as a pu li health issue
O Co o a d “ ott :27) and poor parenting has therefore been identified as of
acute concern (Field 2010). However critiques of poor parenting have swiftly
transformed into criticism of poor parents, reproducing negative images of working
class families (Gillies 2008), and harking back to the cultural deficit theory in which
underachievement among the poor is deemed to be the fault of individuals, families
and communities (Gordon 2011). While a substantial body of qualitative work
documenting the difficulties of negotiating the demands of parenting on a limited
income does now exist (see Pemberton et al. 2013 for a review) there is little
quantitative work which examines whether poverty or education makes a difference
to pa e ts level of engagement in child-related activities, and it is this question
which our article addresses.

Parenting Culture
“ha o Ha s (1996) work, which introduced the adje ti e i te si e to des i e
expectations of mothers, has become the point of departure for discussions about
the discourse and practices of contemporary parenting culture. Her description of
this new era as requiring greater commitment in order to fulfil the obligations of
emotionally absorbing, labor-i te si e, a d fi a iall e pe si e mothering
(1996:8) also find form in less academic debate. Tige o s Chua , fo
e a ple, a e eithe a used of ei g o e l push i e ou agi g thei hild e to
take o ultiple e t a- u i ula a ti ities o lauded fo atte pti g to e su e thei
hild e s futu e, hile heli opte pa e ts a e iti ised fo ei g too losel
i ol ed a d p ote ti e of thei hild e The E o o ist . Recent sociologically
informed work has taken a largely critical stance against the observed intensification
of parenthood. Some suggest that a constant questioning of hethe pa e ts a e
doi g it ight has led to paranoia among parents (Furedi 2001). Mothe s – a d to a
lesse deg ee fathe s “hi a i et al. – are overly and unnecessarily worried as
increasingly parenting becomes all-consuming and intensely self-conscious (Lee et al.
2014; Nelson 2010). Reece (2013) argues that the endorsement of a model of
positi e pa e ti g as a response to the difficult task of contemporary parenting
leads to the destruction of spontaneous parent-child relationships and ultimately a
coercive model of constant reflection. Similarly, Hoffman (2010) suggests that the

2
task of p odu i g the esilie t hild a tuall leads to g eate so ial o t ol a d
conformity. Whilst the first wave of publications documenting this parenting cultural
script originated in the US, studies illustrating the psychological burden of parenting
have since drawn from a wide range of countries across Europe, North America and
beyond (see e.g. Faircloth et al. 2013).

Researchers have highlighted that dominant ideas of good parenthood derive largely
from middle-class perspectives (Klett-Davies 2010). Lareau (2003) in the US
de eloped the o ept of o e ted ulti atio to ha a te ise a iddle-class
orientation to parenthood, in cont ast to the atu al g o th ad o ated pa e ts
from working class backgrounds. Gewirtz (2001) argues that the publicly acceptable
version of contemporary good parenting has its origins in the values and behaviours
of a middle-class fraction, which values the i st u e tal a d i di idualisti , active
o su e 2001:374). Irwin and Elley (2011) add an important clarification in
arguing that there is significant diversity within the middle-class. Their research
shows that while some middle-class parents assume their children will have
educational success and are confident in their own ability to influence their
hild e s futu e if necessary, others, whose circumstances mean that success is less
taken for granted, demonstrate a more strategic orientation (2011:492). The range
of competencies and degree of commitment associated with o te po a good
parenting (Faircloth and Lee 2010; Gillies 2011) is illustrated through engagement in
practices which operate as markers of appropriate parenting. Many of these
activities – such as reading with children, helping with homework and visiting
museums – relate particularly to education (Reay 2010; Vincent et al. 2013).

UK policy context
Interest in parenting is strongly reflected in, and reinforced by, current political
debate. Concern with parenting practices was first explicitly raised in UK government
poli ith Keith Joseph s spee h o the le of dep i atio i Welsh an
2007), although the arrival of a Labour government in 1974 led to a shift in focus
with more attention on social and economic factors. The Conservative governments
of the 1980s and first half of the 1990s, emphasised the importance of household
form, with lone parents singled out for disapprobation. In the latter period of the
1990s under New Labour, the UK witnessed the previous focus on family structure
replaced by greater attention on practices, particularly those of parents; Williams
(2004) describes a policy shift away from partnering (couples) and towards
parenting. Gillies sees this era as involving repositioning family as a pu li athe
tha p i ate o e 2011:4.3) which provided a rationale for more direct state
intervention in family lives. This ranged from advice on parenting difficulties and
encouragement to engage in specific parent-child activities (such as reading with
children as suggested in the Department of Health Birth to Five booklet 2009)

3
through to, as Gillies (2012) describes, more coercive and authoritarian measures
which involve threats of fines and imprisonment for parents who do not comply. In
particular the linking of anti-social and criminal behaviour among children to an
absence of appropriate parenting was responsible for greater governmental
intervention to support, guide, admonish, and, in extremis, punish parents (Edwards
and Gillies 2004; Gillies 2011).

Since the new Conservative-led Coalition government took power in 2010 during a
period of global economic crisis and national recession, debate over how the
economy should be managed has been to the fore. As discussions about increased
poverty and widening inequality have re-emerged in the UK, so too has the
dominance of an individualized discourse to explain poverty. What is new is the
special status attributed to parenting in overcoming material disadvantage (Author
A). The Field Report (2010) which was commissioned by the government to develop
a strategy to add ess hild po e t e pli itl efe s to the ole of good pa e ti g
and otes at the outset that We i pe il the ou t s futu e if e fo get that it is
the aspirations and actions of parents which are critical to how well their children
p ospe Field : . Fu the , the role of material resources is actively
downplayed at the same time as parenting is promoted as the solution to social
p o le s; Something more fundamental than the scarcity of money is adversely
do i ati g the li es of these hild e Field : . And similarly, a government
commissioned report on developing effective interventions with families at risk of
multiple disadvantage stated that the ight ki d of pa e ti g is a igge i flue e o
thei [ hild e s] futu e tha ealth, lass, edu atio o a othe o o so ial
fa to Allen 2011:xiv). There is evidence of this prioritising and individualising of
parenting in other national contexts too. The widespread adoption of the T iple P
parenting support programme (across 25 countries) highlights that e te si e
efle tio , a d ulti atio of the ight pa e ti g p a ti es, is i easi gl o side ed
a e essit ‘ae ake s a d Va deza de .

