Parents who spend hours attempting to educate infants outside school have little impact on their future results, it was claimed.
Academics said the effect on language, literacy and social development was the same irrespective of the amount of time spent attempting to boost children’s skills.
The conclusions, in a study by Warwick University, come despite repeated Government attempts to get parents more involved in their children’s education to raise standards.
But Sue Palmer, literacy consultant and author of the book Toxic Childhood, said the study went “against all the received wisdom”.
“If very poor families sing to their children, read to their children, play with their children, those children will go on to do well at school,” she told the Times Educational Supplement.
“Nursery rhymes are free; families can get library books. Those are the things that matter.”
Some 15,600 parents from a range of social backgrounds were surveyed when children were three years old and again when they turned five as part of the latest study.
Mothers and fathers were asked how often – and in which ways – they helped children to learn. Findings were compared to children’s achievements at school.
The study – presented to the British Educational Research Association annual conference at Warwick University – found parents from all backgrounds took part in a range of early learning activities.
This included memorising the alphabet, singing songs, telling stories and helping sons and daughters learn musical instruments.
But Dr Dimitra Hartas, from Warwick’s Institute of Education, said they had little impact.
“Children’s language, literacy and social-emotional development were not affected by the frequency of home learning activities,” she said. “Whether parents engaged daily or once or twice a week with these activities did not make any substantive difference.”
However, the study acknowledged that parental wealth did have an impact. Pupils from more advantaged homes – irrespective of early learning activities – significantly outperformed children from deprived backgrounds.
This suggests that a more settled family life and access to more expensive equipment had the biggest impact on children’s education.
--By Graeme Paton,10 Sep 2010