frederik smit, hans moerel, kees van der wolf & peter sleegers (1999). building bridges between...

Edited by:Frederik SmitHans Moerel

Kees van der WolfPeter Sleegers

Building bridgesbetween home

and school

BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL

ii Building bridges between home and school

Building bridges between home and school

Edited by:

dr. Frederik Smit

drs. Hans Moerel

prof. dr. Kees van der Wolf

prof. dr. Peter Sleegers

INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN

SCO/KOHNSTAMM INSTITUTE

iv Building bridges between home and school

De particuliere prijs van deze uitgave is ƒ 25,00.

Deze uitgave is te bestellen bij het ITS, 024 - 365 35 00.

Address:

Institute for Applied Social Sciences

Toernooiveld 5

P.O. Box 9048

6500 KJ Nijmegen

the Netherlands

To order the book:

International telephone ++ 31 24 365 35 00

International fax ++ 31 24 365 35 99

Email [email protected]

CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK DEN HAAG

Building bridges between home and school. / dr. F. Smit, drs. H. Moerel, prof. dr. K. van der Wolf &

prof. dr. P. Sleegers - Nijmegen: ITS

ISBN 90 - 5554 - 12 8 - 1

NUGI 722

© 1999 ITS, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen

Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave

worden verveelvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welke

andere wijze dan ook, en evenmin in een retrieval systeem worden opgeslagen, zonder de voorafgaande

schriftelijke toestemming van het ITS van de Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.

No part of this book/publication may be reproduced in any form, by prin t, photoprint, microfilm or any other

means without written permission from the publisher.

Preface

In an increasing number o f countries schools

become convinced that good partnerships

between parents and com munities are necessary

in behalf of the optimization of pupils’

development opportunities, the enhancement of

pupils’ educational careers and the improvement

of teachers’ task performance.

ERNAPE (European Research Network About

Parents in Education) is an association of research

networks in the area of education, in particular

about parents in education. In 1993 the

association was established w ith the aim to share

research results, stimulate research at all levels.

A first conference ‘Education is Partnership’ was

held in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1996.

On 18 and 19 November 1999, the second

roundtable conference ‘Building bridges between

home and school’ was organised at the University

of Amsterdam, Netherlands . During this

conference the current state of affairs, models,

strategies, legislation, experiences and

experiments concerning home-school

partnerships were discussed.

The participants came from many countries in

Europe including representatives from Poland,

Croatia, Albania, Bulgaria and also Cyprus. From

outside Europe the United States of America and

Canada were represented. Th e participants were

not only researchers but also represented

ministries of education, parent organisations and

schools.

Two researchers from the ITS, in collaboration

with specialists on parent participation from the

University Nijmegen and the SCO-Kohnstamm

Institute have brought together in this volume the

recent scientific and social developme nts in

relation to the collaboration between families,

school and comm unity.

I hope that this volume will contribute to a

stronger reciprocal relationship between schools

and their surroundings to meet the challenges for

the new millennium.

ITS

Nijmegen/Amsterdam, November 1999

prof. dr. H.P.J.M. Dekkers

act. Director

vi Building bridges between home and school

Contents

Preface v

Introduction; building bridges between home and school 1

Frederik Smit, Hans Moerel, Kees van der Wolf, Peter Sleegers

Part 1 - Parents’ orientation on collaboration between home and school 3

Looking back, loo king ahead: reflection on lesson s over twenty-five years, don davies 5

Parents involvement in edu cation: models, strategies and contex ts, Shawn Moore, Sue Lasky 13

‘I’m not clever. I listen to her read that’s all I can do’: parents supporting their children’s learning,

Emma Beresford, Sue Botcherby and Olwen McNamara 19

Who gets involv ed and who does n’t, Stelios Georgiou 27

Overcoming barriers to family inv olvement in low-income area sc hools, Oliver Moles 31

Experiments with the role of paren ts in primary education in the Nethe rlands,

Frederik Smit, Hans Moerel, Peter Sleegers 37

Research on the relationship b etween migrant parents and p rimary schools, Annemiek Veen 43

Parental/community involvement and behaviour problems in Dutch secondary schools,

Kees van der Wolf, Ronald Lippens, Pauline Huizenga 47

Information project developm ent work - cooperation betw een home and scho ol,

Ingebjörg Johanessen 53

‘Parents at School’ programme as a perspective of partnership’s orientation increase in

Poland, Maria Mendel 59

viii Building bridges between home and school

Part 2 - Schools’ perspective on collaboration between fam ilies, school and comm unity 67

Home-school agreem ents: the business of partnership, Gary Heywood-Everett 69

A system for planning and implementing family/school/community partnerships, Donald Lueder 77

Connecting studen t achievement to teaching stand ards and family, school, community

partnerships, Jennifer Hartman, Ann Kinkor, Babara Wilson & Rhonda Payne 81

A prospective overview on school/family/comm unity partnerships in 25 prima ry schools

in Portugal, Adelina Villas-Boas 85

Pedagogical attunemen t: parents, teachers and the pedagog ical assignment of the school,

Cees Klaassen & Han Leeferink 89

Being power partners, Pirjo Nuutinen 95

Partnership in action: an evaluation of a school policy on parents working with their own

children in school, Leonidas Kyriakides 103

Teacher, tutor, parent: the eternal triangle?, Helen Phtiaka 111

Part 3 - Specific aspects of collaboration between home and school 121

Assessing entry characteristics in Kindergarten, Ton Mooij & Ed Sm eets 123

Home-school partnersh ip in primary mathematics: a sociolog ical analysis, Andrew Brown 131

Parents and mathematics education reform: a U.S. case-study, Martha Allexsaht-Snider 141

The school as an active partner in en vironmental work?, Elzbieta Bielecka 145

Parents school partnership programs to assist refugees and other vulnerable populations,

Daniel Safran 153

Patterns of academic support: som e findings from a home scho ol numeracy project with

Somali families living in Londo n, Lesley Jones 159

Drug consumptio n prevention: parents perspec tive, Raquel-Amaya M artínez González,

Marisa Pereira, Norberto Corr al, Begoña Dona ire, Ana Isabel Alvarez, Victoria Casielles 165

Introduction; building bridges between home andschool

This volume is a collection of 25 essays, grouped

into three parts, on the theme of building bridges

between home and school.

The first part contains a parents’ orientation and

reflection on partnerships between home and

school (Don Davies), models, strategies and

contexts (Shawn Mo ore, Sue Lasky), parents

supporting their children’s learning (Emma

Beresford, Sue Botcherby, Olwen McNamara)

and possible predictors of parental involvement

(Stelios Georgiou). Oliver Moles describes

overcoming barriers to family invo lvement in

low-income area schools. Frederik Smit, Hans

Moerel, Peter Sleegers give an overview of types

of experiments with the role of parents in primary

education in the Netherlands.

The research of Annemiek Veen consists on the

relationship between migran t parents and primary

schools. Kees van der Wolf, Ronald Lippens and

Pauline Huizenga explored questions about

parental/community involvement and behaviour

problems in Dutch secondary schools. The study

of Ingebjörg Johanessen concerns successful

interaction between home an d school. Maria

Mendel describes a ‘parents at scho ol’

programme.

The second part is devoted to the school

perspective on collaboration between families,

school and comm unity. Home-school agreemen ts

is studied by Gary Hey wood-Everett. Donald

Lueder presents a strategic planning system. The

group Jennifer Hartman, Ann Kinkor, Barbara

Wilson and Rhonda Payne describes an

innovative partnership pro gram in California.

Adelina Villas-Boas gives a prospective overview

on school/family/community partnerships in 25

primary schools in Portugal. Cees Klaassen en

Han Leeferink present the results of research in to

pedagogical attunement between schools and

families. Pirjo Nuutinen reports what Finnish

teachers think about their power position.

Leonidas Kyriakides presents findings of an

evaluation of a primary schoo l in Cyprus to

develop a policy for parents w orking with their

own children in school. Helen Phtiaka gives an

example of the triangle: teacher, tutor, parent in

Cyprus.

The third part reports on a number of

investigations related to specific aspects of

collaboration between ho me and school. Ton

Mooij and Ed Sme ets studied assessing entry

characteristics in Kindergarten Andrew Brown

presents a sociological analysis of home-school

partnership in primary mathematics. Martha

Allexsaht-Snider presents an analysis of school

and parents involved in mathematics education

reform in the U.S. Elzbieta Bielecka describes

some environmental projects in Poland aimed at

improving children’s perform ance at school.

Daniel Safran gives a description of parent school

partnership programs to assist refugees and other

vulnerable populations. Lesley Jones discusses

some findings from a home school nummeracy

project with Somali families living in London.

Raquel-Amaya Martínez González, Marisa

Pereira, Norberto Corral, Begoña Donaire, Ana

Isabel Alvarez, Victoria Casielles describe the

family role in drug consumption prevention.

Building bridges between home and school2

The contributions to this volume were presented

at the European Research Network About Parents

and Education (ERNAPE) held in Amsterdam

(the Netherlands) on November 18-19, 1999.

Frederik Smit

Hans Moerel

Kees van der Wolf

Peter Sleegers

Part 1

Parents’ orientation on collaboration between home and school

4 Building bridges between home and school4

Looking back, looking ahead: reflections on lessonsover twenty-five years

Don Davies

For the last 25 years my professional life has been

dominated by my work for the Institute for

Responsive Education, which I founded in 1973

to study and promo te family, community, school

partnerships. I embarked on th is work after 5

years as an official in the US education

department, and several years as official of the

largest American teachers’ union, the National

Education Association. Before that I was engaged

in teacher education in universities and in

teaching in high school. These years in education

convinced me that really goo d education for all

children, rich and poor, was only going to be

possible if families and commu nities became full

partners with schools in the enterp rise.

I have come to see that all parts of the child’s

world must share respons ibility for the child’s

learning and development. This concept of shared

responsibility is seen by some as a radical idea,

and by others as unrealistic. The majority opinion

by academics and educators is that the jobs of

schools and families and co mmunities are

basically separate and should be kept that way.

And, yet for me, this concept of shared

responsibility, is at the heart of all the efforts I

have made over the years.

I also became convinced that good partnerships

between schools, parents an d communities are

possible in all kinds of schools and communities

‘pre-school, elementary, urban, rural, rich and

poor. I know this because we have good

examples all across the US and overseas.

(Unhappily, partnerships are still the exception

and not the rule, as can be seen in the recent 1997

OECD report on the status of parent involvement

in nine countries.) My wo rk over these 25 years

has involved dozens of studies and projects in the

US and several other countries and the

opportunity to work with and learn from dozens

of other researchers and advocates doing similar

work. The International Roundtables, which

Joyce Epstein and I initiated mo re than ten years

ago have been a particularly rich source of

learning from scholars and practitioners in many

other countries.

This Roundtable in Amsterdam offers me the

opportunity to reflect back on those 25 years of

studies and projects in several countries and on

what I have been able to learn from o thers

working in this field. Wha t I want to do in this

brief paper is to identify and discuss a few of the

lessons that seem especially important to me.

These are reflections and interpretations, based

only partly on research and colored by own

perspectives, values, and opinions. I will also

draw to a limited extent on papers presented at

earlier Roundtables. So, how do schools and

families and communities make partnerships

happen. I’ll offer a few brief thoughts and

recommendations.

Look first to the teachers

Partnerships work best if teachers are given help,

support, and training. If increased involvement of

families and community organizations and

agencies with the schools is the aim, why worry

first about the teachers? The answer: Teachers

can make or break any effort to change the

traditional separation of schools from the families

and communities they serve. I have seen this in

many American schools and in IRE’s recent

cross-national study in five countries.

Without teacher interest, support, and skill much

of that that is commonly known as parent


involvement won’t work. For most parents in the

world, the teacher is the primary and sometimes

the only connection to the school and holds the

key to good com munication. Yet, often plans for

partnerships are developed with little or no

teacher input and teachers are told ‘Here is our

new parent involvement project, funded by this or

that foundation or government. So, teacher, just

do it.’ Sometimes they do it, but o ften they don’t.

The apparently natural and almost universal

teacher concern about professional status and

expertise and traditional resistance to outsider

influence is difficult to overcome. We saw

teacher resistance and fear of losing professional

status as a factor in many of the schools in a

recent cross-national study, across five very

different cultures and national traditions. We saw

in all of the countries that teachers were proud of

their expertise and wanted to protect their own

turf (Davies and Johnson 1996).

What is needed? Teacher education institutions

need to prepare future teachers to wo rk positively

with parents and community agencies and

institutions and to learn how families and the

community can benefit the teacher and the

students. New teachers learn through instruction

and experience that partnerships with parents and

community agencies d oes not diminish their

professional expertise or status but in fact can

enhance these.

Once he or she starts to teach the new teacher

needs to be given positive encouragement by

other teachers and school adm inistrators to

engage in the desired partnersh ip activities, and to

be protected if and when things go wrong.

Teachers on the job also need specific training,

information, and recognition when they are asked

to undertake new kinds of partnership activities

such as student homes, using parents as

volunteers in the classroom, or participating on a

decision-making committee with parent

representatives. And, when a new policy or

project is to be launched, teachers must be

involved in planning for it. The issue of preparing

teachers for partnership has been addressed by

several participants in the International

Roundtables in Europe and the US, including

Deanna Evans-Schilling, Joyce Epstein, Martha

Allexsaht-Snider, and Dan Safran from the US,

Helen Phtiaka, Cyprus, and Birte Ravn, Denmark.

Make it official

Partnerships work best when they have the

official sanction of written policies.

Like it or not, schools are bureaucratic and

conservative institutions. They mostly live by

rules and policies. So, if you want to have

teachers and administrators reach ou t to parents

and to community institutions, there should be

written policies which recomm end or mandate

such activities and provide guidelines for how

such partnerships might be established and

maintained.

I have seen that it is helpful to have com patible

written policies in support of partnersh ips at all

levels, national, state or province, local district,

and individual school. It is also useful when

supportive policies are negotiated into teacher

union contracts.

Another way of achieving official sanction for

partnership practices is to win the support and

positive endorsement of the head of the school.

There are many case studies, including the action

research studies of the Institute for Responsive

Education for the Center on F amilies, that support

this belief (Palanki and Burch, 1995). My own

experience is dotted with many both positive and

negative examples of the powerful influence of

the school principal on efforts to initiate or

sustain school, family, community partnership

efforts.

Having laws and written policies is not enough,

of course. These must be implemented and

enforced. For example, Smit and van Esch

reported that not many of the goals of

Building bridges between home and school 7

participation in their country were being realized

(Smit and van Esch, 199 2). Izabel Solomon in

Australia discovered that the official structures

created by national government have produced a

lot of rhetoric but little action.

Focus on children’s learning

Partnerships work best wh en improved children’s

learning is seen as the main goal by teachers,

parents, and community agencies. The

partnership idea is most acceptable to

policymakers if they believe that such

partnerships contribute to children ’s academic

success in school. This is usually true for

teachers, community agen cies, and parents

themselves. There is a good evidence that

connects various kind s of partnerships with

student learning, if those partnerships are well

designed and carefully implemented.

Joyce Epstein has reported th at when schools

inform parents about children’s acad emic

progress in schools, their expec tations for their

child’s success goes up. Epstein’s work on

homework has sh own that families are more

likely to be able to help their children with

academic work at home if teachers give

homework assignments that are interactive,

provide clear and specific information about the

content and methods being used in the classroom,

and offer encouragement along with written

materials and guidelines.

Dozens of International Roundtable presentations

over the years have focused on how parents and

community agencies ca n promote children’s

learning. One example has been the work of Raul

Pizzaro in Chile who has conducted and reported

on several studies of the effects of home

interventions on studen t achievement in

mathematics and Spanish and has concluded that

families and schools can wo rk together to

enhance students’ cogn itive achievement

(Pizzaro 1992). But, my o wn experience in

schools suggests that many administrators and

teachers still see parent involvement as a

marginal activity ‘nice,’ but not central to the

school’s instructional goals and many school

reform programs give only a little attention to

parents and the commu nity.

Provide for a diverse opportunities

Partnerships work best wh en they are

comprehensive. Joyce Epstein developed and

tested a five part typology for parent involvement

and then expanded it to include a sixth type of

partnership involving exchanges with the

community. This typology was used in many of

the studies of the Center on Families,

Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning

(Epstein 1992). My own experience and studies

suggest that a wide range of o pportunities, both in

the school and the hom e and the community is

needed to meet the diverse interests, needs, and

conditions of the variety of families in most

communities. For many families, supporting their

children’s learning at home and in the community

is more attractive and feasible than attending

events or committee meetings in the school.

Nancy Chavkin reported that non-traditional

activities outside the school attracted more

parents than activities organized in the school

(Chavkin 1992). Few schools actually undertake

a comprehensive approach. The efforts I see are

often piecemeal, a series of programs, events, or

small projects. I have seen good results from

using Epstein’s typology planning tool, which

encourages those invo lved to consider all six

types of involvement, inclu ding: 1) The basic

obligations for child-rearing, building positive

home conditions that su pport children’s

development; 2) Basic obligations of schools for

communicating about school programs and

children’s progress; 3) Family involvement at

school as volunteers, aides, audiences for student

performances, participants in meetings and social

events; 4) Involvement in learning activities at


home, monitoring and assisting children; 5)

Involvement in governance, decision-making and

advocacy in school-based organizations and in

the community; 6) Collaboration and exchanges

between the school and the community (Epstein

1992). Ultimately, a comprehensive approach can

and should lead to a change in the culture of the

school and its connections with families and the

communities. There are some examples of such

culture change in several countries. One of the

best examples is the Patrick O’Hearn School in

Boston. The altered culture in this sch ool is

noticed by even the most casual visitors to the

school and described in IRE’s report on its action

research projects (Palanki and Bu rch 1995).

All families need help sometime

Partnerships work best when the schools and

health and social service agencies join together to

plan how best the need s of the children and their

families can be served.

There is no one best way that schools can link

with community age ncies. But the point is that all

families need support and help at one time or

another ‘some need more help than others and

need it more often’ if schools want to h elp all

children succeed they need to be concerned about

meeting the non-academic health and social

service needs of the children and the families.

There is much research evidence, bolstered by

much common sense, that academic achievement

is linked to health, emotional stability, nutrition,

sleep of children and to the social and health

conditions of the home . It is obvious that schools

cannot meet all the complex so cial and health

needs of the children and families they serve and

must enlist to other community agencies and

institutions. There are many prom ising models in

the US and other coun tries that point the way to

coordinated or shared services. Some of these

models and their results have b een reported in

various of our International Roundtables.

My own experience suggests strongly that

partnerships work best wh en the relationship

between schools and community organizations

and agencies is really an exchange, not just

community groups or business doing things for

the schools. The schools and their staffs have

much to offer to other agencies and other

community residents, inclu ding access to their

physical facilities (such as computer labs, g yms);

access to their expertise, teachers and

administrators who offer their talents and skills to

the community; and students who serve the

community in service projec ts. The relationship

between schools and their communities should be

reciprocal. This reciprocal relationship means

more than the community contributing to the

child and to the school. It must also mean that the

school contributes to the economic and social

development of the com munity. A true

partnership involves an exchange of resources.

I see family literacy programs as another form of

family support. Many participants in International

Roundtables have described various approaches

to intergenerational literacy including Trevor

Carney, Jacqueline McGilp, and Derek Toomey

from Australia; Lorrie Connors-Tadros, and Ruth

Handle and Ellen Goldsmith from the US; and

Adelina Villas Boas from Portugal. Many of the

projects reported aim to raise parents’ awareness

of the important role that they play in their ch ild’s

language developm ent and help them learn try

practical ways to help their children read better.

A room of their own

Partnerships work best wh en there are visible

signs and symbo ls of welcome in the school itself

and when there are practical organizational means

of planning and carrying out partnership

activities. Family or parent centers fill this need

for a symbol of welcome and for a location and

capacity for organizing partnership activities.

