Smit, F., & Driessen, G. (2005). Parent and community involvement in education from an international comparative perspective. Challenges for changing societies. Invited paper international conference Children At-Risk in Education, (CARE), ‘Children at Risk. Advancing their Educational Frontiers’. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2-4, 2005.

1. 1
Parent and community involvement in education from an international
comparative perspective. Challenges in changing
societies
Frederik Smit en Geert Driessen
ITS - Institute for Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
www.frederiksmit.com www.geertdriessen.nl
Abstract
This paper focuses on the pedagogical responsibilities of parents and schools, as well as the care
provided by socializing agencies and in pedagogical contexts such as local communities. The key
question is whether education should be limited to the transfer of knowledge and skills or more
specific attention should be paid to the pedagogical function of education. A review of the literature
was carried out on the tasks of schools and parents and the relations between education, parenting and
care in a changing society. The countries that were given particular attention were: The Netherlands,
Belgium, Germany, England, France, Sweden and the United States. In addition, an email survey
among international experts in Europe and the United States through ERNAPE and INET was
conducted. This paper presents the results of both studies.
1. Introduction
The debate on the primary tasks of schools and parents is held in many countries. The key
question is whether education should be limited to the transfer of knowledge and skills or
more specific attention should be paid to the pedagogical function of education. Another
question is what practical consequences such a pedagogical focus may have. This contribution
on school-parent relations does not only look at school-internal factors, but also at the pre-
school, early-school, and out-of-school situations, and at the school-family relation in a
changing society. More specifically, this issue involves the pedagogical responsibilities of
parents and schools, as well as the care provided by socializing agencies and in pedagogical
contexts such as local communities. The practical aspects include, for example, the
organisation of education and provisions to schools, the concretisation of joint
responsibilities, the reinforcement of parental participation, and the conditions that need to be
met before school and family may be considered pedagogical partners.
In 2004, the Dutch Education Council, the primary advisory body to the Dutch government,
requested the Institute for Applied Social Sciences (ITS) of the Radboud University Nijmegen to
conduct further international comparative research on this matter. Having taken the above into
account, the following research questions were formulated:
ƒ What is the primary task of schools and what is the primary task of parents?
ƒ How do parenting, care and education relate to each other in a changing society?
ƒ Is a different organisation of education required and do schools need to be more adequately
provided for care and pedagogical tasks?
In order to answer these research questions, two sub-studies were carried out in early 2004.
The first one was a review of the literature on the tasks of schools and parents and the relations
between education, parenting and care in a changing society. The countries that were given particular
attention were: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, England, France, Sweden and the United States.
The second sub-study included an email survey among 125 international experts in Europe through

2. 2
ERNAPE (European Research Network About Parents in Education) and 100 INET (International
Network of Scholars) - a network of mainly American researchers and policy officers. The survey’s
primary goal was to get a detailed picture of the debates on the relations between education, parenting
and care in a number of countries. Secondly, we wanted to sketch a picture of an alternative
organisation of education that is deemed necessary and more adequate provisions to schools for care
and pedagogical tasks. The key questions in the survey were: ‘What are, at present, the main topics in
your country regarding child care and school-parent-community relations? Are there any bottlenecks
and pitfalls in these relations? What are the solutions to these problems?’ A concise questionnaire with
open answer categories was used. The responses consisted of answers to the questions posed, often
complemented by relevant documentation and website references.
In the sections below, the questions of this study will be answered from an international
perspective. This contribution has been structured as follows. First of all, we provide an overview of
the primary tasks of parents and schools. Next, we deal with the collaboration between these two
parties in changing times, and then describe the barriers they encounter. Subsequently, we assess
various developments and review the apparent effects. We then sketch a picture of an alternative
organisation of education and more adequate provisions to schools for care and pedagogical tasks. The
final section contains a summary and a number of conclusions.
2. The primary tasks of parents and schools
In all West European countries and the United States, the prime responsibility for providing for
children and their education rests with the parents. Governments do not interfere with the content of
this education. The primacy of parents with regard to the upbringing and their choice of suitable
education for their children has been laid down in international treaties such as the European
Declaration of Human Rights. It is assumed that parents will prepare their children for school, guide
and teach them, and create a pedagogical climate that is conducive to the children’s learning and good
behaviour at school (Epstein & Sanders, 2000).
School is the gateway to future labour and social participation. Education prepares students for
their future in terms of career, private life and participation in society. In nearly all countries, the view
that preparation for labour is a primary task of schools, particularly where knowledge and skills
(‘qualifications’) are concerned, has never been really contested. The preparation for social
functioning has always been considered a primary task in education too, but this has not always been
given the same amount of attention and has not always been realized in the same way through the
years. The preparations for work, private life and society can be differentiated analytically, but cannot
be distinguished as separate domains in the actual educational setting.
What usually is given priority in West European countries and the United States is the
qualifying function of education: preparing students for the labour market through the transfer of
knowledge and the reward of diplomas. In response to this, the past few years have seen a renewed
attention to moral standards and values and to school as a professional and living community.
Particularly in the United States and England, values education does not only focus on knowledge and
skills, but also on the development of views and attitudes. Involvement is a key notion here. In
addition to the acquisition of skills, students should also develop the willingness to use their skills for
the benefit of society. The intensive combination of in-school and out-of-school learning helps foster
such social involvement. It is usually expected from schools that they also contribute to the
functioning of pre-school, early-school and out-of-school facilities in collaboration with the local
government.
In the United States, there is a powerful, slightly nationalistic movement to use education to
produce ‘Americans’. Education is more than just training students for the labour market, it also
encompasses a pedagogical task. The American educational philosopher Dewey (1938) laid the
foundation for democratic education: school should contribute to the education of democratic citizens.
‘Civics’ is therefore a compulsory subject at practically all schools. Although there is strict selection in
the American education system, non-formal education is a major aim. Every individual must have the
opportunity to develop themselves. American schools are therefore saturated with pedagogical tasks:

3. 3
producing American citizens who can shape their own lives independently and are able to participate
actively in society (‘Democratic Education’).
Schools in Western Europe are usually institutions that primarily transfer knowledge. National
tests and examinations force schools to focus on knowledge transfer. In nearly all the countries, the
achievement-oriented approach has been reinforced and many educational reforms have been
implemented over the past twenty years, somewhat to the detriment of the socializing role of schools.
As a result of the constant pressure from authorities to reform, many schools are now suffering from
innovation fatigue. Currently, the emphasis is on ‘practitioners’ knowledge’.
A major aspect of the harmonisation of school activities and parent activities is how teachers,
parents and pupils perceive the ‘pedagogical’ task of the teacher and the ‘educational’ task of the
parents. As already mentioned, in the Netherlands and the other countries studied, the prime
responsibility for the education of children rests with the parents. The division of tasks is usually clear.
Schools educate, parents care. Intellectual development is regarded to be one of the primary tasks of
schools. Whereas parents usually consider behavioural problems to be the school’s responsibility,
teachers think this is the parents’ responsibility.
Over the past two decades, in nearly all the countries studied, legal measures have been taken
with a view to strengthening the position of parents.
3. Collaboration between schools and parents in changing times
How do education, parenting and child care relate to each other in a changing society? Over the past
few years, most of the countries under review have developed initiatives to integrate the supply of
education and care more adequately and to provide initial impetus to new types of collaboration
between schools, care facilities, parents and local communities.
3.1 The supply of education and care
France excepted, there is no country that has a balanced supply of education and care as integral part
of the primary education system. Over the past two decades, however, the interest in pedagogical and
educational activities of pre-school, early-school, and out-of-school facilities has grown considerably.
This development is not only visible in the Netherlands, but also in, for example, the United States and
England (European Commission 2002).
This attention has to do with a number of developments. First of all, the increased labour
participation of women and changing family structures have created a greater demand for day care
centres, pre-school playgroups, and out-of-school facilities. Furthermore, such activities are
increasingly regarded as means to better prepare children and parents in socio-economic
disadvantaged situations for formal schooling in the education system and make them become more
involved. The aim here is prevention of cognitive and socio-psychological developmental delays
(Driessen, 2004).
Pre-school, early-school and out-of-school services cover a wide range of facilities and
activities, each category having its own target groups, objectives and approach. Much of what is being
used in the Netherlands and Germany originates from the United States, particularly where
compensatory and special support activities are concerned (OECD, 2001).
