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

Edited by:
Frederik Smit
Kees van der Wolf
Peter Sleegers

A Bridge to the Future
Collaboration between Parents,
Schools and Communities

A Bridge to the Future
Collaboration between Parents, Schools and Communities

Edited by:
dr. Frederik Smit
prof. dr. Kees van der Wolf
prof. dr. Peter Sleegers

INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN
SCO-KOHNSTAMM INSTITUTE

iv A Bridge to the Future

The prize of this edition is ƒ 35,00. (€ 16).

Photo cover ‘Leanne and Jonne’: Y. Bakker
Photo on the back of the book: Michelle Muus, Rotterdam
Website design by Jos Wisman: http://www.phaomedium.nl

Address:
Institute for Applied Social Sciences
Toernooiveld 5
P.O. Box 9048
6500 KJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
http://www.its.kun.nl

To order the book:
International telephone ++ 31 24 365 35 00
International fax ++ 31 24 365 35 99
E-mail receptie@its.kun.nl

CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK DEN HAAG

A bridge to the future. / dr. Frederik Smit, prof. dr. Kees van der Wolf & prof. dr. Peter Sleegers -
Nijmegen: ITS
ISBN 90 - 5554 - 177 - X
NUGI 722

© 2001 ITS, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen

Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave
worden verveelvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welke
andere wijze dan ook, en evenmin in een retrieval systeem worden opgeslagen, zonder de voorafgaande
schriftelijke toestemming van het ITS van de Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.

No part of this book/publication may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other
means without written permission from the publisher.

Preface

Children learn at home, in school and in the experiments concerning collaboration between
community. Collaboration between parents, home-school-communities were discussed.
schools and communities is necessary to the
optimize of pupils’ developmental opportunities, The participants came from many countries in
the 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, Canada
ERNAPE (European Research Network About and Malaysia were represented. The participants
Parents in Education) is an association of research were not only researchers but also represented
networks 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 results
and stimulate research at all levels. One researcher from the ITS, in collaboration
with specialists on parent participation from the
A first conference ‘Education is Partnership’ was University of Nijmegen and the SCO-Kohnstamm
held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1996. Institute have brought together in this volume the
The second roundtable conference ‘Building recent scientific and social developments in
bridges 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 third
conference was organized at the Ichthus College We hope that this volume stimulates to build a
in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. During this well-designed bridge that connect and unite all
conference the current state of affairs, models, partners at home, in school and in the
strategies, legislation, experiences and communities to increase pupils’ success.

Nijmegen/Amsterdam, November 2001

prof. dr. Hans Mastop prof. dr. Hetty Dekkers dr. Anton Nijssen
director ITS director NUOVO director SCO-Kohnstamm Institute

Contents

Introduction; a bridge to the future 1
Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf, Peter Sleegers

Section 1 - Parents’ perspectives on the collaboration between home and school 3

Can schools help to build a bridge to a new democratic future, Don Davies 5

A vision of home-school partnership: three complementary conceptual frameworks,
Rollande Deslandes 11

Family education and implications for partnership with schools in Spain,
Raquel-Amaya Martínez González 25

Family-school liaisons in Cyprus: an investigation of families’ perspectives and needs,
Loizos Symeou 33

Government, school and parents in the Netherlands: every man to his trade,
Loes van Tilborg & Wander van Es 45

Relationships between parents and school in the Czech Republic,
Kateøina Emmerová & Milada Rabušicová 49

Culture differences in education: implications for parental involvement and educational policies,
Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit & Peter Sleegers 55

The parental need for pluralistic primary education in the Netherlands,
Jacques F.A. Braster 67

Have minority parents a say in Dutch educational opportunity policies? Paul Jungbluth 71

To see together. Visualization of meaning structures in interaction processes between
children and adults in Finland, Raili Kärkkäïnen 75

Developments in the position of parents in primary and secondary education in the Netherlands,
Miek Laemers & Frans Brekelmans 81

Evaluation of the legal functions of the complaints regulation in primary and secondary
education in the Netherlands, Juliette Vermaas 91

viii A Bridge to the Future

Section 2 - Schools’ perspectives on collaboration with families and communitiy 101

Changing responsibilities between home and school. Consequences for the pedagogical
professionality of teachers, Cees A. Klaassen & Frederik Smit 103

Home-school relationships in one Russian school. A case study, Andrea Laczik 109

Lifelong learning: schools and the parental contribution in Australia,
Jacqueline McGilp 117

Increasing social capital: teachers about school-family-community partnerships.
Results of a study on the orientations of American and Polish teachers,
Maria Mendel 125

Parents as a problem?, Sean Neill 137

Working with challenging parents within the framework of inclusive education,
Kees van der Wolf & Tanja van Beukering 149

Teachers, power relativism and partnership, Pirjo Nuutinen 157

Involving parents in children’s education: what teachers say in Malaysia,
Sharifah Md.Nor & Jennifer Wee Beng Neo 167

Section 3 - Specific aspects of school-family-community relations 177

Teacher training on parents in education, Birte Ravn 179

Preparing 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 189

Minimalization of failure at school in Poland: children and youth from socially
deprived families, Elzbieta Bielecka 195

Young people’s representations of school and family relationships in Belgium,
Willy Lahaye, Pierre Nimal & Patricia Couvreur 201

School-parents relationships as seen by the Academy. A survey of the views of Italian researches,
Stefano Castelli & Luca Vanin 213

Focus group survey of parents of children with disabilities who are members of school
improvement teams in Florida, U.S.A., Sally M. Wade 215

