Vibrant Schools Project - The Learning Tree

What role can families take in supporting their
children as lifelong learners?
It would seem incredible in today’s UK primary schools not to think that
families can play a significant role in supporting their children as lifelong
learners. Indeed it is declared through Government initiatives such as Every
Child Matters, Department for Children, Schools and Families (2004) and
more recently Every Parent Matters Department for Children, Schools and
Families (2007) that parental support is whole heartedly embraced. It is
widely recognised that for pupils to realise their full potential they need the
support of parents and carers. (Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000). We have
come a long way from the 1960’s when McGeeney (1969) describes how ‘No
parents beyond this line’ (cited in Green, 1970:11) could be seen painted on
primary school playgrounds.
In addition, at the beginning of the 21st
Century education is being given the
job of producing Lifelong learners. From an economic perspective this is
driven by a desire to remain economically competitive through constant
updating of skills. From a wider social perspective it is recognised that to
meet the challenges of 21st
century young people will need as Claxton
(2006:2) states the ability to be ‘good choosers, skilful problem solvers and
powerful learners.’ Taking into consideration the widely used statistic that
children spend only 15% of their time within formal education (Campaign for
Learning 2008), it would seem that parental involvement is the untapped
resource that is essential in equipping children with the skills of lifelong
learning.
And yet, despite current thinking on lifelong learning, the legislation,
Excellence in Schools (1997) and the many initiatives cascading from the
standards and inclusion agenda established by this legislation, challenges
remain relating to the widening of parental involvement and the measuring of
the impact of parental involvement on raising standards.
1

Historically, in western culture we have isolated learning to within the
education system and seen it as something done to children, confined by a
specific location and time and delivered by professional teachers (Bateson
2000). Although this is only a relatively recent phenomena since the
Education Act of the 19th
Century, it is now so embedded in our culture that
despite much rhetoric to the contrary relating to lifelong learning and the
importance of ‘…parents as the single most
important factor in shaping their
children’s well-being, achievements
and prospects’ (Johnson 2007:1), it can be
argued that confidence has been lost in the fact that families are
‘the foundation of learning’ (Alexander 1997) (cited in Wolfendale, 2000:15)
and that learning is not only confined to the education system.
It can also be argued that the institutionalising of learning through the
education system has contributed to the lack of confidence in and by parents
and carers to be teachers of their children. Is it little wonder that as soon as
children start in a reception class parental responsibility relating to preparing
the child to be ready, willing and able to learn (Claxton, 2002) is handed over
to the “professional teacher”.
To summarise, to meet the need for widening parental involvement and
therefore enable families to support their children as lifelong learners, learning
needs to be freed from the constrains of the education system and the
barriers perceived by children, families and schools need to be broken down
through an understanding of what lifelong learning is and how each can play a
role in developing the other as a lifelong learner.
Turning from widening participation to the second challenge identified;
measuring the impact of parental involvement on raising standards.
2

In order for the impact of parental involvement to be taken seriously and
embedded in a schools strategic planning Bastiani (2000) suggests that the
criteria by which it is measured has to be related to the current criteria of the
day, namely school improvement targets and SATS results. However to
impose on families a quantifiable target that is set annually would be even
more complex than it is to set for a school with its well defined structures,
procedures and policies.
Therefore Bastiani (2000) proposes three models summarised in the table
below which are characteristic of approaches used to analyse pupil
achievement and school effectiveness and can be used in relation to the
impact parental involvement has upon these two factors.
Model Examples
1 Standards and Effectiveness Ofsted Criteria
Key features of home- school work
that are associated with effective
schools e.g. good use of homework
planners/diaries by pupils.
2 Planned Development Compilation of inspections and a
consultation process across a region
to develop a framework for schools to
use as an auditing, self evaluation
and development planning tool.
3’What works?’ ‘Stakeholder approach’
A qualitative approach taking into
account the views and judgements of
parents, pupils and teachers
3