In 2003, more than half of the Dutch municipalities were working on the development of a
community school. The community school programme consists of the components of education, care,
sports and culture. The emphasis is on activities for four- to twelve-year-olds, particularly geared
towards staying over and after- and out-of-school care. The aim is to overcome the antithesis between
the ‘cognitive’ school and ‘non-cognitive’ out-of-school learning (MacBeath, 2003). Apparently, the
broad-based combined school or community school mainly seeks to create a broader base for child
education. In addition, schools may develop services for parents, such as pedagogical support and
language courses.

4. 4
3.2 Educational partnership
Various terms are used to describe this type of collaboration between parents and schools, for
example, ‘parental involvement’, ‘parent participation’, ‘school-family relations’ and ‘educational
partnership’. Internationally, the term ‘partnership’ is increasingly used as a useful concept to
substantiate the meaningful cooperative relations between schools, care providers, parents and the
local community (Ravn, 2003). Partnership may then be construed as a process in which those
involved intend to support each other and in which they try harmonize their contributions as much as
possible with a view to improving students’ learning, motivation and development.
According to those ERNAPE and INET respondents, parents and school as educational
partners should lead to two-way communication. On the one hand, this partnership will involve
parents more in what is happening at school; while, on the other, the school will reinforce the parents’
skills in a more family-oriented way. It should be a process in which the partners aim to reinforce and
support each other’s skills do that the results will make a difference for the pupils. Various activities
are mentioned that may help shape this process: providing home support to parents, supporting
learning activities in class (e.g., reading aloud by mothers), parents’ evenings, parents lending a
helping hand at school (e.g., during celebrations), formal parent participation in school boards and
participation councils and integral services to the local community, all shared under the umbrella of
partnership.
In most European countries, schools provide information on school activities and the pupils’
progress. Parents are usually fairly well informed, but would like to be informed more through the
internet (Martínez-González, 2003). The survey shows that experts complain that schools tend to just
‘drop’ information and not really communicate about topics that interest parents, that the provision of
information is aimed too much at the average parent and that very little attention is paid to groups of
immigrant parents and parents with problem children.
Internationally, parental involvement is much larger in primary education than in secondary
education. Parents in primary education in particular consider themselves co-experts and therefore
equal to teachers (Nuutinen, 2001). Approximately half of the parents (mothers in particular) who
have children attending primary school in the Netherlands perform activities that may be labelled as
some form of informal service, whereas only 7% of the parents perform such activities in secondary
education. It is striking that almost one-tenth of the parents in the Netherlands never visits school,
whereas one-third of the parents in the US never responds to the request to come talk with the teacher.
The other countries score somewhere in between.
4. Barriers in school-parent collaboration
There are a number of barriers in practice that impede a successful and lasting collaboration between
parents and schools. One major bottleneck is the way in which teachers perceive their role of teacher.
The communication between teacher and parents becomes difficult when the teacher see themselves as
‘expert’ (Lasky, 2001). Differences of opinion between parents and teachers regarding the teachers’
professionalism may thus render the collaboration more difficult (Crozier, 2000; David, 2003; Van der
Wolf, 2003).
In France and Germany, there is not such a prominent ‘partnership’ culture as in the other
countries under review. Teachers prefer to keep a ‘professional’ distance between themselves and
parents. The fact that they depend on parents as ‘suppliers’ of pupils is experienced as problematic by
the teachers in these countries. Teachers and parents sometimes join hands, but only as long as the
teachers benefit from this collaboration. In many countries, however, there is a trend in which schools
initiate projects to increase parental involvement and schools and parents do increasingly act as
partners (Montandon, 1997).
According to ERNAPE and INET respondents cultural differences between family and school,
lack of cooperation and conflict relations are potential risk factors for parental involvement in care and
educational activities. The views that teachers with a strong bias towards higher socio-economic
milieus have with regard to the desired parental support (the parent as ‘supporter’) and education may
disturb the communication and collaboration with parents. For example, teachers and schools tend to

5. 5
think that families that do not meet this middle-class-family standard are less able to raise their
children properly. These parents are therefore not always taken seriously and are also considered
troublesome if they do not display the pedagogical behaviour that teachers and schools deem
important for children (‘parent as a problem’).