A Bridge to the Future ix

Family, school, and community intersections in teacher education and professional
development: integrating theoretical and conceptual frameworks,
Martha Allexsaht-Snider & Stacy Schwartz 217

Families, gender and education: issues of policy and practice, Miriam David 225

Partnerships of families, schools and communities in Italy, Laura De Clara 231

Parental involvement in mathematics education in a Canadian elementary school,
Freda Rockliffe 235

Parents, racism and education: some issues relating to parental involvement by Turkish and
Moroccan communities in the Netherlands, Metin Alkan 245

The relationships between parents of ethnic minority children, the schools and supporting
institutions in the local community – some ideas for the future,
Frederik Smit, Geert Driessen & Peter Sleegers 255

The relationship between motives for choice and denomination in primary education in a 259
system of choice, Anne Bert Dijkstra & Lex Herweijer

Strong linkages among involved parents to improve the educational systems and societies 267
of emerging democraties, Iskra Maksimovic & Alvard Harutynyan

Notes on contributors 271

Introduction: A Bridge to the Future

This volume is a collection of 35 essays, grouped lifelong learning and parental contribution. Maria
into three sections, on the theme of parents, Mendel focuses in her study on the orientations of
school and community. American and Polish teachers about school-
The first part contains parents’ orientation and family community partnerships. The study of
reflections on the collaboration between home, Sean Neill concerns the position of parents in the
school (Don Davies), conceptual partnerships of school system. The research of Kees van der Wolf
home-school partnerships (Rollande Deslandes), and Tanja van Beukering focuses on working
family education and implications for partnership with challenging parents within the framework of
with schools (Raquel-Amaya Martínez González) inclusive education. Pirjo Nuutinen reports what
and family-school liaisons (Loizos Symeou). Finnish teachers think about their power position
Loes 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 concerns
school and parents. Kateøina Emmerová and involving parents in children’s education in
Milada Rabušicová explore questions about the Malaysia.
relationships between parents and school in the
Czech Republic. Eddie Denessen, Geert Driessen, The third section reports on a number of
Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers focus on the investigations related tot specific aspects of
culture differences in education. Jacques Braster school-family-community relations. Birte Ravn
presents findings of a study of the parental need presents her ideas about teacher training on
for 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 with
in the Netherlands. Raili Kärkkäïnen reports parents. Helen Phtiaka reports on parental
about 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 into
give an overview of the position of parents in children and youth from socially deprived
primary and secondary education in the families in Poland. Willy Lahaye and his
Netherlands. To finish this first section Juliette colleagues (Nimal and Couvreur) focus on young
Vermaas presents an evaluation of the legal people’s representations of school and family
functions of the complaints regulation in primary relationships in Belgium. Stefano Castelli and
and secondary education in the Netherlands. Luca Vanin explore questions about school-
family relations in Italy. Sally Wade presents a
The second part is devoted to the school survey of parents of children with disabilities.
perspective on collaboration between families, Martha Allexsaht-Snider and Stacy Schwartz
school and community. Cees Klaassen and describe the family, school, and community
Frederik Smit describe the changing intersections in teacher education and
responsibilities between home and school and the professional development. Miriam David gives an
consequences for the pedagogical professionality overview of changes in policies and practices in
of teachers. Andrea Laczik gives an example of relation to families, gender and education. Laura
home-school relationships in a Russian school. De Clara presents findings of their study into the
Jacqueline McGilp presents an analysis of role of the media in education. The research of

2 A Bridge to the Future

Freda Rockliffe reports a study on mathematics in Finally Iskra Maksimovic & Alvard Harutynyan
a Canadian elementary school. Metin Alkan describe strong linkages among involved parents
focuses on racism in education in the to improve the educational systems and societies
Netherlands. Frederik Smit, Geert Driessen and of emerging democraties.
Peter Sleegers describe their study into the The contributions to this volume were presented
relationships between parents of ethnic minority at the European Research Network About Parents
children, the schools and supporting institutions and Education (ERNAPE) held in Rotterdam (the
in the local community. The study of Anne Bert Netherlands) on 22, 23 and 24 November 2001.
Dijkstra & Lex Herweijer concerns the
relationship between motives for choice and Frederik Smit
denomination in primary education in a system of Kees van der Wolf
choice. Peter Sleegers

Section 1
Parents’ perspectives on the collaboration
between home and school

Can schools help to build a bridge to a new democratic
future?

Don Davies

Many gurus, journalists, and ordinary people America only, or schools in the Western world, or
these days are saying that nothing will be the schools everywhere.
same in the world after September 11. Many are
talking - often very vaguely and grandly-about a I have been wrestling in an often confused and
New World Order - influenced by the inevitability sometimes rambling state of mind with this
of Globalism, the pervasive power of electronic question and its more specific and personal
communication, the impact of mass popular follow-on:
culture, and our long-term struggle to reduce
terrorism. Can the school make a real difference? Can
teachers, parents, and communities help the
But, we must ask what will be the shape and spirit bridge that is needed to reach a more democratic
and 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 inevitably
proposition, so I find it more interesting and more controversial personal views about the direction
important as an educator to ask what should be of change. Because without some clarity and
the shape and spirit and substance of our future? some agreement about direction, the new world
But, this question is even more difficult and order might be that envisioned by Hitler, or one
certain to produce disagreement and controversy. of the early Popes who spurred the Crusades, or
But, that is the way it should be. by Osama Ben Laden or other radical Islamic
fundamentalists, or by American politicians who
This brings me to the question I have been want a world that looks exactly like our
wrestling 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 still
unfolding. So, my question then becomes: Can the schools
contribute significantly to a new changed social
Here 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 available
shape and spirit and substance of our world in this decent housing, health care and opportunities
new century? for work, leisure, and education.
Can the school make a real difference? You can - In which we have greatly reduced violence of
imagine that I am talking about schools in all kinds (including, of course, terrorism).


