Edited by:                           Frederik Smit                        Kees van der Wolf                           Pete...
A BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE
ii   A Bridge to the Future
A Bridge to the FutureCollaboration between Parents, Schools and CommunitiesEdited by:dr. Frederik Smitprof. dr. Kees van ...
iv                                                                                     A Bridge to the FutureThe prize of ...
PrefaceChildren learn at home, in school and in the          experiments concerning collaboration betweencommunity. Collab...
vi   A Bridge to the Future
ContentsIntroduction; a bridge to the future                                                                 1Frederik Smi...
viii                                                                                A Bridge to the FutureSection 2 - Scho...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                        ixFamily, school, and commun...
x   A Bridge to the Future
Introduction: A Bridge to the FutureThis volume is a collection of 35 essays, grouped    lifelong learning and parental co...
2                                                                              A Bridge to the FutureFreda Rockliffe repor...
Section 1Parents’ perspectives on the collaborationbetween home and school
4   A Bridge to the Future
Can schools help to build a bridge to a new democraticfuture?Don DaviesMany gurus, journalists, and ordinary people       ...
6                                                                                  A Bridge to the Future- In which we hav...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                      7and their mis...
8                                                                                   A Bridge to the FutureA few schools in...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                  9                 ...
10   A Bridge to the Future
A vision of home-school partnership: threecomplementary conceptual frameworksRollande DeslandesThis presentation aims to e...
12                                                                                  A Bridge to the Futurethe school?’ or ...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                        13Figure 1 -...
14                                                                                   A Bridge to the Futureperceive that t...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                   15Figure 2 - The ...
16                                                                                  A Bridge to the Futureparents belong –...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                    17It appears tha...
18                                                                                          A Bridge to the Futureabout wh...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                                    ...
20                                                                                   A Bridge to the FutureBouchard (1998)...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                   21appear, describ...
22                                                                                  A Bridge to the FutureBandura, A., Bar...
A Bridge to the Future                                                                                23Dunst, C. J., Joha...
24   A Bridge to the Future
Family education and implications for partnershipwith schools in SpainRaquel-Amaya Martínez GonzálezThe family as an Educa...
26                                                                                   A Bridge to the Futureperform one of ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and communities

25,078

Published on

Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and communities

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 with the aim to share research results, stimulate research at all levels.

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 developments in relation to the collaboration between families, school and community.

Contributors:
Metin Alkan (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Jacques Braster (Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands), Martha Allexsaht-Snider (University of Georgia, USA), Frans Brekelmans (General Education Union AOb, Faculty of Law of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, deputy-judge, the Netherlands), Tanja van Beukering (Amsterdam Municipal Pedological Institute, the Netherlands), Elzbieta Bielecka (University in Bialystok, Poland), Stafano Castelli (State University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy), Laura De Clara (Comune di Codroipo, Italy), Pierre Couvreur (University of Mons, Belgium), Miriam David (Keele University, United Kingdom), Don Davies (Institue for Responsive Education, Marblehead MA, USA), Eddie Denessen (University Nijmegen, the Netherlands), Rollande Deslandes (Université du Quebec à Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada), Geert Driessen (ITS of the University Nijmegen, the Netherlands), Anne Bert Dijkstra (University of Groningen), Kateøina Emmerov (Masaryk University, Czech Republic), Wander van Es (Sardes, Utrecht, the Netherlands), Alvard Harutynyan (CRS/Armenia), Lex Herweijer ( Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands), Diana B. Hiatt-Michael (Pepperdine University, USA), Paul Jungbluth (ITS of the University Nijmegen, the Netherlands), Raili Kärkkäïnen (University of Helsinki, Finland), Cees A. Klaassen (University Nijmegen, the Netherlands), Andra Laczik (University of Oxford, United Kingdom), Miek Laemers (ITS of the University Nijmegen, the Netherlands), Willy Lahaye (University of Mons, Belgium), Iskra Maksimovic (CRS/Yugoslavia), Raquel-Amaya Martínez González (Universidad de Oviedo, Spain), Jacqueline McGilp (Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, Australia), Maria Mendel (University of Gdansk, Poland), Sean Neill (University of Warwick, United Kingdom), Patricia Nimal (University of Mons, Belgium), Pirjo Nuutinen (University of Joesuu, Savonlinna, Finland), Helen Phtiaka (Univeristy of Cyprus, Cyprus), Milada Rabušicová (Masaryk

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
25,078
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and communities

  1. 1. Edited by: Frederik Smit Kees van der Wolf Peter SleegersA Bridge to the Future Collaboration between Parents, Schools and Communities
  2. 2. A BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE
  3. 3. ii A Bridge to the Future
  4. 4. A Bridge to the FutureCollaboration between Parents, Schools and CommunitiesEdited by:dr. Frederik Smitprof. dr. Kees van der Wolfprof. dr. Peter SleegersINSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCESUNIVERSITY NIJMEGENSCO-KOHNSTAMM INSTITUTE
  5. 5. iv A Bridge to the FutureThe prize of this edition is ƒ 35,00. (€ 16).Photo cover ‘Leanne and Jonne’: Y. BakkerPhoto on the back of the book: Michelle Muus, RotterdamWebsite design by Jos Wisman: http://www.phaomedium.nlAddress:Institute for Applied Social SciencesToernooiveld 5P.O. Box 90486500 KJ NijmegenThe Netherlandshttp://www.its.kun.nlTo order the book:International telephone ++ 31 24 365 35 00International fax ++ 31 24 365 35 99E-mail receptie@its.kun.nlCIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK DEN HAAGA bridge to the future. / dr. Frederik Smit, prof. dr. Kees van der Wolf & prof. dr. Peter Sleegers -Nijmegen: ITSISBN 90 - 5554 - 177 - XNUGI 722© 2001 ITS, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te NijmegenBehoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgaveworden verveelvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welkeandere wijze dan ook, en evenmin in een retrieval systeem worden opgeslagen, zonder de voorafgaandeschriftelijke toestemming van het ITS van de Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.No part of this book/publication may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any othermeans without written permission from the publisher.
