There are positive relations between the level of parents’ involvement in their children’s education and children’s outcomes in preschool (Fantuzzo et al., 2004). Parent involvement includes two aspects: (1) parents supporting their children’s education; and (2) parents communicating with their children’s educators (Dimmock et al., 1996). Lin et al. (2019) noted positive relations between parent–educator communication and the home learning environment, particularly the home numeracy environment (HNE) and the home literacy environment (HLE). The literature suggests that educators can use parent–educator communication to support parents with engaging their children in home learning activities (Epstein, 1995; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Research has also demonstrated the association between the home learning environment and children’s cognitive development (Anders et al., 2012a; Hackman et al., 2015; Hood et al., 2008; Korucu et al., 2020). A lot of work in parent-educator communication has focused on children’s behavioral and social skills (Almendingen et al., 2021; Yıldız & Yılmaz, 2021), and studies have not explored the relations between parent–educator communication and children’s outcomes including numeracy, literacy, and executive function (EF), and vocabulary skills. Additionally, studies have not examined whether the HNE and HLE is a better predictor of children’s numeracy, literacy, and EF, and vocabulary skills than parent-educator communication. This study examines the relations between parent-educator communication as perceived by parents regarding preschoolers’ learning and development, the HNE and HLE, and children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills during the preschool year.

Parent–Educator Communication and Children’s Preschool Outcomes

Parent-educator communication contributes to establishing strong family-school partnerships and involving parents in their children’s education (Christenson, 2004). Understanding the nature of parent–educator communication during the preschool stage and its association with children’s outcomes allows for the identification of early points of intervention to best support the development of young children’s skills, especially those from families with low-incomes (Heckman, 2006). Communication between parents and educators is unique during the preschool period, given the goals and structure of preschool programs (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2005). Researchers have found differences regarding frequency, mode, and content of parent-educator communication in preschool compared to later years (e.g., Murray et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2005). For example, evidence suggests that parents and educators communicate more when children are in preschool compared to in elementary school (Murray et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2005). In elementary school, parents have less direct contact with educators and less direct involvement in their children’s classroom in comparison to preschool. The mode of communication also changes over time - communication shifts from less formal, short conversations during drop-off/pick-up or notes, to more formal, long interactions, like parent-teacher conferences where parents and teachers meet to discuss the child’s performance in school (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2005). Although several studies address parent-educator communication when children are of school-age (Epstein, 1985, 1995; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001), substantially less work focuses on communication when children are in preschool (Arnold et al., 2008; Marcon, 1999; Murray et al., 2015; Topor et al., 2010). Given that parent-educator communication during the preschool period is unique, it is worthwhile to more carefully examine how it may contribute to child outcomes for this age group specifically.

Research has indicated that children’s language and literacy outcomes are the topics that are most concerning to parents and teachers alike in preschool over children’s behavior, math, and EF skills (McLeod et al., 2018). Consequently, there is far less research that has focused on parent–educator communication and preschool children’s math and EF skills in comparison to their literacy skills. This gap in the literature is significant given that children’s early numeracy, literacy, and EF have been positively associated with children’s long-term outcomes (Murray et al., 2015; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2005). The literature also highlights that more frequent parent-educator communication in their children’s school is related to higher academic performance in comparison to their peers whose parents are less involved in their school (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999; Stevenson & Baker, 1987).

The Home Learning Environments and Children’s Preschool Outcomes

Decades of research has also highlighted the importance of the home learning environment on children’s outcomes (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Hirsh-Pasek & Burchinal, 2006; Melhuish et al., 2008). The quality of the home learning environment has been shown to positively relate to children’s academics, cognition, and language development (Bradley et al., 2001; Caspi et al., 2004; Chazan-Cohen et al., 2009; Hirsh-Pasek & Burchinal, 2006). Although home learning environments are frequently conceptualized as a singular construct, they are multidimensional and include the HLE and HNE (Melhuish et al., 2008; Napoli & Purpura, 2018). The HLE includes resources and activities that promote literacy skills (e.g., shared reading activities, identifying letter sounds; Sénéchal et al., 1998), and the HNE includes activities that promote mathematics skills (e.g., learning simple sums, playing board games involving counting; Niklas & Schneider, 2014). The HLE and HNE are significant contexts, as they are associated with children’s developmental trajectories in each respective domain (Anders et al., 2012b; Hood et al., 2008; Melhuish et al., 2008).