- 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 for
That long list of ‘in which’s’ point to most of the schools, families, and communities together in
main elements of my own vision of a more order for the school to help build a new more
democratic society, of what I mean by a new democratic order. I will briefly suggest four
social 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 parent
those students, and the community institutions, associations in support of a progressive social
agencies and residents. agenda.

Among the most helpful ideas I have found in the Please understand that I have neither the time nor
past 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 ask
educational philosopher at the Teachers College you to be patient with general ideas and
of Columbia University, where I studied (but not directions.
quite 70 years ago). His 1932 book (now largely
forgotten) was entitled Dare the School Build a First, what children are taught: content and
New Social Order? It created a huge stir in the experience
educational world. Problem: Most countries now use textbooks and
I just have re-read it and find much of it very curriculum which either subtly or blatantly to
relevant in 2001. promote only national pride and values and an
ethnocentric Establishment-authorized view of
Counts pointed out that Americans have a history. Examples: In the US few schools teach
sublime and naïve faith in education. Many are children much about our treatment of the Native
convinced that education is the one unfailing Americans, which was sometimes out and out
remedy for every ill to which mankind is subject. genocide. Most countries push patriotism, but
Some Americans speak glibly about the seldom salute the world globe as well as their
reconstruction of the society through education. own flag. Few of our schools give a balanced
He rejected this idea that the schools can do view of the struggle of labor unions in years past

A Bridge to the Future 7

and their mistreatment by corporate America and in books, ceremonies, and lectures, but not
the government. Many schools stress only the actually practiced.
academic development of children neglecting
their physical and emotional development. Democratic practice requires more than talk. It
requires policies and practices that promote
Clearly, 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 new
and we need to help children develop the democratic social order will be impossible if
confidence 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 the
intellectual and the physical and emotional needs Closing this gap would be a big contribution to
of learners. We know that children that are building the new social order, but everyone here
hungry, frightened, ill-clad, or emotionally will agree, I believe, that this cannot be achieved
unstable can not be good learners. without real and continuing support and
In my opinion children in a new democratic order collaboration of parents and the key institutions
need to understand and respect their own roots, and agencies in the community.
culture, language, and community traditions as a
needed foundation for understanding and A school can also work in other ways toward
respecting the roots, cultures, and traditions of becoming a model, an example, of democratic
others. ideas in practices. These ideas are obvious to us,
including.
I recognize that what I am suggesting is
politically impossible in a democratic society, and Respect for others, including those that are
can’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, school
and national capitals. A supportive political staff to have influence on the decisions that affect
climate is needed, and as Counts said, schools them.
have only limited capacity to affect the broader Workable mechanisms for decision-making
political 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, and
practice personnel.
Problem: In the US and many other Western Mechanisms for resolving conflict and differences
countries there is a huge gap in academic through negotiation and compromise.
achievement and success between children of Recognition of the different needs, talents, and
poor, working class and immigrant families and learning style of students.
children of the dominant middle class and more
affluent families. And, of course, many of you will agree that
students (and parents and teachers) learn more
In the US and many others many schools operate about democracy from being a part of it in a
with tight, top-down management, which allows school than they will by reading textbooks or
for little if any participation in decision-making hearing lectures about democracy.
by students or parents. In these schools is honored


A few schools in the countries represented here Such a school is lively part of the life of the
are making some progress on this front, as we are community.
hearing at this conference.
Fourth: the role of teachers unions and parent
Third, school-community exchange associations in support of a progressive social
Problem: In the US the traditional isolation of agenda
schools from other community institutions and Problem: Teacher unions in the US, which quite
agencies continues in many places. Too many properly and by definition attend to the economic
schools in the US see connections with the interests of their members, often drag their feet
community as a process of getting money, and oppose school reform efforts, including any
equipment, and political support rather than a serious involvement of parents and the
genuine exchange. community.
Our unions have tended (with some important
My experience over many years has shown me exceptions) to be cautious about promoting
that the most productive relationship between a progressive social agenda. And, in at least a third
school and its community is based on mutual self- of our states they are politically very weak.
interest theory and requires the school to expand
the contribution that it can make to the In the US parent associations have seen their role
community just as it seeks to increase the as primarily to raise money and support the
resources 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 on
expertise of teachers and administrators, jobs for progressive social issues and have often been very
local residents, and the energy and time of their conservative and cautious.
students.
George Counts in Dare the School Build a New
Community Services programs for young people Social Order strongly advocates a more
are a good way to help both the young people and aggressive and progressive role for organized
the community and an interesting way to help teachers.
shape a democratic future by reinforcing the He makes this statement, which educators today
belief of young people that every individual can will see as radical: ‘The power that teachers
make 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 has
Island is using foundation grant money to create a dominated the mind of the pedagogue since
network 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 and
audit to assess what their schools are doing well play some part in the fashioning of those great
to provide opportunities for them to participate in common purposes, which should bind the two
the public life of their communities and what together. ‘ (p. 29 Dare the School Build a New
areas 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 is
genuine community school offering needed politically unrealistic in most American
courses, training, meeting places and help to communities, unless the political and social
parents and other adults in the community in leadership of teachers is strongly supported and
collaboration with other community institutions. protected by their unions.