  6. 6. PrefaceChildren learn at home, in school and in the experiments concerning collaboration betweencommunity. Collaboration between parents, home-school-communities were discussed.schools and communities is necessary to theoptimize of pupils’ developmental opportunities, The participants came from many countries inthe enhancement of pupils’ educational careers Europe including Hungarian, the Czech Republic,and the improvement of teachers’ task Poland, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Macedonia,performance. Bulgaria and also Cyprus. From outside Europe, the United States of America, Australia, CanadaERNAPE (European Research Network About and Malaysia were represented. The participantsParents in Education) is an association of research were not only researchers but also representednetworks in the area of education, in particular ministries of education, parent organisations,parents in education. In 1993 the association was teacher organisations and schools.established with the aim to share research resultsand stimulate research at all levels. One researcher from the ITS, in collaboration with specialists on parent participation from theA first conference ‘Education is Partnership’ was University of Nijmegen and the SCO-Kohnstammheld in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1996. Institute have brought together in this volume theThe second roundtable conference ‘Building recent scientific and social developments inbridges between home and school’ was in relation to the collaboration between families,Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 1999. schools and communities.On 22, 23 and 24 November 2001 the thirdconference was organized at the Ichthus College We hope that this volume stimulates to build ain Rotterdam, the Netherlands. During this well-designed bridge that connect and unite allconference the current state of affairs, models, partners at home, in school and in thestrategies, legislation, experiences and communities to increase pupils’ success.Nijmegen/Amsterdam, November 2001prof. dr. Hans Mastop prof. dr. Hetty Dekkers dr. Anton Nijssendirector ITS director NUOVO director SCO-Kohnstamm Institute
  7. 7. vi A Bridge to the Future
  8. 8. ContentsIntroduction; a bridge to the future 1Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf, Peter SleegersSection 1 - Parents’ perspectives on the collaboration between home and school 3Can schools help to build a bridge to a new democratic future, Don Davies 5A vision of home-school partnership: three complementary conceptual frameworks,Rollande Deslandes 11Family education and implications for partnership with schools in Spain,Raquel-Amaya Martínez González 25Family-school liaisons in Cyprus: an investigation of families’ perspectives and needs,Loizos Symeou 33Government, school and parents in the Netherlands: every man to his trade,Loes van Tilborg & Wander van Es 45Relationships between parents and school in the Czech Republic,Kateøina Emmerová & Milada Rabušicová 49Culture differences in education: implications for parental involvement and educational policies,Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit & Peter Sleegers 55The parental need for pluralistic primary education in the Netherlands,Jacques F.A. Braster 67Have minority parents a say in Dutch educational opportunity policies? Paul Jungbluth 71To see together. Visualization of meaning structures in interaction processes betweenchildren and adults in Finland, Raili Kärkkäïnen 75Developments in the position of parents in primary and secondary education in the Netherlands,Miek Laemers & Frans Brekelmans 81Evaluation of the legal functions of the complaints regulation in primary and secondaryeducation in the Netherlands, Juliette Vermaas 91
  9. 9. viii A Bridge to the FutureSection 2 - Schools’ perspectives on collaboration with families and communitiy 101Changing responsibilities between home and school. Consequences for the pedagogicalprofessionality of teachers, Cees A. Klaassen & Frederik Smit 103Home-school relationships in one Russian school. A case study, Andrea Laczik 109Lifelong learning: schools and the parental contribution in Australia,Jacqueline McGilp 117Increasing social capital: teachers about school-family-community partnerships.Results of a study on the orientations of American and Polish teachers,Maria Mendel 125Parents as a problem?, Sean Neill 137Working with challenging parents within the framework of inclusive education,Kees van der Wolf & Tanja van Beukering 149Teachers, power relativism and partnership, Pirjo Nuutinen 157Involving parents in children’s education: what teachers say in Malaysia,Sharifah Md.Nor & Jennifer Wee Beng Neo 167Section 3 - Specific aspects of school-family-community relations 177Teacher training on parents in education, Birte Ravn 179Preparing teachers to work with parents, Diana B. Hiatt-Michael 185‘The school I’d like my child to attend, the world I’d like my child to live in’: …parental perspectives on ‘special education’ in Cyprus, Helen Phtiaka 189Minimalization of failure at school in Poland: children and youth from sociallydeprived families, Elzbieta Bielecka 195Young people’s representations of school and family relationships in Belgium,Willy Lahaye, Pierre Nimal & Patricia Couvreur 201School-parents relationships as seen by the Academy. A survey of the views of Italian researches,Stefano Castelli & Luca Vanin 213Focus group survey of parents of children with disabilities who are members of schoolimprovement teams in Florida, U.S.A., Sally M. Wade 215
  10. 10. A Bridge to the Future ixFamily, school, and community intersections in teacher education and professionaldevelopment: integrating theoretical and conceptual frameworks,Martha Allexsaht-Snider & Stacy Schwartz 217Families, gender and education: issues of policy and practice, Miriam David 225Partnerships of families, schools and communities in Italy, Laura De Clara 231Parental involvement in mathematics education in a Canadian elementary school,Freda Rockliffe 235Parents, racism and education: some issues relating to parental involvement by Turkish andMoroccan communities in the Netherlands, Metin Alkan 245The relationships between parents of ethnic minority children, the schools and supportinginstitutions in the local community – some ideas for the future,Frederik Smit, Geert Driessen & Peter Sleegers 255The relationship between motives for choice and denomination in primary education in a 259system of choice, Anne Bert Dijkstra & Lex HerweijerStrong linkages among involved parents to improve the educational systems and societies 267of emerging democraties, Iskra Maksimovic & Alvard HarutynyanNotes on contributors 271
  11. 11. x A Bridge to the Future
  12. 12. Introduction: A Bridge to the FutureThis volume is a collection of 35 essays, grouped lifelong learning and parental contribution. Mariainto three sections, on the theme of parents, Mendel focuses in her study on the orientations ofschool and community. American and Polish teachers about school-The first part contains parents’ orientation and family community partnerships. The study ofreflections on the collaboration between home, Sean Neill concerns the position of parents in theschool (Don Davies), conceptual partnerships of school system. The research of Kees van der Wolfhome-school partnerships (Rollande Deslandes), and Tanja van Beukering focuses on workingfamily education and implications for partnership with challenging parents within the framework ofwith schools (Raquel-Amaya Martínez González) inclusive education. Pirjo Nuutinen reports whatand family-school liaisons (Loizos Symeou). Finnish teachers think about their power positionLoes van Tilborg and Wander van Es give their in relation to parents. The study of Sharifah Md.vision on the relation between government, Nor and Jennifer Wee Beng Neo concernsschool and parents. Kateøina Emmerová and involving parents in children’s education inMilada Rabušicová explore questions about the Malaysia.relationships between parents and school in theCzech Republic. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen, The third section reports on a number ofFrederik Smit and Peter Sleegers focus on the investigations related tot specific aspects ofculture differences in education. Jacques Braster school-family-community relations. Birte Ravnpresents findings of a study of the parental need presents her ideas about teacher training onfor pluralistic education. Paul Jungbluth gives an parents in education. The study of Diana B. Hiatt-description of issues relating to minority parents Michael concerns preparing teachers to work within the Netherlands. Raili Kärkkäïnen reports parents. Helen Phtiaka reports on parentalabout the interaction process between children perspectives on special education in Cyprus.and adults. Miek Laemers and Frans Brekelmans Elzbieta Bielecka shows the results of a study intogive an overview of the position of parents in children and youth from socially deprivedprimary and secondary education in the families in Poland. Willy Lahaye and hisNetherlands. To finish this first section Juliette colleagues (Nimal and Couvreur) focus on youngVermaas presents an evaluation of the legal people’s representations of school and familyfunctions of the complaints regulation in primary relationships in Belgium. Stefano Castelli andand secondary education in the Netherlands. Luca Vanin explore questions about school- family relations in Italy. Sally Wade presents aThe second part is devoted to the school survey of parents of children with disabilities.perspective on collaboration between families, Martha Allexsaht-Snider and Stacy Schwartzschool and community. Cees Klaassen and describe the family, school, and communityFrederik Smit describe the changing intersections in teacher education andresponsibilities between home and school and the professional development. Miriam David gives anconsequences for the pedagogical professionality overview of changes in policies and practices inof teachers. Andrea Laczik gives an example of relation to families, gender and education. Laurahome-school relationships in a Russian school. De Clara presents findings of their study into theJacqueline McGilp presents an analysis of role of the media in education. The research of
  13. 13. 2 A Bridge to the FutureFreda Rockliffe reports a study on mathematics in Finally Iskra Maksimovic & Alvard Harutynyana Canadian elementary school. Metin Alkan describe strong linkages among involved parentsfocuses on racism in education in the to improve the educational systems and societiesNetherlands. Frederik Smit, Geert Driessen and of emerging democraties.Peter Sleegers describe their study into the The contributions to this volume were presentedrelationships between parents of ethnic minority at the European Research Network About Parentschildren, the schools and supporting institutions and Education (ERNAPE) held in Rotterdam (thein the local community. The study of Anne Bert Netherlands) on 22, 23 and 24 November 2001.Dijkstra & Lex Herweijer concerns therelationship between motives for choice and Frederik Smitdenomination in primary education in a system of Kees van der Wolfchoice. Peter Sleegers
  14. 14. Section 1Parents’ perspectives on the collaborationbetween home and school
  15. 15. 4 A Bridge to the Future
  16. 16. Can schools help to build a bridge to a new democraticfuture?Don DaviesMany gurus, journalists, and ordinary people America only, or schools in the Western world, orthese days are saying that nothing will be the schools everywhere.same in the world after September 11. Many aretalking - often very vaguely and grandly-about a I have been wrestling in an often confused andNew World Order - influenced by the inevitability sometimes rambling state of mind with thisof Globalism, the pervasive power of electronic question and its more specific and personalcommunication, the impact of mass popular follow-on:culture, and our long-term struggle to reduceterrorism. Can the school make a real difference? Can teachers, parents, and communities help theBut, we must ask what will be the shape and spirit bridge that is needed to reach a more democraticand substance of this changed world and the New future, a new world social order?Order. Predicting what will be is a very uncertain Here, I must put in my own and inevitablyproposition, so I find it more interesting and more controversial personal views about the directionimportant as an educator to ask what should be of change. Because without some clarity andthe shape and spirit and substance of our future? some agreement about direction, the new worldBut, this question is even more difficult and order might be that envisioned by Hitler, or onecertain to produce disagreement and controversy. of the early Popes who spurred the Crusades, orBut, that is the way it should be. by Osama Ben Laden or other radical Islamic fundamentalists, or by American politicians whoThis brings me to the question I have been want a world that looks exactly like ourwrestling with ever since the truly horrible prosperous, supposedly all-powerful, capitalist,tragedies in my country on September 11 and materialist, Superpower America.aftermath of those events, which are stillunfolding. So, my question then becomes: Can the schools contribute significantly to a new changed socialHere is the question and the frame for my brief order:comments here this morning: - In which we share material resources more equitably.Can the school have a significant impact on the - In which we make more widely availableshape and spirit and substance of our world in this decent housing, health care and opportunitiesnew century? for work, leisure, and education.Can the school make a real difference? You can - In which we have greatly reduced violence ofimagine that I am talking about schools in all kinds (including, of course, terrorism).