It is this approach and tone which also underpins the high profile T ou led Fa ilies
programme launched in the UK in 2011. This initiative targets 120,000 families in
Britain who live troubled and chaotic lives (DWP 2012) by promoting direct
interventions through a key worker. As pointed out by Levitas (2012), the initial
method of classifying troubled families was based on measures of severe multiple
disadvantage (e.g a household with no parent in work, a parent with a long-standing
disability, or a low family income), that is, fa ilies ith t ou les who require
additional support. However, the government consciously conflates families who
have troubles with families who cause trouble, or to put it more colloquially
eigh ou s f o hell Le itas ; reflecting the current political tendency to
label the most disadvantaged in society as the cause of social harm.

4
Thus a combination of a general concern with the interiority of family lives, alongside
explicit UK policies which are placing particular attention on the parenting activities
of the most disadvantaged in society, at a time when similar discourses of parenting
are emerging across Europe and the Anglophone world, set the context for exploring
the relationship between poverty, education and parenting.

Methods
Measures of parenting
The te pa e ti g is ofte used as if it efe s to a si gle o ept, he it is eall a
multifaceted notion comprising parenting behaviours/styles; the quality of the
parent-child relationship; parenting activities; and more general caring activities (see
Author A for a longer discussion). Our focus here is specifically on parenting
practices, that is, direct parent-child activities. Practices are important because it is
th ough the doi g of fa il life that expectations and daily reality are constructed
(see Morgan 1996). It is also practices which have been referred to most prominently
in recent governmental, think-tank and media coverage of parenting. In this paper
we concentrate specifically on education related activities, joint leisure pursuits and
eating together.

Withi the UK the e is a o side a le fo us o pa e ts ole i the edu ation of their

children, based on the strong association made between parenting and outcomes for
children. Frank Field MP who authored the government report The Foundation Years
e phasises the ole of the ho e lea i g e i o e t fo hild e s futu e.
Following this, we captured the frequency with which parents engaged with some
activities that have been associated with educational success. We included
information about three activities; reading with your child or talking about their
reading, helping with or talking about homework, a d atte da e at pa e ts
evenings. Reading with children has become especially dominant as a marker of
good parenting: it is al ost u i e sall p ese t i o te po a ho to pa e t lists
(e.g. Paterson 2011) and there are numerous programmes encouraging parents to
ead ith thei hild e su h as ‘ead A oss A e i a a d Wo ld Book Da
(organised by UNESCO). This status is due to the particular link made between
reading to children and better development of literacy and numeracy skills, most
notably in the influential Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) report
(Sylva et al. 2004). Involvement with homework and atte da e at s hool pa e ts
evenings are measures of engagement with the school curriculum and hild e s
academic progress which are especially relevant as parents are increasingly
encouraged to become more involved in classroom activities and even the running of
schools (Desforges 2003).

5
We measured three leisure activities: playing games; sports; and watching television.
Playing together is o e of the easu es i luded as a a ke of a positi e ho e
lea i g e i o e t Field 2010) and is also mentioned in the list of five positive
parenting activities promoted by CentreForum (Paterson 2011). Playing sports on a
regular basis, and more generally encouraging children to be physically active, has
emerged as a consequence of concerns over child obesity (see Department of Health
2011) although discussion of the importance of this as a joint parent-child activity is
less pronounced. Television viewing is rather more controversial. A dominant
popular discourse suggests that television viewing as a passive (both intellectually
and physically) leisure activity is damaging for children but recent research has found
that children who watch more television are actually ahead of their peers in
academic terms (Sullivan et al. 2013) and that the type of television watched is
relevant with sophisti ated p og a es asso iated ith g eate li guistic ability
and cultural knowledge (Sullivan 2001).

We also chose to include a question on how often parents and children ate together.
Family meals are viewed as a vehicle for family togetherness (Brannen et al.
2013:419) and the valorisation of family mealtimes (Gillies 2011:8.6) means that the
alleged decline in families eating together is often a topic of concern, even though
the extent to which there has been a genuine reduction in the family meal appears
to have been exaggerated (Jackson 2008). An additional rationale for including this
practice is that although it has a relatively low profile in the UK it is very prominent
in other national contexts, for example in Japan the i po ta e of o-eati g has
ee highlighted i a se ies of e e t go e e t White Pape s (Author A).

The fo us o the i pa t of pa e ti g o out o es fo hild e has take fo g a ted

that good pa e ti g a e ide tified a d easu ed. Ou a al sis a ot assess
ho pa e ti g is e a ted; it a ot e eadi g ith hild e ut ei g a le to do so
i a a that hits the ight edu atio al utto s a d so is t a slated i to positi e
edu atio al out o es that eall atte s. The analysis also leaves out other aspects
of parental behaviour such as disciplinary practices, regularity of meal and bed times
and nutritional value of meals. The range of the activities explored here is therefore
relatively narrowi and focuses on those parent-child practices which have received
most recent political attention.

Despite a policy focus on the early years (0-5) as being the prime point for successful
i te e tio e.g. Alle pa e ts potential negligence regarding the parenting
of older children and teenagers is also evident; witness some of the comments after
the English riots of August 2011 su h as Da id Ca e o s (BBC 2011) statement that
the oot as a la k of p ope pa e ti g, a la k of p ope up i gi g and an opinion
poll finding that 85 per cent of the public cited poor parenting as the main cause of

6
the riots (Prasad and Bawdon 2011). Our strategy was therefore to ensure that
questions were not restricted to activities that only applied to very young children
and the phrasing of questions was as inclusive as possible, such as talking about
homework as well as helping with it. Parents were asked how many days in the last
week they had done each of the activities (Table 1).