st
Counts urged organized teachers to spark the Order.’ He predicted that 21 Century global
labor movement to lead efforts to democratize conflict will occur not between nation states such
American life, focusing on improving the as the United States, Russia, and China, but
conditions 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 Christian
It would certainly be a useful contribution to nations of the West and Muslim nations that
building 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 social
agenda, including issues of immigration, But, the hope lies, Huntington says, in making
mistreatment of gay people, affordable housing, progress toward a more peaceful, universal
and economic policies that damage the working civilization - which can emerge gradually through
poor. the exploration and expansion of our
communalities.
Unfortunately, Counts ignores the role of parents
and parent associations. Robert Putnam, a Helping young people discover these
Harvard 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 groups
Revival of American Community. Putnam’s different is a task within the reach of educators
studies demonstrate that one important element of and parents everywhere. And, this task, which
a civil society and stronger communities is calls for collaboration and partnership.
networks of civic associations. By civic Discovering commonalities is form of building
associations 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 these
Putnam says that various forms of parent troubled and troubling times for my country and
involvement - which we now often called yours is to move toward a culture that values
partnership - can be helpful in democratic diversity as well as traditional identity, that puts
societies seeking to sustain and advance social justice ahead of profit, reconciliation ahead
democratic principles and to build a more civil of revenge, and common humanity ahead of tribal
and prosperous and productive community. interests. It is a culture that can face and not deny
Independent, 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: Parents
help to enliven local democracy. These and teachers and communities can help to build
organizations and parent associations linked to the bridge to a more democratic future, to that
the 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-inflated
building a new democratic social order, if they expectations nor underestimate the barriers and
deliberately and aggressively seek to do this. the political and social realities.

Conclusion What I have wanted to say today is that we should
A 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 CAN
Scientist wrote a book in 1996: The Clash of make a difference.
Civilizations and the Remaking of the World

A vision of home-school partnership: three
complementary conceptual frameworks
Rollande Deslandes

This presentation aims to examine the parents were partners in school management by
complementary nature of three conceptual virtue of their participation in the school council.
frameworks of home-school partnership. Those in favor of the partnership approach cite
Epstein’s (1987) overlapping spheres of influence the results of several researches demonstrating the
model illustrates a global and holistic vision of benefits of collaboration, notably, an
partnership. The model of parental involvement improvement in school grades, behaviors and
designed by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, attitudes (Epstein, 1996). Not everyone agrees
1997) adds to understanding by focusing on with this approach, however, especially those
parental sense of efficacy and parental role who view partnership as a means of maintaining
construction. The enabling and empowerment teachers’ professional control by considering
model (Bouchard, 1998; Dunst et al., 1992) parental support as an option (Vincent &
focuses on the influence of attitudes and Tomlinson, 1997). Still others deplore the
behaviors within parent-teacher interactions in a predominance of a vision of school-family
reciprocal partnership. A vision of collaborative collaboration dictated solely by the school and its
partnership appears to prevail in Quebec schools teachers, insisting that a one-way partnership is
at the moment. Despite some reported difficulties, not viable (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997). Lareau
however, reciprocal partnership represents a (1996), for her part, categorically rejects a
promising avenue. concept of partnership based on equal status,
since she believes teachers should have greater
The 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 parent
and all those involved in childhood education, as education as well as interventions based on
is 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 partnership
at the provincial, national and international levels as ‘…the actualization of the resources and
as well (e.g., Bouchard, 1998; Epstein, 1996, competencies of each’ (p. 23) (free translation). In
2001; OECD, 1997; Pourtois & Desmit, 1997; a similar vein, the OECD (1997) describes
Vincent & 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 each
parental 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 human
Amendments to Quebec’s Education Act in service practitioners, we often encountered
December 1997, for example, affirmed that questions such as the following: ‘What do you do
when the parents you want to see never come to


the school?’ or ‘What can be done to attract Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) and designed from a
parents 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 of
model of partnership corresponds to the one influence model emphasizes the cooperation and
advocated by various educational organizations. complementarity of schools and families, and
The present communication will examine the encourages communication and collaboration
complementary nature of the three conceptual between the two institutions (Epstein, 1987,
frameworks related to home-school partnerships: 1996). This model consists of spheres
the 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, philosophies
the 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 may
three, 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, for
particular attention because of its concern with example, that the spheres overlap to a greater
the problem of difficult-to-reach families. Finally, extent during a student’s preschool and primary
we will take a look at the type of partnership that school years (Force A). Likewise, when parents
now exists in several schools in Quebec, more participate in the education of their child (Force
specifically at the secondary level. B), the zone of interaction between the two
Our view of genuine partnership is one based on spheres increases. The same scenario is repeated
mutual trust, common goals and two-way when the teacher’s activities encourage parental
communication. To collaborate is to participate in involvement in schooling (Force C). Interaction
the accomplishment of a task or the assumption of between the two spheres is at a maximum when
a responsibility. Partnership is therefore a the school and the family function as genuine
collaborative relationship between two parties, partners within an overall program that includes a
and parental involvement is a means of number of shared activities. The model
establishing it. Certain authors use the term emphasizes reciprocity among teachers, families
‘reciprocal’ partnership to describe a mutual and students and recognizes that students are
sharing 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 by
describe a situation where a task or responsibility asking children to question members of their
is assumed at the request of the school and its families about the kinds of work they do. The
teachers (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 a
The Overlapping Spheres of Influence Model sharing of common goals will benefit children’s
Inspired by the ecological model of learning and development (Epstein, 1996, 2001).


Figure 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 same
grouped into a typology consisting of six community (Epstein, 1992, 1996).
categories: (a) parents’ basic obligations towards Parents who are less involved in the schooling of
their children (type 1), such as supervision, their children are usually from non-traditional
guidance 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 to
communications to parents about school programs help a child more in primary than secondary
and students’ progress; (c) parental involvement school, and to give more attention to one who is
at school (type 3), shown by the volunteering of doing well or beginning to have problems than
parents in the classroom and their attendance at one who has been experiencing longstanding
special events; (d) parental involvement in home difficulties (Force A) (Eccles & Harold, 1996). Of
learning (type 4), including help with school the variables examined, the activities
work, discussions about school, encouragement, implemented by the school, that is, school-family
compliments, etc.; (e) parental involvement in partnership programs, have proved to be the best
decision-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, parents
parents’ 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


perceive that their collaboration is actively child’s education and when they perceive that the
encouraged 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 the
influence model with its typology of school- decision to participate, they choose specific
family partnership activities, we recently did a activities shaped by their perception of their own
study comparing the levels of involvement of skills and abilities, other demands on their time
parents of students in the regular secondary III and energy and specific invitations to
program (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 involvement
Royer, Potvin, & Leclerc, 1999). The latter group influences children’s educational outcomes by
was composed of students with learning means of modeling, reinforcement and
difficulties 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 of
the 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. The
to be non-traditional (single-parent, blended or goal of parental involvement here is its influence
other). The results showed significant differences on the child’s educational outcomes, particularly
in the level of involvement of the two groups of his or her knowledge, skills and sense of efficacy
parents, particularly with respect to activities for succeeding in school. For the purposes of this
categorized as type 1 (e.g., parental supervision), study, our discussion will be limited to the first
type 3 (e.g., involvement in the school activities level of this model.
of the student), and type 4 (e.g., home
involvement 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’s
the very types of parental involvement that have a education varies according to 1) their construction
positive effect on school performance according of the parental role, 2) their sense of efficacy for
to 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 involvement
look 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 Role
to offer additional, or at least more detailed, ways Parental role construction is of primary
of examining the issue. importance because it determines what type of
activities parents will consider necessary when
The model of parental involvement interacting with their child. It is influenced by
Shaped in part by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological their understanding of the parental role and their
model (1976, 1986) and based upon the results of views on child development, child-rearing and
psychological and sociological studies, the model home-support roles. Accordingly, parents are
of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) unlikely to become involved if they believe
examines 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 they
involved (table 2). The model, which is read from are convinced an adolescent is primarily
bottom to top, reasons that parents decide to responsible for his or her own education (Eccles
participate 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 education
they believe they can positively influence their (Forsyth, 1990) holds that the groups to which


Figure 2 - The Model of parental involvement

Child/Student Outcomes
Skills and Knowledge
Efficacy for Doing Well in School

Tempering/Mediating Variables
Parents’ Use of Developmentally Fit between Parents’ Involvement
Appropriate Involvement Strategies Actions & School Expectations

Mechanisms through Which Parent Involvement Influences Child/Student Outcomes

Modeling Reinforcement Instruction

Parents’ Choice of Involvement Forms
Influenced by:

Specific Domains Mix of Demands on Specific Invitations and
Of Parents’ Skills Time and Energy from: Demands for Involvement from:
& Knowledge
Other Family Employment Children/School/Teachers
Demands Demands

Parental Involvement Decision
Parents’ Positive Decision to Become Involved

Influenced 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


parents belong – family, school, workplace – have efficacy, work on attributions for school success,
expectations about appropriate behaviors, personal theories of intelligence and other studies
including those concerning parental involvement. of parental strategies for solving school-related
If the school expects little parental involvement, problems. Taken together, these theories offer
for example, parents will be less inclined to insight into the specific manifestations of parental
participate (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). efficacy that may be related to school
Parents’ Beliefs About Child Development and involvement. According to the self-efficacy
Child-Rearing theory of Bandura (1989, 1997), parents first
Relationships have been established between develop goals for their behaviors based on
parental beliefs, values, goals and knowledge on anticipated outcomes, then plan actions to achieve
one hand, and a variety of parental behaviors these goals, which are in turn influenced by
pertinent to the development of the child on the parents’ estimate of their abilities in a given
other (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 higher
and 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 of
be inclined to converse more with their children efficacy will be more likely to participate in their
and monitor their progress in school (for a more child’s education, since they believe this will
detailed discussion, see Deslandes, 1996). benefit his or her educational outcomes. At the
secondary level, parents appear to have less
Beliefs about Parents’ Home-Support Roles in confidence in their ability to help with school
Child and Adolescent Education work (Eccles & Harold, 1996), and the same
Lareau’s studies (1996) demonstrate that social appears true for parents with a lower level of
class influences beliefs about home-support roles education (Dauber & Epstein, 1993).
in children’s education. Parents from a lower
socioeconomic level tend to have a separated Beliefs about Ability, Effort and Luck as Causes
view of home and school, while those from the of Child and Adolescent School Success
higher-income groups consider themselves Work in this area suggests that parental
partners with the school in educating their attributions to child effort are often associated
children (see Deslandes, 1996 for a detailed with higher performance among children, while
description of these theories). As a whole, the parental attributions to luck are associated with
research suggests that parents develop beliefs and poorer performance. Likewise, parents will
understandings regarding parental role persevere in their efforts and expect success if
expectations from their membership in specific they believe they can control desired outcomes. It
groups (family, school, church, community, may be inferred, then, that if parents believe that
society 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’s
roles all influence their decision of whether or not education until success is achieved. On the other
to participate in their children’s education. hand, parents may choose not to become involved
if they attribute their own or their child’s weak
2 - Parents’ sense of efficacy for helping children performance to stable and innate factors, such as a
succeed in school child’s lack of ability or a parent’s lack of
Do 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