  17. 17. 6 A Bridge to the Future- In which we have learned how to reduce and everything but at the same time asserted that they control hatred, hostility, suspicion, and fear can and should do a lot toward the kind of between and among people across boundaries democratic social order that he believed in which of nations, regions, continents, races and ethnic is quite similar to the vision that I have sketched groups, religions, genders. here.- In which we have achieved a good, workable balance between individual freedom and, and Counts thought that the unique power that school responsibilities and between local and possessed was its ability to formulate and collective, social interests. articulate the ideal of a democratic society, to- In which social justice is more widely practiced communicate that ideal to students, and to for all. encourage them to use that ideal as a standard- In which we have learned better to enhance to for judging themselves and their society. protect our natural environment and our cultural and esthetic treasures. I agree with this point, and I want to build on it, and to suggest briefly some work and action forThat long list of ‘in which’s’ point to most of the schools, families, and communities together inmain elements of my own vision of a more order for the school to help build a new moredemocratic society, of what I mean by a new democratic order. I will briefly suggest foursocial order. Now, what can and should school do arenas for possible work and action:to help to build a bridge to that future? 1. What children are taught: content and experience.First and most importantly They should not and 2. The school as a model of democratic practice.cannot do much that matters - except in 3. School and community exchange.collaboration with their students, the families of 4. Leadership by teachers unions and parentthose students, and the community institutions, associations in support of a progressive socialagencies and residents. agenda.Among the most helpful ideas I have found in the Please understand that I have neither the time norpast few weeks is in a book written seventy years the capacity to offer specific details,ago by George S. Counts, then a well-known prescriptions, or advice about how to do it. I askeducational philosopher at the Teachers College you to be patient with general ideas andof Columbia University, where I studied (but not directions.quite 70 years ago). His 1932 book (now largelyforgotten) was entitled Dare the School Build a First, what children are taught: content andNew Social Order? It created a huge stir in the experienceeducational world. Problem: Most countries now use textbooks andI just have re-read it and find much of it very curriculum which either subtly or blatantly torelevant in 2001. promote only national pride and values and an ethnocentric Establishment-authorized view ofCounts pointed out that Americans have a history. Examples: In the US few schools teachsublime and naïve faith in education. Many are children much about our treatment of the Nativeconvinced that education is the one unfailing Americans, which was sometimes out and outremedy for every ill to which mankind is subject. genocide. Most countries push patriotism, butSome Americans speak glibly about the seldom salute the world globe as well as theirreconstruction of the society through education. own flag. Few of our schools give a balancedHe rejected this idea that the schools can do view of the struggle of labor unions in years past
  18. 18. A Bridge to the Future 7and their mistreatment by corporate America and in books, ceremonies, and lectures, but notthe government. Many schools stress only the actually practiced.academic development of children neglectingtheir physical and emotional development. Democratic practice requires more than talk. It requires policies and practices that promoteClearly, we need to offer children more multi- academic and social success for all children,cultural, multi-national content and experience regardless of their background. The newand we need to help children develop the democratic social order will be impossible ifconfidence and skill to analyze both past and societies continue to practice educational triage,present events critically. consigning a substantial percentage of young people to second or third class roles in life.At the same time we need to attend both theintellectual and the physical and emotional needs Closing this gap would be a big contribution toof learners. We know that children that are building the new social order, but everyone herehungry, frightened, ill-clad, or emotionally will agree, I believe, that this cannot be achievedunstable can not be good learners. without real and continuing support andIn my opinion children in a new democratic order collaboration of parents and the key institutionsneed to understand and respect their own roots, and agencies in the community.culture, language, and community traditions as aneeded foundation for understanding and A school can also work in other ways towardrespecting the roots, cultures, and traditions of becoming a model, an example, of democraticothers. ideas in practices. These ideas are obvious to us, including.I recognize that what I am suggesting ispolitically impossible in a democratic society, and Respect for others, including those that arecan’t even be approached in a limited way different.without the support and collaboration of families Opportunities for all in the school community -and the decision-makers in communities, state, students, teachers, parents, administrators, schooland national capitals. A supportive political staff to have influence on the decisions that affectclimate is needed, and as Counts said, schools them.have only limited capacity to affect the broader Workable mechanisms for decision-makingpolitical and economic system. allowing parents a real voice in the important decisions of the school and school system -Second: the school as a model of democratic decisions about budgets, curriculum, andpractice personnel.Problem: In the US and many other Western Mechanisms for resolving conflict and differencescountries there is a huge gap in academic through negotiation and compromise.achievement and success between children of Recognition of the different needs, talents, andpoor, working class and immigrant families and learning style of students.children of the dominant middle class and moreaffluent families. And, of course, many of you will agree that students (and parents and teachers) learn moreIn the US and many others many schools operate about democracy from being a part of it in awith tight, top-down management, which allows school than they will by reading textbooks orfor little if any participation in decision-making hearing lectures about democracy.by students or parents. In these schools is honored
  19. 19. 8 A Bridge to the FutureA few schools in the countries represented here Such a school is lively part of the life of theare making some progress on this front, as we are community.hearing at this conference. Fourth: the role of teachers unions and parentThird, school-community exchange associations in support of a progressive socialProblem: In the US the traditional isolation of agendaschools from other community institutions and Problem: Teacher unions in the US, which quiteagencies continues in many places. Too many properly and by definition attend to the economicschools in the US see connections with the interests of their members, often drag their feetcommunity as a process of getting money, and oppose school reform efforts, including anyequipment, and political support rather than a serious involvement of parents and thegenuine exchange. community. Our unions have tended (with some importantMy experience over many years has shown me exceptions) to be cautious about promotingthat the most productive relationship between a progressive social agenda. And, in at least a thirdschool and its community is based on mutual self- of our states they are politically very weak.interest theory and requires the school to expandthe contribution that it can make to the In the US parent associations have seen their rolecommunity just as it seeks to increase the as primarily to raise money and support theresources that the community can offer the school leaderships agenda on educational matters.school. Schools have facilities and equipment, the They have seldom been out in front onexpertise of teachers and administrators, jobs for progressive social issues and have often been verylocal residents, and the energy and time of their conservative and cautious.students. George Counts in Dare the School Build a NewCommunity Services programs for young people Social Order strongly advocates a moreare a good way to help both the young people and aggressive and progressive role for organizedthe community and an interesting way to help teachers.shape a democratic future by reinforcing the He makes this statement, which educators todaybelief of young people that every individual can will see as radical: ‘The power that teachersmake a difference. exercise in schools can be no greater than they wield in society. In order to be effective they(An example: Providence College in Rhode must throw off the slave psychology that hasIsland is using foundation grant money to create a dominated the mind of the pedagogue sincenetwork of 250 public high schools to advance ancient Greece…In their own lives they must .civic engagement, beginning a student led civic bridge the gap between school and society andaudit to assess what their schools are doing well play some part in the fashioning of those greatto provide opportunities for them to participate in common purposes, which should bind the twothe public life of their communities and what together. ‘ (p. 29 Dare the School Build a Newareas could be improved.) Social Order (new edition) Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale Illinois, 1978).In addition, the school I am envisioning will be a Counts makes an interesting point here, but it isgenuine community school offering needed politically unrealistic in most Americancourses, training, meeting places and help to communities, unless the political and socialparents and other adults in the community in leadership of teachers is strongly supported andcollaboration with other community institutions. protected by their unions.