As an Educationalist who has not been trained formally as a teacher within
the primary education system, my professional values have developed from
outside of the education system. Interest in my own learning journey from that
of fragile teenager to resilient lifelong learner and gaining an understanding,
through the writings of Vygotsky (cited in Das Gupta P. and Richardson
K.1995), Abbott (1999) and Claxton (2001) of the immense capacity children
have to learn and the influence of the role model has all contributed to my
understanding of what role families can take in supporting children as lifelong
learners. In addition my experience of personnel development within the
workplace and specifically within the engineering industry has influenced my
understanding of the importance of lifelong learning.
Consequently The Learning Tree, an independent project has evolved over
seven years experience working with the parents, children and teachers
of several primary schools in Wiltshire. Its uniqueness comes from the
fact that its roots do not lie within the education system but instead comes
from:
• a personal desire and passion to learn by the people who work within
the project.
• a duty of responsibility and a feeling of privilege to be a parent.
• an enthusiasm to share an appreciation of science and technology with
everyone.
Unlike many other family learning programmes it does not focus upon literacy
and numeracy. Instead, it works with families to enable them to identify the
skills and experience they have already within their family group such as team
work, problem solving and creativity. Secondly, it enables families to
appreciate that these are the skills of a life long learner and that are essential
to meet the challenges of the 21st
century.
4

Another striking difference between The Learning Tree and that of other
family learning programmes is that it focuses on developing a dynamic
relationship between that of home and school and it recognises as Peter
Hannon (1993) (cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), states that home
and school offer very different, but complimentary learning environments.
Through the development of a relationship rather than an initiative such as a
home-school agreement, where the requirements of the curriculum are so
often imposed upon the home, the needs of the family are taken into account
and many of the barriers such as timing, place, and delivery of learning that
make families “hard to reach” are reduced.
The project achieves this through developing a relationship by firstly sharing
with the children a passion for learning. Secondly it supports the children in
presenting this information to the rest of the school and more importantly to
the parents, carers and families of the children, who as a result become
aware of the essential role they are playing in their children’s learning and as
a consequence gain confidence to become involved in their children’s
learning.
This process can be illustrated in diagrammatic terms.
Here it is clearly illustrated that the success of this relationship lies in
reciprocity. As Wolfendale (1992) states reciprocity is a key principle in
parental involvement.
5

‘…Each person involved is contributing and sharing information, expertise
and ultimately the responsibility for actions and decisions. Thus accountability
belongs to all [and] all involved stand to gain from a productive discourse on
behalf of children…’ (Wolfendale, 1992:3)
This case study is a retrospective analysis of The Learning Tree project.
Through firstly an exploration of research related to parental involvement and
6
School
Staff
Parents
and
Carers
Pupils
The
Learning
Tree
School
Council

secondly lifelong learning it will reflect upon the work of The Learning Tree
project to determine how well this approach enables families to support their
children as lifelong learners.
In doing so, the barriers to widening participation and how these can be
broken down will be examined. Secondly approaches to measuring the
impact of parental involvement has on raising standards will be examined.
As a consequence of this analysis and examination the implications for
developing the model as an integrated part of a school’s development plan
will be considered. Because as one parent so succinctly put it recently when
participating in an enquiry walk at a school who has embedded the
programme into their parental involvement strategy.
“School is so different when we were at school, we never did anything like this
and everyone is so approachable, we are doing this in partnership.”
(cited in Woods, 2007:5)
7

Review of Literature.
In order to address what role families can take in supporting their children as
life long learners two areas of literature will be reviewed. These relate to
parental involvement in their children’s learning and to the wider picture of
Lifelong learning.
Lifelong learning is a term used extensively and with a wide range of
meanings. It is commonly used to describe the attainment of skills and
knowledge beyond school, thus restricting it to adulthood and suggesting little
purpose or structure to such learning. Therefore for it to be understood in the
context of children’s learning and the support families can give to that
learning, careful definition is required.
Using Smith and Spurling’s (1999) (cited in Deakin Crick R. et al , 2004: 250)
multi dimensional definition of lifelong learning the ease with which the
concept sits within the family and thus, the significance of the family in
developing lifelong learners can be seen. Smith and Spurling consider
lifelong learning to be continuous, from cradle to grave, to have an intention
on the part of the individual or a wider organisation, and to relate to a plan for
that individual or organisation that over time can be re-appraised. In addition
four principles of personal commitment to learning, social commitment to
learning, respect for others’ learning and respect for the truth underlie these
themes. To summarise Smith and Spurling through their themes and
principles of lifelong learning develop the idea of the ‘active learning agent
within the community.’ If the family is taken as a microcosm of the community
or society then what better place for a child than within a family to develop
and test out the beliefs, values and attitudes about learning, self and
knowledge that make up an individual’s learning identity (Deakin Crick et al,
2004).
8