To begin with the within-domain relations between aspects of the home learning environment and children’s outcomes, the evidence for the association between the HNE and children’s numeracy skills is mixed, having some positive and negative relations (Bernabini et al., 2020; Bonifacci et al., 2021b; LeFevre et al., 2009; Napoli & Purpura, 2018; Salminen et al., 2021; Vanbecelaere et al., 2021). A recent meta-analysis by Daucourt et al. (2021) noted a small positive but significant correlation between the HNE and children’s math abilities. The HLE however, has been shown to positively predict children’s early literacy skills (Evans et al., 2000; Sénéchal & Lefevre, 2002; Skwarchuk et al., 2014; Stephenson et al., 2008). Lastly, in connection with the relation between the specific HNE and HLE and children’s EF, there are a limited number of studies that have focused on this outcome (Korucu et al., 2020). Although not assessed directly, the findings of Alston-Abel and Berninger’s (2018) study suggest that the HLE supports the development of children’s EF, as exposure to literacy activities within the home requires children to exercise their attention and cognitive flexibility skills in order to differentiate between complete words and phonemes (Blair & Raver, 2015). Korucu et al. (2020) directly examined the relation between the HLE and preschool children’s EF and noted that there was a positive association between the HLE consisting of more parent-child literacy practices and children’s EF.

In terms of the cross-domain relations, one study demonstrated that the HNE predicted preschool children’s vocabulary skills above and beyond the HLE (Napoli & Purpura, 2018), whereas another study found that the HNE did not predict children’s language skills (Bonifacci et al., 2021a, b). The relation between the HNE and children’s vocabulary skills could possibly be due to the in-depth verbal interactions that could occur when parents and children engage in numeracy practices. Furthermore, there have also been mixed findings regarding the relation between the HLE and children’s numeracy skills. A couple of studies have shown that the HLE has not been predictive of children’s early numeracy skills (Bernabini et al., 2020; Bonifacci, Trambagioli et al., 2021). However, Bonifacci et al., 2021a, b; Anders et al. (2012b) noted that the HLE predicted children’s early numeracy skills to a greater effect than the HNE, thereby suggesting that adequate language skills may be a requirement for gaining mathematical knowledge.

Current Study

In the present study we had two research aims. First, we examined concurrent relations among parent–educator communication regarding preschoolers’ learning and development and children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills in the spring of preschool. Second, we examined spring data to address if the HNE and the HLE was a better predictor of children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills than parent–educator communication. We expected that parent–educator communication would be significantly and positively related to children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills. We did not have an apriori hypothesis about if the HNE and HLE would be a better predictor of children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills in the spring of preschool than parent–educator communication given the lack of studies that have examined this association at this developmental stage.

Method

Participants

Data for this study came from a larger quasi-experimental study in the United States evaluating a state-funded preschool program (n = 558). Participating children were either enrolled in the state-funded prekindergarten program (pre-k group; n = 376) or in another community-based preschool program (comparison group; n = 182). In order to be eligible to attend the state-funded prekindergarten program, the state required that the families of all the children enrolled had an income equal to or less than 127% of the federal poverty level. For the present study, data from two cohorts of children were utilized that were collected from 2015 to 2016 (n = 371) and 2016 to 2017 (n = 187). The children (48.92% female) were 44.84 to 70.62 months old (M = 57.75 months, SD = 3.71) in the fall of preschool. Monthly family income ranged from $0 to $5539.79 (M = $1508.18, SD = 892.92). Among the sample, 43.88% of the children were African American, 32.37% were White, 12.41% were Hispanic, 10.43% were multiracial, and 0.90% were Asian. The breakdown for parent education was as follows: 1.90% attended 8th grade or less, 11.08% attended some high school; 2.53% had a GED; 22.47% had a high school diploma; 2.85% graduated from trade school; 36.71% attended some college; 12.03% had an associate’s degree; 9.49% had a bachelor’s degree; and 0.95% had a graduate degree.

