Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement

Edited by:
Frederik Smit
Hans Moerel
Kees van der Wolf
Peter Sleegers
Building bridges
between home
and school

BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL

ii Building bridges between home and school

Building bridges between home and school
Edited by:
dr. Frederik Smit
drs. Hans Moerel
prof. dr. Kees van der Wolf
prof. dr. Peter Sleegers
INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN
SCO/KOHNSTAMM INSTITUTE

iv Building bridges between home and school
De particuliere prijs van deze uitgave is ƒ 25,00.
Deze uitgave is te bestellen bij het ITS, 024 - 365 35 00.
Address:
Institute for Applied Social Sciences
Toernooiveld 5
P.O. Box 9048
6500 KJ Nijmegen
the Netherlands
To order the book:
International telephone ++ 31 24 365 35 00
International fax ++ 31 24 365 35 99
Email receptie@its.kun.nl
CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK DEN HAAG
Building bridges between home and school. / dr. F. Smit, drs. H. Moerel, prof. dr. K. van der Wolf &
prof. dr. P. Sleegers - Nijmegen: ITS
ISBN 90 - 5554 - 12 8 - 1
NUGI 722
© 1999 ITS, Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen
Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave
worden verveelvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welke
andere wijze dan ook, en evenmin in een retrieval systeem worden opgeslagen, zonder de voorafgaande
schriftelijke toestemming van het ITS van de Stichting Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.
No part of this book/publication may be reproduced in any form, by prin t, photoprint, microfilm or any other
means without written permission from the publisher.

Preface
In an increasing number o f countries schools
become convinced that good partnerships
between parents and com munities are necessary
in behalf of the optimization of pupils’
development opportunities, the enhancement of
pupils’ educational careers and the improvement
of teachers’ task performance.
ERNAPE (European Research Network About
Parents in Education) is an association of research
networks in the area of education, in particular
about parents in education. In 1993 the
association was established w ith the aim to share
research results, stimulate research at all levels.
A first conference ‘Education is Partnership’ was
held in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1996.
On 18 and 19 November 1999, the second
roundtable conference ‘Building bridges between
home and school’ was organised at the University
of Amsterdam, Netherlands . During this
conference the current state of affairs, models,
strategies, legislation, experiences and
experiments concerning home-school
partnerships were discussed.
The participants came from many countries in
Europe including representatives from Poland,
Croatia, Albania, Bulgaria and also Cyprus. From
outside Europe the United States of America and
Canada were represented. Th e participants were
not only researchers but also represented
ministries of education, parent organisations and
schools.
Two researchers from the ITS, in collaboration
with specialists on parent participation from the
University Nijmegen and the SCO-Kohnstamm
Institute have brought together in this volume the
recent scientific and social developme nts in
relation to the collaboration between families,
school and comm unity.
I hope that this volume will contribute to a
stronger reciprocal relationship between schools
and their surroundings to meet the challenges for
the new millennium.
ITS
Nijmegen/Amsterdam, November 1999
prof. dr. H.P.J.M. Dekkers
act. Director

vi Building bridges between home and school

Contents
Preface v
Introduction; building bridges between home and school 1
Frederik Smit, Hans Moerel, Kees van der Wolf, Peter Sleegers
Part 1 - Parents’ orientation on collaboration between home and school 3
Looking back, loo king ahead: reflection on lesson s over twenty-five years, don davies 5
Parents involvement in edu cation: models, strategies and contex ts, Shawn Moore, Sue Lasky 13
‘I’m not clever. I listen to her read that’s all I can do’: parents supporting their children’s learning,
Emma Beresford, Sue Botcherby and Olwen McNamara 19
Who gets involv ed and who does n’t, Stelios Georgiou 27
Overcoming barriers to family inv olvement in low-income area sc hools, Oliver Moles 31
Experiments with the role of paren ts in primary education in the Nethe rlands,
Frederik Smit, Hans Moerel, Peter Sleegers 37
Research on the relationship b etween migrant parents and p rimary schools, Annemiek Veen 43
Parental/community involvement and behaviour problems in Dutch secondary schools,
Kees van der Wolf, Ronald Lippens, Pauline Huizenga 47
Information project developm ent work - cooperation betw een home and scho ol,
Ingebjörg Johanessen 53
‘Parents at School’ programme as a perspective of partnership’s orientation increase in
Poland, Maria Mendel 59

viii Building bridges between home and school
Part 2 - Schools’ perspective on collaboration between fam ilies, school and comm unity 67
Home-school agreem ents: the business of partnership, Gary Heywood-Everett 69
A system for planning and implementing family/school/community partnerships, Donald Lueder 77
Connecting studen t achievement to teaching stand ards and family, school, community
partnerships, Jennifer Hartman, Ann Kinkor, Babara Wilson & Rhonda Payne 81
A prospective overview on school/family/comm unity partnerships in 25 prima ry schools
in Portugal, Adelina Villas-Boas 85
Pedagogical attunemen t: parents, teachers and the pedagog ical assignment of the school,
Cees Klaassen & Han Leeferink 89
Being power partners, Pirjo Nuutinen 95
Partnership in action: an evaluation of a school policy on parents working with their own
children in school, Leonidas Kyriakides 103
Teacher, tutor, parent: the eternal triangle?, Helen Phtiaka 111
Part 3 - Specific aspects of collaboration between home and school 121
Assessing entry characteristics in Kindergarten, Ton Mooij & Ed Sm eets 123
Home-school partnersh ip in primary mathematics: a sociolog ical analysis, Andrew Brown 131
Parents and mathematics education reform: a U.S. case-study, Martha Allexsaht-Snider 141
The school as an active partner in en vironmental work?, Elzbieta Bielecka 145
Parents school partnership programs to assist refugees and other vulnerable populations,
Daniel Safran 153
Patterns of academic support: som e findings from a home scho ol numeracy project with
Somali families living in Londo n, Lesley Jones 159
Drug consumptio n prevention: parents perspec tive, Raquel-Amaya M artínez González,
Marisa Pereira, Norberto Corr al, Begoña Dona ire, Ana Isabel Alvarez, Victoria Casielles 165

Introduction; building bridges between home and
school
This volume is a collection of 25 essays, grouped
into three parts, on the theme of building bridges
between home and school.
The first part contains a parents’ orientation and
reflection on partnerships between home and
school (Don Davies), models, strategies and
contexts (Shawn Mo ore, Sue Lasky), parents
supporting their children’s learning (Emma
Beresford, Sue Botcherby, Olwen McNamara)
and possible predictors of parental involvement
(Stelios Georgiou). Oliver Moles describes
overcoming barriers to family invo lvement in
low-income area schools. Frederik Smit, Hans
Moerel, Peter Sleegers give an overview of types
of experiments with the role of parents in primary
education in the Netherlands.
The research of Annemiek Veen consists on the
relationship between migran t parents and primary
schools. Kees van der Wolf, Ronald Lippens and
Pauline Huizenga explored questions about
parental/community involvement and behaviour
problems in Dutch secondary schools. The study
of Ingebjörg Johanessen concerns successful
interaction between home an d school. Maria
Mendel describes a ‘parents at scho ol’
programme.
The second part is devoted to the school
perspective on collaboration between families,
school and comm unity. Home-school agreemen ts
is studied by Gary Hey wood-Everett. Donald
Lueder presents a strategic planning system. The
group Jennifer Hartman, Ann Kinkor, Barbara
Wilson and Rhonda Payne describes an
innovative partnership pro gram in California.
Adelina Villas-Boas gives a prospective overview
on school/family/community partnerships in 25
primary schools in Portugal. Cees Klaassen en
Han Leeferink present the results of research in to
pedagogical attunement between schools and
families. Pirjo Nuutinen reports what Finnish
teachers think about their power position.
Leonidas Kyriakides presents findings of an
evaluation of a primary schoo l in Cyprus to
develop a policy for parents w orking with their
own children in school. Helen Phtiaka gives an
example of the triangle: teacher, tutor, parent in
Cyprus.
The third part reports on a number of
investigations related to specific aspects of
collaboration between ho me and school. Ton
Mooij and Ed Sme ets studied assessing entry
characteristics in Kindergarten Andrew Brown
presents a sociological analysis of home-school
partnership in primary mathematics. Martha
Allexsaht-Snider presents an analysis of school
and parents involved in mathematics education
reform in the U.S. Elzbieta Bielecka describes
some environmental projects in Poland aimed at
improving children’s perform ance at school.
Daniel Safran gives a description of parent school
partnership programs to assist refugees and other
vulnerable populations. Lesley Jones discusses
some findings from a home school nummeracy
project with Somali families living in London.
Raquel-Amaya Martínez González, Marisa
Pereira, Norberto Corral, Begoña Donaire, Ana
Isabel Alvarez, Victoria Casielles describe the
family role in drug consumption prevention.