In short, in actual practice, the idea of partnership, in which there is a relation based on mutual
respect, trust and shared interests, still seems to be an unattainable ideal. The above-mentioned aspects
are described comparatively in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1: Differences in a number of countries as regards the relations between parents, school and community
Netherlands Belgium Germany England France Sweden US
Task
school
Focus on
knowledge
transfer: not
much attention
to social skills,
standards and
values.
Knowledge-
oriented,
disciplining.
Knowledge
transfer and a
tradition of
attention to
Bildung.
Knowledge
transfer.
Knowledge
transfer.
Core subjects
much attention
to social skills.
Individual
design of
innovations.
In addition to
knowledge
transfer, school
has pedagogical
tasks, ‘civics’ is
an examination
subject.
Task
parents
Parenting
and educational
support as
partners of the
teacher.
Influence
through various
bodies (board,
participation
council,
parents’
council).
Parenting.
Responsible
choice of
school.
Limited
participation.
Parenting.
Increasingly
acting as
partners of
school.
Participation
through class
and school
councils.
Parenting and
responsible
choice of school
as consumers.
Co-determining
school policy
through school
board.
Parenting.
Parents and
schools in
separate
domains.
Participation
through class
and school
councils.
Partnership
between parents
and school.
Co-determining
school policy
through school
board.
Schools expect
parental support
in the sense that
parents should
contribute at
home to the
school’s
success.
Influence
through school
board and
‘charter
schools’.
Task
community
In most large
cities: projects
aimed at
community
schools.
Limited. Limited. Only
Ganztag-
schulen.
Limited,
project-based.
None. Schools as
community
centre and day
care centre.
Tradition of
schools as
‘communities’
for day care and
education.
Education,
upbringing
and care
Pre- and after-
school care
facilities are
emerging
practically
everywhere.
Ample supply
of pre-school
care.
Ample supply
of care.
Ample supply
of pre-school
care.
Ample supply
of pre-school
care.
Fair amount of
pre- and after-
school care.
Much pre-
school care
available.
Actual
provisions
None. None. None. None. None. Schools draw
up their own
policy.
Professional
standards.
Desired
provisions
Better
harmonisation
of parents’ and
schools’ wishes
and interests.
Competence
profiles of
teachers.
More parent
participation.
Open
communication
between parents
and school.
Better
harmonisation
of parents’ and
schools’ mutual
expectations.
Competence
profiles of
teachers.
More
cooperation
between parents
and schools.
Better
harmonisation
of parents’ and
schools’ wishes
and interests.
Financial
support of
projects.
5. Developments in school-parent relations
Over the last few years, in most countries, the relations between education, care and parenting have
changed, introducing greater independence of schools and further professionalisation of the teaching
profession and the quality policies schools. On the basis of our review of the literature and survey, the
following developments have been identified (Goldring & Sullivan, 1996, Smit, Van der Wolf &
Sleegers, 2001:
• A development towards a wider parental choice of schools. Following the United States and
England, the government policies in most European countries approach parents as consumers.

6. 6
What we see here is in fact the introduction and implementation of the economic market
mechanism in education. Parents are seen as customers, who are very well able to decide for
themselves to which school they send their children. This also implies the introduction of a
superficial bond between consumer and producer.
• There is a trend towards schools and parents to lay down their mutual expectations in a ‘home
school contract’ upon enrolment, which they then amend from time to time, depending on the
progress that the pupil in question is making. Over the past twenty years, in the United States and
nearly all European countries, education acts have been revised to include sections on school-
parent relations.
• Parents are increasingly seen as customers or clients who may place demands on the products of
schools, as is common in the United States and England. In many countries they have the means to
call schools to account through a complaints procedure or disputes committee, if necessary.
• It has become more desirable to involve parents and communities more actively in the governance,
management and policies of schools and to render account to them. In most countries, efficiency,
transparency and accountability are key words in the political arena. In the United States (Davies,
2003; Putman, 2000), but also in Europe (European Commission, 2002), ample attention is given
to the role of social cohesion in the continuation of a society and the role of citizens in local
communities.
Given the developments identified, the question is to what extent promoting parental
involvement is effective. In the following section we will discuss this question in more detail.
6. Effects
What are the effects of the initiatives to better harmonize education and care, and to optimize the
collaboration between schools, care providers, parents and local communities?