Such centers are a low-cost, easy-to-manage way

to make schools more h ospitable to parents, to


plan and carry out activities, and to serve as a

handy locale for parent-to-parent and

parent-to-teacher communication .

In the US and a few other cou ntries they are

functioning for many dif ferent purposes:

operating food banks; providing libraries for

parents with books, toys, computer hardware and

software; clothing exchanges; language classes;

and workshops and support groups for parents.

Vivian Johnson, wh o was one of the researchers

for the Center on Families, Communities,

Schools, and Children’s learning and a frequent

participant in International Roundtables, has

studied parent/family centers and reported on

their effectiveness (Johnson 19 93).

Reaching the hard to reach

Partnerships work best wh en they are designed to

benefit all children and families, across lines of

race, ethnicity, social class, and family income. I

see the gap between the hav es and the have-nots

is the most important political, social, and

educational problem that the w orld faces as it

starts the new millennium. Edu cators in every

place must make sure that progress toward higher

standards of academic content and performance

for students is shared across lines of race and

social class. We must make sure that the

wonderful new ben efits of technology don’t

further widen the already large gaps between the

poor and the affluent.

This means finding way s to help all students

achieve, despite economic d isadvantage. It is

important to ask parents to work hard not only for

the interests of better education for their own

children but also for better schools for all

children. I must point out with co nsiderable

embarrassment that the US has the widest gap

between rich and poor families (and the gap has

increased in recent years). The country offers

fewer and less generous social programs for

families and children than other countries.

There is an important new study which

documents the achievement gap between

middle-class and affluent children and children

who are poor, black, Hispanic, and low-income

white families. This report by the Education Trust

argues that raising standards of academic content

and performance for all children is both possible

and essential (Education Trust 1996).

Well executed partnerships can help schools

reach those parents they cons ider hardest to

reach. These are very often families that are poor,

from minority groups, or considered outside of

the mainstream. I have seen many successful

efforts to ‘reach the hardest to reach,’ but I have

also seen what Derek Toomey has been warning

us about for several years: that parent

involvement program s, if they reach and help

more affluent, middle-class families and their

children can actually widen and not narrow the

gap between the have’s and the have nots.

Toomey writes: I believe that many parent

involvement programs in schools fail to include

the hardest-to-reach families and that often these

families are not able to give the suppo rt to their

children’s education they w ould like to be able to

give’ (Toomey, 1992).

This warning leads me as I look ahead to

recommend that educators and organizations

concerned about narrowing the economic and

social class gaps pay special attention to

designing diverse and imaginative strategies

aimed at those families who are often left beh ind.

Partnership also means power-sharing

Partnerships work best wh en democratic

principles are applied.

These principles which include involving families

and other community residents in planning and

making decisions about their schools and about

how partnerships should be set up and managed

so that family members are seen as partners not

‘outsiders’ clients (for whom you do something).

When educators b egin to see families as partners

and not just ‘clients,’ I find that they will discover

ways to involve them in governance and

decision-making proces ses. This means they will


include them in decision-making about budgets,

personnel, and curriculum. T hey will tap their

opinions through surveys, focus groups,

conferences, and telephon e hot lines. They will

keep them informed about problems and issues.

We know that active or passive resistance will be

found to such participation w hich leads to

power-sharing, but those school leaders who take

the risks involved usually find that the benefits

outweigh the costs. The benefits include better

decisions, decisions that are more w idely

supported, a stronger sense of parent and

community ownership of school programs, and

increased political support from parents and the

community. To make power sharing workable

and realistic requires a careful re-design of the

decision-making structures u sually found in

schools and larger districts in which schools are

embedded. Many studies have shown that many

advisory or decision-mak ing committees that are

set up become only tokens or are dominated by

the educators. We know also that many structures

set up are dominated by the most sophisticated

and well-educated members of a school's parent

community.

One way to increase meaningful family and

community participation in d ecision-making is to

decentralize important decisions from the center

to the individual school. Another is to broaden

the kinds of opportun ities and structures. On this

point, I have been influenced by the work of

Philip Woods of the Open University in England

who provided a framework for thinking about

parent roles and aspirations which includes:

transforming the way services are provided,

making choices abou t which school to send th eir

children to; making sure the school is meeting the

needs the parents want it to; letting service

providers know their views; seeking to influence

or take part in the school decision-making

process (Woods 1993). Strong parent associations

or parent-teacher organizations can help provide

some parents with a stronger voice in school

affairs, if these groups address important school

issues and represent parent interests as well as

school interests.

Another very important form of power-sharing or

parent/community influen ce on schools is

through independent organizations such as

community develo pment associations and ch ild

advocacy groups . These groups can give p arents

and others in the community a stronger voice on

school matters. The importance of parent and

community organizations working on school

issues goes beyond helping the school. There is a

broader social benefit. I have been struck by the

work of Robert Putnam of Harvard University

who has demonstrated that one important element

of a civil society and stronger comm unities is

networks of civic associations. In h is research in

Italy over a decade Putnam has demonstrated

empirically the direct link between the existence

of a network of civic associations an d economic

productivity and the flourishing of democracy.

By civic associations he means organizations

such as parent groups, local choruses and

orchestras, sports clubs, neighborhood councils,

and community organizations working on school

issues (Putnam 1994 , 1997).

Putnam points out that the quality of public life

and the performance of social institutions (e.g.

schools and families) in America an d elsewhere

are powerfully influenced by norms and networks

of civic engagement, which he and others call

social capital.

Putnam’s work corrobo rates the political theory

of ‘civic humanism,’ which means that a strong

and free government depends on a virtuous and

public spirited citizenry and a civic com munity

that supports the governm ent. To reach such a

goal and sustain it a society must create education

for its citizens that emphasizes good citizenship.

While America has often been credited as being a

model for democracy and citizen activism,

Putnam notes that civic participation in our

country has declined markedly in the past four

decades. Reversing this decline is both an

educational and political challenge.


So, my point here is that collaboration between

schools, families, and communities is one

strategy that can be helpful in demo cratic

societies seeking to sustain and advance

democratic principles. Schools can make an

important contribution by striving to give the

families they serve a variety of opportun ities to

participate in setting policies about bud get,

personnel, and programs, and in important

decisions about the scho ol.

Cross national exchanges do work

I think our International Roundtables have

demonstrated over and over that studies and

examples in one coun try are useful to those in

seeking to change po licies and practices in

families, communities, and schools in the

direction of partnership. This is what I call the

‘more distant mirror’ phenomenon. Looking at

one’s problems and alternative s olutions at a

distance seems to give policy-makers, planners,

administrators, and researchers different ways of

thinking about closer-to-home problems.

Research and successful practice in one country

offer support for those who w ant to act to

improve education in another. Some

anthropologists who have studied the process of

cultural change point out that ‘dif fusion does not

typically involve the replication in o ne society of

some practice developed elsew here; rather what is

transposed is the basic idea, a model ‘one might

even say a metaphor’ which is then applied to the

particular circumstances of the receiving society’

(Renfrew 1976).

Final words

Educators must be optimists, and I am one, even

though cynicism is alwa ys fashionable in

academia and world even ts sometimes make it

difficult for anyone to maintain his or her

optimism. My hop e is that my work and yo urs

about partnerships and schools, families, and

communities is of more than trivial imp ortance. A

stronger, more positive reciprocal relationship

between schools and their communities can be

forged, and those relationship s will help

educators and communities use the positive

potential of education for good and humane

purposes. As I look ahe ad my optimist’s hope is

that we can harness the poten tial of education to

develop new generations that can escape the

legacies of violence, war, hatred of people who

have different color, ethnicity, race, or religion

that the twentieth century has left for the coming

hundred years. I think that educational systems

that put the partnership idea in practice can h elp

to meet this challenge and the other challenges

that the new century will bring.

References

Chavkin, Nancy (1992), Report on Two Projects Aiming to Examine the Connections among the

Families. Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, paper presented at the Fourth Annual

International Roundtable, San Francisco.

Davies D. and John son, V. (ed.) (1996), Crossing Boundaries: Multi-National Action Research on

Family-School Collaboration. Baltimore: Center on Families, Com munities, Schools and C hildren’s

Learning.

Education Trust (1996), Education Watch: The 1996 Education Trust State and National Data Book.

Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Epstein, J.L.(1992), ‘School and Family Partnerships’, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New

York: Macmillan.

Johnson, Vivian (1993), Parent/Family Centers: Dimensions of Functioning in 28 Schools in 14 States.

Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, 1993.


Palanki, A. and Burch, P. (1995), In Our Hands: A Multi-Site Parent-Teacher Action Research Project,

Boston: Center on Fa milies, Communities, Scho ols, and Children’s Learning, B oston University.

Palanki, A. and Burch, P. (1995), In Our Hands: A Multi-Site Parent-Teacher Action Research Project,

Boston: Center on Fa milies, Communities, Scho ols, and Children’s Learning, B oston University.

Pizzaro, Raul S. (1992), Quality of Instruction, Hom e Environment, and Co gnitive Achievement. Paper

presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San Francisco.

Putnam, R. (1994), Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. (1997), Bowling Alone: Amer ica’s Declining Social Cap ital. An Interview with Rob ert

Putnam, Journal of Dem ocracy (on line).

Renfrew, C. (1976), Before Civilization,(Harmond sworth, UK Pengu in, in G. Room, Innova tion in

Social Policy: European Perspectives on the Evaluation of Action Research, New York: St.

Martin’s.

Smit, Frederik and van Esch , Wil (1992), Parents and School Governing Boards in the Netherlands,

paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San Francisco.

Izabel Solomon, Policy Analysis and Community Relations, paper presented at the Fourth Annual

International Round table, San Francisco.

Toomey, Derek (1992), ‘Can We Involve Parents in their Children’s Literacy Developmen t with

Reach-out Activities?’ paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San

Francisco.

Woods, Phillip (1993), Parents as Consumer Citizens. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual International

Roundtable. Atlanta.

Parent involvement in education: models, strategiesand contexts

Shawn Moore, Sue Lasky

In this paper, we explore the conceptual,

empirical and strategic literature related to parent

involvement in educatio n. Parent involvement in

schooling has traditionally taken many forms

including parents helping their children with

homework, parent-teacher interviews, parent

nights, special consultation on student problems,

parent councils, and parent volunteer help in the

school and the classroom. Some evidence

suggests that activities of this nature can have

beneficial effects on student learning. From a

socio-cultural perspective, however, we will

review other evidence indicating that traditional

relationships between teachers and parents can

also perpetuate a power imbalance in favour of

teachers. In recent years, teachers’ relationships

with parents have become more uncertain and

contentious. Parents are becom ing more

questioning and critical about issues of

curriculum, the quality of instruction and

practices used to assess and evalu ate their

children. Home-school relationships are changing

for a multitude of reasons including greater

diversity of the parent population , changes in

family structures, increasing school ch oice, more

parental involvement in the governance of

schools, new methods of assessment and

reporting, and special education legislation.

These developments have implications for parent

involvement and stud ent achievement.

Formulating new strategies for inv olving parents

in their children’s learning is particularly

important during this time of profound social

change and educational reform in Ontario,

nationally and internationally. Since parents are

not a homogeneous group, conflicts concerning

expectations between parents and teachers,

culture between home and school, and

institutional barriers are bound to arise. Involving

parents as partners requires an understanding of

parents’ perceptions of schoo ling, their

aspirations for their children, their approach to

parenting, their expectations of teachers, an d their

concept of their role and respons ibilities.

We first examine child-parent interactions both

inside and outside the home through the

theoretical lens of stages in a child’s cognitive,

emotional and social development, explore the

barriers that divide teachers and parents, paren ts

and schools, and parents and their children,

identify the socio-cultural factors that influence

school-parent understanding, and propose

strategic approaches that can enhance

communication, community and partnerships

between parents, teachers and schools. In our

consideration of the empirical literature, we paid

special attention to exemplary stud ies and models

which have received auth oritative recognition in

the field and cutting edge research that provides

new insights into parent-teacher interaction . We

argue that the structures of schooling must sh ift

from closed and protectionist to open and

inclusionary if parent-teacher partnerships are to

flourish over time and benefit children.

Second, we consider the implications of the

conceptual and empirical literature for the

organization and substance of the EQAO

(Education Quality and Accountability Office)

grade 3 and grade 6 Home Questionnaires.

Surveys are important, commonly used tools for

gathering information abou t how parents are

involved in their children’s learning and the kind

of modelling they provide in the learning process.

The validity and reliability of such instru ments is


important if the data are to be trusted for making

claims, predictions, and policy decisions. The

Home Questionnaire operates concurrently in a

wider context of demographic and educational

change. Socio-cultural meanings embedded in the

questions may resonate with some parents, but

confound others. We analyzed the Home

Questionnaires in relation to literature on parent

involvement and what is known to date about

best practice. We argue that the Home

Questionnaire needs to reflect the socio-cultural

experiences of parents as a diverse group and

that the ability to disaggregate these parent data

according to key demographic variables can

deepen our understanding of the dynamics of

parents’ involvement (or lack thereof) in the

home and in the sch ool.

Finally, our review takes place in a climate of

tumultuous change on the educational landscape

in Ontario as well as concurrent sweeping

educational changes in other Canadian provinces

and countries. These changes reflect paradoxical

forces of centralization and decentralization. In

Ontario, for example, the ministry has centralized

educational taxing and sch ool funding while

decentralizing power to school councils. It has

centralized and standardized curriculum and

reporting while decentralizing responsibilities for

implementing these new policies. The reform

scenario has provoked spirited debate in the

province on the future of public education

including the role of parents in schooling. Some

claim that current educational chang es in Ontario

are ‘progressive’ in response to changing

community demographics, the need for greater

accountability to parents, and the requirements of

a competitive global economy. Other observers,

however, are critical of current reforms as narrow

in scope, regressive in terms of teaching and

learning, and insensitive to the day-to-day

realities of teachers’ professional lives. In any

event, educators, parents and students are caught

up in a time of political crisis and uncertainty in

education, which is affecting their relationships in

significant ways. Our review ex plores where

parent involvement is conceptually and

structurally positioned within the educational

change process. In this regard, the experiences of

educators and parents in other jurisdictions can be

highly relevant in the Ontario context. The

changes occurring in pu blic schooling in Ontario

today are, in part, the result of pressures from

parents themselves. We need to keep this in mind

as we explore the concepts, m odels and contexts

of parent involvement in ed ucation.

Objectives

- conduct a critical review of the conceptual and

methodological literature in order to assess

parent involvement and its relation to school

achievement, including the role of family and

school demography.

- evaluate empirical findings concerning the

relationship between different forms of parent

involvement and student motivation, learning

and success.

- elucidate how patterns of parent inv olvement in

education vary according to differences in

social class, language, traditions, ethnocultural

background, and family type (e.g., single

parent, blended family).

- engage critically with the EQAO grade 3 and

grade 6 parent surveys bas ed on the literature.

- conceptualize alternative models of parent

involvement in education from a synthesis of

theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and

practical considerations.

- identify strategic implications of empirical

findings for enhancing communications

between parents and teachers and promoting

parent involvement in their children ’s learning.

Design and methodology

We began with a global search of the literature on

‘parent involvement’ - including databases and

websites. We also searched the most current

editions of about 20 of the m ost relevant journals

of education for relevant articles that would not


yet be on the ERIC database. Then, we organized

studies according to major questions under

investigation: parents’ views, models of parent

involvement, school demographics, reporting,

and best practice. In so doing, we focussed on

what the concept of ‘parent involvement’ means

from the perspectives of parents, teachers and

researchers as well as different levels in the

system - home, school, board and province. As

we probed deeper into the literature, we identified

barriers of culture, language, race, power, and

bureaucracy that tend to keep parents safely on

the margins of schooling. In our analysis of

findings concerning parent involvement across a

multitude of school and home contexts, we

identified key themes. Theory helps to explain

variability in findings across contexts. For

example, Waller’s assertion that parents and

teachers are natural antagonists (parents being

oriented to their child and teachers oriented to a

child as part of a group) gets to the heart of the

dynamics of many parent-teacher struggles.

However, Waller’s notion does not fully account

for differences in how parents and teach ers

perceive one another throug h different socio-

cultural lenses. Motivational, cultural and

organizational theories also come into play. We

intentionally selected exemplary studies, a few of

which provide rare, revealing glimpses into the

social organization of parent-teacher interaction.

Ideally, parents and teachers can learn to

understand and appreciate the world from the

other’s perspective. However, our examination of

parent-teacher relationships sugges ts that simply

bringing parents into the teachers’ world may

actually increase tensions without effective

strategies professional development and parent

education.

We examined the process as well as the substance

of parent involvement. Process refers to the

constantly changing dynamics of parent-teacher

relationships and parent-child relationships over

time. We have not attempted to create a definitive

dictionary of ‘parent involvement’ or ‘best

practice’. Rather, we identify and discuss

alternative strategies in relation to empirical

findings, concepts and authoritative models.

There are some excellent handbooks that suffice

as strategic guides. However, research findings

suggest repeatedly that understanding particular

family cultures, particular school environments

and particular teachers’ perceptions is essential

to designing effective approaches to parent

involvement. In this regard, we found some case

studies where claims of successful partnerships

are made. We also discovered some unsettling

accounts of parent-teacher conflict and alienation,

where partnerships have failed to materialize

because of distrust and political tensions -

sometimes bitter and prolong ed. As well,

conflicting beliefs about rights, expertise, abilities

and cultural stereotypes cast teachers and parents

into ‘adversarial’ rather than collaborative

relationships. Although, prescriptive guidelines

cannot be expected take into account all these

complexities and variabilities, clearly written,

informative documentation for parents is an

important component in communicating with and

supporting parents invo lvement in their children’s

learning. In summary, the specific steps in our

methodological appro ach were as follows:

A. Assessment of empirical research findings on

parent involvement accord ing to:

- demographic and cultural variation in types

of parents by class, race, culture, gender, and

family type;

- ecological variation in school size, structure,

location (rural, urban, suburban), student

population, and setting (elementary/

secondary).

B. Search databases (e.g., ERIC, including

Canadian Educational Index, Australian

Education Index, British Education Index;

ONTARIS) with focus on research on primary

care giver / parent / parent involvement.

C. Review books and refereed journal articles,

including publications and reports connected

with International Centre for Educational


Change extensive research studies and findings

concerning parent comm unication, relationship

and involvement.

D. Analysis of grade 3 and grade 6 parent

questionnaire instruments in terms of the

conceptual and empirical literature on parent

involvement.

E. Professional contacts with key researchers

and centres in the field for collaboration and

research advice (e.g., Joyce Epstein, Centre on

School, Family and Community Partnerships,

John Hopkins University).

Key questions

Our review of the literature was organized around

a number of key questions outlined in our

original proposal to EQA O:

1. What are the most effective forms of parental

involvement in relation to parents’ point of

view as well as demographic and ecological

factors?

2. What are the authoritative models of parent

relationship and how do they inform strategies

for parents’ involvement in their children ’s

learning?

3. How do parent and school demographics

modify the relations among other variables

such as parent interest and motiva tion to

become involved in education?

4. What is the role in reporting to paren ts in

fostering assessment literacy and motivation

for parents’ involvement?

5. What are best practices in terms of

communication and involvement of parents in

their children’s learning?

6. How well do the dimensions of the parent

questionnaires for grade 3 and grade 6 reflect

concepts in the literature, tap into parents’ life

experience, enhance parents’ understandings

and motivate parents’ involvement?

Discussion and conclusion

Parent involvement is an amorphous concept that

can mean very different things to parents and

educators depending on their ethno-cultural point

of view. In this regard, a very prominent them e in

the literature is the need to ground concepts of

parent involvement in relation to particular

individual and school demographics. The

literature we reviewed also reflects both the

psychology and sociology of parent invo lvement.

On a psychological level, the focus of study is on

the individual’s experiences, perceptions,

feelings, expectations, memories and aspirations

for the child’s education and their role in it.

Almost all parents regardless of background, for

example, want the best edu cation for their

children and try to be conscientious about helping

them succeed. At the same time, parents often

report feeling powerless, frustrated, and

marginalized from teachers and the schooling

process. Parents’ expectations of their children,

the teacher, the school and themselves are a

reflection of their own ethnocultural background

and their own experiences of schooling.

Likewise, teachers’ expectations of pa rents are

shaped by their own ethnocultural experience, by

their concern and responsibilities for ‘other

people’s children, and also by their professional

acculturation.

A socio-cultural perspective has b een the main

focus in our analysis of the literature on parent

involvement. In this regard, the literature

indicates that the cultural understandings and

realities of parents can conflict sharply with those

of teachers. Absence of or breakd own in

communication betw een parents and teachers is

documented in many case studies and surveys.

Particularly, linguistic and bureaucratic barriers

can silence minority parents voices. The evidence

also suggests that training is lacking for both

parents and teachers on how to work together.

Preservice and inservice have no t kept pace with

rapidly changing dem ands and new partnersh ip

roles in working with parents. On top of all of

this, administrators and teachers in On tario are

under intense reform pressure from government

and parents to open their do ors, change their


practices, structures, curriculum, and, in general,

be more ‘accountable’ to the wider public. EQAO

is playing an important role in this process of

educational change. The evidence we reviewed

suggests that schools are hav ing difficulty

transforming themselves into ‘learning

organizations’, which are flexible and responsive

to the forces of demographic and political change.

Reform demands on teachers in Ontario over the

last three years have been crushing and

relentless. This has resulted in many of teachers

retreating from parents to protect themselves,

rather than joining forces with them. In contrast,

research on communication and best practice

points time and time again to the need for the

structures of schooling to change to more open,

inclusive systems where partnerships between

teachers and parents are the norm, rather than

the exception.

We have compared parents’ views with those of

teachers and identified some of the most

significant factors in their relationships in terms

of children’s achievement. In this regard, the

conceptual literature suggests that parents see

their child and teachers see a child as part of a

group. The empirical literature tends to sup port

Waller’s thesis to a point, with parents often

asking for individualized, personal

communication. In add ition, there is ample

evidence of the cultural, linguistic and

institutional barriers that keep teachers and

parents in their own separate worlds. At the same

time, the empirical literature offers some

persuasive evidence that partnership models can

create ‘bridges of understanding’ between the

home and the schoo l. Specifically, some critical

studies draw our attention to protective and

school-centred structures of schooling that

pathologize parents and keep them at a distance

from the core functions of teaching and learning.

The ‘deficit’ model and the ‘partnership model

are conflicting orientations each with qu ite

different implications for parent involvem ent.

While the demograp hics of family can create

significant barriers to parent involvement, the

power for change rests mostly with schools and

teachers where institutional power lies. The

exception to this assertion is parent political

activism.

Deficit models view parents and students from a

clinical position of greater knowledge and

professionalism. Schools that reach out, open

their doors and implement practices of parental

inclusion in part by adapting the school culture to

more closely fit the surrounding community

culture, on the other hand, are laying the

organizational groundw ork for meaningful,

parent-teacher partnerships. Our review s uggests

that the deficit model is alive and well whe n it

comes to inclusion of mino rity, single-parent and

low socioeconomic status families. Proactive

approaches to parent invo lvement are difficult

and demanding for administrators and teachers.

The evidence suggests that partnerships will not

automatically produce harmonious relationships.

First, parents are a very diverse population

reflecting many assumptions, attitudes, beliefs,

and images of schooling. Second, it would be

naïve to expect educators and school boards to

simply hand over institution al-based power to

parents. Third, conflicts grow more intense as

parents get more closely involved in the

classroom and in making decisions concerning

core functions, curriculum, staffing and school

governance. Fourth, some parents want no part of

such core decision-making roles and consider

them the prerogative of administrators and

teachers. In a multiracial, multicultural and

multiethnic society, such as Canada, these issues

are interlinked in complex way s that play out in

each individual situation. Nevertheless, the

literature suggests that partnerships offer a path to

work collaboratively which can foster parents and

teachers understanding of the world through one

another’s eyes. Teacher development programs

need to be designed and implemented that

develop in teachers the critical reflective skills to

see their own biases, to develop communication


skills that will help teachers talk with an

increasingly more diverse parent population,

which cultivate the value of involving parents and

provide teachers with a wide array of strategies

for how to do this.

The literature on parent involvement suggests a

world of ‘multiple realities’. The challenge for

educators and parents is to find w ays to work

collaboratively on the basis of each other’s reality

in the best interest of the child’s developm ent,

achievement and success. Partnership models -

particularly as formulated by Epstein, Ogbu,

Comer, Cummins and Hargreaves - provide

conceptual scaffolding upon which collaborative

relationships between parents and teachers can

develop. While each p artnership model has its

strengths and weaknes ses, their common feature

is practices of two-way communication between

home and schoo l. Partnerships need to be

adapted to fit particular co nditions of family

demographics, student developmental needs,

school structures, and community resources.

Innovations - such as paren t centres, homework

‘hotlines’, home visits, parent coordinators,

teachers as ‘ethnographers’, parent-teacher

teaming, parent education and training, three-way

conferences, and ‘schools in th e community’ - are

particularly promising ways to foster two-way

communication, emotional understanding,

cohesion between school practices and parent

support roles, and involv ement of community

resources. The potential of technology for

improving reporting, networking, and parent

involvement has yet to b e fully explored, and this

means giving access and resources to all parents.

However, unless real rather than illusory power

is shared with parents, who are willing and able

to accept the responsibilities that go with it, the

notion of parent-teacher partnership will be

‘hollow words’ (Benson, 1999).

Finally, there are significant gaps in the research

on parent involvement. First, the role,

responsibility and expectation s of students

themselves are mentioned in only a few studies.

However, the place of students within

partnerships needs more conceptual definition

and empirical emphasis. Practices such as three-

way conferences point to the value of students’

voices in their own learning ex perience, for their

parents’ participation and parents’ ‘assessment

literacy’. Second, best practices of teachers’

professional development, parent training and

inquiry in the context of the partnership process

needs to be documented more thoroughly in the

Canadian schools, including models where the

parents and teachers learn together (e.g., Paide ia

seminars). Third, we have only scratched the

surface in understanding the micro-dynamics of

power and authority in interactions between

parents and teachers. Particularly, studies are

needed that focus on the social organization of

partnerships in institutional settings - especially

parent involvement in the school, the classroom

and in decision-making roles. The research we

reviewed clearly indicates tensions between

professional and persona l realities when parents

become closely involved in the day-to-day

activities of teachers’ work. These tensions have

to be confronted open ly and honestly, not

ignored.

‘I’m not clever. I listen to her read that’s all I can do’:parents supporting their children’s learning

Emma Beresford, Sue Botcherby and Olwen McNamara

Introduction

The role of the parent as co-supporter in the

educative process is vital if children are to

achieve their potential. Structures are in place

nationally to make schoo ls more accountable to

the community and to ensure they inform parents

of curriculum matters and, to a lesser degree,

enlist their support in helping their children to

learn; but the gap between practice an d rhetoric is

wide, particularly in the secondary phase. The

Link Project was a collaborative enterprise

between the Manche ster Metropolitan University,

Manchester Inspection and Advisory Service

‘partnership with parents’ and 5 Manchester

schools (3 secondary and 2 primary). It was an

action research and development project which:

identified and evaluated communication

strategies between home and school; discovered

what parents currently knew and believed about

their children’s schooling and how they

supported their learning; developed, implemented

and disseminated curriculum/ training resources

to improve knowledge of the curriculum, access

to resources and understanding of strategies

which help parents sup port their children’s

education. This paper briefly reviews the research

process and reports on the findings and

development work .

Process

The five schools involve d in the project were

chosen, from a cohort of vo lunteers, to cover a

range of socio-economic and ethnic populations.

Two of the schools were RC Voluntary Aided

schools (1 primary, 1 secondary) in a solidly

white, working class, socio-eco nomically

deprived area of the city. The other 3 schools

were in a slightly more mixed so cio-economic

community with betw een 30% and 60 % of pupils

from ethnic minority families. The project as a

whole focused upo n families of children in years

1, 6, 7 and 10; chosen to be at the beginning or

end of the ‘key stages’ of education where school

activity with regard to involving parents in

supporting their children, and parental interest in

doing so, could reasonably be expected to be

important. Interviews were cond ucted with

parents/carers of 65 children, sampled with regard

to variables such as social class, ethnicity, ability

etc. every attempt being made to ensure the

sample was representative of the school

population as a whole. In addition, interviews

were conducted with pupils and school staff,

including Senior Man agement Teams and Year

Heads. The research process included the

distribution of a questionnaire to 500 families

across the five schools. The questionnaire was

designed with a substan tive section common to

all schools and an addition al section specific to

each individual schoo l focusing on their

particular concerns. Over 250 resp onses were

received and although efforts were made to offer

support to parents who might experience

difficulty with written English, we nevertheless

felt, that responses were skewed to higher socio-

economic classes and ethnic minority families

were under represented.

A significant feature of the project was the

establishment of Parental Action Teams (PATs)

of key stakeholders in the educative process:

teachers, parents and governors. The PATs were

involved in the research design, data collection,

mediation of findings, development work and

finally the evaluation of those developments.


PATs met both locally, managing the project at

school level, and centrally in a consultative group

which, in addition to its adviso ry remit with

regard to the research and development processes,

provided an arena for the sharing of good

practice. There was a continuing cycle whereby

the research not only identified existing good

practice but also informed the development work,

which was in turn evaluated .

Findings

(i) Contact

Primary parents contacted schools on a regular

basis: 25% contacted schools once a month and

60% once a term. The ease with which parents

were able to speak to teachers varied g reatly: in

one primary school parents found 23% of

teachers always and 71% usually available; in the

other school 68% of parents found staff always

available. Both primary scho ols had apparently

successfully established relationships with the

parents: overall 40% of parents felt they knew the

classteacher best, 30% the headteacher and 30%

felt they knew both well. On ly 2% of parents in

one school and 7% in the other felt they knew no

one well. The transition from primary to

secondary school was felt to be quite ‘scary’ for

parents and children alike. First impression s were

important: one secondary school reorganised its

introductory meeting into a format based upon

small informal groups and parents felt them to be

‘informative’ and ‘friendly’: ‘we all went it, was

like a family thing’.

Secondary parents reported surprisingly few

contacts with the school 60% only contacted once

a term and 30% never made contact. When they

did contact schools 15% of secondary

respondents found the teachers always available

and 70% found them usually available. Evidence

from the interview data with regard to this matter

was mixed. Whilst some parents felt ‘the school

is responsive they always seem to return your

calls’ over one third of those interviewed said

they had experienced d ifficulty, sometimes

considerable, in contacting schools or individual

teachers: ‘I left many messages and they never

got back’. A couple of parents remarked upon

difficulties encountered when problems arose

after school or in the holidays: ‘I find it

frustrating that by the time the children get home

you can’t contact anybody at the school so you

are left frustrated ‘till the next day’. One parent

suggested a ‘voice mail’ facility would be useful.

How schools dealt with incidents left a lasting

impression on parents: ‘My estimation went right

up. You know there is going to be problems at

school but if you kno w they are going to be dea lt

with professionally and promptly it makes you

feel confident. I was very impressed’.

Questionnaire data regarding the building and

sustaining of relationships in the secondary phase

was mixed. There were sign ificant differences

between schools, perhaps as a result of structural

factors, as to who parents felt they knew best. In

one secondary scho ol 16% of parents claimed to

know the headteacher best whereas in another

none did. Numbers claiming to know the

classteacher well varied from 16% in one school

to 50% in another. Between 20% and 35% of

parents, however, still felt they knew no one well.

The reasons for this lack of conn ection were

undoubtedly co mplex. On one level ma ny parents

had to rid themselves of much ‘emotional

baggage’ and overco me the various ways in

which the school system, and in particular the

secondary school system, inadvertently alienated

them. Ghosts from the historical past featured

large in parent memories: one mother recalled her

own experiences as a child at sch ool in the 60's,

‘I left school unable to read and write, cou ldn’t

wait to get out so I bring these experiences’. For

another it was those of her husband: ‘My husband

is very anti religion - the religion was very pushy

at his school.. being humiliated.. didn’t want the

children to go through th at’. Many parents felt

intimidated by the academic etho s of the school:

‘the whole system and language around the


system is very difficult, they all alienate us’;

‘there were computers everywhere and it was

dead hi-tech and I was thinking AHHH!’ For

some there were cultural barriers: one father felt

his son’s school was a ‘forcing house for the

middle classes … hidden curriculum … preparing

kids for company life’; one mother ‘speaking as a

black working class woman’ felt ‘the PTA can

appear very elitist... particularly at secondary

school’. Some parents felt psych ologically

threatened: ‘you need a lot of con fidence to

contact the school’; ‘enormity... annexes and

classrooms… new ... scary… too big… don’t

know anybody... get lost… those feelings stay

with you throughout the whole school’. Another

mother wanted to assert social boundaries

between home and school: ‘it’s all like the

boundary/demarcation .. bringing your social life

into school’.

(ii) Information - Curriculum

Overall 70 % of parents were satisfied with the

quantity of the general information they received

about the school and their child, 25% felt they

had too little although nobody felt they had too

much. Questionnaire data indicated that, on the

whole, they found the information ‘easy to

understand’, ‘well presented’ and ‘useful’; but

they were a little more unsure that it was ‘sent at

the right times’. Evidence from the interviews

was a little more mixed with regard to the q uality

and clarity of the written materials. Evidence

indicated that overall nearly half the parents

believed they got all of the information sent home

via their child. In the secondary phase the

reliability of the child as ‘postman’ clearly

decreased with age: twice as many year 7 parents

felt they got all the information as year 10

parents, 10% of the latter felt they got ‘very

little’. As one year 10 father complained:

‘sometimes it’s like getting blood out of a stone,

unless you push and push him for the information

you don’t get it’. Overall girls were felt to be

significantly more reliable than boys when it

came to delivering information from school. In

the primary phase the picture was varied, 68% of

parents in one school and 35% in another felt

their children brought home all the information

they were given. A num ber of the parents

interviewed felt strongly that important things

like SATs results and reports should either be

posted home or more effective structures should

be in place to ensure the collection of reply slips.

Parents’ knowledge about the curriculum and

assessment processes was generally fairly vague

across both primary and secondary phases.

Questionnaire evidence indicated that between

37% and 62% of primary and secondary p arents

felt they had about the right amount of

information on both what their child was taught

and the exams they took and between 33% and

60% felt they had too little. It thus appeared that

information dissemination practices and strategies

across schools varied tremend ously in their

quality and effectiveness. As a consequence

overall about 20% o f secondary responden ts felt

they knew ‘a lot’ about what their child was

learning, in the primary phase the variation was

from 10% in one school to 50% in another. 23%

of secondary respondents felt they knew ‘little’ or

‘nothing’. In the primary schools the

corresponding figures w ere 8% and 32% .

Most parents appeared to k now what subjects

their children were studying but were unclear

about the NC levels and grading of the SATs

tests: ‘I think the NC is jargonistic’; ‘I start

reading it and I get bored I don’t un derstand half

of it really’; ‘I heard about the key stages but I

don’t know what they are I don’t know how they

are assessing them, I don’t know anything about

the levels and I would like to know’. A number of

parents expressed a desire to know more: ‘I’d like

it better to understand the NC be cause I think R is

under some pressure from th e work at school.

From that point of view I’d like to understand a

little bit more. I think I’d also like to know how

parents could help children appropriately’. One

mother also acknowled ged the problems: ‘if


somebody said to me would you come on a day

course about the national curriculum I would say

no. So it depends what is being offered really’.

(iii) Progress

Parents on the whole felt slightly better informed

about their child’s progress than about the

curriculum. Questionnaire data indicated that

between 42% and 56% of secondary p arents felt

they knew a lot about how well their child was

doing; between 14 % and 32% felt they k new only

a little or nothing. The picture was similar in the

primary phase where 30% of parents in both

schools felt they knew little about h ow well their

child was doing.

Parental knowledge of their child’s progress was

informed in a number of w ays. In the secondary

phase all schools operated some form of journal

or log book and m ost parents seemed very

positive about its potential as a 3-way mode of

communication; some were very positive: ‘thanks

to the journal I feel I have a personal relationship

with all of D’s teachers’. Evidence from the

interviews suggested that w hilst some parents

‘got the journal every night’ and felt it ‘operated

quite successfully… gives the children a focus’

there was a drift in its use from year 7 to year 10.

A number of parents felt the potential of the

journal was not always realised. O ne parent felt

there was a tendency for teachers to w rite

‘negative comments, they d on’t seem to write

positive things’. Parents were very encouraged by

unsolicited positive comments: one mother,

whose son was in a remedial centre, remembered

that she had given her son ‘a big hug’ when she

got a letter congratulating him on his English

work. Credit systems, wh ere in operation, were

approved of by bo th parents and children, if it

was applied consistently by teachers and across

all subjects.

Parents’ evenings were described as ‘useful’ by

over 75% of secondary respondents, nearly 60%

described them as ‘welcomin g’ and ‘informative’,

but only 30% thought they were ‘well organised’.

One third of parents felt the evenings ‘too

rushed’. The picture was mu ch the same in

primary schools. A small nu mber of parents

remarked upon the variable quality of the

information received from staff at parents’

evenings. One parent recalled a very useful

interview with a teacher who pinpointed that her

son had problems with his concentration and

suggested ‘in a nice professional way’ strategies

to improve his memory. Another parent stressed

the value of receiving detailed and focused

feedback from teachers.

The picture in both primary an d secondary data

with regard to written reports was equally mixed.

Nearly 90% of respondents felt the language used

was easy to understand; although again evidence

from the interviews was a little more mixed in

this respect. Only 70% of secondary (and 80% of

primary) parents felt that the marks and grades

were equally transparent; leaving 30% unsure, or

decidedly unclear: ‘a bit mind-boggling’ as one

mother put it. Lack of understanding ran deep:

there was still confusion about how to interpret

marks, ‘40% is that good?’; about the assessment

system, ‘it went from 3.6 to 6.2 he w as very

pleased but to be honest I hadn’t a clue’; and even

about percentages, ‘38% out of what? It might be

out of 40%’. Some appeared quite alienated by

the whole business ‘wh en you open these rep orts

it’s like getting the gas or electric bill with all

these symbols and thin gs’. 20% of respond ents

felt reports did not give enough detail and 30%

were unsure that they gave a clear pictu re of their

child. Nearly half of the responden ts were unsure

that reports were sent often enough. This latter

message was reinforced in the interviews: as one

year 7 parent observed ‘November they are not

established. November to June is practically a

whole academic year if there is a problem time

has been wasted’.

Despite feeling reasonably well informed about

their child’s progress there were still however

significant differences in parents’ expectations for


their children that did not correspond to actual

examination results: in the second ary schools

58%, 62% an d 26% of parents exp ected their

children to get degrees; in the primary sch ools

30% and 70%. The most likely explanation for

these marked differences lay in the socio-

economic distribution of the schools’ intakes.

When collated across the sa mple as a whole there

was significant positive correlation between

social class and expectations; 85% of professional

parents, 80% of managerial, 38% of skilled, and

29% of semi-skilled expected their children to get

degrees.

The vast majority of secondary parents, in all

schools did however feel that they could make a

difference: 54% a lot, 36% some, and only 10%

felt they could make little or no difference. The

impact primary parents felt they could have was

significantly greater: 80% in one school and 65%

in another felt they could make a lot of

difference, only 5% felt they could make little or

no difference. Parents also felt they could make

significantly more difference to how well their

daughters did at school than their sons.

(iv) Homework

The amount of homework children did each night

at secondary school varied considerably : 3-17 %

spent 2 hours or more, about 50% overall spent

one hour, 30% half an hour, and, 5%, their

parents claimed, did none. M ost year 7 parents

felt the amount of homewo rk given to their

children was about right but over 40% of year 10

parents felt their children did not get enou gh. In

the primary phase overall 30% spent one hour,

60% spent half an hour, and 20% of children in

one school and 2% in the other did no homework.