2 Building bridges between home and school
The contributions to this volume were presented
at the European Research Network About Parents
and Education (ERNAPE) held in Amsterdam
(the Netherlands) on November 18-19, 1999.
Frederik Smit
Hans Moerel
Kees van der Wolf
Peter Sleegers

Part 1
Parents’ orientation on collaboration
between home and school

Looking back, looking ahead: reflections on lessons
over twenty-five years
Don Davies
For the last 25 years my professional life has been
dominated by my work for the Institute for
Responsive Education, which I founded in 1973
to study and promo te family, community, school
partnerships. I embarked on th is work after 5
years as an official in the US education
department, and several years as official of the
largest American teachers’ union, the National
Education Association. Before that I was engaged
in teacher education in universities and in
teaching in high school. These years in education
convinced me that really goo d education for all
children, rich and poor, was only going to be
possible if families and commu nities became full
partners with schools in the enterp rise.
I have come to see that all parts of the child’s
world must share respons ibility for the child’s
learning and development. This concept of shared
responsibility is seen by some as a radical idea,
and by others as unrealistic. The majority opinion
by academics and educators is that the jobs of
schools and families and co mmunities are
basically separate and should be kept that way.
And, yet for me, this concept of shared
responsibility, is at the heart of all the efforts I
have made over the years.
I also became convinced that good partnerships
between schools, parents an d communities are
possible in all kinds of schools and communities
‘pre-school, elementary, urban, rural, rich and
poor. I know this because we have good
examples all across the US and overseas.
(Unhappily, partnerships are still the exception
and not the rule, as can be seen in the recent 1997
OECD report on the status of parent involvement
in nine countries.) My wo rk over these 25 years
has involved dozens of studies and projects in the
US and several other countries and the
opportunity to work with and learn from dozens
of other researchers and advocates doing similar
work. The International Roundtables, which
Joyce Epstein and I initiated mo re than ten years
ago have been a particularly rich source of
learning from scholars and practitioners in many
other countries.
This Roundtable in Amsterdam offers me the
opportunity to reflect back on those 25 years of
studies and projects in several countries and on
what I have been able to learn from o thers
working in this field. Wha t I want to do in this
brief paper is to identify and discuss a few of the
lessons that seem especially important to me.
These are reflections and interpretations, based
only partly on research and colored by own
perspectives, values, and opinions. I will also
draw to a limited extent on papers presented at
earlier Roundtables. So, how do schools and
families and communities make partnerships
happen. I’ll offer a few brief thoughts and
recommendations.
Look first to the teachers
Partnerships work best if teachers are given help,
support, and training. If increased involvement of
families and community organizations and
agencies with the schools is the aim, why worry
first about the teachers? The answer: Teachers
can make or break any effort to change the
traditional separation of schools from the families
and communities they serve. I have seen this in
many American schools and in IRE’s recent
cross-national study in five countries.
Without teacher interest, support, and skill much
of that that is commonly known as parent

involvement won’t work. For most parents in the
world, the teacher is the primary and sometimes
the only connection to the school and holds the
key to good com munication. Yet, often plans for
partnerships are developed with little or no
teacher input and teachers are told ‘Here is our
new parent involvement project, funded by this or
that foundation or government. So, teacher, just
do it.’ Sometimes they do it, but o ften they don’t.
The apparently natural and almost universal
teacher concern about professional status and
expertise and traditional resistance to outsider
influence is difficult to overcome. We saw
teacher resistance and fear of losing professional
status as a factor in many of the schools in a
recent cross-national study, across five very
different cultures and national traditions. We saw
in all of the countries that teachers were proud of
their expertise and wanted to protect their own
turf (Davies and Johnson 1996).
What is needed? Teacher education institutions
need to prepare future teachers to wo rk positively
with parents and community agencies and
institutions and to learn how families and the
community can benefit the teacher and the
students. New teachers learn through instruction
and experience that partnerships with parents and
community agencies d oes not diminish their
professional expertise or status but in fact can
enhance these.
Once he or she starts to teach the new teacher
needs to be given positive encouragement by
other teachers and school adm inistrators to
engage in the desired partnersh ip activities, and to
be protected if and when things go wrong.
Teachers on the job also need specific training,
information, and recognition when they are asked
to undertake new kinds of partnership activities
such as student homes, using parents as
volunteers in the classroom, or participating on a
decision-making committee with parent
representatives. And, when a new policy or
project is to be launched, teachers must be
involved in planning for it. The issue of preparing
teachers for partnership has been addressed by
several participants in the International
Roundtables in Europe and the US, including
Deanna Evans-Schilling, Joyce Epstein, Martha
Allexsaht-Snider, and Dan Safran from the US,
Helen Phtiaka, Cyprus, and Birte Ravn, Denmark.
Make it official
Partnerships work best when they have the
official sanction of written policies.
Like it or not, schools are bureaucratic and
conservative institutions. They mostly live by
rules and policies. So, if you want to have
teachers and administrators reach ou t to parents
and to community institutions, there should be
written policies which recomm end or mandate
such activities and provide guidelines for how
such partnerships might be established and
maintained.
I have seen that it is helpful to have com patible
written policies in support of partnersh ips at all
levels, national, state or province, local district,
and individual school. It is also useful when
supportive policies are negotiated into teacher
union contracts.
Another way of achieving official sanction for
partnership practices is to win the support and
positive endorsement of the head of the school.
There are many case studies, including the action
research studies of the Institute for Responsive
Education for the Center on F amilies, that support
this belief (Palanki and Burch, 1995). My own
experience is dotted with many both positive and
negative examples of the powerful influence of
the school principal on efforts to initiate or
sustain school, family, community partnership
efforts.
Having laws and written policies is not enough,
of course. These must be implemented and
enforced. For example, Smit and van Esch
reported that not many of the goals of

Building bridges between home and school 7
participation in their country were being realized
(Smit and van Esch, 199 2). Izabel Solomon in
Australia discovered that the official structures
created by national government have produced a
lot of rhetoric but little action.
Focus on children’s learning
Partnerships work best wh en improved children’s
learning is seen as the main goal by teachers,
parents, and community agencies. The
partnership idea is most acceptable to
policymakers if they believe that such
partnerships contribute to children ’s academic
success in school. This is usually true for
teachers, community agen cies, and parents
themselves. There is a good evidence that
connects various kind s of partnerships with
student learning, if those partnerships are well
designed and carefully implemented.
Joyce Epstein has reported th at when schools
inform parents about children’s acad emic
progress in schools, their expec tations for their
child’s success goes up. Epstein’s work on
homework has sh own that families are more
likely to be able to help their children with
academic work at home if teachers give
homework assignments that are interactive,
provide clear and specific information about the
content and methods being used in the classroom,
and offer encouragement along with written
materials and guidelines.
Dozens of International Roundtable presentations
over the years have focused on how parents and
community agencies ca n promote children’s
learning. One example has been the work of Raul
Pizzaro in Chile who has conducted and reported
on several studies of the effects of home
interventions on studen t achievement in
mathematics and Spanish and has concluded that
families and schools can wo rk together to
enhance students’ cogn itive achievement
(Pizzaro 1992). But, my o wn experience in
schools suggests that many administrators and
teachers still see parent involvement as a
marginal activity ‘nice,’ but not central to the
school’s instructional goals and many school
reform programs give only a little attention to
parents and the commu nity.
Provide for a diverse opportunities
Partnerships work best wh en they are
comprehensive. Joyce Epstein developed and
tested a five part typology for parent involvement
and then expanded it to include a sixth type of
partnership involving exchanges with the
community. This typology was used in many of
the studies of the Center on Families,
Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning
(Epstein 1992). My own experience and studies
suggest that a wide range of o pportunities, both in
the school and the hom e and the community is
needed to meet the diverse interests, needs, and
conditions of the variety of families in most
communities. For many families, supporting their
children’s learning at home and in the community
is more attractive and feasible than attending
events or committee meetings in the school.
Nancy Chavkin reported that non-traditional
activities outside the school attracted more
parents than activities organized in the school
(Chavkin 1992). Few schools actually undertake
a comprehensive approach. The efforts I see are
often piecemeal, a series of programs, events, or
small projects. I have seen good results from
using Epstein’s typology planning tool, which
encourages those invo lved to consider all six
types of involvement, inclu ding: 1) The basic
obligations for child-rearing, building positive
home conditions that su pport children’s
development; 2) Basic obligations of schools for
communicating about school programs and
children’s progress; 3) Family involvement at
school as volunteers, aides, audiences for student
performances, participants in meetings and social
events; 4) Involvement in learning activities at

home, monitoring and assisting children; 5)
Involvement in governance, decision-making and
advocacy in school-based organizations and in
the community; 6) Collaboration and exchanges
between the school and the community (Epstein
1992). Ultimately, a comprehensive approach can
and should lead to a change in the culture of the
school and its connections with families and the
communities. There are some examples of such
culture change in several countries. One of the
best examples is the Patrick O’Hearn School in
Boston. The altered culture in this sch ool is
noticed by even the most casual visitors to the
school and described in IRE’s report on its action
research projects (Palanki and Bu rch 1995).
All families need help sometime
Partnerships work best when the schools and
health and social service agencies join together to
plan how best the need s of the children and their
families can be served.
There is no one best way that schools can link
with community age ncies. But the point is that all
families need support and help at one time or
another ‘some need more help than others and
need it more often’ if schools want to h elp all
children succeed they need to be concerned about
meeting the non-academic health and social
service needs of the children and the families.
There is much research evidence, bolstered by
much common sense, that academic achievement
is linked to health, emotional stability, nutrition,
sleep of children and to the social and health
conditions of the home . It is obvious that schools
cannot meet all the complex so cial and health
needs of the children and families they serve and
must enlist to other community agencies and
institutions. There are many prom ising models in
the US and other coun tries that point the way to
coordinated or shared services. Some of these
models and their results have b een reported in
various of our International Roundtables.
My own experience suggests strongly that
partnerships work best wh en the relationship
between schools and community organizations
and agencies is really an exchange, not just
community groups or business doing things for
the schools. The schools and their staffs have
much to offer to other agencies and other
community residents, inclu ding access to their
physical facilities (such as computer labs, g yms);
access to their expertise, teachers and
administrators who offer their talents and skills to
the community; and students who serve the
community in service projec ts. The relationship
between schools and their communities should be
reciprocal. This reciprocal relationship means
more than the community contributing to the
child and to the school. It must also mean that the
school contributes to the economic and social
development of the com munity. A true
partnership involves an exchange of resources.
I see family literacy programs as another form of
family support. Many participants in International
Roundtables have described various approaches
to intergenerational literacy including Trevor
Carney, Jacqueline McGilp, and Derek Toomey
from Australia; Lorrie Connors-Tadros, and Ruth
Handle and Ellen Goldsmith from the US; and
Adelina Villas Boas from Portugal. Many of the
projects reported aim to raise parents’ awareness
of the important role that they play in their ch ild’s
language developm ent and help them learn try
practical ways to help their children read better.
A room of their own
Partnerships work best wh en there are visible
signs and symbo ls of welcome in the school itself
and when there are practical organizational means
of planning and carrying out partnership
activities. Family or parent centers fill this need
for a symbol of welcome and for a location and
capacity for organizing partnership activities.
Such centers are a low-cost, easy-to-manage way
to make schools more h ospitable to parents, to