  20. 20. A Bridge to the Future 9 stCounts urged organized teachers to spark the Order.’ He predicted that 21 Century globallabor movement to lead efforts to democratize conflict will occur not between nation states suchAmerican life, focusing on improving the as the United States, Russia, and China, butconditions of socially marginal people and what between civilizations defined by shared values,he called the ‘lower classes’. culture and religion. None will clash more violently than the predominantly ChristianIt would certainly be a useful contribution to nations of the West and Muslim nations thatbuilding the kind of social order I have been stretch from Africa to Indonesia. That is scary,discussing here if teachers’ organizations in the given the events of the last few weeks.US would take the lead on a progressive socialagenda, including issues of immigration, But, the hope lies, Huntington says, in makingmistreatment of gay people, affordable housing, progress toward a more peaceful, universaland economic policies that damage the working civilization - which can emerge gradually throughpoor. the exploration and expansion of our communalities.Unfortunately, Counts ignores the role of parentsand parent associations. Robert Putnam, a Helping young people discover theseHarvard political scientist, has written a widely commonalities while not losing the special,discussed book, Bowling Alone, The Collapse and positive things that make individuals and groupsRevival of American Community. Putnam’s different is a task within the reach of educatorsstudies demonstrate that one important element of and parents everywhere. And, this task, whicha civil society and stronger communities is calls for collaboration and partnership.networks of civic associations. By civic Discovering commonalities is form of buildingassociations he means organizations such as the bridge to the future, isn’t it?parent groups, local choruses and orchestras,sports clubs, neighborhood. As I see it just now, the challenge in thesePutnam says that various forms of parent troubled and troubling times for my country andinvolvement - which we now often called yours is to move toward a culture that valuespartnership - can be helpful in democratic diversity as well as traditional identity, that putssocieties seeking to sustain and advance social justice ahead of profit, reconciliation aheaddemocratic principles and to build a more civil of revenge, and common humanity ahead of tribaland prosperous and productive community. interests. It is a culture that can face and not denyIndependent, community based parent and citizen its shortcomings and seek to remedy them.organizations working on school issues can also To go back to the question I began with: Parentshelp to enliven local democracy. These and teachers and communities can help to buildorganizations and parent associations linked to the bridge to a more democratic future, to thatthe schools can be seen as having a potential new social order I envision.positive impact on the school’s contribution to But, we must not burden them with super-inflatedbuilding a new democratic social order, if they expectations nor underestimate the barriers anddeliberately and aggressively seek to do this. the political and social realities.Conclusion What I have wanted to say today is that we shouldA final point - one that is both scary and offers do what we can in the spirit of school-family-hope. Samuel Huntington the Harvard Political community partnership, and in that way, we CANScientist wrote a book in 1996: The Clash of make a difference.Civilizations and the Remaking of the World
  21. 21. 10 A Bridge to the Future
  22. 22. A vision of home-school partnership: threecomplementary conceptual frameworksRollande DeslandesThis presentation aims to examine the parents were partners in school management bycomplementary nature of three conceptual virtue of their participation in the school council.frameworks of home-school partnership. Those in favor of the partnership approach citeEpstein’s (1987) overlapping spheres of influence the results of several researches demonstrating themodel illustrates a global and holistic vision of benefits of collaboration, notably, anpartnership. The model of parental involvement improvement in school grades, behaviors anddesigned by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, attitudes (Epstein, 1996). Not everyone agrees1997) adds to understanding by focusing on with this approach, however, especially thoseparental sense of efficacy and parental role who view partnership as a means of maintainingconstruction. The enabling and empowerment teachers’ professional control by consideringmodel (Bouchard, 1998; Dunst et al., 1992) parental support as an option (Vincent &focuses on the influence of attitudes and Tomlinson, 1997). Still others deplore thebehaviors within parent-teacher interactions in a predominance of a vision of school-familyreciprocal partnership. A vision of collaborative collaboration dictated solely by the school and itspartnership appears to prevail in Quebec schools teachers, insisting that a one-way partnership isat the moment. Despite some reported difficulties, not viable (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997). Lareauhowever, reciprocal partnership represents a (1996), for her part, categorically rejects apromising avenue. concept of partnership based on equal status, since she believes teachers should have greaterThe school-family relation is currently a topic of power than parents. Cochran and Dean (1991)interest among parents, teachers, policymakers call for compensatory programs of parentand all those involved in childhood education, as education as well as interventions based onis made clear in a report of the OECD (1997) and enabling and empowerment (Dunst et al., 1992).a Notice of the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation For Bouchard (1998), however, these two last(1998). It is the subject of a number of researches principles meet the very definition of partnershipat the provincial, national and international levels as ‘…the actualization of the resources andas well (e.g., Bouchard, 1998; Epstein, 1996, competencies of each’ (p. 23) (free translation). In2001; OECD, 1997; Pourtois & Desmit, 1997; a similar vein, the OECD (1997) describesVincent & Tomlinson, 1997). A study of both partnership as a process, since it involves ‘…theory and practice highlights a trend towards learning to work together and valuing eachparental involvement, while the prevailing partner’s positive contribution to the relationship’political discourse aims to develop collaboration - (p. 58) (free translation).partnership, even - between schools and families. During training sessions for teachers and humanAmendments to Quebec’s Education Act in service practitioners, we often encounteredDecember 1997, for example, affirmed that questions such as the following: ‘What do you do when the parents you want to see never come to
  23. 23. 12 A Bridge to the Futurethe school?’ or ‘What can be done to attract Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) and designed from aparents who are difficult to reach?’ This led us to social and organizational perspective (Litwak &reflect upon the notion of partnership that now Meyer, 1974; Seeley, 1981, cited in Epstein,prevails in schools in Quebec and upon how this 1987, 1992, 1996), the overlapping spheres ofmodel of partnership corresponds to the one influence model emphasizes the cooperation andadvocated by various educational organizations. complementarity of schools and families, andThe present communication will examine the encourages communication and collaborationcomplementary nature of the three conceptual between the two institutions (Epstein, 1987,frameworks related to home-school partnerships: 1996). This model consists of spheresthe model of overlapping spheres of influence representing the family and the school that may(Epstein, 1987), the model of parental be pushed together or pulled apart by three forces:involvement (Hoover-Dempsey, 1995, 1997) and time (Force A), the characteristics, philosophiesthe family enabling and empowerment model and practices of the family (Force B) and those of(Bouchard, 1998; Dunst et al., 1992). Of the the school (Force C). These forces may or maythree, the model of parental involvement not help create occasions for shared activities(Hoover-Dempsey, 1995, 1997) will be given between the school and the family. We note, forparticular attention because of its concern with example, that the spheres overlap to a greaterthe problem of difficult-to-reach families. Finally, extent during a student’s preschool and primarywe will take a look at the type of partnership that school years (Force A). Likewise, when parentsnow exists in several schools in Quebec, more participate in the education of their child (Forcespecifically at the secondary level. B), the zone of interaction between the twoOur view of genuine partnership is one based on spheres increases. The same scenario is repeatedmutual trust, common goals and two-way when the teacher’s activities encourage parentalcommunication. To collaborate is to participate in involvement in schooling (Force C). Interactionthe accomplishment of a task or the assumption of between the two spheres is at a maximum whena responsibility. Partnership is therefore a the school and the family function as genuinecollaborative relationship between two parties, partners within an overall program that includes aand parental involvement is a means of number of shared activities. The modelestablishing it. Certain authors use the term emphasizes reciprocity among teachers, families‘reciprocal’ partnership to describe a mutual and students and recognizes that students aresharing of tasks or responsibilities, and the term active agents in school-family relations. A teacher‘collaborative’ or ‘associative’ partnership to may, for example, solicit parental involvement bydescribe a situation where a task or responsibility asking children to question members of theiris assumed at the request of the school and its families about the kinds of work they do. Theteachers (Bouchard, 1998; Boutin & Le Cren, model assumes that an exchange of skills,1998; Dunst et al., 1992; Epstein, 1992). abilities and interests between parents and teachers that is based upon mutual respect and aThe Overlapping Spheres of Influence Model sharing of common goals will benefit children’sInspired by the ecological model of learning and development (Epstein, 1996, 2001).
  24. 24. A Bridge to the Future 13Figure 1 - Overlapping Spheres of Influence Model Family School Force B Force C - Characteristics - Characteristics f s - Philosophy F S - Philosophy - Practices - Practices a A a p F T t Force A Time/Age/Grade level Key: Intrainstitutional interactions (lower case) Interinstitutional interactions (upper case) f/F: Family s/S: School a/A: Adolescent p/P: Parent t/T: Teacher (Epstein, 1987, 1992, 1996, 2001)School-family partnership activities have been is, exchanges among parents within the samegrouped into a typology consisting of six community (Epstein, 1992, 1996).categories: (a) parents’ basic obligations towards Parents who are less involved in the schooling oftheir children (type 1), such as supervision, their children are usually from non-traditionalguidance and the provision of needed materials; families with lower levels of education (Force B)(b) the school’s basic obligations towards (Dornbusch & Ritter, 1992; Deslandes, Potvin, &children and their families (type 2), such as Leclerc, 1999). These parents generally tend tocommunications to parents about school programs help a child more in primary than secondaryand students’ progress; (c) parental involvement school, and to give more attention to one who isat school (type 3), shown by the volunteering of doing well or beginning to have problems thanparents in the classroom and their attendance at one who has been experiencing longstandingspecial events; (d) parental involvement in home difficulties (Force A) (Eccles & Harold, 1996). Oflearning (type 4), including help with school the variables examined, the activitieswork, discussions about school, encouragement, implemented by the school, that is, school-familycompliments, etc.; (e) parental involvement in partnership programs, have proved to be the bestdecision-making (school, school commission, predictors of parental involvement (Force C)etc.) (type 5), which refers, among other things, to (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). In other words, parentsparents’ involvement in the school council, and become more involved in their children’s(f) collaboration with the community (type 6),that education at home and at school when they
  25. 25. 14 A Bridge to the Futureperceive that their collaboration is actively child’s education and when they perceive that theencouraged by the teachers and the school. child and the school wish them to be involved.Taking as a guide the overlapping spheres of The model suggests that once parents make theinfluence model with its typology of school- decision to participate, they choose specificfamily partnership activities, we recently did a activities shaped by their perception of their ownstudy comparing the levels of involvement of skills and abilities, other demands on their timeparents of students in the regular secondary III and energy and specific invitations toprogram (N=525) with those of parents of involvement from children, teachers and schools.students in special education (N=112) (Deslandes, The model also holds that parental involvementRoyer, Potvin, & Leclerc, 1999). The latter group influences children’s educational outcomes bywas composed of students with learning means of modeling, reinforcement anddifficulties or behavioral problems who were at instruction, three mechanisms which are, in turn,least two years behind in school. As reported in mediated by the developmental appropriateness ofthe educational literature, the families of problem parents’ strategies and the fit between parents’students had lower levels of education and tended actions and the expectations of the school. Theto be non-traditional (single-parent, blended or goal of parental involvement here is its influenceother). The results showed significant differences on the child’s educational outcomes, particularlyin the level of involvement of the two groups of his or her knowledge, skills and sense of efficacyparents, particularly with respect to activities for succeeding in school. For the purposes of thiscategorized as type 1 (e.g., parental supervision), study, our discussion will be limited to the firsttype 3 (e.g., involvement in the school activities level of this model.of the student), and type 4 (e.g., homeinvolvement such as help with homework, At the first level, the model suggests that parents’discussions and encouragement). Since these are decision to become involved in their child’sthe very types of parental involvement that have a education varies according to 1) their constructionpositive effect on school performance according of the parental role, 2) their sense of efficacy forto students’ perceptions, how can these helping their child succeed, and 3) the invitations,differences be explained? For an answer, we must demands and opportunities for involvementlook beyond Epstein’s model to the model of presented by the child and the school.parental involvement designed by Hoover-Demsey and Sandler (1995, 1997), which seems 1 - Construction of the Parental Roleto offer additional, or at least more detailed, ways Parental role construction is of primaryof examining the issue. importance because it determines what type of activities parents will consider necessary whenThe model of parental involvement interacting with their child. It is influenced byShaped in part by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological their understanding of the parental role and theirmodel (1976, 1986) and based upon the results of views on child development, child-rearing andpsychological and sociological studies, the model home-support roles. Accordingly, parents areof Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) unlikely to become involved if they believeexamines the process of parental involvement teaching should be left solely to teachers (Ritter,beginning with parents’ decision to become Mont-Reynaud & Dornbusch, 1993), or if theyinvolved (table 2). The model, which is read from are convinced an adolescent is primarilybottom to top, reasons that parents decide to responsible for his or her own education (Ecclesparticipate when they understand that & Harold, 1996). Role theory applied to parents’collaboration is part of their role as parents, when choices regarding their child’s educationthey believe they can positively influence their (Forsyth, 1990) holds that the groups to which
  26. 26. A Bridge to the Future 15Figure 2 - The Model of parental involvement Child/Student Outcomes Skills and Knowledge Efficacy for Doing Well in SchoolTempering/Mediating VariablesParents’ Use of Developmentally Fit between Parents’ InvolvementAppropriate Involvement Strategies Actions & School ExpectationsMechanisms through Which Parent Involvement Influences Child/Student OutcomesModeling Reinforcement InstructionParents’ Choice of Involvement Forms Influenced by:Specific Domains Mix of Demands on Specific Invitations andOf Parents’ Skills Time and Energy from: Demands for Involvement from:& Knowledge Other Family Employment Children/School/Teachers Demands DemandsParental Involvement DecisionParents’ Positive Decision to Become InvolvedInfluenced by:Parents’ Construction of Parents’ Sense of Efficacy for General Opportunities and Parental Role Helping Child Succeed in School Demands for Involvement presented by:Influenced by: Influenced by:•Direct Experiences •Direct Experiences Parent’s Children School•Indirect Experiences •Indirect Experiences•Verbal Persuasion •Verbal Persuasion•Emotional Awakening •Emotional Awakening
  27. 27. 16 A Bridge to the Futureparents belong – family, school, workplace – have efficacy, work on attributions for school success,expectations about appropriate behaviors, personal theories of intelligence and other studiesincluding those concerning parental involvement. of parental strategies for solving school-relatedIf the school expects little parental involvement, problems. Taken together, these theories offerfor example, parents will be less inclined to insight into the specific manifestations of parentalparticipate (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). efficacy that may be related to schoolParents’ Beliefs About Child Development and involvement. According to the self-efficacyChild-Rearing theory of Bandura (1989, 1997), parents firstRelationships have been established between develop goals for their behaviors based onparental beliefs, values, goals and knowledge on anticipated outcomes, then plan actions to achieveone hand, and a variety of parental behaviors these goals, which are in turn influenced bypertinent to the development of the child on the parents’ estimate of their abilities in a givenother (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). For example, situation. Individuals with a strong sense of self-parents who believe that children need affection efficacy will set higher goals and have a higherand external structure and that the goal of commitment to achieving them. Accordingly,education is to develop skills and creativity will parents with a strongly developed sense ofbe inclined to converse more with their children efficacy will be more likely to participate in theirand monitor their progress in school (for a more child’s education, since they believe this willdetailed discussion, see Deslandes, 1996). benefit his or her educational outcomes. At the secondary level, parents appear to have lessBeliefs about Parents’ Home-Support Roles in confidence in their ability to help with schoolChild and Adolescent Education work (Eccles & Harold, 1996), and the sameLareau’s studies (1996) demonstrate that social appears true for parents with a lower level ofclass influences beliefs about home-support roles education (Dauber & Epstein, 1993).in children’s education. Parents from a lowersocioeconomic level tend to have a separated Beliefs about Ability, Effort and Luck as Causesview of home and school, while those from the of Child and Adolescent School Successhigher-income groups consider themselves Work in this area suggests that parentalpartners with the school in educating their attributions to child effort are often associatedchildren (see Deslandes, 1996 for a detailed with higher performance among children, whiledescription of these theories). As a whole, the parental attributions to luck are associated withresearch suggests that parents develop beliefs and poorer performance. Likewise, parents willunderstandings regarding parental role persevere in their efforts and expect success ifexpectations from their membership in specific they believe they can control desired outcomes. Itgroups (family, school, church, community, may be inferred, then, that if parents believe thatsociety in general). Their views on the unstable and manageable factors, such as effort,development and rearing of children and are responsible for a child’s weak performance,adolescents and on appropriate home-support they will become involved in the child’sroles all influence their decision of whether or not education until success is achieved. On the otherto participate in their children’s education. hand, parents may choose not to become involved if they attribute their own or their child’s weak2 - Parents’ sense of efficacy for helping children performance to stable and innate factors, such as asucceed in school child’s lack of ability or a parent’s lack ofDo parents believe their involvement can benefit knowledge (Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Hoover-a child’s educational outcomes? The self-efficacy Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997).construct is founded on theories of personal Theories of Intelligence