Procedure

Parents and their child were recruited from early childhood education centers. Data utilized in this study were collected for all children in the preschool year, and children were assessed on the four outcomes measures at two timepoints- beginning of PreK and the spring of PreK. Identical data collection procedures were used during each data point. Direct assessments took place in children’s schools in a quiet space designated by the directors/principals or teachers. The assessment battery for the larger study took approximately 60 to 90 min to complete. Research assistants were trained to administer assessments during both individual and group training and practice sessions. Prior to data collection, lead project staff members ensured that all research assistants were able to reliably administer the assessments. The parents reported on the home learning environments either by phone or by completing a survey that was sent home. Informed consent was obtained from all the study’s participants and the university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures prior to data collection.

Measures

Parent–Educator Communication

Parent–educator communication was operationalized in the same manner as (Lin et al., 2019) where the measure was modeled off of the state’s family engagement toolkit. The items were drawn from a longer researcher-developed questionnaire aimed at assessing several different aspects of family engagement. This measure was adapted from the state’s family engagement toolkit that includes the family engagement self-assessment, describes how the program could improve family interactions and child outcomes, and describes the philosophical framework for family engagement (Indiana Early Learning Advisory Committee 2015). Parent perceptions of parent–educator communication regarding children’s learning and development were measured using four parent-report items addressing the frequency of communication regarding certain topics. Responses for the following were included: “Teacher or director (1) ‘Gives information about your child’s learning,’ (2) ‘Helps you understand what to expect from your child at each age and stage,’ (3) ‘Gives you information about your child’s developmental assessment or screening results,’ and (4) ‘Gives you information about how to help your child learn at home.’” Response options included 0 (Never), 1 (About once a year), 2 (A few times per month), and 3 (A few times per week). The Cronbach’s alpha for the 4-item parent–educator communication scale was 0.72. Average scores were calculated if participants answered three or four questions (M = 1.82, SD = 0.74). If participants responded to fewer than three questions, they received a missing score (n = 1).

Numeracy Skills

The Preschool Early Numeracy Skills – Brief Version (PENS-B; Purpura et al., 2015) was used to measure the children’s early numeracy skills. The PENS-B is a 24-item numeracy task ordered by difficulty, with easiest items first, and is demonstrative of broad numeracy skills children are expected to attain in preschool and kindergarten. The PENS-B assesses specific areas of numeracy: set comparisons, numeral comparisons, one-to-one correspondences, number order, numeral identification, ordinality, and number combinations. The task takes approximately 5 min to administer, and children receive 1 point for each correct answer. If a child incorrectly responded to three items in a row, the assessment was stopped. In previous research, the PENS-B has exhibited high internal consistency (α = 0.93; Purpura & Reid, 2016). The assessment also demonstrated strong reliability for the current sample: α = 0.90 (fall of preschool), α = 0.90 (spring of preschool).

Literacy Skills

The Get Ready to Read-Revised measure was used to assess children’s emergent literacy skills, namely, print knowledge and phonological awareness (Lonigan & Wilson, 2008). Children were asked all 25 items on the Get Ready to Read-Revised task and received 1 point for each correct response. The task takes approximately 5–10 min to administer and has adequate reliability as reported in previous research (Whitehurst, 2011). For the current sample, the assessment demonstrated strong reliability: α = 0.82 (fall of preschool), α = 0.84 (spring of preschool).

Executive Function

EF is a set of higher-order cognitive skills that help children regulate their attention, behaviors, and emotions, and has been shown to be a predictor of school readiness (Blair, 2002; Diamond, 2013; McClelland et al., 2013). EF was assessed using the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) task (McClelland et al., 2014). The HTKS is a direct behavioral measure that taps into all three components of EF (cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory), and is typically used with children ages 3–7. The HTKS is presented to children as a game where they are asked paired combinations of four rules (i.e., ‘‘touch your head,’’ ‘‘touch your toes,’’ “touch your knees,” and “touch your shoulders”). In the practice round, children are first asked to respond by following the directions naturally, and then they are asked to respond in the opposite way (e.g., children are asked to touch their heads when the research assistant says “touch your toes”). The testing portion consists of 30 items (three sections of 10), and the sections become increasingly complex as the child progresses. Each correct response is worth 2 points, making the range of possible scores 0–60. Each item is scored as 0 (incorrect), 1 (self-correct), or 2 (correct). The total score of the test is the sum of all the correct items. To progress to the second section, a child must receive a score of at least 4 on the first section, and, similarly, to progress to the third section, a child must receive a score of at least 4 on the second section. This task takes approximately 5–10 min to complete. The interrater reliability, scoring agreement, and test-retest reliability is high and shows strong predictive validity (McClelland et al., 2014).