plan and carry out activities, and to serve as a
handy locale for parent-to-parent and
parent-to-teacher communication .
In the US and a few other cou ntries they are
functioning for many different purposes:
operating food banks; providing libraries for
parents with books, toys, computer hardware and
software; clothing exchanges; language classes;
and workshops and support groups for parents.
Vivian Johnson, wh o was one of the researchers
for the Center on Families, Communities,
Schools, and Children’s learning and a frequent
participant in International Roundtables, has
studied parent/family centers and reported on
their effectiveness (Johnson 19 93).
Reaching the hard to reach
Partnerships work best wh en they are designed to
benefit all children and families, across lines of
race, ethnicity, social class, and family income. I
see the gap between the hav es and the have-nots
is the most important political, social, and
educational problem that the w orld faces as it
starts the new millennium. Edu cators in every
place must make sure that progress toward higher
standards of academic content and performance
for students is shared across lines of race and
social class. We must make sure that the
wonderful new ben efits of technology don’t
further widen the already large gaps between the
poor and the affluent.
This means finding way s to help all students
achieve, despite economic d isadvantage. It is
important to ask parents to work hard not only for
the interests of better education for their own
children but also for better schools for all
children. I must point out with co nsiderable
embarrassment that the US has the widest gap
between rich and poor families (and the gap has
increased in recent years). The country offers
fewer and less generous social programs for
families and children than other countries.
There is an important new study which
documents the achievement gap between
middle-class and affluent children and children
who are poor, black, Hispanic, and low-income
white families. This report by the Education Trust
argues that raising standards of academic content
and performance for all children is both possible
and essential (Education Trust 1996).
Well executed partnerships can help schools
reach those parents they cons ider hardest to
reach. These are very often families that are poor,
from minority groups, or considered outside of
the mainstream. I have seen many successful
efforts to ‘reach the hardest to reach,’ but I have
also seen what Derek Toomey has been warning
us about for several years: that parent
involvement program s, if they reach and help
more affluent, middle-class families and their
children can actually widen and not narrow the
gap between the have’s and the have nots.
Toomey writes: I believe that many parent
involvement programs in schools fail to include
the hardest-to-reach families and that often these
families are not able to give the suppo rt to their
children’s education they w ould like to be able to
give’ (Toomey, 1992).
This warning leads me as I look ahead to
recommend that educators and organizations
concerned about narrowing the economic and
social class gaps pay special attention to
designing diverse and imaginative strategies
aimed at those families who are often left beh ind.
Partnership also means power-sharing
Partnerships work best wh en democratic
principles are applied.
These principles which include involving families
and other community residents in planning and
making decisions about their schools and about
how partnerships should be set up and managed
so that family members are seen as partners not
‘outsiders’ clients (for whom you do something).
When educators b egin to see families as partners
and not just ‘clients,’ I find that they will discover
ways to involve them in governance and
decision-making proces ses. This means they will

include them in decision-making about budgets,
personnel, and curriculum. T hey will tap their
opinions through surveys, focus groups,
conferences, and telephon e hot lines. They will
keep them informed about problems and issues.
We know that active or passive resistance will be
found to such participation w hich leads to
power-sharing, but those school leaders who take
the risks involved usually find that the benefits
outweigh the costs. The benefits include better
decisions, decisions that are more w idely
supported, a stronger sense of parent and
community ownership of school programs, and
increased political support from parents and the
community. To make power sharing workable
and realistic requires a careful re-design of the
decision-making structures u sually found in
schools and larger districts in which schools are
embedded. Many studies have shown that many
advisory or decision-mak ing committees that are
set up become only tokens or are dominated by
the educators. We know also that many structures
set up are dominated by the most sophisticated
and well-educated members of a school's parent
community.
One way to increase meaningful family and
community participation in d ecision-making is to
decentralize important decisions from the center
to the individual school. Another is to broaden
the kinds of opportun ities and structures. On this
point, I have been influenced by the work of
Philip Woods of the Open University in England
who provided a framework for thinking about
parent roles and aspirations which includes:
transforming the way services are provided,
making choices abou t which school to send th eir
children to; making sure the school is meeting the
needs the parents want it to; letting service
providers know their views; seeking to influence
or take part in the school decision-making
process (Woods 1993). Strong parent associations
or parent-teacher organizations can help provide
some parents with a stronger voice in school
affairs, if these groups address important school
issues and represent parent interests as well as
school interests.
Another very important form of power-sharing or
parent/community influen ce on schools is
through independent organizations such as
community develo pment associations and ch ild
advocacy groups . These groups can give p arents
and others in the community a stronger voice on
school matters. The importance of parent and
community organizations working on school
issues goes beyond helping the school. There is a
broader social benefit. I have been struck by the
work of Robert Putnam of Harvard University
who has demonstrated that one important element
of a civil society and stronger comm unities is
networks of civic associations. In h is research in
Italy over a decade Putnam has demonstrated
empirically the direct link between the existence
of a network of civic associations an d economic
productivity and the flourishing of democracy.
By civic associations he means organizations
such as parent groups, local choruses and
orchestras, sports clubs, neighborhood councils,
and community organizations working on school
issues (Putnam 1994 , 1997).
Putnam points out that the quality of public life
and the performance of social institutions (e.g.
schools and families) in America an d elsewhere
are powerfully influenced by norms and networks
of civic engagement, which he and others call
social capital.
Putnam’s work corrobo rates the political theory
of ‘civic humanism,’ which means that a strong
and free government depends on a virtuous and
public spirited citizenry and a civic com munity
that supports the governm ent. To reach such a
goal and sustain it a society must create education
for its citizens that emphasizes good citizenship.
While America has often been credited as being a
model for democracy and citizen activism,
Putnam notes that civic participation in our
country has declined markedly in the past four
decades. Reversing this decline is both an
educational and political challenge.

So, my point here is that collaboration between
schools, families, and communities is one
strategy that can be helpful in demo cratic
societies seeking to sustain and advance
democratic principles. Schools can make an
important contribution by striving to give the
families they serve a variety of opportun ities to
participate in setting policies about bud get,
personnel, and programs, and in important
decisions about the scho ol.
Cross national exchanges do work
I think our International Roundtables have
demonstrated over and over that studies and
examples in one coun try are useful to those in
seeking to change po licies and practices in
families, communities, and schools in the
direction of partnership. This is what I call the
‘more distant mirror’ phenomenon. Looking at
one’s problems and alternative s olutions at a
distance seems to give policy-makers, planners,
administrators, and researchers different ways of
thinking about closer-to-home problems.
Research and successful practice in one country
offer support for those who w ant to act to
improve education in another. Some
anthropologists who have studied the process of
cultural change point out that ‘diffusion does not
typically involve the replication in o ne society of
some practice developed elsew here; rather what is
transposed is the basic idea, a model ‘one might
even say a metaphor’ which is then applied to the
particular circumstances of the receiving society’
(Renfrew 1976).
Final words
Educators must be optimists, and I am one, even
though cynicism is alwa ys fashionable in
academia and world even ts sometimes make it
difficult for anyone to maintain his or her
optimism. My hop e is that my work and yo urs
about partnerships and schools, families, and
communities is of more than trivial imp ortance. A
stronger, more positive reciprocal relationship
between schools and their communities can be
forged, and those relationship s will help
educators and communities use the positive
potential of education for good and humane
purposes. As I look ahe ad my optimist’s hope is
that we can harness the poten tial of education to
develop new generations that can escape the
legacies of violence, war, hatred of people who
have different color, ethnicity, race, or religion
that the twentieth century has left for the coming
hundred years. I think that educational systems
that put the partnership idea in practice can h elp
to meet this challenge and the other challenges
that the new century will bring.
References
Chavkin, Nancy (1992), Report on Two Projects Aiming to Examine the Connections among the
Families. Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, paper presented at the Fourth Annual
International Roundtable, San Francisco.
Davies D. and John son, V. (ed.) (1996), Crossing Boundaries: Multi-National Action Research on
Family-School Collaboration. Baltimore: Center on Families, Com munities, Schools and C hildren’s
Learning.
Education Trust (1996), Education Watch: The 1996 Education Trust State and National Data Book.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Epstein, J.L.(1992), ‘School and Family Partnerships’, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New
York: Macmillan.
Johnson, Vivian (1993), Parent/Family Centers: Dimensions of Functioning in 28 Schools in 14 States.
Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, 1993.