When asked to describe the strategies that they

used to help their children most primary and

secondary respondents replied that they ‘show

interest’ and ‘give praise’. In the secondary phase

over 50% of parents ‘check work is done’,

‘explain work’ and ‘sugg est improvements’.

There was strong evidence here again to suggest

that parents in year 10 helped children

considerably less than those in year 7. In the

primary phase virtually all parents claimed to

‘listen to reading’, and 70% ‘test spelling s’,

‘check work is done’ and ‘explain work’. The

amount of help which children received from

family members was significantly age related. In

one primary school 30% of pupils had help each

night and in the other 55% ; by comparison only

6% of secondary ch ildren had help each night. In

year 7 nearly half the children got help once or

twice a week; 40% rarely got help. By year 10

one third of children got help once or twice a

week and over 60% rarely got help.

There were a number of reasons for this apparent

‘fall off’ in parental support and, in particular, it

was not necessarily for lack of willingness on the

part of parents: in year 7 only 4% of parents

claimed their children did not allow th em to help

with homework, by year 10 25% of parents felt

discouraged. In the primary phase, by

comparison, virtually all parents claimed to be

allowed to help their children with h omework. It

also appeared that girls were significantly m ore

receptive to help than boys. Parental expertise, or

rather lack of it, was a second theme which

emerged: ‘we’ve been studying at college but

sometimes even we do n’t know how to d o it’.

Parents felt inadequate particularly in the senior

years at secondary school: ‘in year 7 he brought

homework and we understood what he was

doing’. Maths seemed to be a recurrent problem:

‘I probably struggle a bit with maths because

mine was taught in inches and pounds and these

are in millimeters and grams’. Homework clubs

were posited as one solution: ‘I would love to see

a homework club because then there would be

someone for helping’. In ad dition to the support

provided by parents, grandparents and siblings

were often mobilized to help: ‘if she has any

problems she asks her older sister; my brother

helps if she has any difficult homework’. A

demarcation in terms of subject expertise was

also often apparent: ‘I can’t do maths my husband


can’; ‘if its maths or equations it’s his Dad…

spelling or English I help. Germ an is a no’. A

third theme which emerged from the data to

explain the apparent fall off in parental support

was that of independence: there was a growing

recognition that ‘when children get older you’ve

got to give them a bit of trust let them stand on

their own feet’. Although there did seem to be a

certain amount of covert surveillance going on,

‘she is uncomfortable about us looking in her

books so we tend to do it when she is at school or

in bed’.

Finally lack of information regarding homework

emerged as a significant issue. Between 6% and

36% of secondary parents responding to the

questionnaire claimed never to get enough

information about hom ework and overall only

10% were always satisfied with the information

received. Overall 45% of seco ndary parents

claimed never to get enoug h advice about how to

help their child and over 50% never got enough

information about the resources that may be

available to do so. In the primary phase the

picture was equally dismal: 13% of parents in one

school and 28% in the other claimed never to get

enough information about homework, about how

to help (20% and 38%) or about resources (30%

and 56%). Interview data confirmed this picture:

‘I wish the school would send leaflets it would

help me to help them... kids perceive things

different... there is a communication problem ’.

Also: ‘If they cannot be provided with books

because it’s too expensive... fair enough but you

can say exactly what books we can buy’. The

journal was viewed very positively as a method

of communicating on the issue of homework;

although the need for mo re systematic checks to

be made by all parties involved in its use,

particularly in year 10, was identified.

Developments

Key to the project and of central imp ortance to

the participating schools was that as an action

research project it embraced research and

development. There were some undeniably clear

messages for schools in the research findings.

Interviews and questionn aire data combined to

illuminate the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of

school/parent/child dyna mic as they related to

parents supporting their children’s education.

Additionally, data (not reported here) from the

individual school section in the questionnaire

informed schools abou t issues of specific

importance to them. Parents identified both areas

in which they were very su pportive of their

school’s existing policy and practice and also

ones in which they felt there was room for

improvement. Such data was able to, and did,

inform focused and practical dev elopment work

which, where possible, was evaluated for impact

and effectiveness. The PAT’s, utilizing expertise

in disseminating finding and fostering

developments, were the main engine for change,

in liaison with University and L EA advisers.

The experience of being inv olved in the whole

process with its attendant discussions,

information sharing and clo ser links with parents

acted as a catalyst in the school communities

stimulating awareness, interest and radical sh ifts

in thinking that informed practice and policy.

Two key interventions, which inspired

substantive developments, were the interim and

final research reports presented to individual

schools. The findings repo rted were such that in

all cases there were clear opportunities for

improvement based on sound qualitative and

quantitative information from interviews and

questionnaires. School managers reported how

helpful these were in both stimulating and

directing change.

One of the major findings ind icated that parents

had too little information about the curriculum

and how to help their child. In response, one

school changed the format of its Year 10 Parents’

Evening by engaging the staff practically in

producing curriculum information handouts on

each subject. These were simply designed,

written in parent friendly language and contained


practical advice about helping. The Parents’

Evening became a veh icle for sharing this

information in dialogue with parents. Both staff

and parents enjoyed and valued this new

resource. Later evaluations indicated that the

majority of parents had used it sub sequently.

Another school employed a similar model for

year 7 students to establish early and vital

curriculum links with parents. This initiative was

extremely successful with an ensuing school

commitment to provide something similar for

every year group.

The need for early contact with parents and how

this is managed emerged in the findings of the

project. One school radically changed its Year 7

induction procedure. Paren ts were invited in

small, manageable groups to meet with key

personnel, to sign hom e school agreements and to

share information and ideas. These meetings took

place over several evenings, utilizing outreach

staff for parents with English as a Second

Language, hard to reach parents, etc. The

feedback was extremely positive from everyone

involved with the quality of interaction/dialogue

commented upon as really valuable within the

context of a large school.

Another major finding indicated that a substantial

number of parents felt they had little information

about how to help with homework. An innovative

6 week interactive homework project entitled

PATCH (Parents And Th eir Children’s

Homework) emerged within the Advisory Service

involving one of the project schools and six other

High Schools. The project is a six week project

related to the English curriculum and is designed

to inform and engage pa rents in the homework

process. Parents, children and teach ers were

uniformly enthusiastic and positive about the

potential of the project. Other outcomes emerged

which were not planned for, for example, greater

closeness and understan ding between the child

and parent. One parent remarked, ‘I didn’t know

my child was so interesting.’ Teachers widely

reported delight at the outcomes of the project

and a shift in their thinking toward s parents, ‘I

didn’t realize they could make su ch a difference.’

The primary schools also trialled ho mework

projects involving parents. At one school a 6

week project - HELP (Helpers Encourage

Literacy Progress)- which began with a parents

meeting and involved parents in working on fun

spelling activities with their year 1 children

resulted in some remarkable improvements in the

childrens’ spellings. The other primary school

trialled another new authority led project - HIP (

Homework Invo lving Parents) - with year 5

children and parents on the topic - the Ancient

Egyptians - and were again very impressed by the

involvement of parents.

Schools engaged in several other developments,

either fine tuning and improving existing systems

or introducing new on es where gaps were

perceived. One school majorly improved the

student log book/planner and is introducing

interim reports of progress to parents. Another

produced special year booklets at the beginning

of each year giving basic information requested

by parents. One school organised a monthly drop-

in for parents to share ideas and gain the parental

perspective. Primary schools also improved their

half-termly curriculum information to parents.

The project and research findings have informed

developments at a number of levels. At the school

level the project schools are all responding to the

clear finding that parents at secondary and

primary level are concerned abou t their child’s

progress and want to help and that schools

needed to employ a variety of strategies in order

to facilitate this happening. This work is ongoing

and growing with sch ools continuing with

developments after the project has finished. The

research findings also have implications for wider

educational practice and policy.

At the local level the project and evaluations have

informed and in some cases inspired the

development of resources such as HIP, HELP and

PATCH which are being published. The findings

have impacted on In-Service Training with school


staff. Other Advisers and Inspectors have also

been given key information to help improve

practice which could lead to further development

work such as on reporting to parents.

At the national level, the research findings were

disseminated nationally via a very successful and

well attended National Con ference hosted in

Manchester. The general key findings across the

schools have been p roduced in series of visually

attractive, easy to read and use papers for

practitioners. The National Home/School

Development Grou p has been kept in touch with

the project findings and further papers based on

the research will be published in journals.

This research project has made an immediate and

lasting impact on the schools involved and has

provided rich data to supp ort the needs of parents

and schools. Through dissemination, the findings,

case studies and resources from the project are

impacting more widely. This process will

continue in order to support good working

practice between parents, children and schools.

As one parent said - ‘I didn’t know what to do

before - I was worried I’d get it wrong and

confuse him(her son) so I didn’t get involved

.............now ( after this homework project) I

know what to do and I really feel I can help. I’ve

seen the difference it’s made to him.’

Who gets involved and who doesn’t?

Stelios Georgiou

In an article with the revealing title ‘Why some

parents don’t come to scho ol’ Finders and Lewis

(1994) point out that practical, cultural and

psychological reasons may keep certain types of

parents away from the schools. These include

obligations to other children at ho me, difficulty in

getting time off from work, and feelings of

discomfort in the school’s premises because of

their own negative experience with schooling.

Generally, the connection of low or no

involvement to the family’s so cio-economic

status (ses) is very common in the literature.

Several authors (Davies, 1987; Lareau, 1987;

Ogbu, 1974) ma intain that schools are more

welcoming, more accessib le and therefore more

beneficial for middle and high ses parents rather

than for low ses ones. Thu s, the existing reality is

that demographics are of crucial importance when

one tries to answer the question that appears on

the title of this paper. More recent research

(Grolnick et al., 1997) goes beyond these

demographics and includes functional

characteristics of family as factors contributing to

low involvement. Su ch characteristics are

parental efficacy, existence of stress at home and

availability of social support resources.

Parental involvement has b ecome a central topic

among educational research ers in recent years.

Therefore, more information about parameters of

involvement is needed so that interventions for

the creation of parent-teacher partnerships can be

better designed and implemented. The purpose of

the study described here was to examine the

effect of one such parameter. More specifically, it

aimed at examining the relationship that may

exist between parental attributions and the

involvement of parents in the ir children’s

educational process.

Attributions and behavior

The attribution theory is often traced back to

Heider (1944) who claimed that people are not

content simply to observe events around them,

but strive to understand their causes. He also

proposed that actions are usu ally attributed to

stable and enduring factors, such as the actor’s

personality characteristics, rather than transitory

or variable factors such as moods . Ever since its

introduction, the attribution theory has been

widely used as an explanatory tool in several

areas including psychology, education and

political science (Graham & Folkes, 1990). In the

1980 s the attribution theory framework was

called ‘the most prominent and active area of

social psychology’ (Pep itone, 1981, p. 979).

Graham (1991) verifies that its influence

continues unabated, pointing out that ‘no other

motivational conception has achieved this degree

of visibility’ (p. 5).

In educational settings, this theory is usually used

in reference to attributions of child achievement

either by parents, teachers or students themselves.

There is adequate evidence suggesting that these

attributions influence directly or indirectly the

attitudes, feelings and future behavio r of all

actors involved. Particular variables that were

shown to be influenced by attributions are the

following: expectancy o f success, child self-

confidence, parent involvement and actual school

performance. Weiner (1985) has proposed a

three-dimensional taxonomy of attributions,

according to which attributions can be classified


on the basis of three criteria: (a) locus (internal or

external), (b) stability (stable or unstable causes)

and (c) controllability (controllable or

uncon trollable causes) . The chi ldren's

achievement tends to be attributed either to

internal factors (talents and biologically

determined dispositions) or external (i.e.

influence of parents, teachers, siblings, luck etc).

Effort and ability are two major internal sources

of attribution; the first is controllable but

unstable, while the second is stable but

uncontrollable.

The attributions that parents make ab out their

child s achievement can influence their behaviour

towards the child. As Stevenson and Lee (1990)

comment, ‘when paren ts believe that success in

school depends on ability in contrast to effort,

they are less likely to foster participation in

activities related to academic achievement that

would elicit strong effort toward learning on the

part of their children’ (p. 66). Furthermore,

attributional processes may play a major role in

observed SES differences in children’s

achievement. Relative to children from higher-

income families, children from lower-income

homes tend to believe that they have little control

over their environment and therefore are more

likely to attribute their success to external factors

such as luck and ease of the task rather than to

their own effort or ability (O’ Sullivan & Howe,

1996).

Attributions and parental involvement

The study that is presented here (Georgiou, 1999)

was conducted in Cyprus among 473 parents,

most of which (73% ) were mothers. Its basic aim

was to examine the existing relationship between

parental attributions, parental involvement and

child school achievement. It was hypothesised

that parental attributions influence child

achievement indirectly by altering the degree of

parental involvement. That is, parental

involvement activities are behavioural

manifestations of the pre-existing parental

attributions of child achievement and that they

have effects on child achievement. In other

words, certain types of attributions that p arents

make about their children’s achievement can

explain why these parents exhibit specific types

of involvement in children’s educational process.

This behaviour, in turn, may influences actual

child achievement.

It was found that some types of parental

involvement are indeed sig nificantly related to

parental attributions. Attributing the child’s

achievement to ‘significant others’ was related to

the parents controlling behaviour and the interest

developing behav ior. The helping with hom ework

type of involvement was not related to any

attribution factor, but it was related, although

negatively, to the child’s actual achievement.

Furthermore, attributing the child’s achievement

to its own effort was related positively to the

interest developing parental behaviour and

negatively to the anxious pressure for better

results.

The more parents attributed their child’s

achievement to its own effort, the better this

achievement was. No such relation was found

between achievement and other parental

attributions. As for the relation between parental

involvement and child achievement, it was found

that certain parental behaviors are positively

related to achievement, some are neg atively

related to it and some are not related at all.

Developing the child’s interests was the only one

belonging to the first category. Pressing the child

and helping with homework belong to the second

category, whilst controlling non-academ ic life

belongs to the third. These findings are in line

with earlier research (Georgiou, 1997). It is,

perhaps, noteworthy that significant correlations

were found between helping with homework and

controlling on the one hand and between helping

and pressing on the other.


One of the main hypotheses of this study was

based on earlier reports suggesting that ‘parents

who believe they can ‘ma ke a difference’ are

more likely to be involved ’ (Grolnick, et al.,

1997, p. 539). However, the findings show that

this seems to be only partially true. That is,

parents who believed that ‘significant others’

such as themselves, teachers and peers play an

important role in affecting children’s actual

achievement, tended to act out this belief by

becoming more controlling and keener to develop

their child’s interests. Interestingly, the first of

these parental behaviours was also found to be

negatively related to the child’s actual

achievement, whilst the secon d was positively

related to the same variable. No significant

relation was found between the above attribution

and the ‘teaching at home’ type of parental

involvement. Therefore, it would be better to say

that this attribution is related to certain types of

involvement and no t to involvement in general. It

should be noted that n o significant differences

were found between SES groups regarding either

attributions or involvement styles.

In summary, this study’s main findings about the

existing relationship between parental attributions

and parental involvemen t are the following:

- Parents who believe that their ow n role is

important in affecting their child’s achievement

tend to be more controlling an d more

facilitative to the development of the child’s

interests.

- Parents who believe that their child’s

achievement is caused by the child’s own effort

tend to be less pressing and – again - more

facilitative to the development of the child’s

interests.

As mentioned earlier, Grolnick et al., (1997) have

identified a number of parameters of parental

involvement, such as parental efficacy,

characteristics of the family context (stress, social

support, resources), teacher attitudes and

behaviour. The present study contributes to the

relevant literature by suggesting the inclusion of

parental attributions as possible predictors of

parental involvement.

References

Davies, D. (1987), Parent involvement in the public schools: Opportunities for administrators.

Educators and Urban Society, February.

Finders, M. & Lewis, C. (19 94), Why some parents don't come to schoo l. Educational Leadership,

51(8), 50-54.

Georgiou, St. (1999), Parental attributions as predictors of involvement and influences of achievement.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 409-429.

Georgiou, St. (1997). Parental involvement: definition and outcomes. Social Psychology of Education,

1(3), 189-209.

Graham, S. (1991), A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology

Review, 3(1), 5-39.

Graham, S. (1990), Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes

do. In S. Graham & V. Folkes (Eds), Attribution Theory: Applications to achievement, mental

health and interpersonal conflict (pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Grolnick, W., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. & Apostoleris, N. (1997), Predictors of parent involvement in

children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538-548.

Heider, F. (1944), Social perception and phen omenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-374.

Lareau, A. (1987), Social class differences in family-school relationships: the importance of cultural

capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.


Ogbu, J. (1974), The Next Generation. New York: Academic Press.

O’Sullivan, J. & Howe, M . (1996), Causal attributions and reading achievement: individual

differences in low income families. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 363-387.

Pepitone, A. (1981), Lessons from the history of social psychology. American Psychologist, 36, 972-

985.

Stevenson H. & Lee, S. (19 90), Contexts of achievement. Monographs o f the Society for Research in

Child Developmen t, 55 (1-2, serial number 221).

Weiner, B. (1985), An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological

Review, 92, 548-573.

Overcoming barriers to family involvement in low-income area schools

Oliver Moles

Thirty years of research supports the conclusion

that family involvement in children ’s education is

critical to student achievement (U.S. Department

of Education, 1994). Increasing families’

involvement in the education of their children so

that all children can achieve at high levels is an

important goal of Title I of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, as amended by the

Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of

1994. Title I provides over 7 billion dollars each

year to schools to assist children from low-

income families. The goal of Title I is to improve

the teaching and learning of children in high-

poverty schools so they can meet challenging

academic content and perform ance standards.

All schools and districts receiving Title I funds

must engage in an exten sive array of activities to

build the capacity of both parents and school staff

to work together in support of students’ learning.

Title I also requires schools to develop, w ith

parents, a written parent involvement policy that

describes how schoo ls will keep parents

adequately informed and how they will involve

parents in the planning, review, and improvement

of Title I programs.

The IASA law required that the U.S. Department

of Education (ED) conduct a study of parent

involvement that identifies and d escribes:

- ‘common barriers to effective parental

involvement in the education of participating

children;’ and

- ‘successful local policies and programs that

improve parental involvement and the

performance of participating children.’

A summary of the Report to Congress on the

study follows below.

Data sources for ED’s study inc luded: (1) a

review of the research literature on parent

involvement; (2) the Fast Response Survey of

School and Family P artnerships in Public

Schools, K-8 (SFSP), a nationally representative

survey of 810 elementary and middle school

principals; (3) the Parent/Family Involvement

component of the National Household Education

Survey (NHES), a nationally representative

survey of 20,792 children and their parents; (4)

profiles of 20 local Title I programs that have

been successful in overcoming barriers to parent

involvement; and (5) parent focus group

interviews conducted at five of those programs.

Most data were collected in 1996. The measure of

poverty is the count of students receiving free or

reduced-price lunches at schoo l.

Barriers to family involv ement in their

children’s education

A large body of research has documented that

when schools make a concerted effort to enlist

parents’ help in fostering children’s learning,

student achievement rises (Armor, 1976; Epstein,

1991; Leler, 1983; Toomey, 1986). When sch ools

invest in developing partnerships with families

that enable parents to suppo rt their children’s

learning at home and in school, the potential

benefits for students are great. When school-

related, family-related, or community-related

barriers deter parents from becoming involved,

students lose an important source of support for

their academic learning. The report identifies five

major kinds of barriers.


1. Lack of Time and Other Resources

Both schools and families frequently lack the

time and other resources they need to establish

effective partnerships.

- Principals of K-8 Title I schools report that time

is a barrier to parent involvement more often

than any other factor. 87% of Title I principals

report that lack of time on the part of parents is

a significant barrier to parent involvement, and

56% report that lack of time on the part of

school staff is a barrier.

- Teachers and parents lack the logistical su pport

that would facilitate their work together.