It appears that parents who believe in the parents’ efforts – the child’s intelligence, ability
development of intelligence, most notably or school performance – is viewed as something
through effort and perseverance, tend to that can be changed. Finally, research suggests
emphasize the role of effort (their own and the that parents with a strong sense of efficacy are
child’s) in the learning process. Research more likely to develop strategies for anticipating
indicates that parents with a strong belief in their or solving school-related problems.
ability to help their child succeed are likely to
have an incremental perception of intelligence, 3 - General invitations, demands and
that is, they believe their involvement in the opportunities for parental involvement
child’s education will help improve his or her The question to ask here is: Do parents perceive
knowledge and performance. On the other hand, that the child and the school want them to be
parents with a weak sense of self-efficacy tend to involved? An affirmative answer may be based
hold to an entity theory of intelligence: they upon a child’s clear affirmation of the importance
believe that success at school depends on ability of parental involvement, a school climate that is
rather than effort and that their help will inviting and teacher attitudes and behaviors that
consequently have little impact (Henderson & are warm and welcoming.
Dweck, 1990). General Opportunities, Invitations and Demands
Presented by the Child
Strategies for Solving School-Related Problems According to the authors mentioned here, parental
Studies 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 and
and solve current problems in school (e.g., how to reaches its lowest peak at the secondary level
work 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 decline
efficacy are more likely to rely upon the child or are the child’s developmental stage (e.g., the
the 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 child
situations for their children (Baker & Stevenson, solve problems and the greater complexity of
1986). school work at the secondary level.
In conclusion, parental efficacy, attributions, The level of school performance appears to be
theories 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 high
decisions about involvement in children’s aspirations say they receive more emotional
education. Efficacy theory suggests that parents support (encouragement, congratulations,
with a strong sense of efficacy for helping their discussions, etc.) from their parents than do others
children succeed tend to believe their (Deslandes, 1996; Deslandes & Potvin, 1998). A
involvement will yield positive results. Research few types of involvement are an exception to the
on attributions shows a link between parents’ rule, however. Researchers note more
sense of efficacy and the emphasis they place on communication between parents and teachers and
effort, rather than ability or luck, as being more parent-adolescent interactions concerning
essential to success. Parents who hold to schoolwork during times of school-related
incremental 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 – are
will be perceived as valuable if the target of the also factors that may influence parents’ decision


about whether or not to become involved in the probability of a positive decision. The lowest
child’s education (Eccles & Harold, 1993). likelihood of involvement occurs when parental
General Opportunities, Invitations and Demands role construction is weak, that is, when parents do
Presented by Schools and Teachers not believe they should be involved in their
Epstein (1996, 2001) affirms that teacher and child’s education and have at the same time a low
school practices, most notably school-family sense of efficacy.
partnership programs, play an essential role in the The model of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
promotion of parental involvement at all demonstrates that to increase parental
socioeconomic levels. This brings us to Epstein’s involvement, the school and the teachers must
overlapping spheres of influence model (see table focus, at least in part, upon parents’ perspective
1), which illustrates interpersonal and on the issue. In Quebec, we are presently
interinstitutional interactions as well as a examining the first level of Hoover-Dempsey’s
typology of six types of parental involvement. model of parental involvement. The
experimentation took place in May 2001. Over 1
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997), 000 parents of elementary school students and
however, maintain that the two other constructs - nearly 850 parents of secondary school students
especially that of parental role construction – are have filled in and returned their questionnaires
even more crucial to parental decision-making (Deslandes, 2000-2003). Since parents with a
than invitations. In other words, if parents do not high sense of efficacy who believe they should
believe they should be involved in a child’s participate in their child’s schooling will tend to
education, their sense of efficacy and perception become involved, teachers should create
of invitations will not be sufficient to predict their occasions for parent-teacher meetings and work
involvement. Parental sense of efficacy appears to actively to show that parents can positively
be equally important in the decision to become influence their child’s education. The following
involved. Clearly, the belief they are capable of partnership framework illustrates this principle.
helping their child succeed increases the

Table 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)


The Family Enabling and Empowerment Model facilitate interdependence and reciprocity in
Used by European, (Pourtois & Desmet, 1997), learning.
American (Dunst, Johanson, Rounds, Trivette & A partnership approach must necessarily take into
Hamby, 1992) and Québécois (Bouchard, 1998; account each partner’s expectations and point of
Bouchard, 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 of
on the principles of enabling and empowerment, equality which recognizes that each party – both
and advocates a parent-teacher relation calling for the parent and the teacher – has a particular
a complete sharing of knowledge, skills and knowledge and expertise to share. Thus, parents
experiences. Empowerment involves the as well as teachers manifest strengths that
actualization of each person’s resources and complement those of the other partners. Dunst et
competencies, while enabling refers to parents’ al. (1992) describe four categories of
ability to define their role and determine the characteristics favorable for establishing a
nature of their collaboration (Bouchard, 1998; partnership (see table 4): (a) emotional
Bouchard et al., 1996; Cochran, 1989; Cochran & predispositions (attitudes) based on trust,
Dean, 1991; Dunst et al., 1992). commitment, generosity, empathy and
understanding; (b) intellectual predispositions
This 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 presupposes
other. Bouchard (1998) refers to the social active listening and self-revelation, and (d)
pedagogy of intervention, meaning that actions that manifest attitudes and beliefs (see
educational 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