Palanki, A. and Burch, P. (1995), In Our Hands: A Multi-Site Parent-Teacher Action Research Project,
Boston: Center on Fa milies, Communities, Scho ols, and Children’s Learning, B oston University.
Palanki, A. and Burch, P. (1995), In Our Hands: A Multi-Site Parent-Teacher Action Research Project,
Boston: Center on Fa milies, Communities, Scho ols, and Children’s Learning, B oston University.
Pizzaro, Raul S. (1992), Quality of Instruction, Hom e Environment, and Co gnitive Achievement. Paper
presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San Francisco.
Putnam, R. (1994), Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (1997), Bowling Alone: Amer ica’s Declining Social Cap ital. An Interview with Rob ert
Putnam, Journal of Dem ocracy (on line).
Renfrew, C. (1976), Before Civilization,(Harmond sworth, UK Pengu in, in G. Room, Innova tion in
Social Policy: European Perspectives on the Evaluation of Action Research, New York: St.
Martin’s.
Smit, Frederik and van Esch , Wil (1992), Parents and School Governing Boards in the Netherlands,
paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San Francisco.
Izabel Solomon, Policy Analysis and Community Relations, paper presented at the Fourth Annual
International Round table, San Francisco.
Toomey, Derek (1992), ‘Can We Involve Parents in their Children’s Literacy Developmen t with
Reach-out Activities?’ paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Roundtable, San
Francisco.
Woods, Phillip (1993), Parents as Consumer Citizens. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual International
Roundtable. Atlanta.

Parent involvement in education: models, strategies
and contexts
Shawn Moore, Sue Lasky
In this paper, we explore the conceptual,
empirical and strategic literature related to parent
involvement in educatio n. Parent involvement in
schooling has traditionally taken many forms
including parents helping their children with
homework, parent-teacher interviews, parent
nights, special consultation on student problems,
parent councils, and parent volunteer help in the
school and the classroom. Some evidence
suggests that activities of this nature can have
beneficial effects on student learning. From a
socio-cultural perspective, however, we will
review other evidence indicating that traditional
relationships between teachers and parents can
also perpetuate a power imbalance in favour of
teachers. In recent years, teachers’ relationships
with parents have become more uncertain and
contentious. Parents are becom ing more
questioning and critical about issues of
curriculum, the quality of instruction and
practices used to assess and evalu ate their
children. Home-school relationships are changing
for a multitude of reasons including greater
diversity of the parent population , changes in
family structures, increasing school ch oice, more
parental involvement in the governance of
schools, new methods of assessment and
reporting, and special education legislation.
These developments have implications for parent
involvement and stud ent achievement.
Formulating new strategies for inv olving parents
in their children’s learning is particularly
important during this time of profound social
change and educational reform in Ontario,
nationally and internationally. Since parents are
not a homogeneous group, conflicts concerning
expectations between parents and teachers,
culture between home and school, and
institutional barriers are bound to arise. Involving
parents as partners requires an understanding of
parents’ perceptions of schoo ling, their
aspirations for their children, their approach to
parenting, their expectations of teachers, an d their
concept of their role and respons ibilities.
We first examine child-parent interactions both
inside and outside the home through the
theoretical lens of stages in a child’s cognitive,
emotional and social development, explore the
barriers that divide teachers and parents, paren ts
and schools, and parents and their children,
identify the socio-cultural factors that influence
school-parent understanding, and propose
strategic approaches that can enhance
communication, community and partnerships
between parents, teachers and schools. In our
consideration of the empirical literature, we paid
special attention to exemplary stud ies and models
which have received auth oritative recognition in
the field and cutting edge research that provides
new insights into parent-teacher interaction . We
argue that the structures of schooling must sh ift
from closed and protectionist to open and
inclusionary if parent-teacher partnerships are to
flourish over time and benefit children.
Second, we consider the implications of the
conceptual and empirical literature for the
organization and substance of the EQAO
(Education Quality and Accountability Office)
grade 3 and grade 6 Home Questionnaires.
Surveys are important, commonly used tools for
gathering information abou t how parents are
involved in their children’s learning and the kind
of modelling they provide in the learning process.
The validity and reliability of such instru ments is

important if the data are to be trusted for making
claims, predictions, and policy decisions. The
Home Questionnaire operates concurrently in a
wider context of demographic and educational
change. Socio-cultural meanings embedded in the
questions may resonate with some parents, but
confound others. We analyzed the Home
Questionnaires in relation to literature on parent
involvement and what is known to date about
best practice. We argue that the Home
Questionnaire needs to reflect the socio-cultural
experiences of parents as a diverse group and
that the ability to disaggregate these parent data
according to key demographic variables can
deepen our understanding of the dynamics of
parents’ involvement (or lack thereof) in the
home and in the sch ool.
Finally, our review takes place in a climate of
tumultuous change on the educational landscape
in Ontario as well as concurrent sweeping
educational changes in other Canadian provinces
and countries. These changes reflect paradoxical
forces of centralization and decentralization. In
Ontario, for example, the ministry has centralized
educational taxing and sch ool funding while
decentralizing power to school councils. It has
centralized and standardized curriculum and
reporting while decentralizing responsibilities for
implementing these new policies. The reform
scenario has provoked spirited debate in the
province on the future of public education
including the role of parents in schooling. Some
claim that current educational chang es in Ontario
are ‘progressive’ in response to changing
community demographics, the need for greater
accountability to parents, and the requirements of
a competitive global economy. Other observers,
however, are critical of current reforms as narrow
in scope, regressive in terms of teaching and
learning, and insensitive to the day-to-day
realities of teachers’ professional lives. In any
event, educators, parents and students are caught
up in a time of political crisis and uncertainty in
education, which is affecting their relationships in
significant ways. Our review ex plores where
parent involvement is conceptually and
structurally positioned within the educational
change process. In this regard, the experiences of
educators and parents in other jurisdictions can be
highly relevant in the Ontario context. The
changes occurring in pu blic schooling in Ontario
today are, in part, the result of pressures from
parents themselves. We need to keep this in mind
as we explore the concepts, m odels and contexts
of parent involvement in ed ucation.
Objectives
- conduct a critical review of the conceptual and
methodological literature in order to assess
parent involvement and its relation to school
achievement, including the role of family and
school demography.
- evaluate empirical findings concerning the
relationship between different forms of parent
involvement and student motivation, learning
and success.
- elucidate how patterns of parent inv olvement in
education vary according to differences in
social class, language, traditions, ethnocultural
background, and family type (e.g., single
parent, blended family).
- engage critically with the EQAO grade 3 and
grade 6 parent surveys bas ed on the literature.
- conceptualize alternative models of parent
involvement in education from a synthesis of
theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and
practical considerations.
- identify strategic implications of empirical
findings for enhancing communications
between parents and teachers and promoting
parent involvement in their children ’s learning.
Design and methodology
We began with a global search of the literature on
‘parent involvement’ - including databases and
websites. We also searched the most current
editions of about 20 of the m ost relevant journals
of education for relevant articles that would not

yet be on the ERIC database. Then, we organized
studies according to major questions under
investigation: parents’ views, models of parent
involvement, school demographics, reporting,
and best practice. In so doing, we focussed on
what the concept of ‘parent involvement’ means
from the perspectives of parents, teachers and
researchers as well as different levels in the
system - home, school, board and province. As
we probed deeper into the literature, we identified
barriers of culture, language, race, power, and
bureaucracy that tend to keep parents safely on
the margins of schooling. In our analysis of
findings concerning parent involvement across a
multitude of school and home contexts, we
identified key themes. Theory helps to explain
variability in findings across contexts. For
example, Waller’s assertion that parents and
teachers are natural antagonists (parents being
oriented to their child and teachers oriented to a
child as part of a group) gets to the heart of the
dynamics of many parent-teacher struggles.
However, Waller’s notion does not fully account
for differences in how parents and teach ers
perceive one another throug h different socio-cultural
lenses. Motivational, cultural and
organizational theories also come into play. We
intentionally selected exemplary studies, a few of
which provide rare, revealing glimpses into the
social organization of parent-teacher interaction.
Ideally, parents and teachers can learn to
understand and appreciate the world from the
other’s perspective. However, our examination of
parent-teacher relationships sugges ts that simply
bringing parents into the teachers’ world may
actually increase tensions without effective
strategies professional development and parent
education.
We examined the process as well as the substance
of parent involvement. Process refers to the
constantly changing dynamics of parent-teacher
relationships and parent-child relationships over
time. We have not attempted to create a definitive
dictionary of ‘parent involvement’ or ‘best
practice’. Rather, we identify and discuss
alternative strategies in relation to empirical
findings, concepts and authoritative models.
There are some excellent handbooks that suffice
as strategic guides. However, research findings
suggest repeatedly that understanding particular
family cultures, particular school environments
and particular teachers’ perceptions is essential
to designing effective approaches to parent
involvement. In this regard, we found some case
studies where claims of successful partnerships
are made. We also discovered some unsettling
accounts of parent-teacher conflict and alienation,
where partnerships have failed to materialize
because of distrust and political tensions -
sometimes bitter and prolong ed. As well,
conflicting beliefs about rights, expertise, abilities
and cultural stereotypes cast teachers and parents
into ‘adversarial’ rather than collaborative
relationships. Although, prescriptive guidelines
cannot be expected take into account all these
complexities and variabilities, clearly written,
informative documentation for parents is an
important component in communicating with and
supporting parents invo lvement in their children’s
learning. In summary, the specific steps in our
methodological appro ach were as follows:
A. Assessment of empirical research findings on
parent involvement accord ing to:
- demographic and cultural variation in types
of parents by class, race, culture, gender, and
family type;
- ecological variation in school size, structure,
location (rural, urban, suburban), student
population, and setting (elementary/
secondary).
B. Search databases (e.g., ERIC, including
Canadian Educational Index, Australian
Education Index, British Education Index;
ONTARIS) with focus on research on primary
care giver / parent / parent involvement.
C. Review books and refereed journal articles,
including publications and reports connected
with International Centre for Educational

