The Journal of Primary Prevention

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 103–120 | Cite as

The Parents as Teachers Program and School Success: A Replication and Extension

  • Edward ZiglerEmail author
  • Judy C. Pfannenstiel
  • Victoria Seitz
Original Paper


This study is a replication and extension of an earlier study, using a larger sample, a better measure of poverty status, and new longitudinal data. The study used path analysis to test hypothesized models of how the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program affects children’s school readiness and subsequent third-grade achievement. Participants were 5,721 kindergarten children who were chosen to be representative of all children beginning public school in the state of Missouri in the fall of 1998–2000. These children were subsequently located in the state’s third-grade test database 4–5 years later (82% of the original kindergarten sample). The causal models, which postulated both direct and indirect effects of PAT, were strongly supported by the data. Editors’ Strategic Implications: The findings add to the evidence that the PAT home visiting program holds promise as a primary prevention program. The authors demonstrate how parenting practices (including reading to children and enrolling them in preschool) promote both school readiness and subsequent academic achievement, but they also remind us of the pervasive effects of poverty.


Achievement Intervention Home-visiting School readiness 



The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions and support of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the University of Missouri’s Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis. We also thank Sally J. Styfco for her helpful editorial comments and Stephanie M. Jones for her insightful suggestions on the structural equation modeling.


  1. Administration for Children and Families. (2006). Preliminary findings from the Early Head Start pre-kindergarten follow-up. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 13, 2007 from:
  2. Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2). Serial No. 218.Google Scholar
  3. Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakermans-Kronenburg, M. J., vanIJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein M. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of parenting (Vols. 1–5). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. Social Policy Report, 17, 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. B. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 139–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bus, A. G., vanIJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on the intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 12, 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan, G. J., & Magnusun, K. (2006). Costs and benefits from early investments to promote human capital and positive behavior. In N. F. Watt, C. Ayoub, R. H. Bradley, J. E. Puma, & W. A. LeBeouf (Eds.), The crisis in youth mental health. Vol. 4. Early intervention programs and policies (pp. 27–52). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  13. Gomby, D. S. (2005). Home visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents. Washington, DC: Committee for Economic Development Invest in Kids Working Group. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from:
  14. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  15. Horvath, A. O. (1994). Empirical validation of Bordin’s pantheoretical model of the alliance: The working alliance inventory perspective. In A. O. Horvath & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The working alliance: Theory, research and practice (pp. 109–128). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Kagitcibasi, C., Sunar, D., & Bekman, S. (2001). Long-term effects of early intervention: Turkish low-income mothers and children. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 333–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L, & Honig, A. S. (1988). Long-range impact of an early intervention with low-income children and their families. In D. Powell (Ed.), Parent education in early childhood intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice (pp. 79–104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Levenstein, P., & Levenstein, S. (2008). Messages from home. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacLeod, J., & Nelson, G. (2000). Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1127–1149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCormick, M., McCarton, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Belt, P., & Gross, R. T. (1998). The Infant Health and Development Program: Interim summary. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 19, 359–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003, December 18). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention & Treatment, 6, Article 31. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from
  23. O’Connor, T. G. (2002). The “effects” of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications [Annotations]. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olds, D. L. (2006). The nurse-family partnership. In N. F. Watt, C. Ayoub, R. H. Bradley, J. E. Puma, & W. A. LeBeouf (Eds.), The crisis in youth mental health: Vol. 4. Early intervention programs and policies (pp. 147–180). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  25. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R. Jr., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D. et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parents as Teachers National Center. (1999). Born to Learn curriculum (prenatal to 3 years). St. Louis, MO: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Pfannenstiel, J. C. (1997). Kindergarten learning environments and student achievement: A study of constructivist and traditional teaching approaches. Overland Park, KS: Research and Training Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Pfannenstiel, J. C., Lambson, T., & Yarnell, V. (1991). Second wave study of the Parents as Teachers program. St. Louis, MO: Parents as Teachers National Center.Google Scholar
  29. Pfannenstiel, J. C., Lambson, T., & Yarnell, V. (1996). The Parents as Teachers program: Longitudinal follow-up to the second wave study. Overland Park, KS: Research and Training Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Pfannenstiel, J. C., Seitz, V., & Zigler, E. (2002). Promoting school readiness: The role of the Parents as Teachers program. NHSA Dialog, 6, 71–86.Google Scholar
  31. Pfannenstiel, J. C., & Seltzer, D. A. (1989). New parents as teachers: Evaluation of an early parent education program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Rowe, D. C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience and behavior. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Rutter, M. (2002). Nature, nurture, and development: From evangelism through science toward policy and practice. Child Development, 73, 1–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rutter, M. (2005). Environmentally mediated risks for psychopathology: Research strategies and findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 3–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santos, R. G. (2005). Effectiveness of early intervention for infants and their families: Relating the Working Alliance to program outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  37. Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). Lasting differences: The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 12. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope.Google Scholar
  39. Seitz, V., & Apfel, N. H. (1994). Parent focused intervention: Diffusion effects on siblings. Child Development, 65, 677–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L. K., & Apfel, N. H. (1985). Effects of family-support intervention: A 10-year follow-up. Child Development, 56, 376–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shonkoff J. P., & Phillips D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. St. Pierre, R. G., & Layzer, J. I. (1998). Improving the life chances of children in poverty: Assumptions and what we have learned. Social Policy Report, 12(4), 1–25.Google Scholar
  43. Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy: A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75, 1435–1456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tracy, T. J., & Kokotovic, A. M. (1989). Factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. U. S. Department of Education (1993, June 22). All children ready to learn: Toward the national education goals and high standards for all students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 24, 2007 from:
  46. Yando, R., Seitz, V., & Zigler, E. (1979). Intellectual and personality characteristics of children: Social class and ethnic group differences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zigler, E., Gilliam, W., & Jones, S. M. (2006). A vision for universal preschool education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2006). Epilogue. In N. F. Watt, C. Ayoub, R. H. Bradley, J. E. Puma, & W. A. LeBeouf (Eds.), The crisis in youth mental health. Vol. 4. Early intervention programs and policies (pp. 347–371). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Zigler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judy C. Pfannenstiel
    • 2
  • Victoria Seitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Research & Training Associates, Inc.Overland ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations