Importance and implications of the parent school partnership Tunde Kovacs-Cerović 1 Parental involvement in the life of school matters Becici, 2010.

Importance and implications of the parent school partnership

Tunde Kovacs-Cerović

1

Parental involvement in the life of school mattersBecici, 2010

Content of presentation

• Preliminary remarks

• Role of parents: from micro to macro picture

• The Study

• Some results

• Conclusions and implications

2

Preliminary remarks• What is education about?

OECD, Social outcomes of learning, 2007

• Parents’ interest – society’s interest• Parent - school synergy

Personal benefits

Social benefits

Financial IncomeWealth Productivity

+Tax revenues-Social transfers- Healthcare costs

Non-financial HealthSatisfactionWell-being

Social cohesionTrustFunctional democracyPolitical stability

3

Preliminary remarks

Two-way asymmetrical relationship

• In number• In influence on child• Source of funding

• In education level• In organizational structure• In power

4

Preliminary remarks

Fundamental mistake of attribution

• consequences of own behavior– Good: competencies, intention– Bad: chance

• consequences of other’s behavior – Good: chance– Bad: intention, lack of competencies

• Parents? Teachers?

5

Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions: Gray area between cooperation and

conflict

The origin of unsatisfactory teacher-parent communication is perceived to lie within the school who should initiate the collaboration being more responsive to parental and children’s needs (Lawson, 2003) 6

Gray area/cont.• Creating synergy between parents’

and society’s interest in education essential, but not easy

• Gray area from policy perspective:• Variety of levels of parent participation• Variety of models• Variety of interests & lobbying, possible

power-games• Trend or basic accountability mechanism?

Can research help?7

Gray area/cont.

• Gray area from research perspective:– Conceptual inconsistencies:• Variety of dimensions• Interaction and mutual influence• Mediating variables

– Methodological inconsistencies:• Sensitivity to contextual factors• Variety of methodologies

What can research tell to policy-maker?

8

Combine policy and research perspective

• Overview of levels & dimensions of participation

• Models of participation

9

EVROPA i MI

10

Preparation Homework

Motivation Support

biology

Communication with teacher - meetings11

Parents’ need of information on time spent in school

Place of intimatesocial experience:

– Learning – Deep understanding– Creativity – Respect – Values

Development and learning outcomes

depend on thequality of IA between

parent and teacher12

12

Communication with school, directly or through parent representatives – source of school effectiveness and

accountability

School-community

actions

VolunteeringGetting

information

Decision making

13

Social construction

EquityEquityEquityEquity Quality Quality Efficiency Efficiency

Education policy development

Parents’ role in systems’ accountability – communication with policymakers?

14policy

?15

Model of family-school partnership (Sheridan and Kratochwill)

Partnership orientation

Traditional orientation

Clear commitment to work together in order to promote child’s performance/achievement

Emphasizing the school role in promoting learning

Frequent communication that is bidirectional

Communication initiated just by the school, infrequent and problem-

centredAppreciating the cultural differences and recognizing the importance of it contribution to creating the positive

learning climate

“One size fits all” – cultural difference is a challenge that needs

to be overcome

Appreciation of the significance of different perspectives

Differences are seen as barriers

Roles are clear, mutual, and supportive

Separate roles distance participants

Goals for students are mutually determined and shared

Goals determined by school, sometimes shared with parents

Plans are co-constructed, with agreed upon roles for all participants

Educational plans devised and delivered by teachers

16

Partnership process (Hoover-Dempsey)ion

17

From both policy and research perspective:

All 3 levels important

Several distinct dimensions relevant

Partnership orientation and partnership process exciting

18

EVROPA i MI

19

The study

10 countries

AlbaniaB&H

BulgariaCroatia

KosovoMacedonia

MontnegroMoldova

RomaniaSerbia

Two perspectives

Principals’ perspective Parents’ perspective

Two methodologies

Qualitative – focus groups Quantitative - survey

Four angles

Mainstream parents

Excluded groups parents

Parent representatives - MSP

Parent representatives - EGP

20

Sample

  Mainstream

Excluded

Parent repr

Exclparent

rep

Total

Principals Principals of all schools where from the sample was drawn

Schools 311          

Parents of children 7-15

 urban

rural

 total 9076 491 1359 124 11127 21

Parents’ Questionnaire

Based on:1.Literature review:

1. Epstien’s (1987) six dimensions of parental involvement2. Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2007)

model of the parental involvement process.2.Results of focus group discussions in the 10 SEE countries3.Results of 2008 cross national study of school principals