This definition of lifelong learning establishes that the family does have an
essential role to play in supporting children in lifelong learning, but
definitions are only useful in explaining concepts; it is the factors that underpin
this concept that need to be examined in order to discover what in practical
terms that role can be.
It is learning how to learn that brings the concept of life long learning to life.
The importance of this in the 21st
century has already been stated in the
introduction. Using the definition of learning to learn from the European
framework of key competence (2006:7) in relation to Peter Hannon’s(1993)
(cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), interesting insight into the
contrasting learning environments found in school and at home, an evaluation
of which learning environment is best suited to the development of learning to
learn skills can be made.
9

Hannon’s (1993) Home/School Learning environments European framework of key competence (Council 2006)
School Home (family
environment)
Learning to learn
Competencies
Shaped by curriculum Shaped by interest Ability to pursue and persist in learning
Bounded by sanctions Spontaneous Identify available opportunities to learn
Timetabled Flexible To organise one’s own learning, through effective management of
time and information
Contrived problems Natural problems Ability to overcome obstacles in order to learn successfully.
Gaining processing and assimilating new knowledge and skill.
Restricted language Everyday language Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.
Limited conversations Extended
conversations
Learning to learn engages learners to build on life experiences in
order to use and apply knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts.
Making use of guidance.
Special resources – limited access ‘natural resources’
unlimited access
Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.
Identify available opportunities to learn
Recognition of achievement in
approved areas
Recognition of
achievement in many
areas
Application of knowledge in a variety of areas – work, education and
training.
Horizontal age group Vertical age group To learn both individually and in groups
Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.
Distant relationship with adults Close relationship with
adults
Pupil role Multiple roles
Accounts for little
variation in academic
achievement
Accounts for much
variation in academic
achievement.
Motivation and confidence are crucial to an individual’s
competence.
10

The table illustrates that the learning environment offered by the home, ‘the
family’ enables many of the learning to learn competencies to be fulfilled.
The learner is able to pursue areas of interest, solving problems through being
creative with resources, assimilating and accommodating prior knowledge with
new knowledge, individually and as part of group. An awareness of individual
learning processes and needs is developed through using everyday language,
the opportunity to take on multiple roles and being recognised for a wide range
of learning that is not just restricted to the curriculum is all offered by the
learning environment beyond the sanctioned, timetabled, contrived, restricted
and limited classroom.
However, despite the classrooms many limitations it does fulfil the learning to
learn competence of organising learning through effective management of time
and information through a timetabled curriculum. Although the compatibilities
of the home learning environment with learning to learn competencies
presented in this table would suggest that it is the optimum place to learn it fails
to take into account the many manifestations of ‘the family’ and the impact
socio-economic factors can have on the degree of parental involvement in a
child’s learning.
In turning to literature relating to parental involvement a review of what it can
mean to be involved in a child’s learning can be made and why some families
will always support their children’s learning and yet others do not.
Parental involvement can take many forms and a clear definition is not a simple
task. However Epstein endeavours to capture parental involvement
typologically in her conceptual framework for family-school-community
involvement. (cited in Desforges, 2003:18)
11

Type of involvement Definition
Parenting Providing housing, health and
nutrition, safety; parenting skills in
parent-child interactions; home
conditions to support study;
information to help schools know child
Communicating School-home/home-school
communication
Volunteering In school help in classrooms/events
Teaching at home Help with homework, help with
educational choices/options
Decision making Membership of PTA/governors
Collaborating with the community Contributions to schools
Through legislation, 1997 White Paper, ‘Excellence in Schools’ in the last ten
years Epstein’s framework has moved from what parents might do to what they
can do. This includes providing parents with information relating to school life
and their child’s learning, enabling parents to have a voice and encouraging
parental partnerships with schools. In turn, this has manifested in the form of
many initiatives.
These have included:
• The enhancement of parent governor roles
• Involvement in inspection processes
• Provision of annual reports and prospectuses
• The requirement of home-school agreements
• The provision of increasing amounts of information about the curriculum
and school performance.
(Desforges, 2003:7)
More recently schools, through the provision of extended services and a core
offer including parenting support, offer parents a plethora of services and are
12

evolving a new role as a ‘hub for services for parents’ (University of Warwick,
Kings College London, 2007). These are to include information at stages of
transition, signposting to other agencies that can provide advice and support,
access to parenting groups and family learning.
And yet, regardless of policies, initiatives and funding totally £102.5 million from
2008 until 2010 (University of Warwick, Kings College London, 2007) their still
remains a significant cohort of families that do not get involved in their children’s
learning. These families are commonly termed ‘The hard to reach’ by
professionals. Conversely, there is a core of parents that have and always will
be actively involved in their children’s education and the wider school
community, regardless of any legislation.
Many would suggest that the correlation between parental involvement,
attainment levels and social class would indicate who these ‘hard to reach’
might be.
However to only look at social class would be an oversimplification. As
Nechyba et al, 1999 (cited in Desforges 2003) states there are many forces that
will impact upon attainment levels. These include Parents, family, peer group,
the wider community and indeed the children themselves all working in a
complex web of interactions to determine the achievement of the child not only
in public examinations, but as a lifelong learner. Desforges’ (2003) research
based model of effective parental involvement in schooling illustrates this
complex interaction.
Parental role definition Parental self efficacy
13

(parents see education (parents are confident they can make
as part of their role) a difference)
14
Parental capacity
for involvement
Schools as active
and reactive
agents
Parental/School
Interface
Parent/child
interaction Informed parent
(re aims, values,
assessment,
programmes,
Courses, expectations
Pupil’s
education
Self-schema
General
parenting
Modelling
expectations,
values, skills
building
In-school
involvement
(meeting
teachers)
Minimises
barriers
Initiates
contacts
Affords
opportunities
Responds to parental
initiatives
At-home educational
involvement
(modelling
expectations,
support, discussion,
encouragement,
skills training)
Child shapes parent/teacher interactions
Achievement/
adjustment
Pupil
values
Pupil
Skills
Research based model of effective parental involvement in
schooling
Desforges (2003)

To untangle this web of variables and examine their impact upon how involved
a parent becomes in their child’s learning is a worthwhile exercise because to
understand these is to understand the barriers to learning and as a result
identify possible ways in which to break down these barriers.
Much of the work on parental involvement was carried out using data from the
60’s and 70’s and therefore should be viewed within this historical context.
However research by Sacker et al (2002) (cited in Desforges 2003) indicates
that the degree of parental involvement is influenced, particularly when children
are of primary age, by two factors; material deprivation and parental aspiration.
Viewed on a hierarchy of need, a parent, preoccupied with housing,
overcrowding and whether children have a bathroom, would see reading to
children at bedtime as a low priority. In turn, if a child does not seem to be
achieving at school, aspirations for his or her future will be greatly diminished.
And yet, observation of the achievement of children in relation to their social
class would suggest that cause and effect are not as clearly defined. Some
children seem to achieve despite material deprivation whilst others from
‘comfortable backgrounds’ do not. Schoon and Parsons (2002) (cited in
Desforges 2003:24) identified through the classification of children as either
vulnerable or resilient, ‘protective factors’ underlying social class and material
deprivation. An educated mother, helpful father and parent who displayed a
positive attitude to schooling all played a significant part.
To summarise, to argue social class is the only variable that determines how
involved a parent is in their child’s learning is an oversimplification. Desforges’
model illustrates that parental attitudes to education, the child’s values, skills
and schools’ attitudes to parents all play a part in building the child’s resilience
and developing a positive self - schema related to education and ultimately
lifelong learning. However research shows measurements of social class in
relation to material deprivation and parental aspiration do have an impact upon
parental involvement and in turn achievement. Although resilient children still
perform better than the vulnerable, regardless of material deprivation they do
not achieve to the level of the socially advantaged.
15