  28. 28. A Bridge to the Future 17It appears that parents who believe in the parents’ efforts – the child’s intelligence, abilitydevelopment of intelligence, most notably or school performance – is viewed as somethingthrough effort and perseverance, tend to that can be changed. Finally, research suggestsemphasize the role of effort (their own and the that parents with a strong sense of efficacy arechild’s) in the learning process. Research more likely to develop strategies for anticipatingindicates that parents with a strong belief in their or solving school-related problems.ability to help their child succeed are likely tohave an incremental perception of intelligence, 3 - General invitations, demands andthat is, they believe their involvement in the opportunities for parental involvementchild’s education will help improve his or her The question to ask here is: Do parents perceiveknowledge and performance. On the other hand, that the child and the school want them to beparents with a weak sense of self-efficacy tend to involved? An affirmative answer may be basedhold to an entity theory of intelligence: they upon a child’s clear affirmation of the importancebelieve that success at school depends on ability of parental involvement, a school climate that israther than effort and that their help will inviting and teacher attitudes and behaviors thatconsequently have little impact (Henderson & are warm and welcoming.Dweck, 1990). General Opportunities, Invitations and Demands Presented by the ChildStrategies for Solving School-Related Problems According to the authors mentioned here, parentalStudies emphasize that whereas parents with a involvement is highest at the primary level,higher sense of efficacy help their child anticipate declines significantly around the fourth grade andand solve current problems in school (e.g., how to reaches its lowest peak at the secondary levelwork with a tutor, prepare for secondary school, (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Deslandes, 1996;change friends, etc), those with a weak sense of Eccles & Harold, 1996). Reasons for this declineefficacy are more likely to rely upon the child or are the child’s developmental stage (e.g., thethe school to solve problems, or upon luck or the adolescent who wants more independence),interventions of others to improve difficult parents’ sense of efficacy for helping their childsituations for their children (Baker & Stevenson, solve problems and the greater complexity of1986). school work at the secondary level.In conclusion, parental efficacy, attributions, The level of school performance appears to betheories of intelligence and strategies for solving linked to high parental involvement. Accordingly,school-related problems may all explain parental adolescents who succeed well and have highdecisions about involvement in children’s aspirations say they receive more emotionaleducation. Efficacy theory suggests that parents support (encouragement, congratulations,with a strong sense of efficacy for helping their discussions, etc.) from their parents than do otherschildren succeed tend to believe their (Deslandes, 1996; Deslandes & Potvin, 1998). Ainvolvement will yield positive results. Research few types of involvement are an exception to theon attributions shows a link between parents’ rule, however. Researchers note moresense of efficacy and the emphasis they place on communication between parents and teachers andeffort, rather than ability or luck, as being more parent-adolescent interactions concerningessential to success. Parents who hold to schoolwork during times of school-relatedincremental theories of intelligence are likely to difficulties (Deslandes, 1996; Deslandes & Royer,have a higher sense of efficacy for helping a child 1997; Lee, 1994). The child’s personal qualities -succeed. In other words, parental involvement temperament, learning style, preferences – arewill be perceived as valuable if the target of the also factors that may influence parents’ decision
  29. 29. 18 A Bridge to the Futureabout whether or not to become involved in the probability of a positive decision. The lowestchild’s education (Eccles & Harold, 1993). likelihood of involvement occurs when parentalGeneral Opportunities, Invitations and Demands role construction is weak, that is, when parents doPresented by Schools and Teachers not believe they should be involved in theirEpstein (1996, 2001) affirms that teacher and child’s education and have at the same time a lowschool practices, most notably school-family sense of efficacy.partnership programs, play an essential role in the The model of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandlerpromotion of parental involvement at all demonstrates that to increase parentalsocioeconomic levels. This brings us to Epstein’s involvement, the school and the teachers mustoverlapping spheres of influence model (see table focus, at least in part, upon parents’ perspective1), which illustrates interpersonal and on the issue. In Quebec, we are presentlyinterinstitutional interactions as well as a examining the first level of Hoover-Dempsey’stypology of six types of parental involvement. model of parental involvement. The experimentation took place in May 2001. Over 1Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997), 000 parents of elementary school students andhowever, maintain that the two other constructs - nearly 850 parents of secondary school studentsespecially that of parental role construction – are have filled in and returned their questionnaireseven more crucial to parental decision-making (Deslandes, 2000-2003). Since parents with athan invitations. In other words, if parents do not high sense of efficacy who believe they shouldbelieve they should be involved in a child’s participate in their child’s schooling will tend toeducation, their sense of efficacy and perception become involved, teachers should createof invitations will not be sufficient to predict their occasions for parent-teacher meetings and workinvolvement. Parental sense of efficacy appears to actively to show that parents can positivelybe equally important in the decision to become influence their child’s education. The followinginvolved. Clearly, the belief they are capable of partnership framework illustrates this principle.helping their child succeed increases theTable 3 - Family enabling and empowerment model Previous Interventions Interventions …. sense of Results on presentations, that favor responses being enabled autonomous values, beliefs enabling and have behaviours of and practices empowerment consequences individual for….. and family PARTNERSHIP (principles de reciprocity and equality)(Bouchard, 1998)
  30. 30. A Bridge to the Future 19The Family Enabling and Empowerment Model facilitate interdependence and reciprocity inUsed by European, (Pourtois & Desmet, 1997), learning.American (Dunst, Johanson, Rounds, Trivette & A partnership approach must necessarily take intoHamby, 1992) and Québécois (Bouchard, 1998; account each partner’s expectations and point ofBouchard, Talbot, Pelchat & Boudreault, 1996) view (Dunst et al., 1992; Pourtois & Desmet,authors, the reciprocal partnership model is based 1997). As well, it must be based upon a notion ofon the principles of enabling and empowerment, equality which recognizes that each party – bothand advocates a parent-teacher relation calling for the parent and the teacher – has a particulara complete sharing of knowledge, skills and knowledge and expertise to share. Thus, parentsexperiences. Empowerment involves the as well as teachers manifest strengths thatactualization of each person’s resources and complement those of the other partners. Dunst etcompetencies, while enabling refers to parents’ al. (1992) describe four categories ofability to define their role and determine the characteristics favorable for establishing anature of their collaboration (Bouchard, 1998; partnership (see table 4): (a) emotionalBouchard et al., 1996; Cochran, 1989; Cochran & predispositions (attitudes) based on trust,Dean, 1991; Dunst et al., 1992). commitment, generosity, empathy and understanding; (b) intellectual predispositionsThis model describes a parent-teacher relation (beliefs) based on honesty, trust, mutual respect,based on mutual exchange in which each party flexibility and the sharing of responsibility; (c)learns from the knowledge and experience of the open, two-way communication that presupposesother. Bouchard (1998) refers to the social active listening and self-revelation, and (d)pedagogy of intervention, meaning that actions that manifest attitudes and beliefs (seeeducational attitudes, beliefs and practices Figure 4)Figure 4 - Model of characteristics associated with partnership PARTNERSHIP Attitudes Commitment Understanding Generosity Empathy Trust Open Communication Style of Beliefs communication Self - Honesty revelation responsibility Sharing of Flexibility Mutual Active Respect listening Behaviors