Consisting of 3 parts:1.Q for mainstream parents (used for all samples)2.Q for excluded parents (additional part)3.Q for parent representatives (additional part)

22

Questionnaire

Background variables

Child characteristics(age, gender, achievement etc)

Family context(wealth, employment, etc)

Mother characteristics

(education, aspirations)

Dimensions of participation

school meetings

information from school

Supporting learning at home

volunteering in school

decis. making

school-community coop

Mediating variables

motivation for participation in school life 

perception of school openness  

perception of pr’s

beliefs about school-parents partnership

 Outcome variables

satisfaction re child well-being, progress in school

satisfaction re communication with school

satisfaction with influence  

23

EVROPA i MI

24

Results

• On individual/parent level • On school level• On national/regional level

• Descriptive• Regression analysis• SEM

25

1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE?

More households have a computer than a working table per child

26

Big mainstream – Roma differences

1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE?

More than 60% have less than 50 books in household

27

1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE?

Big mainstream – Roma differences

Mostly secondary education of mother

28

1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE?

Big mainstream – Roma differences

Mostly tertiary education aspirations for child

29

2. How does education look like in SEE?

About 25% report on difficulties

30

2. How does education look like in SEE?

Big mainstream – Roma differences

Low percentage of low achievers

31

2. How does education look like in SEE?

Children love/like school

32

2. How does education look like in SEE?

Achievement, liking school and difficulties of child correlates with:

Achievement Liking school Difficulties

Education aspirations of family

0.46 0.27 -0.41

Wealth index 0.42 0.24 -0.30

Number of books in household

0.32 0.11 -0.24

Education level of mother

0.30 0.13 -0.32

33

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Schools do not invite parents (%)

never 1 2-3 3+

To meetings

- class 3 9 34 54

- individual 50 14 18 19

To volunteer

- infrastructure 70 17 9 4

- extracurricular 66 16 13 5

- curricular 86 7 5 2

- additional (library, lunch) 85 9 4 234

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Schools do not invite parents/cont (%)

never 1 2-3 3+

To give opinion on

- financial management 79 8 8 5

- extreacurricular activities 66 16 13 6

- organization of school event 45 25 21 8

- health safety issues 58 20 15 8

- school management shifts, merger

82 9 6 3

- education issues 75 10 10 5

- violence 65 15 13 7

In Roma sample “never” is around 90%In Roma sample “never” is around 90%35

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Systematic difference between parents’ and principals’ perception

36

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Even if rarely invited, parents eagerly accept, see benefit of, feel capable for, and feel duty to participate

37

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Problem attributed more to parents than schools. Parents are not assessed as not interested, not have time or don’t know how to communicate

38

3. How does parent-school cooperation happen?

Problem attributed more to parents than schools. Parents are perceived as motivated and competent to participate

39

4. Outcomes of parent-school cooperation ?

Parents are least satisfied with their possibility of influence

40

5. Connections?

• Correlations between individual level variables significant but low

• Significant differences between mainstream and Roma sample

• Significant differences between countries

41

EVROPA i MI

42

ConclusionsGray areas – what have we learnt?

• Trends are expected, but their pervasiveness is striking – Discrepancy between the mainstream and the

excluded sample– Discrepancy between parents’ and principals’

perception– Lack of opportunities for cooperation and partnership– Opportunities even less present for those who need it

most

• Several striking mismatches call for further detailed analysis

43

Mismatch 1

– Parents mostly accept every invitation

– Feel competent to contribute

– Feel duty to participate– Assess participation as

beneficial for child

► Lack of invitation in all 6

dimensions (17 of the 18 items presented)

► Parents are least satisfied with the possibility of their influence

School openness

Parents’ eagerness

Partnership?

44

Mismatch 2

Parents and principals agree that it is not true that parents:

– …are not interested – …don’t have time – …don’t know how to

communicate with school

► Problem more attributed to parents than to schools

Attribution of problem

Parents’ motivation & skills

Source of problem?

45

Conclusions/cont.

• Individual parent level mediating variables do not predict outcomes strong enough - it seems that individual parental motivation, attitude, belief does not matter much

• Mediating variables at school level?

• Country level analysis?

46

Policy implications

Micro level

Meso level

Macro leveli

Lacking parent-school partnership endangers

parenthood and leaves teachers isolated from deep

understanding

Without cooperation school gets constructed in unbalanced way

Lack of parent involvement – lack of accountability

47

EVROPA i MI

Thank you for your attention 48