The support school can give through signposting to other agencies through the
extended schools provision may go some way to reversing this finding and
breaking down the barriers caused by material deprivation thus freeing up the
family to play a more positive role in supporting their children as lifelong
learners.
One aspect of extended services offered by schools to increase parental
involvement is family learning. Alexander and Clyne (1995) in Riches Beyond
Price (cited in Haggart 2003:3)define Family Learning as a form of
intergenerational learning based on family kinship.’ This definition fulfils Smith
and Spurling’s (1999) (cited in Deakin Crick R. et al, 2004: 250) four principles
of lifelong learning and the European framework of key competences for
learning to learn relating to building on life experiences and making use of
guidance. Therefore a learning activity engaged with by all the family would
seem to fulfil the criteria related to life long learning and in doing so enable
families to support their children as life long learners. And yet, from Hannon’s
work on home/school environments and on research carried out on the socio-
economic barriers to learning it is clear that the ‘hard to reach families’ would
not through their own fruition create such a learning opportunity at home nor
would the traditional learning environment offered by school break down the
barriers to learning experienced by many parents.
Pahl and Kelly (2005) in their work on family learning go some way to
overcoming this through the creation of a ‘third space’ to enable parents and
families to become involved in their child’s learning. Here a family learning
activity creates a physical space that is neither home with all its domestic
pressures and chaos, and nor is it school. Because although it can take place
in a school the nature of its delivery means that it is not school with its rules and
regulations and authority figures. Therefore a ‘borderland’ (Gee) ( cited in Pahl
and Kelly 2005:92) is created to fill the chasm between that of school and home
and begin to change the attitude that children and parents have of learning
being confined to the classroom and to childhood.
16

However, before concluding that the creation of a ‘borderland’ in the form of a
family learning activity may be the panacea to establishing the role families can
take in supporting their children as lifelong learners, the question of how
families learn together in this borderland needs to be explored and in particular
discourse.
Turning from the impact socio-economic factors have on parental involvement,
Sui-Chu and Willms, (1996) (cited in Desforges 2003) identified that after family
social class the most significant factor was ‘home discussion’.
‘Regardless of social class, the more parents and children conversed with each
other in the home, the more pupils achieved at school.’
(Desforges 2003:.21)
What form this discussion takes and to whom was also significant. The
discussions included talk with mother, father, school, activities, monitoring
homework, limiting TV time and going out; home after school, school contacts
parents, volunteering at school, parent /teacher organisation.
In feedback from parents participating in the ‘Help Your Child to Succeed’
programme as part of the Devizes Strong Children project 2005 – 2007 lack of
communication between parents and school and parents and their children is
cited as a main barrier preventing them from supporting their children’s learning.
Although they saw education as part of their role as a parent and wanted to be
involved they did not possess ‘self efficacy’ (Desforges 2003). It can be argued
that this lack of confidence in whether they can make a difference to their child’s
learning is rooted in a parent’s own childhood memories of school and a feeling
of being ‘….put down by schools and teachers.’ (Desforges 2003:1). This is
reinforced by the concept of the ‘….big powerful school’ and the ‘false power’
((cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), the environment and the
professional language of the curriculum can provide teachers creating an
imbalance in Coleman’s (1998) triad of parent, teacher and pupil.
17

Coleman (1986)
Conversely, Coleman illustrates the influence the ‘family effect’ can have on the
classroom. Parental modelling, expectations, values and the building of skills
can equally create an in balance in the opposite direction. Therefore it would
seem that the solution is more complex than each player in the partnership
talking to each other more. To be able to engage in their children’s learning
families need to know what questions to ask and how to ask them. Parents
need to understand what is being learned at school in the 21st
century, to be
able to empathise and interact with their children and teachers and to have the
confidence to ask questions. In turn schools need to demystify the language of
learning. As Wolfendale (1992) states this communication must be reciprocal.
Learning to learn approaches may provide this common vocabulary. For the
purposes of this project two approaches which fulfil this definition of learning to
learn will be reviewed – Deakin Crick’s (2004) Effective Lifelong Learning
Inventory ELLI and Claxton’s (2002) Building Learning Power .
18
PARENT
TEACHER PUPIL
School
Home
The Power of Three