Table 1 about here

Potential influences on parenting practices

I additio to the pote tial effe t of po e t o ou spe ified good pa e ti g
p a ti es, e also posited that le els of pa e tal edu atio a d ti e a ha e a
i pa t. The h pothesis i elatio to po e t is that e ould e pe t those ho a e
poo to e gage i good pa e ti g p a ti es less f e ue tl e ause the la k the
ate ial esou es to do so. La ki g a ess to take -fo -g a ted e essities a
ea that pa e ts a e u a le to fulfil the e ui e e ts of so iall a epta le
e gaged pa e ti g. This ould take a u e of fo s. Poo e pa e ts a spe d
less ti e eadi g ith hild e , o pla i g ga es o spo ts ith the e ause the
do ot ha e the ooks o e uip e t a aila le at ho e. I itial esults f o the
Po e t a d “o ial E lusio P“E su e fou d that half a illio s hool age hild e
si pe e t a ot affo d leisu e a ti ities Go do et al. . Po e t a also
ha e a i pa t i a less di e t a th ough elia e o the pu li p o isio of
fa ilities fo leisu e pu suits su h as pa ks a d li a ies . Da idso a d Po e
fou d that i t o dep i ed a eas of East Lo do pa e ts had fe spo ts o leisu e
fa ilities that e e easil a essi le a d that ost a d o e s o e a ti-so ial
eha iou e e additio al a ie s to thei use. Fi all , those ith fe e fi a ial
esou es a ha e a edu ed a ilit to t ade o e fo ti e.ii We i luded t o
easu es of po e t i the a al sis. Offi ial defi itio s of po e t i the UK a e
o o l ased o the p opo tio of the populatio falli g elo % of the
edia i o e afte adjusti g fo household size a d o positio a d e i luded
this as ou at- isk-of-po e t A‘OP a ia le. I additio , e also used su je ti e
assess e ts of po e t aski g i di iduals hethe the o side the sel es poo
o a d hethe the o side thei li i g sta da d is elo a e age.iii

The e is also the possi ilit that edu atio a ha e a sepa ate effe t; those pa e ts
ith highe le els of edu atio a e ette pla ed to e gage i edu atio al
a ti ities ith thei hild e . Those ith lo e edu atio al ualifi atio s a e less
a le to e gage i s hool ased a ti ities ith hild e e ause of thei o la k of
k o ledge, fo e a ple i helpi g ith se o da s hool ho e o k. Edu atio the
a e used as a p o fo o pete e i the a ade i a e a a d those ho ha e
less o pete a ot e gage i these aspe ts of good pa e ti g. “e o dl ,
ie i g edu atio al attai e t as i gi g ith it a deg ee of ultu al apital ea s

7
that those ithout it a feel u o fo ta le i a s hool e i o e t, i easi g the
likelihood that the a e u a le to e gage i dialogue ith thei hild e s tea he s
‘ea , . To easu e edu atio e used the highest ualifi atio s of the
i di idual ho espo ded to the pa e ti g uestio s.

The fi al possi le i flue e e o side ed is ti e. The e a e t o plausi le s e a ios

ea h suggesti e of a diffe e t elatio ship et ee ti e-p essu e a d e gage e t
i ou positi e pa e ti g p a ti es. Pe haps due to the o i ed p essu es of paid
o k a d u paid household ho es pa e ts si pl do ot ha e e ough ti e to
e gage i the full a ge of good pa e ti g o a f e ue t asis. This ould esult i a
egati e asso iatio et ee ti e p essu e a d ou easu es of good pa e ti g.
Alte ati el , it is possi le to h pothesise a elatio ship i the opposite di e tio .
Ti e-use dia ies suggest that o e of the easo s fo feeli gs of ti e s a it is
p e isel e ause shifts i e pe tatio s a ou d hat pa e ts do ea s that othe s
a d fathe s o spe d sig ifi a tl o e ti e ith thei hild e tha i the past
“ulli a . This ould lead us to e pe t that pa e ts ho e gage i positi e
pa e ti g p a ti es ost ofte feel o e − athe tha less − ti e p essu e. D a i g
o o k F ede i k a d )uke i h o ti e s a it e ide tified ti e
p essu ed pa e ts i the P“E as those ho e pe ie e ti e s a it a o di g to
se e o o e ti e u h ite s.iv I additio e i luded t o easu es of
household e plo e t − hethe a o e i the household is u e plo ed a d
hethe all adults a e i o k − to gai a se se of pa e ts ti e o it e ts to
paid o k.

Ou data is d a f o the Po e t a d “o ial E lusio i the UK P“E su e hi h

as a ied out et ee Ma h a d De e e a d o e ed , households
i hi h , people e e li i g. The ultistage su e as p i a il o e ed
ith easu i g po e t th ough ide tif i g ho a people fall elo hat the
pu li ag ee is a i i u sta da d of li i g. The s alle sa ple a al sed fo this
pape as ade up of all households hi h i luded a pa e t a d at least o e
depe de t hild aged o u de hi h esulted i a sa ple of , ases. O e all,
pe e t of the eighted sa ple had a deg ee o highe ualifi atio , pe e t
e e solo pa e ts ,
v pe e t li ed i a household at isk of po e t , pe e t
felt poo so eti es o all the ti e, a d pe e t ated thei li i g sta da ds
elo a e age. A s all i o it of pe e t e pe ie ed e t e e ti e p essu e
see Go do et al. fo statisti s o the su e as hole .

Pa e ti g A ti ities
Ou des ipti e a al sis of ea h pa e ti g a ti it Figu e sho s that o e pe
e t of pa e ts sa the eat a eal, at h TV, ead a d pla ga es ith thei
hild e , as ell as helpi g ith ho e o k e e da o ost da s; these a e all

8
f e ue tl u de take a ti ities. O l doi g spo ts ith hild e egiste s a lo e
le el of egula e gage e t, although the e a e still pe e t of pa e ts ho sa
that the do this at least fou da s a eek. Whethe pa e ts atte ded s hool
pa e ts e e i gs as asked as a sepa ate uestio a d espo ses to this e e also
e a i ed. The e e e espo sesvi ith a o e hel i g pe e t of pa e ts
sa i g that the had atte ded at least o e eeti g i the last ea .