- Time and resource constraints are especially

problematic for poor parents. For these parents,

basic survival, child care, and health needs often

interfere with their participation in school events

(Fruchter, Galletta, & White, 1992; Liontos,

1991).

2. Lack of Information and Training

- Most parents and school staff receive little

training on how to work with one another.

- Almost half of principals (48%) in K-8 Title I

schools report that lack of staff training in

working with parents is a great or m oderate

barrier to parent involvement.

- Some parents report that they do not know how

to assist their children’s academic learning.

Without the proper information an d the skills to

work together, school staff and families are more

likely to view each other with suspicion and

distrust:

- 20% of principals in K-8 Title I schools report

that staff attitudes about parents are a barrier to

parent involvement in school. Uninformed

teachers are more likely to view parents’

absence in school as an ind ication that parents

don’t care about the education of their children.

- Parents who experience schools as uninviting or

alienating may decide that teachers d o not really

care for them or their children.

3. School Organization and Practices

Traditional school organization and practices,

especially in secondary schools, often discourage

family members from becom ing involved.

- Survey data show that parents of older children

are less likely to attend a school event or

volunteer at their child’s school than parents of

younger children.

- Because secondary schools are generally much

larger than elementary schools, with each

teacher responsible for many more students,

they can seem impersona l to parents.

Some schools continue to rely exclusively on

traditional outreach methods that have proven

effective for only a limited number of families.

- Many school activities that involve parents,

such as open houses and student performances,

tend to be school-dom inated and peripheral to

the day-to-day operations o f the school.

- If schools do invest in developing a repertoire of

parent involvement activities that emphasize

personalized attention and interaction with

parents, they will be more successfu l in

engaging parents whom they had given up as

‘hard to reach.’

4. Family-School Differences

Differences in education level, language, and

cultural styles between parents and school staff

sometimes make it more difficult for them to

form effective partnerships.

- Parents who have little education themselves

participate less often in school-related parent

involvement activities, such as v olunteering in

their child’s classroom or attending p arent-

teacher conferences. Parents who have had

negative experiences themse lves as students

may avoid contact with th eir children’s schools

as a result. In fact, survey data show that

parents’ educational level is even mo re strongly

associated with their involveme nt in schools

than is household inco me level.


- Survey data show that parents who do not speak

English at home are less likely to participate in

school-based activities, and mo re likely to

participate in fewer activities over the course of

the school year.

- Culturally based differences in communication

styles, expectations for teachers, parents, and

children, and views on the best ways to raise

and educate children can create discontinuities

between families and schools (McCollum &

Russo, 1993; K ellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, &

Bloom, 1993).

5. Lack of External Support for Family-School

Partnerships

Family-school partnerships are d ifficult to nurture

without the support of state and district

policymakers, community organizations, and

employers.

- The absence of clearly defined and articulated

policy on family involvement from the state or

district level and a lack of resources to supp ort

professional developm ent related to family

involvement sends a p owerful message to

schools.

- Many neighbo rhoods lack easy access to

resources that can support parents’ efforts to

help their children learn. Such resources include

libraries, museums, recreation facilities, and

health and social services.

- Many employers compound the pressures on

parents with inflexible work sch edules.

Survey data suggest that m any of the barriers

described in this report have sign ificant,

measurable effects on parent involvemen t in

schools, especially among low-income parents,

parents with little education, and parents of older

children. Schools, under the leadership of

principals, possess the primary responsibility for

initiating family-school partnerships; the

experience of hundreds of schools across the

country demonstrates that it can be done.

Successful local approaches to promoting

family involvement in their children’s

education

Many successful strategies used by Title I schools

and districts across the country demonstrate the

capacity of families, schools, and communities,

working together, to influence children’s learning

in positive ways. The exp eriences of 20 schools

and districts that have been succes sful in

engaging parents in their children’s education

illustrate many effective strategies for moving

schools, families, and communities beyond the

common barriers to family invo lvement.

Examples from these schools and districts will be

provided.

Overcoming Time and Resource Constraints

- Schools can set aside time during the school

day for teachers to meet with parents at school

or at home or free teachers from routine chores,

such as lunchroom supervision, so that they can

work with parents.

- Some schools can also use technology to

support school-home communication. This kind

of logistical support includes easier access to

telephones for teachers, voice mail, and

‘homework hotlines.’

- To help parents overcome time and resource

constraints, schools can provide transportation

and child care services, schedule events at

convenient times, and co nduct home visits.

- In addition to finding ways to help parents

become involved at scho ol, schools can help

parents support their children’s learning at

home. In their daily interactions with their

children at home, parents can be powerful

resources for promoting their children ’s

academic success.

Providing Information and Training to Parents

and School Staff

- Training in basic parenting skills teaches

parents about child develop ment and how to


establish a home environment that suppo rts

student learning.

- Courses that help parents build their own ba sic

literacy skills, earn a high school equivalency

diploma, accumulate college credit, or develop

job-related skills also support parents’

involvement in their children’s education. By

helping parents to reach their own academic and

vocational goals, schools equip them to better

support their children’s learning.

- Workshops help parents support their children’s

learning at home by offering practical ideas on

ways that parents can work with their children

directly on school work. Common topics

include helping students with curriculum-related

activities, homework, other academic decisions

and planning, and p reparing for required tests.

- Some training prepares parents to contribute

effectively to school decision-making or to work

as volunteers.

- Training for school staff is essential for

supporting the develo pment of effective school-

family partnerships. Such training addresses

telephone calls, home visits, and other contact

strategies; communication skills for paren t-

teacher conferences; and involving parents as

leaders and decision-makers in th e schools.

- Engaging parent coordinators or volunteers to

train school staff not only builds parents’

leadership skills but also offers teachers the

opportunity to learn first-hand about parents’

perspectives.

Restructuring Schoo ls to Support Family

Involvement

Some schools highlighted in this report have

reorganized to promote closer interaction between

teachers and students and, by extension, between

teachers and families. They have also redefined

traditional parent events to create more

meaningful ways to w elcome and involve p arents

in school life.

- An on-going need s assessment helps scho ols

respond more effectively to parents’ needs and

interests. By asking parents about their interests,

needs, and ideas for family involvement on an

ongoing basis, scho ols help ensure that their

efforts to reach out to parents complement

parents’ real needs and strengths.

- Schools can make changes to their physical

environment. For example, they can create a

space just for parents within the school, such as

a parent resource center, and they can post a

parent volunteer in the entrance hall to welcome

parents.

- Schools can also create formal organizational

structures for parent participation. Groups such

as parent committees, volunteer committees, and

site-based management co uncils allow parents

to take an active role in decisions affecting the

school and their children.

Whatever steps schools take to develop close

partnerships with families on behalf of students’

learning, schools that are most succ essful are

prepared to reconsider all of their established

ways of doing business and to restructure in ways

that will make them less hierarchical, more

personal, and more accessible to p arents.

Bridging school-family differences

- Schools can help parents strengthen their own

basic literacy skills. Some schools highlighted

in this report offer GED, ESL, and other adu lt

basic education classes to parents on site; other

schools send hom e projects and activity kits

intended to build parents’ literacy skills as they

work on them with the ir children.

- ‘Family math’ nights or sim ilar events help

allay parents’ fears about their own mastery of

subject matter. These events give parents a

chance to learn together with their children in an

environment that is pleasant and non-

threatening.

- To address language bar riers, schools

highlighted in this report provide extensive

translation services. These schools provide

translation for school-home communications,


parenting training, and participation in decision-

making and schoo l governance.

- A home-school liaison, often a parent who lives

in the community, can play a crucial role in

building trust between h ome and schoo l.

Because a home-scho ol liaison is usually

closely identified with the community and

shares the same cultural backgrou nd with

parents, he or she is well-equipped to reach out

to parents whose cultural back grounds differ

from teachers’.

- Other schools provide training and other

activities to promote understanding of different

cultures among schoo l staff.

Tapping external support for family-school

partnerships

Among the schools highlighted here, successful

parent involvement strategies often grow out of

family resource centers and partnership s with

local businesses, agencies, colleges, and

universities.

- School-community partnerships can support an

array of services that help parents get more

involved in their children’s education. Such

services may include homework hotlines, social

services such as substance abuse or child abuse

prevention, conferences and workshops, adult

education, health services, refurbished school

facilities, and refreshments for and

transportation to school-sponsored events.

- School district and state su pports for family

involvement include policies, funding, training,

and family services that sup port school-family

partnerships. District and state-run parent

resource centers are one example of how

schools can benefit.

Effects on student achievement

Although one cannot say that student

achievement gains or other p ositive outcomes in

any school or district are due solely to their

parent involvement activities, it does appear that

many schools that mak e parent involvement a

priority also see student outcom es improve in

some way. For example, of the 13 scho ols

highlighted in this report, eight repo rt gains in

student achievement data o ver the last one to

three years and four report gains in attendance

rates or consistently high attendance over 95%.

Parents themselves believe that their involvement

influences their child’s performance in sch ool. In

focus group interviews, for example, many

parents argued that their involvement had

improved their children’s attitude toward school

and engagement in learnin g.

Early implementation of the Title I Parent

Involvement Provisions

Survey data collected from Title I schools in

spring 1996, less than a year after the new Title I

provisions went into effect. They provide some

preliminary information on the implementation of

many activities required or endorsed by Title I.

Because the data were collected early, the

findings should be considered baseline measures

of schools’ progress in implementing Title I.

- 64% of Title I principals reported that their

schools consult parents in the development of

parent involvement activities. This consultation

is a key requirement of Title I.


schools have advisory groups or policy coun cils

that include parents.

- A much smaller num ber of Title I schools

reported, however, that they consider parent

input when making decisions on selected topics

related to school programs and policies. For

example, only 40% involve parents in making

decisions about the allocation of funds, and only

49% involve parents in making decisions about

discipline policies and procedures.

To build parents’ capacity to sup port their

children’s learning, most Title schools take steps

to provide parents with inform ation on how to

help their children learn at home, although the


quality, as well as the reach, of the information

provided clearly varies across scho ols.


schools provide information to parents on at

least one topic related to parenting or helping

their children learn at home. Topics include: (1)

child or adolescent development; (2) nutrition,

health, or safety; (3) parenting skills; (4)

information on community services; (5) helping

with homework; (6) developing study skills; and

(7) ideas for learning activities outside of

school.

Other services to parents endorsed in the Title I

legislation are fairly common among Title I

schools, although they are not universal.

- Of the Title I schools that serve students whose

parents have limited English skills, 86%

reported that they provide interpreters for

meetings. 69% report that they provide

translations of printed materials. These findings

indicate a relatively widespread effort on the

part of Title I schools to accommodate p arents

with limited English proficiency.

- 37% of Title I school principals reported that

their schools have parent resource centers.

- 67% of Title I principals reported that at least

some of their staff make home visits. Staff reach

an average of 17% of families in one year.

Conclusion

Although eviden ce of the most common barriers

to parent involvement can be found in almost any

school, the experience of many schools and

districts demonstrates that they can be overcome.

Successful schools view children’s success as a

shared responsibility, and all stakeholders -

including parents, administrators, teachers, and

community leaders - play imp ortant roles in

supporting children’s learning .

Title I can be an important catalyst for the wider

adoption of policies and practices that have

proven effective in fostering partnerships between

schools and families. Title I requires or endorses

many strategies that are recognized as effective in

supporting parents’ invo lvement in their

children’s education, and many of the practices

highlighted in Title I - for example, parent

resource centers, home visits, and the provision

of information and training to pa rents - are

already common among Title I schools.

It remains to be seen how well federal an d state

efforts to foster family-school partnerships will

support the successful dev elopment of school-

family partnerships in Title I schools. Continuing

research will be needed to assess schools’

implementation of the Title I parent involvement

provisions as well as the quality of the assistance

that schools receive from states and districts. A

closer look at the strategies required or endorsed

in federal and state policy - for example, scho ol-

parent compacts, information and training for

parents and school staff, and special strategies

such as home visits - as they are imp lemented in

schools will provide policymakers, practitioners,

and parents with a better understan ding of how all

schools can sustain effective partnerships with

families.

In addition to its legal requirements, the U.S.

Department of Education has sponsored a

Partnership for Family Involvement in Education

since 1994. It has grown to over 5000 schoo ls

and organizations. Through publications,

conferences and information sharing, the

Partnership aims to increase opportunities for

families to be involved in their children’s learning

at school and at home, to strengthen schools, and

to improve student achievement. In this way the

federal government also provides information and

assistance to help overcome b arriers to family

involvement in their children’s ed ucation.

Experiments with the role of parents in primaryeducation in the Netherlands

Frederik Smit, Hans Moerel, Peter Sleegers

Background

The research concerns the participation of parents

(or other care-takers of children) in activities at

primary schools in the Netherlands. In most

cases, parent participation refers to the situation

in which parents actively participate, or w ill

participate, in their children's education. Some

thirty years ago, parent participation was started

on the basis of the idea that goo d contacts

between the school and the parents would be in

the interest of the child. It would benefit the

pupils if also parents would be welcome at

school. Besides ‘participating’, parents also

wanted to have a say in w hat their children learn

and how education is given shape (Smit & Van

Esch, 1993).

The Educational Participation Act (1992) and the

(New) Primary Education Act (1985, 1998) have

been in effect as the statutory regulation of parent

participation in the Netherlands. The Educational

Participation Act provides a structure for bo th

parents and teachers to be a member of school

participation councils, as well as to be ab le to

monitor and influence the school governing

body's policy. The Act also allows parents to

establish their own parents' coun cil. This council

has the authority, whether requested or not, to

advise the school governing boards, the head

teacher or participation councils. Article 44 of the

Dutch New Primary Education Act stipulates that

the proper authorities must enable the parents of

pupils to conduct sup porting activities on behalf

of the school and education. This Article also

stipulates that parents, in conducting said

activities, are bound to follow the instructions of

the school principal and other teaching staff, who

remain responsible for the state of affairs. So

teachers and parents themselves are able to

determine how they w ill give form and content to

parent participation.

Very little empirical research has been conducted

on the concrete functioning of parent

participation (Smit & Van Esch, 1996). In this

paper, results of research into the implementation

of parent participation in primary scho ols are

reported. More specified in this paper the

different ways schoolteams in primary education

started to implement parent participation in b ehalf

of the optimization of pupils’s development

opportunities, the enhancement of pupils’

education careers and the improvement of

teachers’ task performance, are described.

Parent participation in primary education: a

model

In scheme 1 we present a model for the field of

force around parent participation. On the outside

of the circle we mention: the (national, local)

government, the parents, seco ndary schools, early

childhood education programs, parent

empowerment programmes. The national

government has stimulated the promotion of

principles of ‘dynamic schools’ and of parent

participation in various ways. D ynamic schools

are schools that take charge of change. Rather

then reacting to and being driven by the forces

impacting schools today, or pretending such

forces do not exist, the dynamic school seizes

them as opportunities to improve itself. Thus

numerous changes occur in dynamic schools.

These schools constantly learn and grow with an

aim toward improving. They respond; they


choose innovation and activities to address the

needs they see and feel.

In a dynamic school, boundaries between the

external and internal worlds are breaking down.

In primary education parents - and sometimes

representatives from community business and

agencies - participate in decision making

processes and offer variety of other inputs.

Parents can play different roles as regards to

parent participation. In primary education contact

with secondary schools, early childhood

education programs, parent empowerment

programmes play an (important) role.

School teams in primary edu cation can differ in

the way they implemen t parent participation in

behalf of the optimization of pupils’ development

opportunities, the enhancement of pupils’

education careers and the improvement of

teachers’ task performance. These aspe cts are

within the circle. As mentioned above the way

primary school teams implement parent

participation is the central focus of the research

reported in this paper.

Within the team of teachers a main factor for

introduction and implementation of parent

participation is the support for this idea within the

team. From theories about the learning

organisation we know that it is very important for

an organisation to have a clear mission and that

most of the members share this m ission. In this

context, it is important that principals prom ote

teacher leadership in schools. Teacher leadership

is expected to reinforce teacher motivation in

contributing to school improvement. Crucial tasks

for principals in facilitating leadership falls in the

areas of motivating teachers for involve ment,

developing authentic participation in decision -

making forums, enhancing teacher

communication and contact, providing rewards

and incentives for teachers, and mobilizing

resources (Sleegers, 1999).

For parent participation to be effective it seems to

be very important that it is part of the mission of

the school and the different units. If parent

participation is part of the mission then the

management is more or less o bliged to stimulate

that this part of the mission is realised.

Scheme 1 - Field of force around (implementation of) parent participation


In the Netherlands schools must have a school

guide providing interested parents with

information on the school’s objectives,

educational methods, care, and performance. The

school guide shou ld help parents in making w ell-

informed decisions in favour of a particular

school. Parents should b e able to derive from it

explicit expectations about the school’s offer,

while the school is being h eld accountable. It is

very important that the dimension of parent

participation is part of the school guid e. This

gives a certain guarantee that management

stimulates the implementation of parent

participation.

Research question and method

The leading research question of the study

reported here, is:

To what extent are experiments with parent

participation in primary education in the

Netherlands successful?

To answer this question qu alitative methods are

used. First, we analysed literature on parent

participation in primary schools in the

Netherlands the last ten years concerning the

mission of the schools and parent participation;

goals, targets, promotion of expertise, creation of

a base of implementation of new developments.

Second, we gathered qualitative data by means of

case-studies. The selection of seven research parts

was based on a number of types which emerged

through analysing literature on parent

participation. In this respect, special attention has

been paid to the proper div ersification of schools

(different pupil/teacher/parent characteristics, and

differences in the degree to which parents have

acquired skills in parent participation activities).

For the case studies, written sources have been

used. We analysed these data using case-

comparisons and controlled comparisons (Miles

& Huberman, 199 4).

Results

Types of experiments with parent participation

On the basis of the qualitative analyses, we

distinguished seven typ es of experiments with

parent participation. To describe this distinction

between different experiments we used four

characteristics: 1. description of reasons, 2.

targets, 3. strategies and 4. obstacles they h ave to

deal with.

In scheme 2 the reasons, targets, strategies and

obstacles in seven types of ex periments with

parent participation in the Netherlands are

described.


Scheme 2 - Analysis of types of experiments with parent participation in the Netherlands

reasons targets strategies obstacles

1 school can’t do it

alone: order

problems

lack of authority

building bridges

between home and

school

to be open towards parents:

‘learning to know’

fears of

undesirable

parental

interference

2 communication is

lacking between

home and school

a collaborative

relationship will

benefit pupils, parents,school and community

to facilitate the

communication between

parents and teachers:‘learning to do’

lack of integration

in school policy

3 no bonds offriendship between

immigrants and

native pupils

interculturalcommunication in

classroom and canteen

dialogue at local schoollevel:

parties, theatre, school paper

and parent involvement (with

special roles for immigrantkey figures):

‘learning to be’

having theperformance of

teachers

questioned

4 suboptimum school

climate: absence,drop out, violence

changing school

climate

plans including parent

collaboration and optimizinghome environments:

‘learning to live together’

parents take a

greater interest inexternal quality

care

(accountability)

5 different approaches

and aims of child

rearing anddistribution of tasks

across the schooland the family

improving the parents-

school relationship

school teams demonstrate

supportive behaviour

towards parents: ‘learning tolearn’

a Babel-like

confusion about

pedagogicalattunement

between parentsand teachers

6 home environmentdoesn’t support

learning

parents don’t help

and don’t givesupport in the school

mutual trust andrespect between

parents and teachers

two way home-school

collaboration

attention to (early) childhoodeducation programs and

parent empowerment

programs: ‘learning to use

resources’

restricted supportof management

7 parents are notinclude in school

decisions anddevelopment

active parentparticipation in a

variety of settings orcommittees

parental representation onschool governing bodies and

parent committeesset up networks to link

families with parent

representatives: ‘learning to

use networks’

lack of support ofmanagement

(missionzstatement)


Successful experiments

Although a distinction in different experiments

with parent participation is interesting, it does not

answer the research question. To answer the

research question, we have to define criteria for

successful parent participation practices. We

formulated the following criteria:

1. clear description of targets

2. usefulness of methods/strategies

3. the extent of influence of participants on the

process of the project

4. possibilities to reach the target group

5. the progress

6. coping with obstacles

7. the functions of the experiment for pupils,

teachers and the institutions

8. support of other professiona ls

9. the role of management

10. elements for raising standards of partnerships

between home and school.