Bouchard (1998) affirms that these actions are activities for encouraging partnership. Among the
reflected 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 create
express the intentions and actions of the actors in opportunities for the social construction of the
a partnership. Communicative action involves a parental role, including collaboration and a higher
reconciling of all points of view and a search for sense of efficacy. The enabling and empowerment
consensus, which approaches the principle of model, moreover, refocuses our attention on the
equality underlying the reciprocal partnership interactional dimensions at the center of the
model. As mentioned above, parents are spheres of influence model. It highlights the often
perceived as educational resources who can difficult-to-bridge gap between intentions and
enrich the teacher within a relationship of mutual actual achievement, particularly with respect to
exchange. Bouchard et al. (1996) give a few the parents of problem students. The model is
examples of behaviors that facilitate partnership, founded upon attitudes and behaviors that are
notably, the recognition of expertise (e.g., ‘Have essential to the development, use and increase of
you observed any progress?’) and the recognition individual competencies. Today there seems to be
of 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 on
empowerment model described above emphasizes the eventual engagement of parents in partnership
the use of knowledge and experience that are activities implemented for all the parents of
most likely to develop an individual’s resources. children in the school. To sum up, the three
models described here complement each other to
The complementary nature of the three the extent they lead to strategies for improving
conceptual frameworks and the notion of the efficacy of all the actors involved, thereby
partnership creating successful school-family partnerships.
The relevance of Epstein’s overlapping spheres of
influence 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 and
organizational level. This model allows for a empowerment, has contributed to a new
holistic analysis of the obstacles and facilitating understanding of partnership by emphasizing the
factors associated with school-family partnership study of parent-teacher interactions. This leads to
and of the significant role played by the actors the following question: Can we maintain that a
involved in childhood education throughout the genuine partnership - that is, a reciprocal
life cycle. The model of Hoover-Dempsey and relationship - exists now in the so-called regular
Sandler (1995, 1997), in turn, expands on schools of Quebec? Based on our observations
Epstein’s model by emphasizing the importance and the work we are doing at present, the notion
of 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 which
decision to become involved? Here the spheres of parents can help teachers improve their children’s
influence model proves inadequate, since it fails academic performance. Nevertheless, this attempt
to describe the effects of family and individual and others like it meet with resistance, since these
psychological characteristics on the school-family practices have generally not been the custom
partnership, and these characteristics must be among French Quebecers, especially at the
examined in order to determine effective secondary level. The theoretical models, it would


appear, describe an idea whose time is yet to orientations where the acquiring of skills and
come. experience in interpersonal relations will become
increasingly more important. All in all, it appears
We’ve seen that certain conditions are essential to that partnership between the school and family
the establishment of a genuine partnership. First (and even the community) will constitute an
of all, we must ask if partnership is both a desired interesting development in the decade ahead.
and desirable option. Next, the expectations and
perceptions of the different groups involved in To sum up, Epstein’s overlapping spheres of
childhood education must be taken into account. influence model (1987, 1992, 1996, 2001) is an
We support the view advanced by the OECD in inspiration for its overall vision of the different
its 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 reasons
which parents, teachers and schools must work for a parent’s choice to participate or not in
together. This vision, however, is not clouded by school-related activities: parental role
romantic notions of partnership that fail to take its construction, sense of efficacy and invitations to
limitations into account. We realize that become involved appear to be the determining
partnership is not a panacea and that, if it is to be factors. A respect for and openness to others are
successful, the right balance must be achieved the psychological prerequisites for all efforts to
among the actors involved. Nevertheless, we promote parental involvement. Recognition of the
believe partnership to be a path of the future that value of others and the fulfillment of their
requires a complete change in our ways of potential are at the very heart of the enabling and
thinking and acting, and that this is a change our empowerment model (Bouchard, 1998; Dunst et
policymakers heartily endorse (CSE, 1996). al., 1992), which is based on communication
skills that foster cooperation and partnership. In
Dunst et al. (1992) emphasize that to establish a the majority of so-called regular schools in
genuine partnership takes time. As an example, Quebec today, partnership tends to be seen as a
the school could make teachers more available for collaborative affair. Reciprocal partnership is, for
discussions 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, the
interactions. In this era of budget cuts, is it current presenter was mandated by the Quebec
realistic to think a genuine partnership can be Ministry of Education (Deslandes, 2001-2004) to
developed within such a context? As far as work on research action projects with two
teachers are concerned, this vision of partnership elementary and two secondary schools in order to
has particularly important consequences for identify models of implementation and evaluation
communicative action. We can imagine program of family-school-community partnership
programs.

References
Baker, 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.


Bandura, 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.


Dunst, 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.