Vocabulary Skills

Vocabulary was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 2007). The PPVT is composed of 228 items grouped into 19 sets of 12 items per set. The research assistant presents a series of four images and pronounces a word. The child must respond by pointing to the image that matches that word. To adjust for differing ages of the children, the research assistants start the task at various sections depending on the age of the child. The child can only respond incorrectly to 0 or 1 items in a set to establish the basal and move onto the next section. If more than 1 item is responded to incorrectly, the research assistant must administer earlier sections until the basal is set. Once the basal is established, the research assistant continues to test forward until the child misses 8 or more items in a set. The research assistant finishes administering the rest of the items in the set and then ends the task once the child has reached the ceiling. Raw scores were used on the analyses. The Cronbach’s alphas for PPVT in the sample are: α = 0.98 (fall of preschool), α = 0.97 (spring of preschool).

Home Learning Environments

The HNE and HLE were measured using parent-reported items addressing the frequency of various home learning activities that parents engage in with their children. Items were adapted from LeFevre et al. (2009) and minor modifications were made to account for the sample of younger children (Napoli & Purpura, 2018). Response options included 0 (Never), 1 (A few times per month), 2 (A few times per week), and 3 (Every day). The HNE was measured using eight items that addressed the frequency of mathematics activities (i.e., counting objects, printing numbers, reading number storybooks, using number activity books, using the words ‘more’ and ‘less,’ counting in reverse, learning simple sums, identifying written numbers; α = 0.68). The HLE was measured using four items that addressed the frequency of literacy activities (i.e., printing letters, reading any kind of storybook, identifying letters, identifying letter sounds; α = 0.74). Psychometric properties of the HLE and HNE scales are comparable to previous findings (Kleemans et al., 2012; Manolitsis et al., 2013; Napoli & Purpura, 2018). Averages were calculated if participants answered 75% or more of the questions in each respective scale (HNE: M = 1.75, SD = 0.50; HLE: M = 2.18, SD = 0.61). If participants responded to fewer than 75% of items, they received a missing score (HNE: n = 1; HLE: n = 2).

Covariates

All models controlled for child’s age, sex (0 = Male, 1 = Female), race/ethnicity (0 = other, 1 = White/Black/Hispanic), family income, group (0 = Comparison group, 1 = Pre-k group), highest level of parental education of one parent (0 = high school or less, 1 = more than high school), and baseline skill scores of literacy, numeracy, EF and vocabulary. Parents reported on child age, sex, race/ethnicity, and monthly family income when they enrolled in the study.

Analytic Procedure

Data analyses were conducted using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp., 2019). To account for the nested structure of the data (children nested in classrooms), the generalized Huber–White sandwich estimator for cluster-adjusted standard errors was used (Acock, 2013). For our first research question regarding whether parent–educator communication was related to children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary in the spring of preschool, we ran regression models controlling for child’s age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, group, parental education, and baseline skill scores. For our second research question that examined whether the HNE and the HLE in addition to parent–educator communication was related to children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary in the spring of preschool, we ran regression models controlling for the same covariates.

Missing Data

Full information maximum likelihood estimation was employed to handle missing data to reduce potential bias that could result from using listwise deletion, and is the recommended way to handle missing data in that it uses all available information to provide the least biased estimates (Acock, 2012). In general, very little missing data occurred that was not due to study design and meets all assumptions for the way the missing data was handled. Specifically, the study included two cohorts of children, and the parent-educator communication, HNE, and HLE were all parent report measures. Additionally, the HNE and the HLE were collected either over the phone or through surveys that were sent home which contributed to the low-response rate. There was 57% missing data for parent-education communication for cohort one, and 44% missing data for cohort two. In terms of the HNE and HLE, for cohort one 57% of both the HNE and HLE were missing and for cohort two 49% of the HNE and HLE were missing. Also, given that the sample comprises hard-to-reach parents, it also accounts for the high missing data in the total sample: 53% for parent-educator communication, 54% for HNE, and 55% for HLE.