Figure a out here

Not ithsta di g the ge e al i p essio of sig ifi a t pa e tal e gage e t, a d

aside f o the pa e ts e e i g uestio , the e is a su sta tial deg ee of a iatio i
pa e ti g p a ti es. Fo e a ple hile pe e t of pa e ts ead ith thei
hild e e e da , the e a e pe e t ho sa that the e e do so a d a fu the
pe e t ho do so a a i u of th ee da s a eek. This le el of a iatio a oss
ou pa e ti g a ti ities allo s fo the oppo tu it of e plo i g hi h, if a , of ou
suggested i flue i g fa to s a e elated to the f e ue of pa e ti g a ti ities.

Befo e looki g at the i flue e of po e t , edu atio a d ti e e e a i ed the

e te t to hi h these pa e tal a ti ities a ied the age of hild e . U like oho t
studies, hi h take as thei sa pli g st ateg a g oup of pa ti ipa ts ho a e all the
sa e age, ou household stud i ludes pa e ts ith depe de t hild e f o to
. As oted a o e e did ot est i t ou a al sis to the ou gest age g oup a d
the efo e desig ed uestio s that ould appl a oss a elati el ide age spe t u
e.g. the uestio o eadi g as ph ased as Ho ofte do ou ead ith ou
hild e o talk ith the a out hat the a e eadi g so as to a oid est i ti g this
uestio to pa e ts hose hild e a ot ead i depe de tl . It is to e e pe ted
that the t pe of a ti ities a d thei f e ue a ies as hild e g o olde : doi g
spo ti g a ti ities o pla i g ga es togethe ight e e pe ted to peak i the
p i a s hool ea s; eadi g ight e asso iated ost st o gl ith ea l ea s;
a d tele isio ie i g ould e a ti ipated as less age spe ifi . While ot e t al to
ou esea h uestio , a al sis o fi ed the i po ta e of taki g hild e s age
i to a ou t; the f e ue of tele isio ie i g, pla i g ga es, eadi g a d
spo ti g a ti ities a e highl hild-age depe de t. A ou d pe e t of pa e ts
ith a hild aged u de fi e pla ga es fou o o e da s a eek ut this fell to o l
te pe e t a o gst those hose ou gest hild as o o e . Assista e ith
ho e o k had a diffe e t dist i utio ith a o e o siste t to pe e t of
pa e ts doi g s hool o k ith hild e ost o e e da ; the highest pe e tage
as a o g pa e ts hose ou gest hild as of p i a s hool age. “i ila l , eati g
togethe sho ed elati el little a iatio age of hild.

Ti e pressure, Po erty a d Edu atio

9
Tu i g to ou su sta ti e o e s, e p ese t the a al sis i te s of elati e isk
atios i Figu e . The elati e isk is the atio of t o g oup pe e tages so that a
elati e isk ‘‘ sig ifi a tl highe o lo e tha i di ates a diffe e e et ee
the t o g oups. The ha t shows the relative risk of parents with the characteristics
on the horizontal axis (e.g. being at risk of poverty) of having low (3 or fewer days)
engagement in parental activities, compared to other parents. Relative Risks above
the line set at 1 indicate parents with those characteristics are more likely to have
low engagement; those below the line show parents with those characteristics are
less likely to have low engagement i.e. are more likely to engage in these activities
most or every day. Where error bars do not cross the line set at 1 there is a
statistically significant difference between parents with and without the listed
characteristics and these significant relationships are also indicated by a full black
dot.

Fi st to the i depe de t a ia les hi h offe ed o, o e little, e pla ato po e .

The deg ee to hi h pa e ts e p essed a feeli g of ti e p essu e as ot asso iated
ith a of ou a ed pa e ti g a ti ities. It is o th oti g that i elatio to all
the depe de t pa e ti g p a ti e a ia les the o fide e i te als fo ou easu e
of ti e u h e e e la ge. This is partly because this measure of extreme time
pressure includes only a small minority of parents. However more generous (lower
threshold) time-crunch measures also showed no significant relationship.vii Ou p o
easu e of hou s a aila le fo pa e t- hild i te a tio e plo e t also p odu ed
o sig ifi a t elatio ships. “o, eithe the ti e p essu e of juggli g paid o k o
the su je ti e e pe ie e of feeli g ushed is elated to the f e ue of ou
pa e ti g a ti ities.

I po ta tl , hethe a household a e atego ised as poo – easu ed eithe

i o e o su je ti el – ade o sig ifi a t diffe e e to the f e ue ith hi h
pa e ts e gaged i ost of ou good pa e ti g a ti ities. This fi di g is o th e-
e phasisi g; those ith lo e i o es o ho felt poo e e as likel to e gage i
all of the good pa e t- hild a ti ities as e e o e else. The t o e eptio s to this
a e TV ie i g a d ha i g a e e i g eal ith hild e ; pa e ts hose household
i o e as elo % of the edia e e ore likel to at h tele isio a d ha e
e e i g eals ith thei hild e f e ue tl . These t o a ti ities also stood out i
elatio to edu atio al ualifi atio s a d a e dis ussed fu the elo . The efo e,
despite the f e ue tl ade asso iatio et ee po e t a d a la k of app op iate
pa e ti g, the e is o lea e ide e fo this elatio ship i ou fi di gs.

Ou thi d i depe de t a ia le – edu atio – also p odu ed so e o -sig ifi a t

esults. The le el of edu atio al ualifi atio held as i ele a t i elatio to spo ts
a ti ities a d pla i g ga es. Ho e e , those holdi g a deg ee le el ualifi atio o

10
highe e e o e likel to ead o do ho e o k ith hild e f e ue tl . Tele isio
ie i g a d ha i g a e e i g eal togethe had a athe diffe e t elatio ship;
those ith deg ee o highe edu atio al ualifi atio s e e less likel to at h
tele isio a d ha e a eal ith thei hild e f e ue tl . “pe ifi all the e e .
tele isio a d . eal ti es o e likel to a out these a ti ities th ee o
fe e da s a eek tha those ho ith lo e ualifi atio s. He e, pe e t of
pa e ts ith a deg ee at h tele isio ith thei hild e o fe e da s a eek,
o pa ed to pe e t of those ho ha e lo e ualifi atio s a elati e isk of
. .viii

Figure a out here

I elatio to the elatio ships ith tele isio ie i g a d fa il ealti es, e

suggest that oth ate ial a d ultu al fa to s a pla a ole. The hild e of those
ith g eate fi a ial esou es a e less likel to el o tele isio ie i g as a
leisu e pu suit as the ha e the a ilit to a ess a ide a ge of paid a ti ities. These
a e a ti ities su h as goi g to the i e a o theat e that a e do e as a fa il ;
Gil et al. fou d that highe i o e fa ilies ha e o e da s out a d less
ti e at ho e. Alte ati el the a e e t a- u i ula a ti ities fo hild e su h
as spo ts lu s o usi lesso s. E gagi g i a o i atio of these a ti ities a
edu e the f e ue of tele isio at hi g.