Using these criteria, we analysed the qualitative

data. The results showed that successful

experiments with parent participation are

experiments which offer good possibilities to

enhance mutual understanding and tolerance.

More specified, it appeared that success depends

on the following (combination of) factors:

- the quality of the approach

- the mission of primary education (subscribed by

the teachers)

- the motivation/role of the participants

- communication and information exchange

- the targets/strategies

- involvement/support by the communities and

business

- the role of management, parent councils,

participation councils

- the consumer position o f parents

- parental involvement edu cation (scheme 3).

Scheme 3 - Successful experiments parent participation


Conclusions

As mentioned above, results of research into the

implementation of parent participation in primary

schools were reported in this paper. The results

showed that experiments with parent participation

differ with regard to reasons, targets, strategies

and (related) obstacles. Experiments also vary

from stimulating an open relationship between

parents and school, to active parent and

community participation in school governance,

and strong community partnerships.

Further, it appeared that different factors

positively affect the implementation of parent

participation. Some of these factors seem to refer

to the fact that for parent participation to succeed,

it is essential to have an adequate participation

structure (Smit, Van Esch & Sleegers, 1998 ). This

involves that parents’ representatives make clear

arrangements with competent authorities and

school management team: well-defined

procedures, clearly organised consultations and

distinct responsibilities put down on paper.

Adequate participation structures will result in an

increasing willingness to participate and can also

affect the quality of the approach to parental

involvement.

Some factors also seem to refer to the balance

between the internal (in-school community) and

the external environment (parents and the

community). In order to handle the link between

the internal and external contexts, environmental

leadership, integrating the external and internal

contexts, is needed (Goldring & Sullivan, 1996).

In a context of parental and com munity

empowerment, principals can no longer serve as

gatekeepers who attempt to limit parental and

community involvement, but must become

negotiators who utilize comp lex strategies to

balance institutional autonomy with external

participation. To encourage parental and

community activism in schools, principals must

operate in the community o utside their schools

while also bringing the com munity into their

schools. According to G oldring and Rallis

(1993), principals of ‘dynamic schools’ must be

in charge of building the bridges b etween their

schools and the surrounding world and they must

bear their schools’ flag across those bridges as

well as welcome those who can develop and

support the mission of the sch ool.

Literature

Goldring, E. & S. Rallis (1993 ), Principals of dynamic sch ools. Taking charge of change, Corwin

Press, Inc., California.

Goldring, E.B., & Sullivan , A.V. (1996), Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities

shaping the schoo l environment. In. K. Leithwood et al. (Eds.) International Handbook of

Educational Lead ership and Adm inistration (pp. 195-22 2). Dordrecht/ New York: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Miles, M. & A. Huberm an (1994), Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks, Sage Publications.

Sleegers, P. (1999), Leiding geven aan leren, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen.

Smit, F. & W. van Esch (1993), Parents in schools and school governing boards in the Netherlands.

In: Parental involvement in Edu cation, F. Smit, W. van Esch & H. Walberg (eds.), Institute for

Applied Social Sciences, Nijmegen, 67-74.

Smit, F. & W. van Esch (1996), Current trends in partnerships between parents and schools in the

Netherlands, International journal of Educational Research, 25 (1), 67-73.

Smit, F., Esch, W. van & Sleegers, P. (1998), The position of teachers, students and parents under the

new Participation Act and learning schools in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the Annual

ENILOC Seminar. Stafford, United Kingdom .

Research on the relationship between migrant parentsand primary schools

Annemiek Veen

Introduction

This research on the relationship between migrant

parents and primary schools consists of three

parts. Part I involves 176 parents from various

ethnic groups (Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese

and Cape Verdian). It analysed what these parents

expect of schools and what kind of parents-school

relationship they wanted1. The second part of the

research analysed what 30 R otterdam primary

schools (which fall under the Urban Education

Policy on Disadvantage) are doing to improve the

relationship between scho ol and migrant parents

and how they see this relation ship2. Part III

comprises of project supervision at two primary

schools. The aim of this experiment is to analyse

the feasibility of developing a model on parents-

school relationship in which there is a balance

between the efforts of the parents and those of the

school. This model wo uld include explicit, goal-

oriented strategies for improving parents-school

relationship.

The research as a whole must ide ntify

possibilities for improving parents-school

relationship. In our view school, as professional

partner, is the initiator in this, schools must

demonstrate supportive behaviour towards

parents so that parents behave in an

educationally-supportive w ay towards the school.

Interview-structure

In parts I and II of the research, information was

collected with the help of interviews. We used an

interview-structure with open and closed

questions as a basis for talks. Open questions

enable the respondent to talk about a particular

experience or give an account of something. An

advantage of such questions is that they are less

likely to prompt socially-desirable answers as the

respondent has to tell his/her ow n story. Open

questions also provide the opportunity to give

examples. The questions were formulated in such

a way that the sum of the answers provide an

informative picture of the respondent’s opinions.

It is not important to answer each individual

question; the point is that every question may

prompt recipients to talk about their experiences.

There are also a number of closed q uestions to

collect more systematic information.

Interview structure for parents

In the first part of the interview the parents were

asked open questions whilst the second, closed

part consisted of statements about activities the

primary school could un dertake to meet with

parents’ wishes and hence to increase their

involvement. Statement by statement parents

were asked to give their opinion on the

importance of these activities.

Lastly, parents were asked basic information

about themselves: sex, ethn icity, level of

education and the number of children at the

primary school.

Interview-structure for schools

The aim of the first ten questions in part one, the

open part was to ascertain how the schools see

the parents-school relationship, what they have

undertaken to improve the relationship with

parents and why they endeavour to achieve a

good relationship with parents (what was the

objective). The first group of questions was as

follows.


The second cluster of questio ns in the open part

of the interview-structure was designe d to

ascertain what schools understand by

‘educationally-supportive b ehaviour’ of parents

and how they can try to encourage this behaviour.

The closed part was made up of 29 statements.

These were derived from the research on the

parents and reflect the starting points on which

the research was based and the empirical findings

of the research: an image of how th e parents

would like the school an d the relationship

between parents and sch ool to be. Schools were

asked to evaluate the importance of each

statement.

Outcome of the research

Part I: the parents

A basic premise of the research was that all

parents were involved with their own children

and hence, in principle, with their child ren’s

school. ‘Involvement’, however, is not the same

as ‘participation’. Whereas participation is easily

discernible to the school, involvement is far less

tangible.

To improve the relationship between parents and

school it is necessary for schools to recognize and

acknowledge the inv olvement of parents. This

would be facilitated by schoo ls providing suitable

opportunities for parents to dem onstrate their

involvement. We feel that schools should:

- create an environment that is inviting to parents

- instigate appropriate commun ication channels

for parents.

When both partn ers, parents and school, are

aware of each other’s good intentions and efforts,

the basis for co-operation on bringing up and

educating children is created. In other words,

schools must demonstrate supportive behaviour

towards parents so that parents behave in an

educationally-supportive w ay towards the school.

However, it is not easy for schools with pup ils

from a multitude of ethnic backgrounds to gauge

the tone of the school environment and

communication chan nels appropriately. The

research endeavoured to clarify these points and

to make recommendations, both in general and

for specific ethnic groups.

The most important elements of a school

environment that is inviting to parents are:

- the care for children

- making this care visible and un derstandable

- accepting parents as full discussion partners

- making culturally-determined assumptions

explicit

- making use of parents’ expertise

- encouraging education and training of parents.

The most important com munication channels

named by the parents and to a lesser extent the

link between communication channels and

discussion topics were:

- more time for individual, personal talks about

their own child by

* extending the so-called 10 -minute chats

and/or

* home visits and/or

* the introduction of a ‘school surgery’ which is

well publicized and/or

* the conscious utilization of ‘fetch and take’

contacts

- less general parents’ evenings and more ethnic-

homogenou s group meetings, pos sibly open to

women only, where

* parents can talk to each other about their own

ideas and views

* the group’s own language can be spoken

* information can be given on the organization

of education (including videos, cassettes and

projects)

- possibly expanding, in co-operation with other

organizations, the group meetings in the

direction of a course or training in the field of

* the Dutch education system

* education-supportive behaviour at school and

in particular at home

* the Dutch language.


1 Veen, A and M. van Erp (1995) Stappen op weg naar onderwijsondersteuning . Deel I allochtone ouders in

Rotterdam over de relatie tussen ouders en basisschool. (Steps towards educational support. Part I: migrant

parents in Rotterdam on the relationship between parents and primary schools.) Amsterdam/Rotterdam: SCO-

Kohnstamm Instituut/Fonds Achterstandsbestrijding Rotterdam.

2 Veen, A. and M. van Erp (1 997). Stappen op weg na ar onderwijsondersteuning. De el II: basisscholen in

Rotterdam over de relatie met de o uders. (Steps towards educational sup port. Part II: primary schools in

Rotterdam on the relationship with p arents.) Amsterdam/Rotterdam: SCO-K ohnstamm Instituut/Dienst Stedelijk

Onderwijs R otterdam.

Part II: the schools

The schools that participated in the research

clearly put a great deal of effort into improving

the relationship with parents and employ a whole

range of strategies to improve school

environment and com munication channels.

Schools do not, however, have a clear view of

exactly what they are trying to achiev e with

parent-oriented activities. A great deal is done but

objectives are lacking. This applies b oth to

individual strategies and activities and to the

general framework of activities as a who le.

Our conclusion is that the increase in parental

involvement in the scho ols is mainly due to

efforts of parents. All kinds of activities (courses

on education and bringing up children, home-

intervention programmes) are principally directed

at stimulating education-supportive behaviour by

parents. Far less progress has been made from the

other point of view, namely the involvement of

school with parents and adapting ‘school culture’

to parent population. Or, in our terminology,

schools expect education-supportive behaviour of

parents but are themselves not yet sufficiently

supportive to parents. The efforts of schools need

to focus more on adapting school to parent

population and to look for other ways of giving

school life a form and content that parents can

recognize and respect. These find ings have led to

part III of the research being set up.

Part III: balance and goa ls

Part III consists of project supervision at two

primary schools. The aim of this ex periment is to

analyse the feasibility of developing a model on

parents-school relationship in which there is a

balance between efforts of parents and those of

schools. This model w ould include explicit, goal-

oriented strategies for improving parents-school

relationship.

This is a figure of the empty mod el:

The experiment should result in a completed

model for the project-schools and a report of

experiences cq. process of the ex periment in

those schools, in view of transfer to o ther schools.

Notes

Parental/community involvement and behaviour problems in Dutch secondary schools

Kees van der Wolf, Ronald Lippens, Pauline Huizenga

Introduction

In newspaper articles, but also in magazines and

through other media, we are often confronted

with alarming reports about misconduct by

youngsters. Especially in secondary education,

but lately also in primary education, rule-breaking

and negative behaviour are a source of great

concern. According to some reports 25% of the

students are in serious trouble. Schools of which

the student population contains a large proportion

of migrant students, have particularly been

focused on in reports about these negative

tendencies. As the problem s of urban schools in

this area are greater, much state money go es to

the big cities. Teachers, in particular, have

pointed at the increase of behavioural problems as

an important source of stress. Problematical

student behaviour is sup posed to play a role both

in teacher burn out and in the lack of prestige of a

career in education. The problems are supposed

to have reached the most seriou s proportions in

the lower forms of secondary education (pre-

vocational and junior gen eral education). Schools

often make a great effort to influence the

behaviour of their students in a positive way: they

set behavioural rules, take disciplinary measures,

establish and invest in systems of counselling and

guidance. Sometimes, as in th e example

mentioned above, they institute projects in which

they collaborate with the police to fight

vandalism and you th criminality.

Parental perceptions of student be haviour are

sometimes reported as even more negative than

those of teachers (Veugelers & De Kat, 1998 ).

Students in secondary education, too, are reported

(Olweus, 1989; Van Hattum, 1997; Veugelers &

De Kat, 1998) to have a negative view on the

behaviour of and the contacts with their peers.

Schuurman’s study (1984) gives a more positive

impression of students’ attitude towards schools.

This raises the question to what extent the

assessment of the seriousness of the behavioural

problems of young sters should be ascribed to

different ways in which the stakeh olders are

confronted with the problem. Another question

that could possibly be relevant is the following.

To what extent does the perception of the

school’s communication with parents and

community influence or contribute to the

perceptions of student misconduct? It is our

hypothesis that schools that are perceived by the

stakeholders as being open and welcoming want

to share their resources and their information not

only with their students, but also with the parents

and the surrounding community. This means that

they are open to outside influences, that they

develop skills in communicating and interacting

with parents and other adults interested or

involved in the school. This could mean that such

a school has more varied con tacts, is able to

acquire a more extensive network for discussions

on how to deal with problems. It could also mean

that such a school makes use of its varied

contacts for student learning, student activities or

in other ways1.

1 ‘School learning needs to build on day-to-daylearning to enable students to identify with whatgoes on in school, and to help the school draw onthe resources in society,’ says Per Daily in his article’Can Schools Learn?’


It might be supposed that more involvement from

parents and better information to paren ts could

lead to a greater awareness by parents of the rules

of behaviour at school and promote better

attuning between hom e rules and school rules. It

could also increase the parents’ insight in what

the school expects from them and in the ways in

which they themselves can contribute to or

support their child functioning well at school.

Especially for migrant parents, who may have

little or no experience with and may be unaware

of many aspects of the Dutch educational system

and the values and beh aviour expected there, this

could be a factor that should not be neglected.

Also, parent and comm unity involvement in

schools may be a signa l to youngsters that both

parents and community value the educational and

the pedagogical role of the school and thereby

emphasise the importance of a good performance

in both areas.

That parents and teachers may h old very different

perceptions about their mutual communication

about student misconduct is supported by

Langdon’s Fourth Phi Delta Kappan Poll of

Teachers Attitudes, cited in the NASS P Bulletin

by Krajewski et al (1998). Teachers reportedly

felt that, if they told parents their child is not

working hard enough at schoolwork, the parent

would probably take their side (53%), but, if they

told parents their child was misbeh aving, they felt

that parents would be unlikely to take their side

(41%), even though parents reported that they

would do so. In bo th cases, not working hard

enough and misconduct, the parent’s idea of

support to the teacher seemed to be very high

(70% and 57%, respectively). The percentages

given, indicate a great variance in perceptions

between teachers and parents.

In this paper the following questions will be

explored, using data gathered by the Seneca

Foundation:

1. Do teachers, parents and stud ents hold

different perceptions concerning student

behaviour?

2. Is there a relationship between the exten t to

which teachers, parents and students feel that

the school succeeds in inv olving the parents

(and the surrounding co mmunity) and their

respective perceptions of studen t behaviour?

3. Is there a relationship between the proportion

of migrant students in the school population

and the perceptions of stude nt behaviour? Is

there a connection with the perceived

involvement of parents an d community in

school and, if so, in what way?

Method

The subjects in the present study belong to a

group of 20.677 in dividuals (teachers, students

and parents) from whom CASE/IMS data has

been collected since 1993. The data have been

collected from 267 primary, secondary and

special schools, all over the Netherlands.

The sample in the present study consists of 3.909

secondary school su bjects. To explore the

relationship between parent involvement and

student behaviour, data were used of three

different samples. The first sample consisted of

898 secondary sch ool teachers, the second samp le

of 1968 secondary school students and, the th ird

sample of 1043 parents of secondary school

students. Overall, 47.3% of the schools reported

to have 5% or less migrant students, 43.0%

reported to have more than 5% and less than,

20% and 9.7% reported to have more than 20%

migrant students in their schoo ls.

Most respondents (79 .7%) were connected to

schools located in cities of moderate size (from

25.000 to 150.0 00 residents).

Research instrument

The instrument used to collect data in the schools,

CASE/IMS, is of American origin, and was later

adapted for use in Dutch p rimary, secondary and


special schools, by the Seneca Foundation. The

instrument was developed by a task group

employed by the National Association of

Secondary School Principals (NASSP) between

1982 and 1991. Beside a school principal

questionnaire, satisfaction scales and various

other report forms, it contains identical school

climate questionnaires for teachers and p arents

and for students in second ary school. The climate

questionnaires used in this study measure the

shared perceptions of the groups involved on

student behaviour, the relationship between

students and parent and community involvement

with the school. Thus, the respondents are used as

informants. In the survey different groups in a

school are asked what most people think about

aspects of the school.

Results

Separate correlation analysis on the kind of

respondent and the various migrant school

population categories show a significant

association between parent an d community

involvement and behaviour problems in all cases.

Because of the large sample size, the significance

level was set more stringently at 0.00 1 to guard

against Type 1 errors.

To be more specific, a perceived higher parent

and community involvement is related to better

student behaviour adjustment, and perceived

student relationships. These asso ciations were

found to be significant for teachers, students,

parents, and for the different migrant populations

in schools.

Because it could be expected that the relation

between parental involvement and both outcome

variables would vary as a function of the type of

respondent, and the composition of the migrant

population in schools a systematic exploration

took place of the interaction effects.

To clear up these effects of the relationship

between involvement of parents and behavioural

adjustment in school a multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was carried out.

Respondents were divided into a low and a high

involvement category based on their scores on the

Parent Involvement scale. The m ean of the scale

was used as cut-off point. Because of dealing

with unequal popu lation sizes, Method 2 (Ove rall

& Spiegel, 1969) was used to analyse the relation

between perceived parent involvement and

student school adjustment. In Method 2 a

hierarchy of testing effects is imposed where

main effects are adjusted for each other and for

covariates, while interaction terms are adjusted

for main effects, for covariates, and for same- or

lower level interactions.

A three-way multiple analysis of variance

(MANOVA) was conducted on both outcome

variables (student behaviour and student

relationships), with parent involvement (low

versus high involvement), respondent (teacher,

student and parent), and mig rant population (3

categories) as the independent variables. Given

the primary interest in perceived parent

involvement and the potential effect of migrant

school population, the main effects of respondent,

migrant school popu lation and parent/commu nity

involvement, and the interaction effects of

respondent by parent involvement, migrant

school population by parent involvement, and

respondent by migrant school population by

parent involvement were inc luded.

The results of the multivariate and univ ariate

analysis of variance are displayed in table 3.

The means and stand ard deviations for both

dependent variables (perceived student behaviour

and perceived student relationships), for each of

the various subgroup s distinguished here were

also calculated.

Using Wilks’ Lambda criterion, MANOVA

showed significant overall main effects of the

factor respondent, (F = 7.63, df = 4,7780, p <

.0001), the number of migrant students in school

(F = 9.59, df = 4,7780 , p < .0001), and parent


involvement (F = 65.8 6, df = 2,3890, p < .0 001).

Furthermore, a significant overall marginal

interaction effect of respondent and parent

involvement (F =3.37, df = 4,7780, p < .01) was

found.

Additional univariate ANOVA’s revealed that the

main effect of the kind of respondent o nly is

significant on perceived student behaviour (F =

15.12, df = 2,3891 ). Tukey HSD pos t hoc tests

show that teachers perceive student behaviour

more positive in comparison to students (mean

difference = .21, p < .0001), and parents perceive

student behaviour mo re positive than students

(mean difference = .18, p < 0001). No significant

effect was found between teachers and parents on

perceived student behaviour.

On the main effect of migrant school population

only a significant main effect has been found on

perceived student relationships (F = 18.43, df =

2,3891, p < .0001). Participants who are involved

in schools with more than 20% migrant studen ts

perceive significant (though marginal) less

positive student relationships co mpared to

participants who are involved in schools with

more than 5% and less than 20% migrant stud ents

(mean difference = -.12, p < .01), and participan ts

who are involved in school with less than 5%

migrant students (mean difference = -.10, p <

.05). No difference was found between the 5 %

category and the 5-20% migrant students

category.

