Importance and implications of the parent school partnership

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

2. Content of presentation • Preliminary remarks • Role of parents: from micro to macro picture • The Study • Some results • Conclusions and implications

3. Preliminary remarks • What is education about? OECD, Social outcomes of learning, 2007 • Parents’ interest – society’s interest • Parent - school synergy

4. Preliminary remarks Two-way asymmetrical relationship • In number • In influence on child • Source of funding • In education level • In organizational structure • In power

5. 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?

6. 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)

7. 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?

8. 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?

9. Combine policy and research perspective • Overview of levels & dimensions of participation • Models of participation

10. EVROPA i MI Role of parents: from micro to macro picture

11. Role of parent - micro picture Preparation Homework Motivation Support biology Communication with teacher - meetings

12. Parents’ need of information on time spent in school Place of intimate social experience: Learning Deep understanding Creativity Respect Values • Place of humaninteraction: • Teacher/student • Student/student • Teacher/teacher • Teacher/parent • Parent/parent • Place of development of the Self-concept: • Self-regulation • Self-efficacy • Self-esteem • Self-description/attribution • Development and • learning outcomes • depend on the • quality of IA between • parent and teacher 12

13. Role of parent - meso picture Decision making Getting information Volunteering School-community actions Social construction Communication with school, directly or through parent representatives – source of school effectiveness and accountability

14. Role of parent - macro picture Education policy development Equity Quality Efficiency Parents’ role in systems’ accountability – communication with policymakers? policy

15. Decreasing role of parent from micro to macro level ?

16. Model of family-school partnership (Sheridan and Kratochwill)

17. Partnershipprocess(Hoover-Dempsey)ion

18. Role of parents • From both policy and research perspective: • All 3 levels important • Several distinct dimensions relevant • Partnership orientation and partnership process exciting

19. EVROPA i MI The Study

20. The study

21. Sample

22. Parents’ Questionnaire • Based on: • Literature review: • Epstien’s (1987) six dimensions of parental involvement • Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2007) model of the parental involvement process. • Results of focus group discussions in the 10 SEE countries • Results of 2008 cross national study of school principals • Consisting of 3 parts: • Q for mainstream parents (used for all samples) • Q for excluded parents (additional part) • Q for parent representatives (additional part)

23. Questionnaire

24. EVROPA i MI Some results

25. Results • On individual/parent level • On school level • On national/regional level • Descriptive • Regression analysis • SEM

26. 1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE? More households have a computer than a working table per child

27. 1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE? More than 60% have less than 50 books in household Big mainstream – Roma differences

28. 1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE? Mostly secondary education of mother Big mainstream – Roma differences

29. 1. How does basic support for successful education look like in SEE? Mostly tertiary education aspirations for child Big mainstream – Roma differences

30. 2. How does education look like in SEE? About 25% report on difficulties

31. 2. How does education look like in SEE? Low percentage of low achievers Big mainstream – Roma differences

32. 2. How does education look like in SEE? Children love/like school

33. 2. How does education look like in SEE? Achievement, liking school and difficulties of child correlates with:

34. 3. How does parent-school cooperation happen? Schools do not invite parents (%)

35. 3. How does parent-school cooperation happen? Schools do not invite parents/cont (%) In Roma sample “never” is around 90%

36. 3. How does parent-school cooperation happen? Systematic difference between parents’ and principals’ perception

37. 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

38. 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

39. 3. How does parent-school cooperation happen? Problem attributed more to parents than schools. Parents are perceived as motivated and competent to participate

40. 4. Outcomes of parent-school cooperation ? Parents are least satisfied with their possibility of influence

41. 5. Connections? • Correlations between individual level variables significant but low • Significant differences between mainstream and Roma sample • Significant differences between countries

42. EVROPA i MI Conclusions and implications

43. Conclusions Gray 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

44. 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 Mismatch 1 School openness Parents’ eagerness Partnership?

45. 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 Mismatch 2 Attribution of problem Parents’ motivation & skills Source of problem?

46. 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?

47. Policy implications Micro level Lacking parent-school partnership endangers parenthood and leaves teachers isolated from deep understanding Meso level Without cooperation school gets constructed in unbalanced way Macro leveli Lack of parent involvement – lack of accountability

48. EVROPA i MI Thank you for your attention