Change extensive research studies and findings
concerning parent comm unication, relationship
and involvement.
D. Analysis of grade 3 and grade 6 parent
questionnaire instruments in terms of the
conceptual and empirical literature on parent
involvement.
E. Professional contacts with key researchers
and centres in the field for collaboration and
research advice (e.g., Joyce Epstein, Centre on
School, Family and Community Partnerships,
John Hopkins University).
Key questions
Our review of the literature was organized around
a number of key questions outlined in our
original proposal to EQA O:
1. What are the most effective forms of parental
involvement in relation to parents’ point of
view as well as demographic and ecological
factors?
2. What are the authoritative models of parent
relationship and how do they inform strategies
for parents’ involvement in their children ’s
learning?
3. How do parent and school demographics
modify the relations among other variables
such as parent interest and motiva tion to
become involved in education?
4. What is the role in reporting to paren ts in
fostering assessment literacy and motivation
for parents’ involvement?
5. What are best practices in terms of
communication and involvement of parents in
their children’s learning?
6. How well do the dimensions of the parent
questionnaires for grade 3 and grade 6 reflect
concepts in the literature, tap into parents’ life
experience, enhance parents’ understandings
and motivate parents’ involvement?
Discussion and conclusion
Parent involvement is an amorphous concept that
can mean very different things to parents and
educators depending on their ethno-cultural point
of view. In this regard, a very prominent them e in
the literature is the need to ground concepts of
parent involvement in relation to particular
individual and school demographics. The
literature we reviewed also reflects both the
psychology and sociology of parent invo lvement.
On a psychological level, the focus of study is on
the individual’s experiences, perceptions,
feelings, expectations, memories and aspirations
for the child’s education and their role in it.
Almost all parents regardless of background, for
example, want the best edu cation for their
children and try to be conscientious about helping
them succeed. At the same time, parents often
report feeling powerless, frustrated, and
marginalized from teachers and the schooling
process. Parents’ expectations of their children,
the teacher, the school and themselves are a
reflection of their own ethnocultural background
and their own experiences of schooling.
Likewise, teachers’ expectations of pa rents are
shaped by their own ethnocultural experience, by
their concern and responsibilities for ‘other
people’s children, and also by their professional
acculturation.
A socio-cultural perspective has b een the main
focus in our analysis of the literature on parent
involvement. In this regard, the literature
indicates that the cultural understandings and
realities of parents can conflict sharply with those
of teachers. Absence of or breakd own in
communication betw een parents and teachers is
documented in many case studies and surveys.
Particularly, linguistic and bureaucratic barriers
can silence minority parents voices. The evidence
also suggests that training is lacking for both
parents and teachers on how to work together.
Preservice and inservice have no t kept pace with
rapidly changing dem ands and new partnersh ip
roles in working with parents. On top of all of
this, administrators and teachers in On tario are
under intense reform pressure from government
and parents to open their do ors, change their

practices, structures, curriculum, and, in general,
be more ‘accountable’ to the wider public. EQAO
is playing an important role in this process of
educational change. The evidence we reviewed
suggests that schools are hav ing difficulty
transforming themselves into ‘learning
organizations’, which are flexible and responsive
to the forces of demographic and political change.
Reform demands on teachers in Ontario over the
last three years have been crushing and
relentless. This has resulted in many of teachers
retreating from parents to protect themselves,
rather than joining forces with them. In contrast,
research on communication and best practice
points time and time again to the need for the
structures of schooling to change to more open,
inclusive systems where partnerships between
teachers and parents are the norm, rather than
the exception.
We have compared parents’ views with those of
teachers and identified some of the most
significant factors in their relationships in terms
of children’s achievement. In this regard, the
conceptual literature suggests that parents see
their child and teachers see a child as part of a
group. The empirical literature tends to sup port
Waller’s thesis to a point, with parents often
asking for individualized, personal
communication. In add ition, there is ample
evidence of the cultural, linguistic and
institutional barriers that keep teachers and
parents in their own separate worlds. At the same
time, the empirical literature offers some
persuasive evidence that partnership models can
create ‘bridges of understanding’ between the
home and the schoo l. Specifically, some critical
studies draw our attention to protective and
school-centred structures of schooling that
pathologize parents and keep them at a distance
from the core functions of teaching and learning.
The ‘deficit’ model and the ‘partnership model
are conflicting orientations each with qu ite
different implications for parent involvem ent.
While the demograp hics of family can create
significant barriers to parent involvement, the
power for change rests mostly with schools and
teachers where institutional power lies. The
exception to this assertion is parent political
activism.
Deficit models view parents and students from a
clinical position of greater knowledge and
professionalism. Schools that reach out, open
their doors and implement practices of parental
inclusion in part by adapting the school culture to
more closely fit the surrounding community
culture, on the other hand, are laying the
organizational groundw ork for meaningful,
parent-teacher partnerships. Our review s uggests
that the deficit model is alive and well whe n it
comes to inclusion of mino rity, single-parent and
low socioeconomic status families. Proactive
approaches to parent invo lvement are difficult
and demanding for administrators and teachers.
The evidence suggests that partnerships will not
automatically produce harmonious relationships.
First, parents are a very diverse population
reflecting many assumptions, attitudes, beliefs,
and images of schooling. Second, it would be
naïve to expect educators and school boards to
simply hand over institution al-based power to
parents. Third, conflicts grow more intense as
parents get more closely involved in the
classroom and in making decisions concerning
core functions, curriculum, staffing and school
governance. Fourth, some parents want no part of
such core decision-making roles and consider
them the prerogative of administrators and
teachers. In a multiracial, multicultural and
multiethnic society, such as Canada, these issues
are interlinked in complex way s that play out in
each individual situation. Nevertheless, the
literature suggests that partnerships offer a path to
work collaboratively which can foster parents and
teachers understanding of the world through one
another’s eyes. Teacher development programs
need to be designed and implemented that
develop in teachers the critical reflective skills to
see their own biases, to develop communication

skills that will help teachers talk with an
increasingly more diverse parent population,
which cultivate the value of involving parents and
provide teachers with a wide array of strategies
for how to do this.
The literature on parent involvement suggests a
world of ‘multiple realities’. The challenge for
educators and parents is to find w ays to work
collaboratively on the basis of each other’s reality
in the best interest of the child’s developm ent,
achievement and success. Partnership models -
particularly as formulated by Epstein, Ogbu,
Comer, Cummins and Hargreaves - provide
conceptual scaffolding upon which collaborative
relationships between parents and teachers can
develop. While each p artnership model has its
strengths and weaknes ses, their common feature
is practices of two-way communication between
home and schoo l. Partnerships need to be
adapted to fit particular co nditions of family
demographics, student developmental needs,
school structures, and community resources.
Innovations - such as paren t centres, homework
‘hotlines’, home visits, parent coordinators,
teachers as ‘ethnographers’, parent-teacher
teaming, parent education and training, three-way
conferences, and ‘schools in th e community’ - are
particularly promising ways to foster two-way
communication, emotional understanding,
cohesion between school practices and parent
support roles, and involv ement of community
resources. The potential of technology for
improving reporting, networking, and parent
involvement has yet to b e fully explored, and this
means giving access and resources to all parents.
However, unless real rather than illusory power
is shared with parents, who are willing and able
to accept the responsibilities that go with it, the
notion of parent-teacher partnership will be
‘hollow words’ (Benson, 1999).
Finally, there are significant gaps in the research
on parent involvement. First, the role,
responsibility and expectation s of students
themselves are mentioned in only a few studies.
However, the place of students within
partnerships needs more conceptual definition
and empirical emphasis. Practices such as three-way
conferences point to the value of students’
voices in their own learning ex perience, for their
parents’ participation and parents’ ‘assessment
literacy’. Second, best practices of teachers’
professional development, parent training and
inquiry in the context of the partnership process
needs to be documented more thoroughly in the
Canadian schools, including models where the
parents and teachers learn together (e.g., Paide ia
seminars). Third, we have only scratched the
surface in understanding the micro-dynamics of
power and authority in interactions between
parents and teachers. Particularly, studies are
needed that focus on the social organization of
partnerships in institutional settings - especially
parent involvement in the school, the classroom
and in decision-making roles. The research we
reviewed clearly indicates tensions between
professional and persona l realities when parents
become closely involved in the day-to-day
activities of teachers’ work. These tensions have
to be confronted open ly and honestly, not
ignored.