The main effect of parent involvement was

significant on both perceived student behaviour

(F = 57.67, df = 1,3891) and perceived student

relationships (F = 115.02, df= 1,3891). These

results show, as expected, that high parental

involvement is associated both with a better

perception of student behaviour and of student

relationships compared to low parental

involvement.

A significant respondent by parent involvement

interaction effect only on perceived student

relationships (F = 5.60, df = 2,3891, p < .005)

was found. Figure 1 displays the mean scores on

perceived student behaviour sorted out by

respondents and paren t involvement.

Additional analyses indicated that the effect of

parent involvement on student relationships

differs between teachers, students, and parents.

They showed that the re is a significant difference

(F = 5.78, df = 2,1842, p < .003) between

respondents who perceive a low parental

involvement. This effect is mainly due to

students. Students in the low parent/community

involvement category show a significant lower

perceived student relationship score (mean =

3.30) compared to teachers (mean = 3.39; mean

difference = -.09, p < .05) and parents (mean =

3.42; mean difference = -.12, p < .01).

On the other hand, a sign ificant difference was

found between stud ents, teachers, and parents (F

= 5.22, df= 2,2061, p < .005) who perceive a high

parental involvement. This effect is also mainly

due to students who show a significant higher

perceived student relationship score (mean =

3.71) in comparison to parents (mean = 3.62;

mean difference = .09, p < .007). No difference

was found between students and teachers, or

teachers and parents.


Discussion

Some supplementary comments can be made.

Once again support has been found for the

proposition that an effective mutually supportive

‘mesh’ between home, community and school has

several benefits.

Regarding the first research question , in general,

we notice that teachers and parents are m ore

positive about student behaviour than are the

students themselves. Teachers often

underestimate the occurrence of behavioural

problems in schools, whereas parents don’t have

enough information at their disposal (Olweus,

1989; Veugelers & De Kat, 1998 ).

This denial of the existence of behavioural

problems can be damaging to vulnerable children,

who need teacher support to overcome problems

like bullying or ignoring by classroom-mates.

They are dependent on teachers’ active

diplomacy in the classroom . Van Hattum’s

research (1997) established that teache rs don’t

perceive bullying in their classrooms as a serious

problem, even thoug h, in general, they consider it

as damaging for pupils. The research assumes

that the feeling of being unable to influence the

situation makes teachers ‘believe’ that bu llying is

not such a problem.

As to student relationships, they are of course of

greatest importance to students themselves: they

are faced with them all day, in contrast to

teachers, who (in secondary schools) meet

students only for some h ours a week. Parents are

even further removed from school life and

children don’t tell them everything about their

school experiences.

Arriving at the second research question:

students’ perceptions of reciprocal relations are

significantly related to parent and com munity

involvement, whereas this d oes not apply to

parents and teachers. A similar indirect

relationship of parent involvement as perceived

by students is reported by K eith and Keith

(1993), this time on students’ ach ievement.

Apparently, perceived parental and comm unity

involvement has a positive influence both on

youngsters’ behavio ur and their academic

achievement. It could be wo rthwhile to

investigate this relationship in further research.

Obviously studen ts profit from family/community

oriented and ‘open scho ols’. Due to the design, it

is only possible to speak o f associations and


relationships, so we are not certain about the

direction of the mentioned relationship. All things

considered, an alternative explanation could be

that active and supportive parents and

communities make teachers feel esteemed, which,

in turn, motivates them to propagate a positive

school ‘ethos’, that is beneficial to student

relations and behaviour. Possibly this positive

reinforcement by parents and co mmunity could

counteract feelings of powerlessness and stress.

With regard to the third research question it is

important to notice that in schools with more than

20% migrants the percep tion of the relationship

between students is less positive . Dutch research

(Teunissen & Golhof, 19892) has shown that (at

classroom level) the climate deteriorates when the

proportion of migrant children is raised up to

40%. One explanation could be that ‘Dutch

naturalness’ disappears and teachers have to

accommodate to the chan ged circumstances. This

brings about uncertainty, both at teacher and

student level. When the proportion reaches about

70% it was found that problems decrease,

because migrant students find themselves

acknowledged an d their parents tend to negotiate

more on school-policy. We can not illustrate this

phenomenon with our data, because our

secondary school sample does not contain enough

schools with a very high percentage of migrant

students.

We had expected that, if schools m anaged to

involve migrant parents/communities, the effect

on behaviour and student relations would be

positive, but this assumption is not supported in

this research. Again, maybe this can be attributed

to the rather small number of pup ils in schools

with a larger proportion of migrant children

(378).

References

Dalin, P. (1996), Can Schools Learn? Preparing for the 21st Century, NASSP Bulletin, (80), 576,

January 1996, 9-15.

Hattum, M.J.C. van (19 97), Pesten (Bullying). Academisch Proefschrift. Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Keith, P.B. & Keith, T.Z. (1993), Does Parental Involvement Influence the Academic Achievement of

American Middle S chool Youth? In: F. Smit, W. van Esch & H.J. Walberg (Eds.) Parental

Involvement in Education, 205-209. Nijmegen: Institute for Applied Social Sciences.

Krajewski, B., Denhem Martinek, P. & Polka, B. (1998), Designing Creative Discipline: Tough, But

Well Worth It. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (596), March 1998, 7.

Olweus, D. (1989), Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of a school

based intervention program. In D. Petler & K.H. Rubin (eds.), The development and treatment of

childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Overall, J.E. & Spiegel, D.K. (196 9), Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data.

Psychological Bulletin, 72 (5), 311-322.

Schuurman, M.I.M. (19 84), Scholieren over onderwijs: verslag van een studie naar houdingen,

percepties en welbevinden van leerlingen in het voortgezet onderwijs. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut

voor Praeventieve Gezondheidszorg TNO.

Teunissen, F. & Golhof, A (19892), Etnische minderheden en speciaal on derwijs. In K. Doornbos &

L.M. Stevens De groei van het speciaal ond erwijs, Deel A, 166-179. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU.

Veugelers, W. & Kat, E. de (1998), Opvoeden in het voortgezet onderwijs. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Information project development work - cooperationbetween home and school

Ingebjörg Johanessen

Introduction

In cooperation with the Ministry of Education,

Research and Church Affairs (KUF), the National

Parents’ Committee for Primary and Lower

Secondary Education (FUG) will carry out a

development project to try out a comprehensive

system for disseminating information to the

parents of children attending primary and lower

secondary schools, parent representatives at

different levels in the primary and lower

secondary school, class teachers and members of

school boards.

The project is a stage in the follow-up o f Report

No. 14 (1997-98) to the Storting concerning

parental participation in the primary and lower

secondary school (the report on parental

participation) and Recomm endation S. No. 117

(1997-98) of the Standing Committee.

The purpose of the project is to develop and

strengthen the dialogue between home and school

by establishing systematic and well planned

information and course facilities. A study will be

made of the importance for cooperation between

home and school of increasing parents’

knowledge of the school’s objectives, curriculum,

structure and distribution of respon sibility.

Emphasis will be placed on obtaining and

systematizing examples of successful interaction

between home and school. During the project

period, course plans, newly developed material

and good examples of interaction will be made

available to schools, municip alities and county

authorities throughout the co untry.

The project will be carried out in two counties

(four municipalities in each county ) in

cooperation with the National Education Office in

these counties.

The project will have a duration of three years,

starting at the beginning of the new school year in

August 1999 and ending at the end of the school

year in 2002. Work on planning the project began

in October 1998.

Background

On the basis of principles laid down in legislation

concerning parents, it is emphasized both in the

Curriculum for Primary and Lo wer Secondary

Education ( L 97) and in the report on parental

participation that parents have the main

responsibility for their children’s upbringing and

education. Close and good cooperation must

therefore be developed betw een home and scho ol.

This cooperation must be characterized by good

dialogue, interaction and parental participation.

Successful home-school cooperation is dependent

on the supply of information to parents and on the

existence of favourable conditions for

participation in the activities of the school.

In the view of the National Parents’ Committee,

information provided by schools and other

arrangements made by sch ools in relation to

parents fail to comply satisfactorily with national

guidelines for home-scho ol cooperation. It is

therefore necessary to encourage the

establishment of local fora in individu al schools

and municipalities to strengthen the dialogue

between home and school and to promote the

provision of well structured inform ation to all


parents with children attending primary and lower

secondary schools.

The report on parental participation urges the

municipalities to develop the sch ool board in

such a way as to promote good dialogue and

interaction between the various parties involved

in the primary and lower secon dary school. A

course programme for parent representatives and

members of the school board will be tried out as

part of the project. At the same time an attempt

will be made to establish network cooperation

between school boa rds in the municipality.

The report on parental participation stresses th at a

forum at the municipal level for dialogue

concerning matters of mutual interest w ould be in

the interest of both the municipalities and the

parents. Courses for parent representative s will

also be offered to representatives at the municipal

level.

Objectives

The objectives of the information project are as

follows:

- try out a comprehensive system for

dissemination of information including course

facilities for parents, parent representatives at

municipal and local levels and class teachers so

as to increase their knowledge and insight

concerning the rights and obligations involved

in cooperation between home and school

- obtain concrete examples of good interaction

between home and school at different levels

- hold courses for parent representatives and

members of school bo ards to increase their

knowledge and understanding of the school

board’s role as a forum for dialogue and

interaction between the different parties

concerned in the primary and lower secondary

school

- increase the competence of the members of

school boards in relation to the tasks,

obligations and possibilities that accompany

their official duties

- encourage network cooperation between school

boards in the municipalities

- support and strengthen the work of the existing

Municipal Parents’ Councils and encourage the

setting up of more such co uncils

Project plans and implementation

The information project is to be implemented as a

three-year pilot project in two counties with the

participation of four municipalities from each

county. All counties were invited to apply to

participate in the project. Twelve counties

applied, and Nordland and Oppland counties

were selected.

On the basis of the applications received, the

counties were selected according to the following

criteria:

- The National Education Office must include the

project in its plans of operations.

- The National Education Office must be willing

to take responsibility for the tasks assign ed to it

in the project description, including appointing

a project coordinator.

- The National Education Office must be willing

to take an active part in project development

both through the pro ject coordinator’s

participation in the project group and through

the activities of the project coordinator in

relation to the municipalities concerned.

- In the county there must be four municipalities

that wish to take part in the project and are

willing to make school-ho me cooperation main

priority areas.

- The choice of municipalities must represent

both urban and rural municipalities and they

must be of varying size and school structure.

- In large urban municipalities, the project w ill

be implemented in selected urban districts.


The project will be carried out in cooperation

between the Ministry of Education, Research and

Church Affairs, the National Parents’ Committee

for Primary and Lower Secondary Education, the

National Education Office and the Municipal

Education Departments.

The following measures will be developed and

tested in the project:

Training

The following persons will be invited to attend a

course or a series of evening topic meetings:

- All parents with children in the first, fifth and

eighth classes

- All parent representatives and class teachers

- All members of school boards

Network cooperation for coordination and

exchange of ideas and experience

- An annual conference will be held in the

municipality for all members of school boards.

Conferences

- A kick-off conference will be held for resource

persons, head teachers, municipal

representatives, representatives for the National

Education Office, the project group and the

steering group.

- An annual conference will be held for Parents’

Council Working Committees in the

municipality.

- An annual conference w ill be held at county

level for all Municipal Parents’ Councils and

representatives from the municipal education

departments. In the case of municipalities

where no Municipal Parents’ Council has been

set up, representatives for the Parents’ Cou ncil

Working Committees will be invited.

Training of local resource persons

- Resource persons in municipalities and

counties are invited to attend cou rses held

either at municipality or county level.

Content of courses and conferences

A fundamental principle of courses and

conferences will be a division of top ics relating to

dialogue and interaction into three main areas:

1. National guidelines and principles for the

activities of the school

Appropriate topics: the Curriculu m for Primary

and Lower Secondary Education (L97), the

Education Act, the report on parental

participation, school evaluation , pupil

assessment, day-care facilities for

schoolchildren, children with special needs

2. School development in individual

municipalities

Appropriate topics: The municipalities’ follow-

up of L97, plans for competence building,

guidelines for school evaluation, development

projects and development of day-care facilities

for schoolchildren

3. School-home coo peration at individual schoo ls

Each school adapts the project to its own

priorities, e.g. home-school coop eration in

relation to its own activity plans, development

of the learning environment, school-based

assessment, use of the natural environment for

teaching purposes, topic and project work, the

school’s and the pupils’ ch oices, day-care

facilities for schoolchildren, etc.

Municipal education departments and individual

schools will be encourag ed to take an active part

in developing content for parts 2 and 3 of courses

and conferences. This will give individual

municipalities and schools the freedom to further

develop the reform and adapt it to local needs

regarding the relationship between home and

school.

The National Education Office will have a major

role in the project and, with the support of the

Ministry, will have responsibility for

- informing the municipalities about the project

- providing advice and guidance to the

municipalities in connection w ith

implementation of the project


- helping to train people responsible for holding

courses

- holding conferences

Municipal education departments, with the

support of the Ministry and the National

Education Office, will have the responsibility for

- informing head teachers about the project

- coordinating work on courses, topic evenings,

information meetings

- cooperating with parent representatives and/or

the Municipal Parents’ Cou ncil

- helping to train people responsible for holding

courses

- holding conferences in the municipality

Material

Development of materials will be a central and

principal part of the project. Such materials will

relate to topics such as starting school, starting

upper secondary school, the rights of the child,

school evaluation, different ways of cooperating

and good examples of cooperation between home

and school. In both structure and content, the

material will be developed and adapted to target

groups through active participation in the project

by municipalities and scho ols.

Development of materials will also tak e into

consideration their suitability for use in home-

school cooperation in the remainder of the

country.

Evaluation

Considerable emphasis will be placed on

evaluating the effect of the project on the

dialogue and interaction between home and

school. An examination will also be made of the

plausibility of the hypothesis: ‘Better home-

school cooperation leads to a better classroom

environment and better han dling of conflicts.’ A

questionnaire survey will be carried out in 1999,

and a final evaluative survey will be made on

completion of the project in the spring of 2002.

Continuous evaluation will also be carried out

throughout the project pe riod at the municipality,

school and class level. The National Education

Office will be assigned tasks associated with the

evaluation and will assist in developing the

evaluation work. The task of evaluating the

project has been assigned to the Institute for

Norwegian Social Research (NOVA).

The Issues addressed

The issues addressed by this evaluation have been

formulated on the basis of the objectives of the

project and national guidelines for cooperation

between the home and the school. The project’s

objectives are primarily associated with

information and courses for parents, parent

representatives and class teachers. This is also

reflected by the issues themselves. A further

matter of importance for these issues is that

cooperation between home and school must not

be seen as an end in itself. Ideally, this

cooperation should result in improved school

facilities for children and young peo ple. It is

therefore essential to base the evaluation on

issues associated with the pupils’ learning

environment. In this type of evaluation, it is also

necessary to assess what has b een carried out in

the project and to take into consideration the

basic operating conditions of the project. Such

factors have relevance for the results attained in

the project. On this basis, the following issues

have been formulated:

- To what extent do information and courses

increase parents’ competence concerning

cooperation between home and school and the

objectives, curriculum and organization of the

school?

- To what extent does increasing the competence

of the parents have significance for cooperation

between home and school?

- Are there connections between the class

environments in the school and the cooperation

between home and school?

- In what ways do framework conditions and

priorities at national and local levels influence

cooperation between h ome and school?


In an evaluation of the cooperation between home

and school, it will be important to distinguish

between participatory democracy and

representational democracy. Both are important in

connection with the cooperation between home

and school and, in the evaluation, priority will be

given to distinguish between these two levels of

cooperation. As pointed out in the curriculum for

the 10-year compulsory primary and lower

secondary school, it is first and foremost by

cooperating with individ ual parents that schools

can assist parents in fostering their children’s

development.

Project management

The day-to-day management of the project will be

carried out by a project group consisting of the

secretariat of the National Parents’ Committee

and a project coordinator from each of the two

participating counties.

The project’s steering group will consist of the

National Parents’ Committee and representatives

from the Ministry of Education, Research and

Church Affairs.

Liaison meetings will be held at national and

county level for exchange of information with the

organizations. Individual project municipalities

are to decide for themselves the form to be taken

by cooperation with the organizations.

Funding

The project has been allocated development funds

from the budget of the Ministry of Education,

Research and Church Affairs.

The National Education Offices in the counties

will be allocated project funds to cover the cost of

their involvement in the project, including the pay

of a project coordinator (maximu m 50% post).

The National Education Office is to have the

responsibility for allocation of necessary project

funds to the municipalities.

The National Education Office will be expected

to undertake to follow up and develop the project

in accordance with the project description and the

decisions made in the steering group and project

group. The National Education Office will be

given follow-up and su pport by the Ministry. All

conferences and courses in the project held by the

National Education Offices will be financed by

project funds.

The municipalities will receive free courses for

local resource persons, and all material used in

the project will be provided free of charge. The

municipalities will receive follow-up, support and

guidance from both the Ministry and the National

Education Office.

The municipalities must undertake to develop the

project in accordance with the project description

and incorporate the project in a comprehensive

system for home-school cooperation in the

municipalities. The municipality will be expected

to use its own resources to cover the salaries of

employees (head teacher, teaching staff, school

office staff) in connection with project work and

travel to meetings.

Meetings of the central project group will be

financed by project funds, as will evaluation of

the project.

Changes in the project

The development o f the project will initially

follow the project description given above.

However, it follows from the project’s nature as a

development project that it may be necessary to

make adjustments and changes in the project

framework during both the planning and the

implementation phases.

‘Parents at School’ programme as a perspective ofpartnership’s orientation increase in Poland

Maria Mendel

This paper is based on research work, which

brought out the implications for practice on a

field of school-home co-operation. The

programme ‘Parents at School’ reflects many of

them in its contents, and shapes a tendency of

schools’ and parents’ partnership progress in

Poland.

Research report1

The method used was mainly qualitative

investigation with three kinds of questionnaires

(parents, teachers, principals), and analysis of

school documents. The empirical study was

carried out in Gdansk - one of the biggest Polish

cities (ca. 500 000 habitants), in 1993, and

incorporated 167 peo ple.

The aim of the study concentrated around a much

debated phenomenon in educational policies

across the world: schools’ and parents’

partnership. This issue mirrors a context of

political changes in Eastern Europe. Throughout

the period of Communist domination, the school

has been one of the most important agents of

political control over the society. It operated

rather against, than along the will of parents.

During almost half a century of state-controlled

education, schools managed to create an almost

indifferent population of adults wh o tend to

believe that schooling is a matter of teachers’ so le

concerns and responsibilities. The 1989

upheavals changed the system of political control

and resulted in deep re-definitions of educational

responsibilities. The 1991 E ducation Act in

Poland empowers parents to take up control over

the process of schooling, g ranting big

competence to school boards and other parental

and community-based bodies. It also opened up

the possibilities of school choice, m aking it

possible for numerous social forces (parents’

organisations, and local comm unities included) to

set up schools, which - if meeting the didactic

criteria set for public schools - can obtain partial

public funding (max. 5 0%).

However, the legal changes are not followed by

immediate changes in people’s attitudes, beliefs,

and actions.

The pedagogical orientation s of parents

(‘orientation’ is meant here as a generalised, not

necessarily fully recognised by the subject, set of

beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavioural

tendencies) are one of the major factors

investigated in the research.

The relationships between the factors of parental

pedagogical orientations, school choice, and the

attitudes of school principals and teachers were

studied in analysing the forms of parental

participation in the process of schoo ling.

The research sample covered o ne city area, in

which parents of young learners (grades 1-3) had

a choice between a huge public school, a small

Catholic school, and a small parent-run non-

public school.

The choice of school proved to be the major

differentiating factor of parents’ pedagogical

orientations and forms of involvement in school

life.