The fi di gs ega di g tele isio ie i g a also e e ide e of a ultu al gap

et ee iddle- lass a d o ki g- lass ie s that efle ts a g o i g a e sio to
tele isio ie i g as a passi e leisu e a ti it a o g so e highl edu ated a d
ette off fa ilies. Gi e that the espo ses a e those offe ed pa e ts, the e a
e the possi ilit of a so ial desi a ilit ias he e so e pa e ts ish to displa
f Fi h a e sio of good pa e thood/fa il that does ot i lude tele isio
ie i g. Vi e t a d Ball suggest that e olli g hild e o e i h e t
a ti ities as a a thei iddle- lass i te ie ees a aged isks a d a ieties
a out pa e ti g i a u e tai so ial o te t. “i ila l Wheele suggests
that iddles- lass fa ilies a e e o i g i easi gl hild- e t ed a d st u tu ed i
o de to fulfil do i a t ideas of good pa e ti g. Mi i isi g tele isio ie i g a d
e phasisi g othe a ti ities ould e i li e ith this a gu e t. This a also ea
that tele isio is used diffe e tl fa ilies depe di g o thei edu atio al
a kg ou d a d o upatio al situatio . Fo iddle- lass fa ilies ho a e ti e poo
due to lo g o ki g eeksix Wa e tele isio a e used as a a sitti g
se i e allo i g pa e ts to get o ith household tasks a d paid o k at ho e as
opposed to a joi t leisu e a ti it fo the fa il to do togethe ; ote that the
uestio s efe to the e te t to hi h tele isio is a joi t pa e t- hild a ti it ot the
total ti e that hild e spe d at hi g tele isio .

11
Highl edu ated pa e ts e e also less likel to ha e a fa il eal togethe
f e ue tl . Figu e sho s that pa e ts ho a e o e highl edu ated a e pe
e t o e likel to ha e a eal ith thei hild e o fe e da s a eek tha those
ith lo e edu atio al ualifi atio . The issue of oo di ati g s h o ous fa il
ti e has ee highlighted as pa ti ula l diffi ult fo dual ea i g households
B a e et al. ho ake up a i easi g p opo tio of ouple households
ith hild e Co oll et al. . B a e et al. s ualitati e o k o fa il
eal ti es fou d that although all thei fa ilies p io itised eati g togethe as a
p i iple of fa il life, it as diffi ult to adhe e to this i p a ti e. Ti e p essu es o
dual o ki g fa ilies ea t it as ot al a s possi le to oo di ate eati g togethe
gi e the o ga isatio of o ki g hou s a d hild e s a ti ities. The also ote that
othe s a ou ts suggest little eg et ut athe a a o odatio to ealit
p . It is of ote that fa il ealti es a e ie ed as alua le ut see to hold a
less e t al positio i the doi g of fa il life i the UK tha i so e othe
ou t ies, su h as Japa Autho A . I the UK it see s possi le fo fa il eals to
e do pla ed elati e to othe p a ti es; pe haps i fa ou of d adi pa e t- hild
a ti ities su h as eadi g o suppo ti g ho e o k that a e o e fle i le i te s of
he the happe .

Gi e e isti g e ide e a out iddle- lass o e ted ulti atio , i o i atio

ith a do i a t dis ou se that edu atio al a hie e e t is a e essa e ui e e t
fo futu e e plo a ilit , a d a politi al a t a that pa e tal e gage e t i
hild e s s hooli g is esse tial, the fi di g that those ith highe edu atio al
ualifi atio s a e o e likel to e gage i ho e o k a d eadi g ith hild e is
pe haps u su p isi g. Hartas (2011) used the Millennium Cohort Study to examine
the impact of parental socio-economic characteristics and home learning activities
on outcomes for young children (a different research question to the one we address
here). However, her analysis also found that families with both higher incomes and
higher levels of education were o e i ol ed i ho e o k a d e i h e t
a ti ities , su h as eadi g a d sto telli g. “i ila l , Bo a a d “e illa ,
d a i g o ti e-use dia ies, fou d that o e edu ated pa e ts i the UK e e likel
to spe d ti e helpi g thei hild e ith ho e o k athe tha othe fo s of
e gage e t.

Good a d Bad Pare ts

We e a i ed hethe the e e e st o g i a o elatio s known formally as
tetrachoric correlations) et ee ea h of the pa e ti g a ti ities, that is, hethe if
a pa e t does o e of the a ti ities f e ue tl it is likel that the also do othe s
f e ue tl a d, o e sel , oth a ti ities i f e ue tl . Ou fi di gs sho , fo the
ost pa t, lo o elatio s less tha . et ee the a ious pa e ti g p a ti es

12
 ith the st o gest o elatio et ee spo ts a ti ities a d pla i g ga es at . a d
pla i g ga es a d eadi g at . . This suggests that the e is o o e a hi g good
pa e ti g pa kage hi h so e pa e ts o se e a d othe s a oid.