‘I’m not clever. I listen to her read that’s all I can do’:
parents supporting their children’s learning
Emma Beresford, Sue Botcherby and Olwen McNamara
Introduction
The role of the parent as co-supporter in the
educative process is vital if children are to
achieve their potential. Structures are in place
nationally to make schoo ls more accountable to
the community and to ensure they inform parents
of curriculum matters and, to a lesser degree,
enlist their support in helping their children to
learn; but the gap between practice an d rhetoric is
wide, particularly in the secondary phase. The
Link Project was a collaborative enterprise
between the Manche ster Metropolitan University,
Manchester Inspection and Advisory Service
‘partnership with parents’ and 5 Manchester
schools (3 secondary and 2 primary). It was an
action research and development project which:
identified and evaluated communication
strategies between home and school; discovered
what parents currently knew and believed about
their children’s schooling and how they
supported their learning; developed, implemented
and disseminated curriculum/ training resources
to improve knowledge of the curriculum, access
to resources and understanding of strategies
which help parents sup port their children’s
education. This paper briefly reviews the research
process and reports on the findings and
development work .
Process
The five schools involve d in the project were
chosen, from a cohort of vo lunteers, to cover a
range of socio-economic and ethnic populations.
Two of the schools were RC Voluntary Aided
schools (1 primary, 1 secondary) in a solidly
white, working class, socio-eco nomically
deprived area of the city. The other 3 schools
were in a slightly more mixed so cio-economic
community with betw een 30% and 60 % of pupils
from ethnic minority families. The project as a
whole focused upo n families of children in years
1, 6, 7 and 10; chosen to be at the beginning or
end of the ‘key stages’ of education where school
activity with regard to involving parents in
supporting their children, and parental interest in
doing so, could reasonably be expected to be
important. Interviews were cond ucted with
parents/carers of 65 children, sampled with regard
to variables such as social class, ethnicity, ability
etc. every attempt being made to ensure the
sample was representative of the school
population as a whole. In addition, interviews
were conducted with pupils and school staff,
including Senior Man agement Teams and Year
Heads. The research process included the
distribution of a questionnaire to 500 families
across the five schools. The questionnaire was
designed with a substan tive section common to
all schools and an addition al section specific to
each individual schoo l focusing on their
particular concerns. Over 250 resp onses were
received and although efforts were made to offer
support to parents who might experience
difficulty with written English, we nevertheless
felt, that responses were skewed to higher socio-economic
classes and ethnic minority families
were under represented.
A significant feature of the project was the
establishment of Parental Action Teams (PATs)
of key stakeholders in the educative process:
teachers, parents and governors. The PATs were
involved in the research design, data collection,
mediation of findings, development work and
finally the evaluation of those developments.

PATs met both locally, managing the project at
school level, and centrally in a consultative group
which, in addition to its adviso ry remit with
regard to the research and development processes,
provided an arena for the sharing of good
practice. There was a continuing cycle whereby
the research not only identified existing good
practice but also informed the development work,
which was in turn evaluated .
Findings
(i) Contact
Primary parents contacted schools on a regular
basis: 25% contacted schools once a month and
60% once a term. The ease with which parents
were able to speak to teachers varied g reatly: in
one primary school parents found 23% of
teachers always and 71% usually available; in the
other school 68% of parents found staff always
available. Both primary scho ols had apparently
successfully established relationships with the
parents: overall 40% of parents felt they knew the
classteacher best, 30% the headteacher and 30%
felt they knew both well. On ly 2% of parents in
one school and 7% in the other felt they knew no
one well. The transition from primary to
secondary school was felt to be quite ‘scary’ for
parents and children alike. First impression s were
important: one secondary school reorganised its
introductory meeting into a format based upon
small informal groups and parents felt them to be
‘informative’ and ‘friendly’: ‘we all went it, was
like a family thing’.
Secondary parents reported surprisingly few
contacts with the school 60% only contacted once
a term and 30% never made contact. When they
did contact schools 15% of secondary
respondents found the teachers always available
and 70% found them usually available. Evidence
from the interview data with regard to this matter
was mixed. Whilst some parents felt ‘the school
is responsive they always seem to return your
calls’ over one third of those interviewed said
they had experienced d ifficulty, sometimes
considerable, in contacting schools or individual
teachers: ‘I left many messages and they never
got back’. A couple of parents remarked upon
difficulties encountered when problems arose
after school or in the holidays: ‘I find it
frustrating that by the time the children get home
you can’t contact anybody at the school so you
are left frustrated ‘till the next day’. One parent
suggested a ‘voice mail’ facility would be useful.
How schools dealt with incidents left a lasting
impression on parents: ‘My estimation went right
up. You know there is going to be problems at
school but if you kno w they are going to be dea lt
with professionally and promptly it makes you
feel confident. I was very impressed’.
Questionnaire data regarding the building and
sustaining of relationships in the secondary phase
was mixed. There were sign ificant differences
between schools, perhaps as a result of structural
factors, as to who parents felt they knew best. In
one secondary scho ol 16% of parents claimed to
know the headteacher best whereas in another
none did. Numbers claiming to know the
classteacher well varied from 16% in one school
to 50% in another. Between 20% and 35% of
parents, however, still felt they knew no one well.
The reasons for this lack of conn ection were
undoubtedly co mplex. On one level ma ny parents
had to rid themselves of much ‘emotional
baggage’ and overco me the various ways in
which the school system, and in particular the
secondary school system, inadvertently alienated
them. Ghosts from the historical past featured
large in parent memories: one mother recalled her
own experiences as a child at sch ool in the 60's,
‘I left school unable to read and write, cou ldn’t
wait to get out so I bring these experiences’. For
another it was those of her husband: ‘My husband
is very anti religion - the religion was very pushy
at his school.. being humiliated.. didn’t want the
children to go through th at’. Many parents felt
intimidated by the academic etho s of the school:
‘the whole system and language around the

system is very difficult, they all alienate us’;
‘there were computers everywhere and it was
dead hi-tech and I was thinking AHHH!’ For
some there were cultural barriers: one father felt
his son’s school was a ‘forcing house for the
middle classes … hidden curriculum … preparing
kids for company life’; one mother ‘speaking as a
black working class woman’ felt ‘the PTA can
appear very elitist... particularly at secondary
school’. Some parents felt psych ologically
threatened: ‘you need a lot of con fidence to
contact the school’; ‘enormity... annexes and
classrooms… new ... scary… too big… don’t
know anybody... get lost…those feelings stay
with you throughout the whole school’. Another
mother wanted to assert social boundaries
between home and school: ‘it’s all like the
boundary/demarcation .. bringing your social life
into school’.
(ii) Information - Curriculum
Overall 70 % of parents were satisfied with the
quantity of the general information they received
about the school and their child, 25% felt they
had too little although nobody felt they had too
much. Questionnaire data indicated that, on the
whole, they found the information ‘easy to
understand’, ‘well presented’ and ‘useful’; but
they were a little more unsure that it was ‘sent at
the right times’. Evidence from the interviews
was a little more mixed with regard to the q uality
and clarity of the written materials. Evidence
indicated that overall nearly half the parents
believed they got all of the information sent home
via their child. In the secondary phase the
reliability of the child as ‘postman’ clearly
decreased with age: twice as many year 7 parents
felt they got all the information as year 10
parents, 10% of the latter felt they got ‘very
little’. As one year 10 father complained:
‘sometimes it’s like getting blood out of a stone,
unless you push and push him for the information
you don’t get it’. Overall girls were felt to be
significantly more reliable than boys when it
came to delivering information from school. In
the primary phase the picture was varied, 68% of
parents in one school and 35% in another felt
their children brought home all the information
they were given. A num ber of the parents
interviewed felt strongly that important things
like SATs results and reports should either be
posted home or more effective structures should
be in place to ensure the collection of reply slips.
Parents’ knowledge about the curriculum and
assessment processes was generally fairly vague
across both primary and secondary phases.
Questionnaire evidence indicated that between
37% and 62% of primary and secondary p arents
felt they had about the right amount of
information on both what their child was taught
and the exams they took and between 33% and
60% felt they had too little. It thus appeared that
information dissemination practices and strategies
across schools varied tremend ously in their
quality and effectiveness. As a consequence
overall about 20% o f secondary responden ts felt
they knew ‘a lot’ about what their child was
learning, in the primary phase the variation was
from 10% in one school to 50% in another. 23%
of secondary respondents felt they knew ‘little’ or
‘nothing’. In the primary schools the
corresponding figures w ere 8% and 32% .
Most parents appeared to k now what subjects
their children were studying but were unclear
about the NC levels and grading of the SATs
tests: ‘I think the NC is jargonistic’; ‘I start
reading it and I get bored I don’t un derstand half
of it really’; ‘I heard about the key stages but I
don’t know what they are I don’t know how they
are assessing them, I don’t know anything about
the levels and I would like to know’. A number of
parents expressed a desire to know more: ‘I’d like
it better to understand the NC be cause I think R is
under some pressure from th e work at school.
From that point of view I’d like to understand a
little bit more. I think I’d also like to know how
parents could help children appropriately’. One
mother also acknowled ged the problems: ‘if