The explanation is twofold: on the one hand,

parents choosing to send their children to non-

public schools are better off (in non-public

schools they have to cover at least 50% of

schooling costs), on the other, they are more

conscious about the goals of education. In the

parent-run schools (they are set up , and to a big

extent maintained, by groups of parents opting


out of the public school system) parental

involvement is just part of the system .

In the Catholic school (which operates along the

lines similar to those run by parents o r private

individuals) parents were not m uch involved in

decision-making: they are not represented in the

school board - which is a deliberate policy of the

school.

Public school parents, who formally do have

possibilities to influence the process of schooling,

were not involved either. Their motif of choosing

the public school was first of all the vicinity of

the school, and - of course - free tuition. The

public school parents proved least informed about

the pedagogy employed by the school, and on

their possible ways of influencing the schooling

of their children.

Both public and Catholic school parents show

dissatisfaction with their possibilities of control.

However, as long as public school p arents were

in a way indifferent to (or ill informed about)

pedagogical issues, the Ca tholic school ones did

generally approve of the school’s educational

philosophy. The deepest, widest and most

satisfying involvement was shown - not

surprisingly - by parent-run scho ol parents.

A large part of parental involvement concerns

financial issues: the tuition fee in non-pu blic

schools, and the poverty in public schools, make

the financial and technical support from the

parents an obvious way of getting them engaged

in school life.

The degree of parental involvement correlates

with the attitudes of teachers and school

principals. While declaring the need of deeper co-

operation, public schoo l teachers and principals

seem to be happy with keeping parents at a

distance from their pedagogical activities.

Of all schools investigated, the parent-run was

most concerned with democratic participation of

parents in all forms of school life (not merely

with the money, but also with parental care,

occasional teaching, and cu rricular decisions).

The teachers and parents called this sch ool: ‘good

for the students and good for us’, all of them felt

comfortable at this school and described it as

their ‘own’, some part of their identity.

Portrait of school ‘good for the students and

the parents’

Ten years ago, in spring three mo thers met: a

doctor, a lawyer, and a psychologist. They had

heard about the Civic Educational Association on

TV. Being full of hope about new educational

possibility for their children (TO LEARN AT

NOT HUGE, AND NOT CLOSED FOR

PARENTS, NICE SCHOOL), they made a

decision that one of them should go to Warsaw

and participate in a meeting of the first memb ers

of STO.

At the end of August they gained over 30 friends2

- parents, who were ready to take a risk and send

their children to a unique and u nknown scho ol.

They were also ready to pay (a month’s tuition

was a half of an average salary) and w ork very

hard. During the first three years the school

changed its seat four times, because it didn’t have

its own place. In every new place, the parents and

teachers together had to adapt everything for

children, to make a school.

It was impossible during the research to learn

how much these kind of experiences influenced

the current state of school life.

To have the same goals at the beginning, and a

will to co-operate; to have a small but important

task working together; to realise all school

problems and be responsible for solving them.

These factors seemed to raise partnership at

school and create the attitudes, which made

people open to one another, able to rely on the

rest of school community.

Among the main co nclusions of the research are

the following:

What is shown by the elements of the parents’

pedagogical orien tation in the portrayed sch ool?


It appears that the parents were looking for a

school, which offers their values and respects

their needs. It is also shown that:

1. All of them appreciate the possibility of

participating in school life, and treat school as a

good place for their children (98% of satisfied

people opinions).

2. The parents’ responsibility for school life and

future was connected with their identity - as a

part of school commun ity.

3. The parents knew the educational conception

(also curriculum) of school. They presented a

will to develop it together with the teachers.

4. The parents felt that they coud influen ce every

sphere of school life. They also knew the

decision-making system at school and their

own position in it.

5. The parents confirmed teachers’ competence

and admitted their priority in educational

decision-making process. Parents expected the

teachers to give initiatives of co-operation and

to ask for parents’ opinions abo ut children.

6. The parents treated school values the same as

their own.

7. They felt obliged to co-operate with the

teachers and were ready to collaborate at

school.

On the base of the study, the pedagogical

orientations of parents at this particular schoo l a

generalised set of beliefs, values, attitudes, etc. -

on an active platform o f partnership can be

observed. The following table presents the

confirmation of this conclusion.

The pedagogical orientation of parents

(set of the following components)

The facts recorded through investigation

Beliefs

(about school and education)

1. Looking for a suitable school for a child is connected with

the parents’ own expectations, needs and values.

2. Being sure that the school considers parents’ opinions and

expectations.

Estimation

(results of comparing school reality to the

ideal state)

1. Positive results of school’s estimation (‘This is the school,

that I was looking fo r’)

2. Sharing responsibility for school - now and in the future.

Knowledge

(about school)

Being aware of:

1. the legal rights of parents to co-operate with school;

2. the forms of parents’ influence in every area of school life;

3. the main aims of educational concept of a child at school.

Values and attitudes

(to a child and its education)

1. Agreement between school (teachers, principals) and

parents about the main values and attitudes to the children.

2. Having a community of like-minded people.

Behavioural tendencies

(to active or passive b ehaviour

in relation to school)

1. Desire to co-operate with teachers and other parents.

2. Accepting home-school co-operation as a natural

consequence of being a parent.

3. Readiness for a partnership.

4. Waiting for the teachers’ invitation to co-operate.


The last point shows an interesting role of

teachers: key-figures in co-operation with parents.

The teacher’s opinions as an important part of

the portrait.

The teachers investigated were also satisfied

about their work at school. Their opinions about

parents-school co-operation can discover the most

colourful part of the portrait.

During the study it was tried to recognise forms

(shape) of parents influence into school life. The

teachers described parents’ participation, as a pa rt

of their own work with children, for example:

Parents’ assistance, preparing lessons together

(the discussions - what we have to do, why, and

how to do it? Preparing ma terials, places, etc.).

There are two kinds of this activity: on e is

connected with parents’ meetings (once a month)

- the teacher presents monthly educational

schedule and then together they prepare the exact

timetable of individual tasks - for at home, and

for school. The second one appears as daily co-

operation between teacher and parents - when

they create various activities for children in a

very flexible way (out of the scho ol, at student’s

house).

Parents as educators at school (som e lessons are

led by parents welcomed by teachers. In this

version of co-operation the teachers become

parents’ assistants).

Parents as teachers’ partners in diagnostic w ork

about children (the teachers explained how

important it is to obtain together an answer for the

following questions: w hat kind of difficulties

does the student have? W hy do difficulties occur

and what can/should we do to support / help the

student?).

The teachers expressed their expectations in the

field of co-operation with parents. When

completed with the expectations of parents, they

call out thoughts about the real partnership.

The teachers showed also the daily school life

with parents. They wish to have parents at school

as collaborators and feel delighted w orking with

them together.

From the Principal’s point of view.

The principal was glad to work at the parents-run

school. Her opinions confirmed the teachers’

approach to parents. The statements about

parent’s influence on school life show that she

does not close any of its spheres for them. The

important decisions she always makes up together

with parents (School Council) . It is common, she

said, that she takes into consideration every

parent’s opinion abou t each part of school life. It

is significant, that she indicated three groups of

decisions, which can foster parents’ influence and

help the school to perfect itself. Some of them

seem a little bit controversial, but one shou ld

remember that the principal presented them,

thinking about her school. Every following group

of decisions that were made with parents’

participation has given everyone a high level of

satisfaction at this school:

- Teachers’ employment (who else should be

employed, who to be dismissed; why?)

- Changes of school curriculum and time-

schedule;

- Making the school offer wider (what are the

current needs and possibilities of new subjects,

evening activities, etc.).

The principal of this school appeared a person,

who wants the parents still to have many

possibilities to influence school life, and w ish to

continue this special way of co -operating with

them.

Concluding, on e can say that:

- Almost all the parents (98%) presented the

opinion that: It is a good school. However, they

have indicated many b ad sides of school life

(81% statements concerning faults), and they

have also constructed various ways of solutions

(73% proposals ho w to solve school prob lems).

It shows that the parents’ responsibility for

school has obtained a high level. They treat


school as their own value an d try to make this

place optimal - especially for their children,

which means also - for the teachers. The

teachers clearly know parents’ expectations

shown by their activity in co-operation, and

situate them on the same platform of values.

Possibly parents’ attitude like this influences

the atmosphere positively and creates healthy

relationships between parents an d teachers.

- The teachers were glad being a part of school

community. A reason that can be mention ed is

that they could always count on the parents’

assistance, and help in their work w ith children.

- The principal’s attitude toward parents allowed

them to feel as real partners in school

management, and to create this school step by

step in practice. The Principal was also satisfied

to work at this school. She was delighted

feeling her role in the field of social integration

through family-school partnership model used

at school. She could notice and she appreciates

many good results of this partnership, for

example: students’ outcomes in comparison

with other schools, good relationships between

students, teachers and parents; significant and

kind opinions abo ut school in local commu nity

(much more candidates than school can admit

every year).

A good school means a school, which is good for

somebody, for real person or group of people.

Here a school was described that is good for

small groups of parents, teachers, and for the

principal, who were concentrated in some place

in Gdansk. Their enthu siasm and strong will TO

BUILT A NEW SCHOOL TOGETHER have

appeared fruitful. They were able to create real

partnership, which conducted the school to a high

level of effectiveness, and gave people most

comfortable state of being together.

Now, we are ten years since the date of its

establishment. Will this partnership exist longer,

even without people’s great enthusiasm

characterising the first years of this school’s

existence? Do they already have enough of

democratic habits for being able to u se parent’s

rights (guaranteed in Poland with law since

1991), to be active participants of their child ren’s

education at school? What about the parents and

teachers from public schools (for 98% of total

number of the students in Poland) - are they ready

to create a real partnership and prepare the

conditions for mental health in school?

There is some hope, that all the answers for these

questions will be optimistic. On the 1st of

September 1999 ed ucational system reform in

Poland has started. Its main assum ptions concern

change of roles in educational system. Polish

school is going to beco me a center of community

life, to be open for parents, representatives of

local community, and to keep an open-door

approach to neighbours - from the same and other

countries (exchange prog rammes, social links via

Internet, etc.). It seems to be the end of the Polish

school as formal ‘institution for learning’.

The study indicated a current need for increased

parents’ and teachers’ orientations to mutual co-

operation, and offered the suggestions for

teachers on how to dev elop a fruitful partnership

with parents. They became the base of the

‘Parents at School’ programme, w hich is

presented below.

In general, the research shows a great potential of

parental involvement in the Polish educational

system. In choice schools, especially those run by

parental organisations, the involvem ent is

naturally inscribed into the system. In th e public

and Catholic schools the level of parental

dissatisfaction can also be understood as a

potential for change. The data seem to support the

idea of school choice policies and the models of

school voucher financing.

However, the limited scale of voucher policy in

Poland paradoxically seems to be one of the

leading factors of reform in the school. Paren ts

who pay for the tuition of their children feel


empowered to control the school also in

pedagogical terms.

The educational reform in Poland bases on the

decentralisation system, which increases the

signification of local communities, and creates

people’s attitudes to the schools as the own,

communities’ value.

About the origin of the ‘Parents at School’

programme

In 1998 Polish government (Department of

Education) had initiated researcher and teacher’s

work on a programm e concerning parents

involvement in school and local communities life.

A group of two people working on it was

supported by Prime Minister Office

representatives (Premier’s advisors’, and the

officials’ assistance concerning social diagnosis,

current materials, correspondence, etc.). At the

end of 1998 government accepted the Parents at

School programme, and it received some financial

base for its realisation3. The process of turning it

into practice starts in connection with other

projects on the area of caring system, in 1 999.

Contents of the programme

The goals of the programme reflect the needs of

school-family-community partnership, which

were indicated in the conclusions of the

pedagogical orientations’ study. The main

assumption presents a way of partnership creation

by increased parents’ involvement in school

practice, which will be able to obtain a big extent

on the life of local community. It is shown in the

title of this programme: Parents at School.

The orientation is meant here as set of beliefs,

attitudes, and behavioural tend encies. Each part

of this set is depended on individual experiences,

conscious and non-conscious needs, etc. Then

partnership orientation’s increase has to be based

on educational processes concerning the people,

who play their partner roles in co-op eration. In

connection to this pre-assumption the programme

includes two parts. One of them combines the

proposals of teachers’, parents’, and local

authorities’ representatives’ in education.

There are exact curricula of:

- workshop’s periods - as a proposal for schools

(teachers, parents) on how to co-o perate

effectively;

- courses (60, 120-hours) - the certificates

confirm, that participants have the abilities to

foster school, family, community partnerships ,

- post-graduate study: The Animation of

Community Co-operation (220 hours, 2-

semester course at the universities or high

schools)4

- specialisation at colleges, and univ ersities: The

Animation of Community Co-operation (3-years

study across social sciences, with vocational

training at schools, local governments, and

public institution in a set of national caring

system)

- selected subjects, meant as a supplement of

obligatory curricula at teacher-training schoo ls

(for example: The Bases of School / Family /

Community Par tnership)

The second part of programme concentrates many

different ways how to prov ide the parents with

information about their rights, responsibilities,

and possibilities of suppo rt on solving their

problems with children. There are the following

conceptions:

- Family / School Adv isory Center - in local scale

- for the districts, small cities, and the villages.

Both parents and teachers (principals) will be

able to get piece of advice (how to help the

children, and to increase the levels of stud ents

abilities, etc.), current messages about school

and community life (culture, educational events,

etc.), and the indications concerning the ways of

efforts’ integration, etc.

- Parents’ Radio Channel

- Parents’ TV Channel - both radio and TV

channels should giv e advice to the parents

(make them stronger with all their

responsibilities for the children), and also


information, which is currently needed (for

example: before school term will start - the

messages about all the necessities for the

youngest pupils).

- Parents’ Magazine - edited in twofold ways: on

local scale, as a magazine, which presen ts

schools’ offers (for example: curricula, optional

and evening activities, role of parents in school

life, environmental conditions). Th e edition in

larger scale means a magazine for Polish

parents in comparisons an d co-operation with

other parents across the world. There is place

for the presentations of parents-teachers

associations’ achievement, their new ideas, and

problems.

- Parents’ Home Page on the Internet -

programme includes an exact description of this

‘page’ organisation and contents. The following

elements of its structure have appeared as most

exposed: ‘We all are the same, but...’ - this

window includes the list of parents’ rights and

responsibilities in comparisons of their situation

with in particular European countries (on the

basis of ‘Eurydice’ data, and other sources of

information); ‘The thoughts for parents’ - the

articles about parents as educators, participan ts

of their children schooling, and the life of

school, etc.; ‘Parents’ chat’ - place for exchange

of parents’ experiences, questions , doubts.

The contents of Parents at School in its structure

reflects the overlapping spheres theory by Joyce

Epstein, and her Six Types of Involvement:

parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning

at home, decision making , and collaborating with

the community 5. Local peculiarities, which

characterise the Polish reality, made all these

types full of unique examples of practice. On

some fields of the types mentioned above they

expressed spontaneously and easy

(communicating, decision making). On the

others, especially volunteering, the creations of

proposals had appeared as difficult in Polish

reality (lack of exact rules and formal status of

the volunteers at schools, described and

guaranteed by law, etc.).

Preparing the view of partnership, the Polish

programme used Ep stein’s definition of school,

family, and community partnership, which arises

by theory of overlapping spheres of influence.

This meaning of partnership (co-operation in

agreement of the aims, and types of activities)

finds adequate supplement in theory of

educational partnership by Alastair Macbeth, and

by Stanislaw Rogala.6 Macbeth’s definition of

partnership exposes the fact, that it involves a

mixture of interdependence and autonomy, where

is mutual benefit for partners to co-operate and to

influence each other’s actions, but sim ilarly there

must be recognition of some independence and

other responsibilities. Rogala’s partnership means

also mutual obligations, but with respect of

individual’s values, and w orks together with

similar expectations about the results of co-

operation.

In general the term ‘partnership’ is used in a

programme after those three meanings, which

compose - as Macbeth said - a mixture of

interdependence and autonomy of partners.

The ‘Parents at School’ programme grasps many

aspects of partnership and it draws a prospective

landscape of school / family / community co-

operation in Poland. It combines the proposals,

mentioned above with a project of turning them

into practice. This project is based on the method

of cascade, which let first educators to educate

their multiplicators on the average short term

(courses, workshops, etc.). Epstein’s action team

idea has appeared very useful in that part of the

project, which described the functioning of

‘cascade’ in local communities7, making home -

school - community liaisons.

Educational reform in Poland indicates great

changes in the system of education (3 steps of

compulsory educatio n: primary school,

gymnasium - junior high school, and lyceum -


1 Mendel, M . (1998), Parents and the School. How to Participate in the Education of Children? (Mendel, 1998).

2 During rese arch work it w as a primary s chool (6-15 ) with 144 stud ents.

3 Mendel M . (Ed.) (1998), Parents at School, Ministry of Education, Warsaw.

4 Post-graduate study The Animation of Community Co-operation starts at the Institute of Education, University

of Gdansk. There 36-people group will be studying since 1st of October, 1 999.

5 Epstein J.L. (19 87), Toward a Theory of Family - School Connections: Teachers Practices and Parent

Involvement in: K. Hurrelmann, F.X. Kaufmann, F. Losel (Eds.) Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints.

Berlin - New York, Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Epstein J.L.(19 95), School / Fam ily / Commun ity Partnership s. Caring for th e Children W e Share. ‘Phi Delta

Kappan’, May.

6 A. Macbeth (1995), Partnership between parents and teachers in education in A. Macbeth, D. McCreath and

J.Aitchison (Eds.): Collaborate or Compete? Educational Partnerships in a Market Economy. The Falmer Press,

London - Washington, D.C., p.50-51

S. Rogala (19 89), Partnerstwo rodziców i nauczy cieli. Ossolineum, Opole - Wroc aw - Kraków, p.10-12

7 J.L. Epstein, L. Co ates, K.C. Salina s, M.G. Sande rs, B.S. Simon (19 97), School, Family, and Comm unity

Partnership s. Your Hand book for Actio n. Corvin Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California, p. 13-17

senior high school), deep re-definitions of

schooling, and teachers’, paren ts’ roles in its

process (the idea of education as life-long

learning process, not necessarily placed at

schools; school as a center of soc ial life, etc.).

The reform relies on many prog rammes. Parents

at Schools belongs to the most important issues,

which determinate success o f all the reform’s

intentions. Between the prospective tasks written

down in this programm e, now preparing teachers,

parents, and representatives of local authorities

for partnerships seems most sign ificant.

The autonomous universities, colleges, and high

pedagogic schoo ls should take it into

consideration. Any of them in Poland provides

for students - prospective teachers the

possibilities (courses, worksho ps, etc.) to prepare

themselves to work with parents.

Notes

References

Epstein J.L. (1987), Toward a Theory of Family - Sch ool Connections: Teachers Practices and Parent

Involvement in: K. Hurrelmann, F.X. Kaufmann, F. Losel (Eds.) Social Intervention: Potential and

Constraints. Berlin - New York, Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Epstein J.L. (1995), School / Family / Community Partnerships. Caring for the Children We Share.

‘Phi Delta Kappan’, May.

Epstein, J.L., L. Coates, K.C. Salinas , M.G. Sanders, B.S. Simon (1997), School, Family, and

Community Par tnerships. Your Handbo ok for Action. Corvin Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.

Macbeth, A. (1995), Partnership between parents and teachers in education in A. Macbeth, D.

McCreath and J. Aitchison (Eds.): Collaborate or Compete? Educational Partnerships in a Market

Economy. The Falmer Press, London - Washington, D.C.

Mendel M. (1998 ), Rodzice i szko a. Jak wspó uczestniczy w edukacji dzieci? (Parents and the Schoo l.

How to Participate in the Education of Children?) Adam Marsza ek, Torun.

Mendel, Maria (Ed.) (1998), Rodzice w szkole (Parents at School) , Ministry of Education, Warsaw.

Rogala, S. (1989), Partnerstwo rodziców i nauczycieli (Parents - Teachers Partnership), Ossolineum,

Opole - Wroc aw - Kraków.