The parent-child programmes used in pre-, early- and out-of-school facilities prove to have
positive effects on the participating parents, but we found hardly any effects on the socio-emotional
and cognitive development of children (Driessen, 2004).
The Community School’s functioning generally does not lead to a change in the teachers’ task
expenditure or to an increased task load. It is unknown what the effects of cooperation between the
Community School and parents are when it comes to achieving the school’s objectives.
Offering parents the opportunity to participate in their children’s education seems to have a
positive effect on the pupils’ cognitive development and performance (Epstein & Sanders, 2000).
Parent participation is therefore also considered one of the principal components or characteristics of
effective schools.
Besides effecting children’s school performance, various studies found parent involvement to
have positive effects on pupils’ social functioning. This concerns aspects such as pupil behaviour,
motivation, social competences, teacher-pupil relations and inter-pupil relationships (Jordan, Orozco
& Averett, 2001).
Besides the abovementioned effects at pupil level, studies aimed at improving parent
involvement at schools also revealed that changes affect the parents. Supporting the school at home in
the upbringing can lead to parents having a positive attitude towards school and even to changes in
educational behaviour (Jordan, Orozco & Averett, 2001). Furthermore, positive links have also been
encountered between parent involvement in school and the relationship with the community. For
example, parent involvement also proves to have to do with the functioning of the school organisation
and the local community. Greater parent involvement has a positive influence on the climate at the
school and the school’s orientation towards its immediate surroundings (increased openness).
The findings of research into the functioning of cooperation projects in the United States and
European countries reveal that harmonisation between parents, school and the community has led to
results over the past few years. Furthermore, the findings of qualitative research have made it clear
that experiments with parent participation can vary: they can concern the stimulation of an open
relationship between parents and the school, active parent and community participation in the school’s
administration and policy and strong partnerships between the school and the local community

7. 7
(Davies, 2003; Epstein & Sanders, 2000). In spite of the progress achieved and the various parent
participation project experiences, pedagogic harmonisation between school, family and community is
far from optimum at the average school. An attendant factor is that communication between parents,
staff and the community concerning the harmonisation of upbringing and education is problematic and
that each party’s responsibilities are not clearly defined.
These results are in line with those of an international comparative study in which the position
of parents towards school in European countries proves to be relatively weak and requires
reinforcement in order to be able to view those involved as equal partners in education (OECD, 1997).
Although collaboration between schools and parents can contribute to the improvement of
children’s cognitive and social functioning, parents and schools tend to often have a one-sided
relationship. Internationally the position of parents vis-à-vis school proves to be relative and requires
reinforcement in order to be able to view those involved as equal partners in education. This
particularly applies to parents from lower socio-economic milieus and ethnic minorities. For this group
of parents, whose children often perform worse and who could benefit from good cooperation, the
chasm between school and family proves to be wide. The proponents of partnership recognise the
danger that the gap between school and family might continue to exist and are justifiably concerned. It
is for that reason that they lobby for partnership for all parents, schools and local communities. A
number of measures have been proposed in order to realize this, of which we will mention a few to
conclude with.
7. A different organisation and improved equipping of education towards
upbringing and care
First of all it seems to be of crucial importance to support parents in the shaping and improving of
their upbringing practices. As indicated above there are important differences in upbringing style and
home environment which influence the development and learning process of children. Based on the
positive effect of the school-supporting upbringing environment on children’s development, Levin &
Belfield (2002) propose the conclusion of a social contract between parents and schools. The
underlying idea being that the parents and school oblige one another to actually change the family and
school practices by executing the agreements contained in the contract. They thereby distinguish three,
mutually reinforcing strategies which can be implemented, namely: the provision of information (good
practices), family assistance (home help, skill training, etc.) and external support (work, healthcare,
pre-school education, tutoring, etc.). Entering into such a (moral) contractual partnership between the
parents and the school is more formal for both parties and is primarily focused on integrally supporting
parents in the shaping of a more school-like environment within the family.