somebody said to me would you come on a day
course about the national curriculum I would say
no. So it depends what is being offered really’.
(iii) Progress
Parents on the whole felt slightly better informed
about their child’s progress than about the
curriculum. Questionnaire data indicated that
between 42% and 56% of secondary p arents felt
they knew a lot about how well their child was
doing; between 14 % and 32% felt they k new only
a little or nothing. The picture was similar in the
primary phase where 30% of parents in both
schools felt they knew little about h ow well their
child was doing.
Parental knowledge of their child’s progress was
informed in a number of w ays. In the secondary
phase all schools operated some form of journal
or log book and m ost parents seemed very
positive about its potential as a 3-way mode of
communication; some were very positive: ‘thanks
to the journal I feel I have a personal relationship
with all of D’s teachers’. Evidence from the
interviews suggested that w hilst some parents
‘got the journal every night’ and felt it ‘operated
quite successfully… gives the children a focus’
there was a drift in its use from year 7 to year 10.
A number of parents felt the potential of the
journal was not always realised. O ne parent felt
there was a tendency for teachers to w rite
‘negative comments, they d on’t seem to write
positive things’. Parents were very encouraged by
unsolicited positive comments: one mother,
whose son was in a remedial centre, remembered
that she had given her son ‘a big hug’ when she
got a letter congratulating him on his English
work. Credit systems, wh ere in operation, were
approved of by bo th parents and children, if it
was applied consistently by teachers and across
all subjects.
Parents’ evenings were described as ‘useful’ by
over 75% of secondary respondents, nearly 60%
described them as ‘welcomin g’ and ‘informative’,
but only 30% thought they were ‘well organised’.
One third of parents felt the evenings ‘too
rushed’. The picture was mu ch the same in
primary schools. A small nu mber of parents
remarked upon the variable quality of the
information received from staff at parents’
evenings. One parent recalled a very useful
interview with a teacher who pinpointed that her
son had problems with his concentration and
suggested ‘in a nice professional way’ strategies
to improve his memory. Another parent stressed
the value of receiving detailed and focused
feedback from teachers.
The picture in both primary an d secondary data
with regard to written reports was equally mixed.
Nearly 90% of respondents felt the language used
was easy to understand; although again evidence
from the interviews was a little more mixed in
this respect. Only 70% of secondary (and 80% of
primary) parents felt that the marks and grades
were equally transparent; leaving 30% unsure, or
decidedly unclear: ‘a bit mind-boggling’ as one
mother put it. Lack of understanding ran deep:
there was still confusion about how to interpret
marks, ‘40% is that good?’; about the assessment
system, ‘it went from 3.6 to 6.2 he w as very
pleased but to be honest I hadn’t a clue’; and even
about percentages, ‘38% out of what? It might be
out of 40%’. Some appeared quite alienated by
the whole business ‘wh en you open these rep orts
it’s like getting the gas or electric bill with all
these symbols and thin gs’. 20% of respond ents
felt reports did not give enough detail and 30%
were unsure that they gave a clear pictu re of their
child. Nearly half of the responden ts were unsure
that reports were sent often enough. This latter
message was reinforced in the interviews: as one
year 7 parent observed ‘November they are not
established. November to June is practically a
whole academic year if there is a problem time
has been wasted’.
Despite feeling reasonably well informed about
their child’s progress there were still however
significant differences in parents’ expectations for

their children that did not correspond to actual
examination results: in the second ary schools
58%, 62% an d 26% of parents exp ected their
children to get degrees; in the primary sch ools
30% and 70%. The most likely explanation for
these marked differences lay in the socio-economic
distribution of the schools’ intakes.
When collated across the sa mple as a whole there
was significant positive correlation between
social class and expectations; 85% of professional
parents, 80% of managerial, 38% of skilled, and
29% of semi-skilled expected their children to get
degrees.
The vast majority of secondary parents, in all
schools did however feel that they could make a
difference: 54% a lot, 36% some, and only 10%
felt they could make little or no difference. The
impact primary parents felt they could have was
significantly greater: 80% in one school and 65%
in another felt they could make a lot of
difference, only 5% felt they could make little or
no difference. Parents also felt they could make
significantly more difference to how well their
daughters did at school than their sons.
(iv) Homework
The amount of homework children did each night
at secondary school varied considerably : 3-17 %
spent 2 hours or more, about 50% overall spent
one hour, 30% half an hour, and, 5%, their
parents claimed, did none. M ost year 7 parents
felt the amount of homewo rk given to their
children was about right but over 40% of year 10
parents felt their children did not get enou gh. In
the primary phase overall 30% spent one hour,
60% spent half an hour, and 20% of children in
one school and 2% in the other did no homework.
When asked to describe the strategies that they
used to help their children most primary and
secondary respondents replied that they ‘show
interest’ and ‘give praise’. In the secondary phase
over 50% of parents ‘check work is done’,
‘explain work’ and ‘sugg est improvements’.
There was strong evidence here again to suggest
that parents in year 10 helped children
considerably less than those in year 7. In the
primary phase virtually all parents claimed to
‘listen to reading’, and 70% ‘test spelling s’,
‘check work is done’ and ‘explain work’. The
amount of help which children received from
family members was significantly age related. In
one primary school 30% of pupils had help each
night and in the other 55% ; by comparison only
6% of secondary ch ildren had help each night. In
year 7 nearly half the children got help once or
twice a week; 40% rarely got help. By year 10
one third of children got help once or twice a
week and over 60% rarely got help.
There were a number of reasons for this apparent
‘fall off’ in parental support and, in particular, it
was not necessarily for lack of willingness on the
part of parents: in year 7 only 4% of parents
claimed their children did not allow th em to help
with homework, by year 10 25% of parents felt
discouraged. In the primary phase, by
comparison, virtually all parents claimed to be
allowed to help their children with h omework. It
also appeared that girls were significantly m ore
receptive to help than boys. Parental expertise, or
rather lack of it, was a second theme which
emerged: ‘we’ve been studying at college but
sometimes even we do n’t know how to d o it’.
Parents felt inadequate particularly in the senior
years at secondary school: ‘in year 7 he brought
homework and we understood what he was
doing’. Maths seemed to be a recurrent problem:
‘I probably struggle a bit with maths because
mine was taught in inches and pounds and these
are in millimeters and grams’. Homework clubs
were posited as one solution: ‘I would love to see
a homework club because then there would be
someone for helping’. In ad dition to the support
provided by parents, grandparents and siblings
were often mobilized to help: ‘if she has any
problems she asks her older sister; my brother
helps if she has any difficult homework’. A
demarcation in terms of subject expertise was
also often apparent: ‘I can’t do maths my husband

can’; ‘if its maths or equations it’s his Dad…
spelling or English I help. Germ an is a no’. A
third theme which emerged from the data to
explain the apparent fall off in parental support
was that of independence: there was a growing
recognition that ‘when children get older you’ve
got to give them a bit of trust let them stand on
their own feet’. Although there did seem to be a
certain amount of covert surveillance going on,
‘she is uncomfortable about us looking in her
books so we tend to do it when she is at school or
in bed’.
Finally lack of information regarding homework
emerged as a significant issue. Between 6% and
36% of secondary parents responding to the
questionnaire claimed never to get enough
information about hom ework and overall only
10% were always satisfied with the information
received. Overall 45% of seco ndary parents
claimed never to get enoug h advice about how to
help their child and over 50% never got enough
information about the resources that may be
available to do so. In the primary phase the
picture was equally dismal: 13% of parents in one
school and 28% in the other claimed never to get
enough information about homework, about how
to help (20% and 38%) or about resources (30%
and 56%). Interview data confirmed this picture:
‘I wish the school would send leaflets it would
help me to help them... kids perceive things
different... there is a communication problem ’.
Also: ‘If they cannot be provided with books
because it’s too expensive... fair enough but you
can say exactly what books we can buy’. The
journal was viewed very positively as a method
of communicating on the issue of homework;
although the need for mo re systematic checks to
be made by all parties involved in its use,
particularly in year 10, was identified.
Developments
Key to the project and of central imp ortance to
the participating schools was that as an action
research project it embraced research and
development. There were some undeniably clear
messages for schools in the research findings.
Interviews and questionn aire data combined to
illuminate the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of
school/parent/child dyna mic as they related to
parents supporting their children’s education.
Additionally, data (not reported here) from the
individual school section in the questionnaire
informed schools abou t issues of specific
importance to them. Parents identified both areas
in which they were very su pportive of their
school’s existing policy and practice and also
ones in which they felt there was room for
improvement. Such data was able to, and did,
inform focused and practical dev elopment work
which, where possible, was evaluated for impact
and effectiveness. The PAT’s, utilizing expertise
in disseminating finding and fostering
developments, were the main engine for change,
in liaison with University and L EA advisers.
The experience of being inv olved in the whole
process with its attendant discussions,
information sharing and clo ser links with parents
acted as a catalyst in the school communities
stimulating awareness, interest and radical sh ifts
in thinking that informed practice and policy.
Two key interventions, which inspired
substantive developments, were the interim and
final research reports presented to individual
schools. The findings repo rted were such that in
all cases there were clear opportunities for
improvement based on sound qualitative and
quantitative information from interviews and
questionnaires. School managers reported how
helpful these were in both stimulating and
directing change.
One of the major findings ind icated that parents
had too little information about the curriculum
and how to help their child. In response, one
school changed the format of its Year 10 Parents’
Evening by engaging the staff practically in
producing curriculum information handouts on
each subject. These were simply designed,
written in parent friendly language and contained