We fu the e plo ed this issue usi g late t lass a al sis, a statisti al ethod
hi h allo s esea he s to fi d g oups ith disti t u de l i g patte s o a set of
a ia lesx. As sho i figu e , e agai fou d o e ide e of a disti t g oup of
pa e ts ho o siste tl do ot e gage i these high-p ofile pa e t- hild a ti ities.
This is pote tiall i po ta t si e e e t politi al dis ou se has ot o l p o oted
the idea that poo pa e ti g e ists ut also e phasised the e iste e of a group of
pa e ts ho pe siste tl fail to e gage i pa e ti g a ti ities that a e e efi ial fo
thei hild e . I stead, looki g at the statisti al asso iatio et ee late t lass
e e ship, age of ou gest hild, a d the i depe de t a ia les o side ed
a o e, this a al sis offe s suppo t fo ou ea lie fi di gs that hild e s age is the
ost sig ifi a t i di ato of hethe pa e ts e gage i ke pa e ti g a ti ities. T o
of the lasses st o gl efle ted the age of hild e ; pa e ts ho e e least likel to
ha e thei ou gest hild u de fi e had the lo est a ti it le els a oss the oa d,
a d those ost likel to ha e thei ou gest hild u de fi e had ota l high
f e ue ies fo eadi g a d pla i g. A third class tracked the average frequency of
engagement in child based activities for parents as a whole. Finally, a fourth class
was present. This group is of interest because, although a clear minority at 24 per
cent, they were noticeably more engaged in reading and significantly more likely to
have degree or higher levels of educational qualifications themselves.xi The e iste e
of this g oup of pa e ts e plai s the elatio ship et ee eadi g a d edu atio al
ualifi atio s efe ed to ea lie .

Figure a out here

Co lusio
Ou a al sis e plo es the elatio ship et ee po e t , edu atio , ti e a d high
p ofile good pa e ti g p a ti es a oss a sa ple of UK pa e ts. While the esults
a e espe iall pe ti e t to the UK gi e u e t go e e t dis ou se a d poli ,
the also a e ele a t to oade de ates o the atu e of o te po a pa e ti g,
state i te e tio i fa il life, a d the i pa t of e o o i a d edu atio al
esou es o hat pa e ts do.

Ou esults a e ead as o fi atio of the do i a e of a ultu e of i te si e

pa e ti g i hi h pa e ts a e e pe ted to e gage i a a ge of hild- e t ed
a ti ities o a egula asis. Co te po a good pa e ti g has ee ha a te ised as
a affiliatio to a e tai a of aisi g a hild Fai loth a d Lee hi h i
p a ti e i ol es a o e l a o fo ulatio of good pa e ti g that do i ates i

13
popula dis ou se a d poli Gillies . The esea h p ese ted he e suggests
that, hethe fo good o ill, the a t a of hat i ol ed pa e ti g should do
appea s to o espo d ith pa e ts e e da p a ti es. As is the ase ith a
su e aski g a out a ti ities the e a e a disju tu e et ee hat people sa
the do a d hat the eall do. Ho e e , the high le el of ag ee e t i the
espo ses ould also e i te p eted as additio al e ide e of ohe e e a oss the
so ial spe t u a ou d the displa s f Fi h hi h ou t as good pa e ti g.
This fi di g ight suggest that a fo us fo fa il so iologists should o ti ue to e
e pli ati g the elatio ship et ee the theo eti al o epts of doi g a d
displa i g pa e ti g.

The fi di gs suppo t the ie that asso iatio s ade et ee lo le els of

edu atio , po e t a d poo pa e ti g a e ideologi all d i e athe tha ased o
e pi i al e ide e. Clai s that fa ilies ho a e poo o a e less ell edu ated do
ot e gage i high p ofile good pa e ti g p a ti es a e ispla ed. A d e fou d o
e ide e fo the e iste e of a g oup of deli ue t pa e ts ho fail to pa ti ipate
i pa e t- hild a ti ities; i fa t e fe espo de ts e e opti g out of age
app op iate pa e ti g p a ti es. These esults a e the at odds ith o o pla e
popula , edia a d politi al dis ou ses hi h efe , ofte u o t o e siall , to
p o le pa e ts i t ou led fa ilies ho eed to e fi ed . These fi di gs a e
alua le e ause the a help to efute this do i a t dis ou se ith ua titati e
e ide e.

Ge i tz s a gu e t as that good pa e ti g o igi ates i the alues a d

behaviours of a fraction of middle-class parents while Irwin and Elley (2011) also
drew attention to differences within the middle-class. We also fou d e ide e of the
e iste e of a g oup of pa e ts at the top e d of the so ial spe t u ho a e doi g
o e – o at least sa i g the a e doi g o e – tha the est. It should e
e phasised that this fi di g is less o ust tha ou ai fi di g. Ho e e , it does
i di ate that a eo ie tatio i thi ki g a out ho eall is diffe e t is i o de . Ou
suggestio is that the ost edu atio all ad a taged f a tio of the iddle- lass a e
setti g the to e a d sta da d i te s of ke a ke s of edu atio all app op iate
a d suppo ti e pa e ti g. I stead of ai tai i g a fo us o the pa e ti g
eha iou s of those ho a e ost disad a taged i the istake elief that the do
pa e ti g diffe e tl , it a e ti e fo g eate atte tio o the ost ad a taged.
This is li e ith the e e t all fo those easu i g li i g sta da ds to i p o e
i di es i elatio to iddle a d high li i g sta da ds Pe a d ith Mike
“a age s ie that so iologists should i g a k the stud of elites a d fo us
lass a al sis ight at the top of the lass st u tu e . Our findings also have
implications for thinking about the relationship between values and behaviours in
relation to class and inequality. The analysis indicates that the most educated

14
parents have the ability to operationalise widely held views about the value of
educational achievement above and beyond the practices of the average parent.
Engaging in these activities are likely, indeed have been shown, to provide an
i st u e tal ad a tage fo thei hild e s futu e He de so . Our empirical
findings are therefore pertinent in contributing to theoretical debates which attempt
to explain how social inequalities are maintained, and, in particular, support the view
that educational elitism is a key domain (Dorling 2011).

Finally, the idea of high profile as valid proxies for good parenting (beyond ensuring
that children gain a social advantage) should be called into question. The task for
parenting research should not only be to examine relationships between resources
and practices but also to question what is being measured and how this impacts on
how we think about personal relationships. A richer way to speak of parenting would
move away from a goal-oriented, individualised framework which limits articulations
and understanding of what it means to be a parent (Raemaekers and Suissa 2011)
and instead acknowledge the significance of intimacy, (Author A), emotionality and
reciprocity; elements that are present- rather than future-oriented.