  31. 31. 20 A Bridge to the FutureBouchard (1998) affirms that these actions are activities for encouraging partnership. Among thereflected in the theory of communicative action most promising activities in the case of difficult-espoused by Habermas (1987, and cited in to-reach parents are those whereby parents,Bouchard, 1998), which discusses behaviors that teachers, schools and students createexpress the intentions and actions of the actors in opportunities for the social construction of thea partnership. Communicative action involves a parental role, including collaboration and a higherreconciling of all points of view and a search for sense of efficacy. The enabling and empowermentconsensus, which approaches the principle of model, moreover, refocuses our attention on theequality underlying the reciprocal partnership interactional dimensions at the center of themodel. As mentioned above, parents are spheres of influence model. It highlights the oftenperceived as educational resources who can difficult-to-bridge gap between intentions andenrich the teacher within a relationship of mutual actual achievement, particularly with respect toexchange. Bouchard et al. (1996) give a few the parents of problem students. The model isexamples of behaviors that facilitate partnership, founded upon attitudes and behaviors that arenotably, the recognition of expertise (e.g., ‘Have essential to the development, use and increase ofyou observed any progress?’) and the recognition individual competencies. Today there seems to beof collaboration (e.g., ‘You’re doing a lot for your a growing awareness that individual parent-child; I see you really want her grades to teacher meetings marked by mutual respect,improve’). In short, the enabling and empathy and sharing can have repercussions onempowerment model described above emphasizes the eventual engagement of parents in partnershipthe use of knowledge and experience that are activities implemented for all the parents ofmost likely to develop an individual’s resources. children in the school. To sum up, the three models described here complement each other toThe complementary nature of the three the extent they lead to strategies for improvingconceptual frameworks and the notion of the efficacy of all the actors involved, therebypartnership creating successful school-family partnerships.The relevance of Epstein’s overlapping spheres ofinfluence model (1987, 1992, 1996, 2001) to the The examination of these theoretical models,concept of partnership is seen at the particularly the model of enabling andorganizational level. This model allows for a empowerment, has contributed to a newholistic analysis of the obstacles and facilitating understanding of partnership by emphasizing thefactors associated with school-family partnership study of parent-teacher interactions. This leads toand of the significant role played by the actors the following question: Can we maintain that ainvolved in childhood education throughout the genuine partnership - that is, a reciprocallife cycle. The model of Hoover-Dempsey and relationship - exists now in the so-called regularSandler (1995, 1997), in turn, expands on schools of Quebec? Based on our observationsEpstein’s model by emphasizing the importance and the work we are doing at present, the notionof the parents’ philosophy (Force B) and the role of partnership currently being advocated consists,of the student (Force A) in school-family rather, of collaboration in response to teachers’relations. What leads a parent to make the requests with a view to examining ways in whichdecision to become involved? Here the spheres of parents can help teachers improve their children’sinfluence model proves inadequate, since it fails academic performance. Nevertheless, this attemptto describe the effects of family and individual and others like it meet with resistance, since thesepsychological characteristics on the school-family practices have generally not been the custompartnership, and these characteristics must be among French Quebecers, especially at theexamined in order to determine effective secondary level. The theoretical models, it would
  32. 32. A Bridge to the Future 21appear, describe an idea whose time is yet to orientations where the acquiring of skills andcome. experience in interpersonal relations will become increasingly more important. All in all, it appearsWe’ve seen that certain conditions are essential to that partnership between the school and familythe establishment of a genuine partnership. First (and even the community) will constitute anof all, we must ask if partnership is both a desired interesting development in the decade ahead.and desirable option. Next, the expectations andperceptions of the different groups involved in To sum up, Epstein’s overlapping spheres ofchildhood education must be taken into account. influence model (1987, 1992, 1996, 2001) is anWe support the view advanced by the OECD in inspiration for its overall vision of the differentits 1997 report that the development of factors that influence school-family partnerships.partnership is an ongoing process that is The parental involvement model of Hoover-continually subject to negotiation. At the moment, Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997), for its part,we view partnership as an ideal or goal towards allows for a better understanding of the reasonswhich parents, teachers and schools must work for a parent’s choice to participate or not intogether. This vision, however, is not clouded by school-related activities: parental roleromantic notions of partnership that fail to take its construction, sense of efficacy and invitations tolimitations into account. We realize that become involved appear to be the determiningpartnership is not a panacea and that, if it is to be factors. A respect for and openness to others aresuccessful, the right balance must be achieved the psychological prerequisites for all efforts toamong the actors involved. Nevertheless, we promote parental involvement. Recognition of thebelieve partnership to be a path of the future that value of others and the fulfillment of theirrequires a complete change in our ways of potential are at the very heart of the enabling andthinking and acting, and that this is a change our empowerment model (Bouchard, 1998; Dunst etpolicymakers heartily endorse (CSE, 1996). al., 1992), which is based on communication skills that foster cooperation and partnership. InDunst et al. (1992) emphasize that to establish a the majority of so-called regular schools ingenuine partnership takes time. As an example, Quebec today, partnership tends to be seen as athe school could make teachers more available for collaborative affair. Reciprocal partnership is, fordiscussions with parents, or allow for the hiring of the moment, a goal that remains to be achieved.a liaison officer to facilitate parent-teacher But things are progressing. In May 2001, theinteractions. In this era of budget cuts, is it current presenter was mandated by the Quebecrealistic to think a genuine partnership can be Ministry of Education (Deslandes, 2001-2004) todeveloped within such a context? As far as work on research action projects with twoteachers are concerned, this vision of partnership elementary and two secondary schools in order tohas particularly important consequences for identify models of implementation and evaluationcommunicative action. We can imagine program of family-school-community partnership programs.ReferencesBaker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement : Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166.Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
  33. 33. 22 A Bridge to the FutureBandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self- efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Developement, 67, 1206-1222.Bouchard, J.-M. (1998). Le partenariat dans une école de type communautaire. Dans R. Pallascio, L. Julien et G. Gosselin, Le partenariat en éducation. Pour mieux vivre ensemble! (pp. 19-35). Montréal: Éditions Nouvelles.Bouchard, J.-M., Talbot, L., Pelchat, D., & Sorel, L. (1998). Les parents et les intervenants, où en sont leurs relations? (deuxième partie). Apprentissage et Socialisation, 17 (3), 41-48.Boutin G., & Le Cren, F. (1998). Le partenariat en éducation, un défi à relever. Dans R. Pallascio, L. Julien et G. Gosselin, Le partenariat en éducation. Pour mieux vivre ensemble! (pp. 111-117). Montréal: Éditions Nouvelles.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development : Research perspectives. Development Psychology, 22, 723-742.Cochran, M. (1989). Empowerment through family support. Networking Bulletin, 1 (1), 2-3.Cochran, M., & Dean, C. (1991). Home-school relations and the empowerment process. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (3), 261-269.CSÉ (Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, 1998). L’école, une communauté éducative. Voies de renouvellement pour le secondaire. Sainte-Foy, Québec.Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context : An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-71). Albany: State University of New York Press.Deslandes, R. (1996). Collaboration entre l’école et les familles : Influence du style parental et de la participation parentale sur la réussite scolaire au secondaire. Doctoral dissertation. Laval University, Québec, Canada.Deslandes, R. (2000-2003) Étude des raisons qui motivent les parents à participer ou non au suivi scolaire de leur enfant. Grant from Quebec Fonds pour la Formation de chercheurs et l’aide à la recherche (FCAR).Deslandes, R. (2001-2004). Programmes de partenariat école-famille-communauté. Grant from the Quebec Ministry of Education.Deslandes, R., & Potvin, P. (1998). Les comportements des parents et les aspirations scolaires des adolescents. La revue internationale de l’éducation familiale, 2 (1), 9-24.Deslandes, R., Potvin, P., & Leclerc, D. (1999). Family characteristics predictors of school achievement : Parental involvement as a mediator. McGill Journal of Education 34 (2), 133-151.Deslandes, R., Royer, É., Potvin, P., & Leclerc, D. (1999). Patterns of home and school partnership for regular and special education students at the secondary level. The Council for Exceptional Children, 65, 496-506.Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1992). Home-school processes in diverse ethnic groups, social classes, and family structures. In S. L. Christenson and J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration : Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 111-124). Maryland : The National Association of School Psychologists.