practical advice about helping. The Parents’
Evening became a veh icle for sharing this
information in dialogue with parents. Both staff
and parents enjoyed and valued this new
resource. Later evaluations indicated that the
majority of parents had used it sub sequently.
Another school employed a similar model for
year 7 students to establish early and vital
curriculum links with parents. This initiative was
extremely successful with an ensuing school
commitment to provide something similar for
every year group.
The need for early contact with parents and how
this is managed emerged in the findings of the
project. One school radically changed its Year 7
induction procedure. Paren ts were invited in
small, manageable groups to meet with key
personnel, to sign hom e school agreements and to
share information and ideas. These meetings took
place over several evenings, utilizing outreach
staff for parents with English as a Second
Language, hard to reach parents, etc. The
feedback was extremely positive from everyone
involved with the quality of interaction/dialogue
commented upon as really valuable within the
context of a large school.
Another major finding indicated that a substantial
number of parents felt they had little information
about how to help with homework. An innovative
6 week interactive homework project entitled
PATCH (Parents And Th eir Children’s
Homework) emerged within the Advisory Service
involving one of the project schools and six other
High Schools. The project is a six week project
related to the English curriculum and is designed
to inform and engage pa rents in the homework
process. Parents, children and teach ers were
uniformly enthusiastic and positive about the
potential of the project. Other outcomes emerged
which were not planned for, for example, greater
closeness and understan ding between the child
and parent. One parent remarked, ‘I didn’t know
my child was so interesting.’ Teachers widely
reported delight at the outcomes of the project
and a shift in their thinking toward s parents, ‘I
didn’t realize they could make su ch a difference.’
The primary schools also trialled homework
projects involving parents. At one school a 6
week project - HELP (Helpers Encourage
Literacy Progress)- which began with a parents
meeting and involved parents in working on fun
spelling activities with their year 1 children
resulted in some remarkable improvements in the
childrens’ spellings. The other primary school
trialled another new authority led project - HIP (
Homework Invo lving Parents) - with year 5
children and parents on the topic - the Ancient
Egyptians - and were again very impressed by the
involvement of parents.
Schools engaged in several other developments,
either fine tuning and improving existing systems
or introducing new on es where gaps were
perceived. One school majorly improved the
student log book/planner and is introducing
interim reports of progress to parents. Another
produced special year booklets at the beginning
of each year giving basic information requested
by parents. One school organised a monthly drop-in
for parents to share ideas and gain the parental
perspective. Primary schools also improved their
half-termly curriculum information to parents.
The project and research findings have informed
developments at a number of levels. At the school
level the project schools are all responding to the
clear finding that parents at secondary and
primary level are concerned abou t their child’s
progress and want to help and that schools
needed to employ a variety of strategies in order
to facilitate this happening. This work is ongoing
and growing with sch ools continuing with
developments after the project has finished. The
research findings also have implications for wider
educational practice and policy.
At the local level the project and evaluations have
informed and in some cases inspired the
development of resources such as HIP, HELP and
PATCH which are being published. The findings
have impacted on In-Service Training with school

staff. Other Advisers and Inspectors have also
been given key information to help improve
practice which could lead to further development
work such as on reporting to parents.
At the national level, the research findings were
disseminated nationally via a very successful and
well attended National Con ference hosted in
Manchester. The general key findings across the
schools have been p roduced in series of visually
attractive, easy to read and use papers for
practitioners. The National Home/School
Development Grou p has been kept in touch with
the project findings and further papers based on
the research will be published in journals.
This research project has made an immediate and
lasting impact on the schools involved and has
provided rich data to supp ort the needs of parents
and schools. Through dissemination, the findings,
case studies and resources from the project are
impacting more widely. This process will
continue in order to support good working
practice between parents, children and schools.
As one parent said - ‘I didn’t know what to do
before - I was worried I’d get it wrong and
confuse him(her son) so I didn’t get involved
.............now ( after this homework project) I
know what to do and I really feel I can help. I’ve
seen the difference it’s made to him.’

Who gets involved and who doesn’t?
Stelios Georgiou
In an article with the revealing title ‘Why some
parents don’t come to scho ol’ Finders and Lewis
(1994) point out that practical, cultural and
psychological reasons may keep certain types of
parents away from the schools. These include
obligations to other children at ho me, difficulty in
getting time off from work, and feelings of
discomfort in the school’s premises because of
their own negative experience with schooling.
Generally, the connection of low or no
involvement to the family’s so cio-economic
status (ses) is very common in the literature.
Several authors (Davies, 1987; Lareau, 1987;
Ogbu, 1974) ma intain that schools are more
welcoming, more accessib le and therefore more
beneficial for middle and high ses parents rather
than for low ses ones. Thu s, the existing reality is
that demographics are of crucial importance when
one tries to answer the question that appears on
the title of this paper. More recent research
(Grolnick et al., 1997) goes beyond these
demographics and includes functional
characteristics of family as factors contributing to
low involvement. Su ch characteristics are
parental efficacy, existence of stress at home and
availability of social support resources.
Parental involvement has b ecome a central topic
among educational research ers in recent years.
Therefore, more information about parameters of
involvement is needed so that interventions for
the creation of parent-teacher partnerships can be
better designed and implemented. The purpose of
the study described here was to examine the
effect of one such parameter. More specifically, it
aimed at examining the relationship that may
exist between parental attributions and the
involvement of parents in the ir children’s
educational process.
Attributions and behavior
The attribution theory is often traced back to
Heider (1944) who claimed that people are not
content simply to observe events around them,
but strive to understand their causes. He also
proposed that actions are usu ally attributed to
stable and enduring factors, such as the actor’s
personality characteristics, rather than transitory
or variable factors such as moods . Ever since its
introduction, the attribution theory has been
widely used as an explanatory tool in several
areas including psychology, education and
political science (Graham & Folkes, 1990). In the
1980 s the attribution theory framework was
called ‘the most prominent and active area of
social psychology’ (Pep itone, 1981, p. 979).
Graham (1991) verifies that its influence
continues unabated, pointing out that ‘no other
motivational conception has achieved this degree
of visibility’ (p. 5).
In educational settings, this theory is usually used
in reference to attributions of child achievement
either by parents, teachers or students themselves.
There is adequate evidence suggesting that these
attributions influence directly or indirectly the
attitudes, feelings and future behavio r of all
actors involved. Particular variables that were
shown to be influenced by attributions are the
following: expectancy o f success, child self-confidence,
parent involvement and actual school
performance. Weiner (1985) has proposed a
three-dimensional taxonomy of attributions,
according to which attributions can be classified

on the basis of three criteria: (a) locus (internal or
external), (b) stability (stable or unstable causes)
and (c) controllability (controllable or
uncon trollable causes) . The chi ldren's
achievement tends to be attributed either to
internal factors (talents and biologically
determined dispositions) or external (i.e.
influence of parents, teachers, siblings, luck etc).
Effort and ability are two major internal sources
of attribution; the first is controllable but
unstable, while the second is stable but
uncontrollable.
The attributions that parents make ab out their
child s achievement can influence their behaviour
towards the child. As Stevenson and Lee (1990)
comment, ‘when paren ts believe that success in
school depends on ability in contrast to effort,
they are less likely to foster participation in
activities related to academic achievement that
would elicit strong effort toward learning on the
part of their children’ (p. 66). Furthermore,
attributional processes may play a major role in
observed SES differences in children’s
achievement. Relative to children from higher-income
families, children from lower-income
homes tend to believe that they have little control
over their environment and therefore are more
likely to attribute their success to external factors
such as luck and ease of the task rather than to
their own effort or ability (O’ Sullivan & Howe,
1996).
Attributions and parental involvement
The study that is presented here (Georgiou, 1999)
was conducted in Cyprus among 473 parents,
most of which (73% ) were mothers. Its basic aim
was to examine the existing relationship between
parental attributions, parental involvement and
child school achievement. It was hypothesised
that parental attributions influence child
achievement indirectly by altering the degree of
parental involvement. That is, parental
involvement activities are behavioural
manifestations of the pre-existing parental
attributions of child achievement and that they
have effects on child achievement. In other
words, certain types of attributions that p arents
make about their children’s achievement can
explain why these parents exhibit specific types
of involvement in children’s educational process.
This behaviour, in turn, may influences actual
child achievement.
It was found that some types of parental
involvement are indeed sig nificantly related to
parental attributions. Attributing the child’s
achievement to ‘significant others’ was related to
the parents controlling behaviour and the interest
developing behav ior. The helping with hom ework
type of involvement was not related to any
attribution factor, but it was related, although
negatively, to the child’s actual achievement.
Furthermore, attributing the child’s achievement
to its own effort was related positively to the
interest developing parental behaviour and
negatively to the anxious pressure for better
results.
The more parents attributed their child’s
achievement to its own effort, the better this
achievement was. No such relation was found
between achievement and other parental
attributions. As for the relation between parental
involvement and child achievement, it was found
that certain parental behaviors are positively
related to achievement, some are neg atively
related to it and some are not related at all.
Developing the child’s interests was the only one
belonging to the first category. Pressing the child
and helping with homework belong to the second
category, whilst controlling non-academ ic life
belongs to the third. These findings are in line
with earlier research (Georgiou, 1997). It is,
perhaps, noteworthy that significant correlations
were found between helping with homework and
controlling on the one hand and between helping
and pressing on the other.

Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement

Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement

Similar to Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement (20)

More from Frederik Smit

More from Frederik Smit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Building Bridges Between Home and School: Research on Parental Involvement