References
Allen. G. (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps. London: Cabinet Office.
BBC (2011) David Cameron: Statement on the Riots, 10th August.
Bo a, C. a d “e illa, A. Ti e Investments in Children in the UK: The Role of
College Competitio 6 Research Methods Festival, University of Oxford, 8th-10th
th

July.
B a e , J., O Co ell, ‘. a d Moo e , A. Fa ilies, eals a d s h o i it :
eating together in British dual ea e fa ilies Community, Work and Family
16(4):417-434.
Chua, A. (2011) Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin Press.
Co oll , “., Ald i h, M., O B ie , M., “peight, “. a d Poole, E. Fathers and
Work. Briefing Paper. London: Institute of Education.
http://www.modernfatherhood.org/publications/fathers-and-work/
Da idso , ‘. a d Po e , A. Fa ilies a d hild e s e pe ie e of spo t a d
i fo al a ti it i Ol pi a eas of the East E d CASE report 35. London: London
School of Economics.
Department of Health (DoH) (2009) Birth to Five. London: Department of Health.
Department of Health (DoH) (2011) Healthy Lives, Healthy People: a call to action on
obesity in England. London: Department of Health.
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2012) Social Justice: transforming lives.
http://www.dwp..gov.uk/docs/social-justice-transforming-lives.pdf
Desforges, C., with Abouchaar, A. (2003) The Impact of Parental Involvement,
Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A

15
Literature Review. Department for Education and Skills Research Report No.433.
Nottingham: DfES.
Dorling, D. (2011) Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists. Bristol: Policy Press.
Econo ist, The “t essed Pa e ts: a el that ioli lass Jul th

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21608793-helicopter-moms-and-
dads-will-not-harm-their-kids-if-they-relax-bit-cancel-violin
Edwards, R., and Gillies, V. (2004) “uppo t i Pa e ti g: Values a d Co sensus
Concerning Who to Turn to Journal of Social Policy 33(4):623-643.
Faircloth, C. and Lee, E. (2010) I t odu tio : Cha gi g Pa e ti g Cultu e ,
Sociological Research Online 15(4) 1 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/4/1.html
Faircloth, C., Hoffman, D.M., Layne, L. L. (eds) (2013) Parenting in Global Perspective:
Negotiating Ideologies of Kinship, Self and Politics. London: Routledge.
Field, F. (2010) The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor
Adults. London: Cabinet Office.
Fi h, J. Displa i g Fa ilies Sociology 41(1):65-81
Frederick, J. A. (1995) As Time Goes By: Time Use of Canadians. Ottawa: Statistics
Canada.
Furedi, F. (2001) Paranoid Parenting: Abandon Your Anxieties and Be a Good Parent.
London: Penguin.
Ge i tz, “. Clo i g the Blai s: Ne La ou s p og a e fo the e-
socialisation of working- lass pa e ts Journal of Education Policy 16(4):365-378
Gilby, N., Hamlyn, B., Hanson, T., Romanou, E., Mackey, T., Clark, J. et al. (2008)
National Survey of Parents and Children. London: DCSF.
Gillies, V. (2008) Child ea i g, lass a d the e politi s of pa e ti g Sociology
Compass, 2/3: 1079-1095.
Gillies, V. Is poo pa e ti g a lass issue? Co te tualisi g a ti-social
eha iou a d fa il life i Klett-Davies, M. (ed.) Is Parenting a Class Issue?
London: Family and Parenting Institute.
Gillies, V. F o Fu tio to Co pete e: E gagi g ith the Ne Politi s of
Fa il Sociological Research Online 16(4)11
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/11.html
Gillies, V. Pe so alisi g Po e t : pa e tal dete i is a d the Big “o iet
age da i Atki so , W., ‘o e ts, “. a d “a age, M. eds Class Inequality in Austerity
Britain: Power, Difference and Suffering. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gordon, D. (2011) Measuring Po e t : The “tate of the A t , Second Peter Townsend
Memorial Conference. University of Bristol, 22nd–23rd January.
Gordon, D., Mack, J., Lansley, S., Main, G., Nandy, S., Patsios, D. et al. (2013) The
Impoverishment of the UK: PSE UK First Results, Living Standards.
http://poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/pseuk-reports
Hagenaars, J. A. and McCutcheon, A. L. (2002) Applied Latent Class Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16
Hartas, D. (20 Fa ilies so ial a kg ou ds atte : so io-economic factors, home
lea i g a d ou g hild e s la guage, lite a a d so ial out o es British
Educational Research Journal 37(6):893-941.
Hays, S. (1996) The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
He de so , M. A Test of Pa e ti g “t ategies , Sociology 47(3):542-559.
Hoff a , D.M. ‘isk I est e ts: Pa e ti g a d the p odu tio of the
resilient child Health, Risk and Society 12(4):385-394.
Irwin, S. a d Elle , “. Co e ted Culti atio ? Pa e ti g alues, Edu atio a d
Class Di e sit Sociology 45(3):480-495.
Jackson, P. (2008) Summary of Research Findings: Changing Families, Changing Food.
Sheffield: University of Sheffield. http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/familiesandfood
Jensen, T. (2010) Wa th a d Wealth: ‘e-imagining Social Class in Taxonomies of
Good Pa e ti g Studies in the Maternal. 2(1&2):1-13.
http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/back_issues/issue_three/documents/jensen.pdf
Jones, A. (2003) About Time for Change. London: The Work Foundation.
Klett-Davies, M. (2010) (ed.) Is Parenting a Class Issue? London: Family and Parenting
Institute.
Lareau, A. (2003) Unequal Childhoods: Race, Class and Family Life. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lee, E., Faircloth, C., MacVarish, J. and Bristow, J. (2014) Parenting Culture Studies.
London: Palgrave.
Le itas, ‘. The e a e t ou le ahead: hat e k o a out those ,
t ou led fa ilies Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK Policy Response Series
No.3. http://poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/pse-uk/policy-response?page=1
Morgan, D.H.J. (1996) Family Connections. An Introduction to Family Studies.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nelson, M. (2010) Parenting Out of Control: anxious parents in uncertain times. New
York: New York University Press.
O Co o , T.G. and Scott, S.B.C. (2007) Parenting and Outcomes for Children. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Paterson, C. (2011) Parenting Matters: Early Years and Social Mobility. London:
CentreForum.
Pe e to , “., “utto , E. a d Fah , E. A e ie of the qualitative evidence
elati g to the e pe ie e of po e t a d e lusio , Poverty and Social Exclusion in
the UK Working Paper Methods Series No.22 http://poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/pse-
uk/methods-development
Pe , B. Measu i g po e t , ha dship a d li i g sta da ds i Ne )eala d: a
ief o e ie Second Peter Townsend Memorial Conference, University of Bristol
22nd-23rd January.