According to ERNAPE and INET respondents successfully engaging in and realizing an
educational partnership pre-supposes that the organisation of schools will change towards an open
system that is flexible and responsive to external developments. This pre-supposes an organisation
which maintains open communication and dialogue between parents, teachers and the board of
directors and in which teachers and parents view each other as partners who – in good mutual
cooperation – shape the school’s objectives and organisation. According to Moore & Lasky (1999)
many schools experience difficulties in the transformation to such an open organisation. In practice
teachers are more inclined to shield themselves from parents, protecting themselves against too great
an influence and parent involvement in their work, thereby often referring to their professionalism and
acquired expertise. If parents become too involved in teachers’ daily work all manner of personal and
professional tensions arise between the two. In order to solve this tension, teachers should have
different strategies for dealing with various parents, be open towards parents from different socio-
cultural backgrounds with whom they should communicate openly and they should develop useful,
positive cooperation relationships with parents (Nuutinen, 2001).
According to ERNAPE and INET respondents schools will also have to pay more attention to
the various wishes and interests parents have. The school will have to actively try to gain more insight
into the interests and wishes of parents which the latter generally do not utter explicitly. Whether or
not these efforts to also activate the quieter (or less involved) parents will succeed greatly depends on

8. 8
the extent to which schools consider these groups of parents serious partners in dialogue. Furthermore,
the extent to which more actively involved parents are willing to shape various forms of parent
involvement together with immigrant and poorly schooled parents will play a role. It is crucial for this
to be based on the recognition of the various interests and wishes. This recognition should constitute
the basis for a consensus-oriented dialogue. This enables an integral, planned approach to parent
involvement at school level to be developed. In such a situation the involvement perspective, whereby
the deployment of parents for all manner of the school’s odd jobs and offering support to parents at
home for the school’s benefit should be central, should be able to develop more in the direction of an
interaction perspective whereby teachers, parents and the school exchange ideas on the development
options of children with one another as equal partners in education and upbringing.
According to the Dutch Council for Social Development, the originally African saying ‘it
takes a village to raise a child’ may take on a new, modern meaning. All those involved in education
and parenting ought to add new content and new meaning to these ‘village’ principles, which include
reciprocity, shared responsibility, trust, social bonding and social control. The underlying idea is that
school is not the only body that can meet the needs of children, irrespective of the community in
which these children live. Parents and schools constitute a significant part of a network surrounding
the pupils. In performing their tasks, schools are not isolated, but are part of communities. Support
from the community or communities is a prerequisite for improving social control at school. The
‘community school’ concept is based on a broad conceptualisation of the mission that schools have in
the community and the position that the community occupies in schools (Putman, 2000). In this
approach, school does not take the central stage. Instead, the community is seen as the centre of
learning and education. This approach has been worked out in the ‘community school’. The aim is to
connect the culture of the community with the culture of the school. In a ‘community school’ the
school facilities are accessible to every member of the community, have school activities been
integrated with community activities, and is the curriculum in line with the general values and needs
of the community. According to ERNAPE and INET respondents in such an approach, the gap
between school and community is largely bridged.
8. Summary and conclusions
Question 1: What is the primary task of schools and what is the primary task of parents?
In all West European countries and the United States, the prime responsibility for providing
for children and their education rests with the parents. School is the preparation for labour and social
participation. A major aspect of the harmonisation of school and family is how teachers, parents and
pupils perceive the ‘pedagogical’ task of the teacher and the ‘educational’ task of the parents. The
preparations for work, private life and society can be differentiated analytically, but cannot be
distinguished as separate domains in the actual educational setting. The domains of knowledge, skills
and attitudes interact and overlap each other. Compared to other countries, education in the
Netherlands is highly differentiated, primarily focused on knowledge transfer and diplomas, and much
less on the transfer of moral standards and common values. Internationally, there is a trend towards the
schools’ educational tasks and the parents’ parental tasks becoming more and more intertwined.
Question 2: How do education, parenting and care relate to each other in a changing society?
As a result of changing social relations (double-income families, immigration), the parents’
parenting tasks and the schools’ educational tasks are overlapping each other more and more.