We ran chi-square tests and t-tests and there were no statistically significant differences between the missing data for HNE and HNE, and sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and parental education. There was a statistically significant difference between the group that the children were in and missing data for HNE (X2 (1, N = 558) = 44.64, p < .001) and HLE (X2 (1, N = 558) = 43.88, p < .001) where there was more missing data for the pre-k than the comparison group. For parent-educator communication, there were no statistically significant differences between the missing data and sex, race/ethnicity, group, family income, and parental education.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and ranges are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations for the full sample are presented in Table 2. There was a statistically significant correlation between parent–educator communication and numeracy skills in the spring of preschool (r(247) = − 0.17, p = .006).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics
Full size table
Table 2 Bivariate correlations for parent–educator communication and children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary
Full size table

Parent–Educator Communication and Children’s Numeracy, Literacy, EF, and Vocabulary

For our first research question, we examined the extent to which parent–educator communication predicts numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary in the spring of preschool, when controlling for child’s age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, group, parental education, and baseline score in the fall of preschool. Analyses revealed a significant relation between parent–educator communication and numeracy skills in the spring of preschool (β = − 0.14, p = < 0.001; Table 3). Specifically, and unexpectedly, more frequent parent–educator communication in preschool predicted lower numeracy skills. However, no other significant relations emerged in the data (Table 4).

Table 3 Direct paths between parent–educator communication and children’s numeracy and literacy
Full size table

Parent–Educator Communication, the HNE and HLE, and Children’s Numeracy, Literacy, EF, and Vocabulary

For our second research question, we examined whether the HNE and HLE were better predictors of children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary in the spring of preschool than parent–educator communication and, when controlling for child’s age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, group, parental education, and baseline score in the fall of preschool. The analyses (Table 3) revealed a statistically significant association between all three predictors- parent-educator communication (β = − 0.15, p = < 0.001), the HNE (β = 0.14, p = .016), and the HLE (β = − 0.18, p = .004)- and children’s numeracy skills and the standardized coefficients were similar across all three variables. Specifically, more frequent parent–educator communication and higher HLE scores in preschool predicted lower numeracy skills. Additionally, the higher quality of the HNE predicted greater numeracy skills in the spring of preschool. However, no other significant relations emerged in the data.

Discussion

The current study expands on previous work examining relations between parent-educator communication and children’s behavioral and social skills (Almendingen et al., 2021; Yıldız & Yılmaz, 2021) by focusing on children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary as outcomes of parent-educator communication. Specifically, we examined whether parent–educator communication regarding preschoolers’ learning and development significantly predicts their numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary scores. Further, we examined spring data to address if the HNE and the HLE was a better predictor of children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills than parent–educator communication. Although we expected that parent–educator communication would be positively and significantly related to children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary, parent–educator communication was only a significant predictor of children’s numeracy skills in preschool. Interestingly, as parent–educator communication increased, children’s numeracy skills decreased. Additionally, more frequent parent–educator communication and higher HLE scores in preschool predicted lower numeracy skills, and the higher quality of the HNE predicted greater numeracy skills in the spring of preschool.

Parent–Educator Communication Negatively Related to Children’s Numeracy Skills

Although we expected that more frequent parent-educator communication about children’s learning and development would be related to improved children’s numeracy skills, the opposite was true; more frequent communication was related to lower children’s numeracy skills. This negative relation may be indicative of teachers and parents communicating more frequently when they have concerns and working to remediate those challenges, but the extra communication only happens when children are not performing where they should. As a result, and considering the data are only concurrent, this does not suggest that more frequent parent communication with educators negatively affects children’s outcomes. For children with lower mathematics skills, future longitudinal work should examine if parent-educator communication is related to higher levels of growth in math than for children whose teachers and parents communicate less. Additionally, considering that parent–educator communication about children’s behavior or academic problems are discussed more in kindergarten than preschool (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 1999), researchers may be interested in understanding how to encourage teachers to identify problems earlier on. Further, it may be beneficial for educators to engage with families early in the academic year as a preventative measure and support the early development of children’s numeracy skills (Boonk et al., 2018; Durand, 2011; Graham-Clay, 2005).