Family education and implications for partnership
with schools in Spain

Raquel-Amaya Martínez González

The family as an Educational and Learning as the products, results and achievements that
context derived from them.
One of the most influential social contexts for the
development of human beings, which constitutes Taking this model into consideration, we can
a true factor of individual and social diversity, is understand the family as a social, educational and
the family microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). learning context, which may contribute, given the
It is the first social context that embraces adequate conditions, to the human and personal
individuals, 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 evolutive
direct 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, given
From the Ecological model of Bronfenbrenner, the socialization function that the family carries
also 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 their
development, are cupped one into another, The family microsystem influences the personal
graphically shaping a concentric system which development of the individuals as a consequence
starts 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 are
influences the characteristics of those conscious of the fundamental role they play in
communitarian environments in which their children’s development and process of
individuals interact (Exosystem). These, in turn, socialization, and because of that, more and more
condition the nearest environments in which frequently they demand information and
children develop, such as the family and the education to better cope with the challenges of
school, 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 and
modifying one another through the Mesosystem. Corral Blanco, 1991, 1996). Parents’ education
All this web of bi-directional and dynamic constitutes an unfulfilled subject in our society
relationships among the already mentioned and educational system, from which the education
systems 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


perform one of the most complex and with more The aims, objectives and principles we are
social responsibility function: to be educators of considering should be concreted in the practice of
children for life. Family Education, which leads us to mention the
Contents of the programmes and actions that
Family education could be undertaken. These contents can be
This takes us to consider the need to develop the classified into two main areas, according to the
disciplinary field of Family Education (Martínez National Council on Family Relations (1984): 1)
González, 1999). Arcus and his colleagues (1993) Thematic Areas and 2) Processes of
have pointed out three main aims to be reached communication decision taking and problem
through this Education: 1) to facilitate families solving.
their contribution to both, the development of the
individual potential of their members and the These main processes to be developed when
family as a whole, 2) to prevent family problems putting Family Education into practice need a
from arising, and 3) to help families to overcome setting and some agents, which may both be
the difficulties they may come across at any time. diverse, but maybe they efficiency is higher when
developed in the school setting by its educational
From these aims we can draw the Objectives agents. This context allows us to take into
towards the practice of parents’ education should consideration the Mesosystem mentioned by
tend to, and which have been proposed by the Bronfenbrenner (1979), from which bi-directional
National Commission on Family Life Education relationships among the two main microsystems
and 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 partnership
strengthening and enriching the individual and In several articles we have pointed out the
family 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 methodological
human behavior processes within the family all aspects related to action-research that may lead to
through the different stages of family life, 3) to be the effective implementation of processes in this
familiar with marriage and family patterns and field (Martínez González, 1992b, 1997).
processes, 4) to acquire effective strategies for
family life, 5) to stimulate the individuals’ The need to promote family-school partnership
potential to perform family roles at present and in does not come just from conceptual and
the future, and 6) to facilitate the development of theoretical considerations, but also from the
abilities to keep the family together when parents’ demands for information, participation
difficulties arise. and education; thus, this need is experiential and
real and not merely conceptual. This is the
The attainment of these objectives should be conclusion which comes from many studies
guided by some Principles associated to Family carried out on this subject; for example, in case
Education practice, which takes into account the studies developed through action-research in
individuals’ 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 the
values of the families (Arcus, Schvaneveldt & following partnership needs: 1) to communicate
Moss, 1993). more in order to put in common the educative
objectives that both, parents and teachers have as


regards the child/student, 2) to dialogue and act organize more activities to stimulate parents
together more frequently so that teachers can participation at school.
better know parents’ attitudes and behaviors as
regards their children, 3) to communicate more In another study conducted by Martínez González
often to talk about parents’ and teachers’ et al. (1993) with 328 parents, we could notice
concerns, 4) to improve actions that help parents again the need to promote parents’ participation at
to better bring up their children, and 5) to schools, as it is shown in the following table:

Comparative table of percentages y ranks associated to parents’ agreement with several issues related
to their children’s school
Very much Little Nothing at Do not No answer
all know
It is easy to contact teachers 80,5 (1) 11,6 (4) 0,6 (4) 3,0 (5) 4,3 (2,5)
Parents are welcome to school 76,2 (2) 6,4 (5) 0,0 (5) 13,1 (2) 4,3 (2,5)
Teachers are polite and communicative
73,2 (3) 17,7 (3) 2,7 (3) 3,4 (4) 3,0 (5)
with parents
Teachers try to help students who have
57,9 (4) 18,0 (2) 4,9 (2) 15,5 (1) 3,7 (4)
learning difficulties
The school organizes activities in
which parents can participate and 38,1 (5) 29,9 (1) 13,4 (1) 12,8 (3) 5,8 (1)
contribute to their children’s education

Given these needs, it seems appropriate to teachers groups at the schools, which is allowing
promote actions that stimulate communication us to evaluate and detect partnership needs and to
among parents, teachers and students which, in organize some activities to provide them with
turn, facilitate their co-operation in school appropriate answers (Martínez González et al,
activities, so that schools can gain educational 2000).
quality. Among the most relevant initiatives to be
developed in this area is teachers´ training for Parents’ education programmes
partnership (Davies, 1996; Martínez González, One of the most needed co-operation actions
1996; OCDE, 1997). To this regard, we have pointed out by both, parents and teachers in many
organized an Action-Training Seminar at the studies, is parents’ education. For example, in a
Department of Education (Oviedo University, study carried out with Spanish parents about
Spain) composed of professionals who develop issues related to the prevention of drug
their educational activity in different academic consumption from the family context, Martínez
levels: principals and teachers of state and semi- González et al. (1998) found out that 64% of the
state schools, involved in Kindergarten, Primary sample admitted they did not have enough
and High school levels, University teachers of information to start doing something in case their
Education and Pedagogists. Through co-operative children should get into drug problems.
action-research we have arranged parents and

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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

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

Similar to Frederik Smit, Kees van der Wolf & Peter Sleegers (2001). Bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents schools and communities (20)

More from Frederik Smit

More from Frederik Smit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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