Consequently, the boundaries between education, parenting and care become diffuse. The traditional
institutional differentiation between education, parenting and care thus comes under pressure,
particularly where pre- and early-school facilities and primary education are concerned. Pre-school,
early-school and out-of-school services cover a wide range of facilities and activities. In the United
States and nearly all European countries, the number of pre-, early- and out-of-school facilities have
increased over the past few years. In contrast to France, the Netherlands has no balanced supply of
education and care as integral part of the primary education system. Therefore there is usually no
harmonisation between these facilities and primary school as regards content, and an unbroken line of

9. 9
development is hardly ever guaranteed. Socio-ethnic groups use these facilities in various ways. There
are no relations between the use of these facilities and the cognitive and non-cognitive competencies
of children. Over the past few years, most of the countries under review have developed initiatives to
integrate the supply of education and care more adequately and to provide initial impetus to new types
of collaboration between schools, care facilities, parents and local communities. Despite positive
experiences with parent participation projects in various countries, the pedagogical harmonisation
between school, family and community at average schools still leaves much to be desired. The
parents’ position vis-à-vis school is relatively weak and needs to be reinforced in order for them to
become equal partners in education. There is some empirical evidence for the significance of parent
participation in relation to children’s learning, but caution is required when drawing general
conclusions about the effects of parent participation on children’s learning and development.
Question 3: Is a different organisation of education required and do schools need to be more
adequately provided for care and pedagogical tasks?
Given the increasing social need for integrating education, care and pedagogical tasks, a
balanced supply of education and care is required. Schools ought to develop an outlook on the
harmonisation of education and pedagogical tasks, as well as strategies to continue and improve the
dialogue between parents, school, care providers and the local community (‘partnership’). Not only is
a different organisation of education desirable, the parties involved (teachers and parents) should also
be better equipped to meet these increasingly higher expectations. The professionalisation of the
contacts between schools, parents, care providers and the local community will need to be evaluated
on an annual basis.
9. References
Crozier, G. (2000). Parents and schools – partners or protagonists? Oakhill, Trentham Books.
David, M. (2003). Minding the gaps between family, home and school: Pushy or pressurised
mummies? In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community
partnership in a world of differences and changes (75-88). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.
Davies, D. (2003). Beyond partnership: the need for independent citizen activism for school reform in
the United States. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community
partnership in a world of differences and changes (51-64) Gdansk, University of Gdansk.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.
Driessen, G. (2004). A large-scale longitudinal study of the utilization and effects of early childhood
education and care in the Netherlands. Early Child Development and Care. 174 (7-8), 667-
689.
Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social
research. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education (285-306). New York,
Kluwer Academic.
European Commission (2002). Key data on education in Europe 2002. Brussel/Luxemburg, ECSC-
EC-EAEC.
Goldring, E. & Sullivan, A. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities
shaping the school environment. In K. Leithwood e.a. (Eds.), International Handbook of
Educational Leadership and Administration (195-222). Dordrecht/New York: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Jordan, C., Orozco, E. & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family & community
connections. Annual Synthesis 2001. Austin, TX, National Center for Family & Community
Connections with Schools/Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Lasky, S. (2001). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher-parent interactions. Teaching and
Teacher Education. 17(4), 403-415.
Levin, H. & Belfield, C. (2002). Families as contractual partners in education. Consulted, December
15, http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/965_OP44.pdf

10. 10
MacBeath, J. (2003). Learning outside school. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School,
family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 227-230).
Gdansk, University of Gdansk.
Martínez-González, R. (2003). New information and communication technologies (ICT) at home and
at school. Parents' and teachers' views. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School,
family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (147-160). Gdansk,
University of Gdansk.
Montandon, C. (1997). Les familles et l’ecole ou panacee?. Genève, Université de Genève.
Moore, S. & Lasky, S. (1999). Parents involvement in education: models, strategies and contexts. In
F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (Eds.), Building bridges between home and
school (13-18). Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Nuutinen, P. (2001). Teachers, power relativism and partnership. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf & P.
Sleegers (Eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents, schools and community
(5-10). Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instiute.
OECD (1997). Parents as partners in schooling. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation.
Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (2001). Starting strong. Early childhood
education and care. Paris, OECD.
Putman, R. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York,
Simon & Schuster.
Ravn, B. (2003). Cultural and political divergences in appoaches to cooperation between home, school
and local society in Europe. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and
community partnership in a world of differences and changes (9-18) Gdansk, University of
Gdansk.
Smit, F., Wolf, K. van der, & P. Sleegers (2001). (Eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration
between parents, schools and community. Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm
Institute.
Wolf, K. van der (2003). Teacher stress, challenging parents and problem students. In S. Castelli, M.
Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences
and changes (135-146). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.