Parent–Educator Communication Unrelated to Children’s Literacy, EF, and Vocabulary Skills

Contrary to our expectations, parent-educator communication was unrelated to children’s literacy skills, EF, and vocabulary skills. The non-significant finding about children’s literacy and vocabulary skills is in contrast to other studies which indicate that parents and educators selected speech and language as their most common areas of concern about the children (Coghlan et al., 2003; Harrison et al., 2009; McLeod et al., 2018; Napoli & Purpura, 2018). As such children’s EF may not be a top priority in the communication between parents and educators despite their long-term influence on children’s outcomes. Further, previous work has suggested that schools tend to be more aligned with middle-class values and consequently tend to better communicate with parents who come from this social class (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008), which may explain the null results amongst our sample of families with low incomes. Given the inconsistency in results on children’s literacy and vocabulary skills and that less work has focused on children’s EF, these are three areas that should be explored in future work.

Parent-Educator Communication and the Home Learning Environment Related to only Numeracy

Additionally, there was a significant direct effect between parent-educator communication, the HNE, and HLE on children’s numeracy skills only, and all three effect sizes were small. In terms of the HNE, this finding is consistent with other studies that note that the higher the quality of the HNE, the better the development of numeracy skills (Daucourt et al., 2021). In terms of the unexpected negative relation between the HLE and numeracy skills, it could be that the specific frequency of literacy activities that the children engage with in the home does not support the development of numeracy skills specifically. Parents may be prioritizing a quality HNE at the expense of the HLE, so a lower HLE is related to higher numeracy scores. Napoli and Purpura (2018) found that the HLE did not broadly predict both children’s numeracy and literacy outcomes. Similarly, Farver and colleagues (2013) also found no relation between Latino children’s English language HLE and English print knowledge. Thus, our findings are not a complete outlier, although it was unexpected, given the larger body of work suggesting links to child outcomes.

One reason we may not have found a relation between the HLE and HNE and children’s literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills could be because our measures assessed parents’ frequency of engagement in specific learning activities and did not address the quality of those parent-child interactions. This measurement approach is consistent with prior research that demonstrates positive relations between the frequency of interactions and children’s academic outcomes (e.g., LeFevre et al., 2009; Melhuish et al., 2008; Napoli & Purpura, 2018). However, given this particular sample, assessing the quality of parent-child interactions may also be important to consider when examining the relation between learning activities at home and children’s early literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills, which is not captured in the breadth and frequency counts in the present study.

Limitations and Future Directions

Findings from this study need to be interpreted bearing in mind a few limitations. First, the sample and effect sizes were small and thus, future work in this area should attempt to replicate these results with larger sample sizes. Second, the findings of the present study relied on concurrent parent report measures of the parent-educator communication and the HNE and HLE, which may be prone to social desirability bias. In addition, there could be measurement issues with the HNE and HLE as parents only reported on the frequency of limited math- and literacy-related activities and did not inquire about the psychosocial climate of the parent-child interactions that has been thought to influence children’s outcomes (Conger & Donnellan, 2007). Further research should examine both formal (i.e., teaching about arithmetic) and informal practices (i.e., exposing children to numeracy-related content through games) of the HNE and children’s outcomes in preschool. Likewise, future research would benefit from examining whether formal (i.e., code-related interactions) and informal practices (i.e., meaning-related interactions) of the HLE are associated with children’s outcomes in preschool.

Table 4 Direct paths between parent–educator communication and children’s EF and vocabulary
Full size table

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of the associations between parent–educator communication, the HNE and HLE, and children’s numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary in preschool. Findings suggest that parent–educator communication and the HLE is negatively related to children’s numeracy skills in preschool and the HNE is positively related to preschoolers’ numeracy skills. Although this study is not able to determine causality of the relations, researchers may be interested in examining whether families would benefit from engagement with educators early in the academic year such that they can become more aware and better support their children’s development in all areas. Furthermore, building off the present findings, future research is required to understand the mechanisms that support the relations between parent–educator communication and preschoolers’ numeracy, literacy, EF, and vocabulary skills.