17
P asad, ‘. a d Ba do , F. Do t la e ou pa e ts, sa iote s The Guardian
6/12/11 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/06/dont-blame-parents-say-
rioters
‘ae aeke s, “. a d “uissa, J. Pa e ts as edu ato s : la guages of
educatio , pedagog a d pa e ti g Ethics and Education 6(2):197-212.
Raemaekers, S. and Vandezande, A. (2013 Pa e ts eed to e o e i depe de t
problem solvers: a critical reading of the current parenting culture through the
case of Triple P Ethics and Education 8(1):77-88.
Reay, D. (1998) Class Work : Mothers' involvement in children's schooling. London:
University College Press.
‘ea , D. Doing the dirty work of social class? Mothers' work in support of
thei hild e 's s hooli g in Pettinger, L., Parry, J., Taylor, R. and Glucksmann, M.
(eds) A New Sociology of Work? Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
‘ea , D. Class a ts: pa e tal i ol e e t i s hooli g i Klett-Davies, M.
(ed.) Is Parenting A Class Issue? London: Family and Parenting Institute.
Reece, H. (2013) The pitfalls of positi e pa e ti g Ethics and Education 8(1):42-54.
“a age, M. The Old Ne Politi s of Class: ‘u ou s that lass as dead ha e
ee g eatl e agge ated British Politics and Policy at LSE, 13th December,
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/38344
“hi a i, F. He ood, K. a d Colta t, C. Meeting the Challenges of Intensive
Pa e ti g Cultu e: Ge de , ‘isk Ma age e t a d the Mo al Pa e t Sociology
46(1):25-40
Sullivan, A. Cultu al Capital a d Edu atio al Attai e t Sociology 35(4):893-
912.
“ulli a , A., Kete de, “. a d Joshi, H. “o ial Class a d I e ualities i Ea l
Cog iti e “ o es Sociology, 47(6):1187-1206.
“ulli a , O. Cha gi g diffe e es in the division of domestic labor: the case of
edu atio Sociology Working Paper 2011-02, University of Oxford.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004) The
Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. London:
Institute of Education.
Teleg aph The Ni k Clegg: Good Pa e ti g, ot Po e t , “hape a Child s
Desti http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7952977/Nick-Clegg-good-
parenting-not-poverty-shape-a-childs-destiny.html 18th August.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Allen Lane and Penguin
Books.
Vi e t, C. a d Ball, “.J. Maki g Up the Middle-Class Child: Families,
Acti ities a d Class Dispositio s Sociology 41(6):1061-1077.
Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S.J. a d Gill o , D. ‘aisi g iddle lass la k
children: parenting prio ities, a tio s a d st ategies Sociology 47(3):427-442.

18
Warren, T. (2003) Class a d Ge de -based Working Time? Time Poverty and the
Division of Do esti La ou Sociology 37(4):733-752.
Welshmann, J. (2007) From Transmitted Deprivation to Social Exclusion: Policy,
Poverty, and Parenting. Bristol: Policy Press.
Wheeler, S. (2014 O ga ised a ti ities, edu atio al a ti ities a d fa il a ti ities:
how do they feature in the middle- lass fa il s eeke d? Leisure Studies
33(2):215-232.
Williams, F. (2004) Rethinking Families. CAVA, Leeds: University of Leeds.
Zukewich, N. (1998) Work, parenthood and the experience of time scarcity. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.

i Limitations of time in a survey also necessarily restricted the number of activities that could
be included.
ii
Outsourcing household tasks is an increasingly popular option to address increased time
pressure among those with high enough disposable income (Jones 2003).
iii
Further details of the PSE 2012 survey including full questionnaires are available at
http://www.poverty.ac.uk.pse-research/about
iv
The time crunch module is made of ten statements with which respondents are asked to
agree or disagree. The complete statements are available in the questionnaire.
v
Lone parents living with their children and no other adult in the household.
vi
Only parents with a school aged child were asked this question.
vii
O e ti e u h ite that led to lo e elia ilit C o a h s alpha he i luded i the
time crunch score was also removed but the results remained similar.
viii
As a caveat, these relationships could be partly due to compositional effects and the
degree to which this is the case could be explored further by looking across a range of
datasets.
ix
As opposed to time poverty caused by partners working different work schedules.
x
The number of latent classes was decided by looking at average changes in Adjusted
Likelihood, BIC and Entropy values across 100 bootstrap samples (see Hagenaars and
McCutcheon 2002 for examples).
xi
40 per cent have degree or higher educational qualifications, compared to 26 per cent or
elo fo pa e ts i othe lasses χ2 with Rao & Scott adjustment for complex samples,
F=3.4, adjusted ddf=3217, p=0.016).

19
Table 1
Questions on Parenting Practices

 I the last
Education
o ths, ha e ou o ou pa t e atte ded a s hool pa e ts

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner read stories
evening? (Yes/No)

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner helped with or
with your child/children or talked with them about what they are reading?

discussed homework with your child/children?

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner played games
Leisure

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner done sporting
with your child/children e.g. computer games, toys, puzzles etc.?

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner watched TV
or physical activities with your child/children?

with your child/children?

 How many days in the past 7 days have you, or your partner eaten an
Family mealtimes

evening meal with your child/children?

20
Figure 1
Prevalence of Parenting Practices (n=1665)

21
Figure 2
Relative risk of taking part in parenting activities 3 or fewer days a week
Significant differences indicated by black dot, not significant differences by white dot.

22
 Figure 3
Engaging in Parenting Activities 3 or Fewer Days Per Week: Latent Class Profiles

23

View publication stats