  34. 34. A Bridge to the Future 23Dunst, C. J., Johanson, C., Rounds, T., Trivette, C.M., & Hamby, D. (1992). Characteristics of parent- professional partnerships. In S. L. Christenson and J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration : Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 157-174). Maryland : The National Association of School Psychologists.Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth and J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-School Links: How do they affect educational outcomes? Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections : Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufman and F. Loel (Eds.), Social Intervention : Potential and Constraints (pp. 121-136). New York : Walter de Gruyter.Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.) , Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp. 1139-1151). New York : MacMillan.Epstein, J. L. (1996). Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? In A. Booth and J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-School Links: How do they affect educational outcomes? Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 291-305.Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group Dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA : Brooks/Cole.Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Motivation and achievement. In S. S. Feldman and G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold : The developing adolescent (pp. 308-329) Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education : Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 95, 310-331.Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 3-42.Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling : A critical analysis. In A. Booth and J. F. Dunn, Family-School Links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 57-64), Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students’ education : Continuity and change of family involvement from the middle grades to high school. Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.OCDE (1997; Centre pour la recherche et l’innovation dans l’enseignement), Les parents partenaires de l’école, Paris.Pourtois, J.-P., & Desmet, H. (1997). Les relations famille-école : Un point de vue partenarial. Dans V. Tochon. (pp. 139-148). Éduquer avant l’école. Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Ritter, P. L., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Minority parents and their youth : Concern, encouragement, and support for school achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 107-120). Albany : State University of New York.Vincent, C., & Tomlinson, S. (1997). Home-school relationships : « the swarming of disciplinary mechanisms »? British Educational Research Journal, 23, 361-377.
  35. 35. 24 A Bridge to the Future
  36. 36. Family education and implications for partnershipwith schools in SpainRaquel-Amaya Martínez GonzálezThe family as an Educational and Learning as the products, results and achievements thatcontext derived from them.One of the most influential social contexts for thedevelopment of human beings, which constitutes Taking this model into consideration, we cana true factor of individual and social diversity, is understand the family as a social, educational andthe family microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). learning context, which may contribute, given theIt is the first social context that embraces adequate conditions, to the human and personalindividuals, and from which they receive the development of all its members, either children,greatest influences all through life due to the young people or adults, in any evolutivedirect relationship maintained with the family developmental stage (Laosa and Sigel, 1982;members. Millán, 1996; Rodrigo and Palacios, 1998). But it also contributes to the social development, givenFrom the Ecological model of Bronfenbrenner, the socialization function that the family carriesalso known as System of Systems, it is considered out through education (Inkeless, 1966; Hoffman,that the diverse social environments where 1984; Martínez González, 1994a; Segalen, 1993).individuals interact, and which influence theirdevelopment, are cupped one into another, The family microsystem influences the personalgraphically shaping a concentric system which development of the individuals as a consequencestarts with the set of values, principles and norms of what happens in three basic family dimensions:predominant in a particular culture structural, attitudinal and behavioral (Martínez(Macrosystem). This macrosystem directly González, 1994ª, 1996a). Many parents areinfluences the characteristics of those conscious of the fundamental role they play incommunitarian environments in which their children’s development and process ofindividuals interact (Exosystem). These, in turn, socialization, and because of that, more and morecondition the nearest environments in which frequently they demand information andchildren develop, such as the family and the education to better cope with the challenges ofschool, with which they interact directly both, every evolutive stage of the individual and(Microsystems). These microsystems do not family development (Martínez González,remain isolated, but are, in turn, interacting and 1990,1994b, 1998, 1999; Martínez González andmodifying one another through the Mesosystem. Corral Blanco, 1991, 1996). Parents’ educationAll this web of bi-directional and dynamic constitutes an unfulfilled subject in our societyrelationships among the already mentioned and educational system, from which the educationsystems have an influence on individuals of individuals is articulated in multiple phases(Ontosystem), thus conditioning both their and for the development of multiple functions,development and socialization processes, as well but it does not consider the necessary education to
  37. 37. 26 A Bridge to the Futureperform one of the most complex and with more The aims, objectives and principles we aresocial responsibility function: to be educators of considering should be concreted in the practice ofchildren for life. Family Education, which leads us to mention the Contents of the programmes and actions thatFamily education could be undertaken. These contents can beThis takes us to consider the need to develop the classified into two main areas, according to thedisciplinary field of Family Education (Martínez National Council on Family Relations (1984): 1)González, 1999). Arcus and his colleagues (1993) Thematic Areas and 2) Processes ofhave pointed out three main aims to be reached communication decision taking and problemthrough this Education: 1) to facilitate families solving.their contribution to both, the development of theindividual potential of their members and the These main processes to be developed whenfamily as a whole, 2) to prevent family problems putting Family Education into practice need afrom arising, and 3) to help families to overcome setting and some agents, which may both bethe difficulties they may come across at any time. diverse, but maybe they efficiency is higher when developed in the school setting by its educationalFrom these aims we can draw the Objectives agents. This context allows us to take intotowards the practice of parents’ education should consideration the Mesosystem mentioned bytend to, and which have been proposed by the Bronfenbrenner (1979), from which bi-directionalNational Commission on Family Life Education relationships among the two main microsystemsand the National Council on Family Relations can be analyzed: the family and the school.(USA). According to Thomas and Arcus (1992),these objectives can be summarized in Mesosystem: family-school partnershipstrengthening and enriching the individual and In several articles we have pointed out thefamily well-fair. These general objectives can be importance of promoting satisfactory family-made concrete in the following specific school relationships (Martínez González, 1992ª,objectives: 1) To learn to understand oneself and 1996ª, b,c; Martínez González and Corral Blanco,the others, 2) to facilitate the developmental and 1991, 1996), as well as the methodologicalhuman behavior processes within the family all aspects related to action-research that may lead tothrough the different stages of family life, 3) to be the effective implementation of processes in thisfamiliar with marriage and family patterns and field (Martínez González, 1992b, 1997).processes, 4) to acquire effective strategies forfamily life, 5) to stimulate the individuals’ The need to promote family-school partnershippotential to perform family roles at present and in does not come just from conceptual andthe future, and 6) to facilitate the development of theoretical considerations, but also from theabilities to keep the family together when parents’ demands for information, participationdifficulties arise. and education; thus, this need is experiential and real and not merely conceptual. This is theThe attainment of these objectives should be conclusion which comes from many studiesguided by some Principles associated to Family carried out on this subject; for example, in caseEducation practice, which takes into account the studies developed through action-research inindividuals’ and families’ needs, as well as the Spanish schools (Martínez González et al., 1994),respect for the diversity of circumstances and parents, teachers and students came across thevalues of the families (Arcus, Schvaneveldt & following partnership needs: 1) to communicateMoss, 1993). more in order to put in common the educative objectives that both, parents and teachers have as

×