ELLI (Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory) focuses on seven dimensions that
describe a person’s motivation to learn throughout life. The premise of this
theoretical framework is that the social influences of formal learning with its
structured curriculum and teacher dispensing knowledge checks an individual’s
ability to learn and in particular his creativity. By taking a constructivist
perspective on learning i.e. constructing knowledge from innate capacities to
learn and by information from the environment, children can be taught to
identify ‘learning dimensions’ and use them to develop their ability to learn
throughout their life.
Similarly Claxton’s approach to learning to learn termed, Building Learning
Power centres on four learning dispositions - Resilience, Resourcefulness,
Reflectiveness and Reciprocity. Within these four dispositions lie learning
power capacities. As with the ELLI approach children are encouraged to
become aware of behaviours which contribute to their capacity to learn.
Both of these frameworks have been developed to use in the learning
environment of the school and although both acknowledge the importance of
parents becoming involved in learning to learn neither propose how this might
occur.
Having established that family learning would create a learning environment in
which families develop their role in supporting children as lifelong learners, by
acting as a catalyst to learning in the home in the form of a ‘Borderland’; an
evaluation can be made of how these two learning to learn approaches might
be incorporated into the theoretical frameworks used within family learning and
provide the discourse to support life long learning.
The table in figure1 illustrates the learning dispositions of Building Learning
Power and the learning dimensions of ELLI in relation to the three theoretical
frameworks used to deliver family learning. (Banbury M. 2005).
19

A common thread running through all three family learning frameworks is that of
experiential learning rather than cognitive learning. It can be argued that this
approach creates a learning environment where neither adult nor child feels
they are being tested. Encouragement is given by the family learning facilitator
to adult and child to be resourceful, making links with prior experiences,
knowledge and learning in their own lives. In doing so they become reflective
on each other’s abilities, thus raising the child’s confidence and the adult’s
expectations of the child, illustrating on of Smith and Spurling’s (1999) four
themes underlying life long learning.
With increased confidence the child and adult are no longer the passive
recipients of an activity led by a teacher, thus echoing Smith and Spurling’s
(1999) concept of the lifelong learner as the ‘active learning agent in the
community.’ Overtime this can be translated into Desforges (2003) model of the
effective parent possessing self efficacy and the confidence they can make a
difference.
However it is crucial that the design and deliver of the activity is accommodated
within Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (cited in Das Gupta P. and
Richardson K.1995) of both adult and child or as Claxton (2006:11) describes in
a ‘potentiating environment.’ Therefore the activity must generate curiosity, a
desire to have a go and be challenged, but at the same time learners must
develop a resilience to the feeling of being confused, stuck and frustrated,
accepting it as part of learning.
A key aspect of family learning, that of learning together in a non-hierarchical
context enables the learning to learn disposition which Claxton terms reciprocity
to be experienced. The nature of learning opportunities offered by school with
its limited conversations and vertical age groups (Hannon date?), means that it
is often difficult to experience reciprocity in learning; a key competence in
learning to learn and lifelong learning. However within family learning the
intergenerational collaborative partnership which is created through focusing
upon an activity together relies upon the exchange of ideas, the respect of
other’s ideas, the ability to empathise and most importantly the modelling of a
20

learner. It can be argued that the ability to model or imitate learning is the one
key role that families can take in supporting their children as life long learners.
Vygotsky several decades ago stated that ‘….the habits of mind are
contagious.’ (Claxton 2006:6). Now neuroscience has identified that the human
brain is predisposed to learning through imitation and that through ‘mirror
neurons’ the human brain is hard wired to mimic thinking and learning. (Claxton
2006:6).
It is the behaviour of mimicry, imitation or modelling that lies behind the effective
delivery of learning to learn through family learning. Claxton’s learning
dispositions and the Effective Learning to learn inventory as they are defined in
the table would have little impact if taught to parents and children explicitly. To
ask parents to support their children as life long learners by being resilient or to
have a critical curiosity would be an impossible task. However to be implicit
and what Claxton terms ‘infuse’ such learning dispositions in practical, hands on
activities through modelling curiosity, determination, persistence and a desire to
ask what, when, how, why and where questions could effect a behaviour
change. Therefore the role of the family is not to support their children, thus
creating dependency and a fragility to learn, but to model it.
Finally, It is the ‘Split Screen thinking’ Claxton (2006:11) of explicitly
participating in an activity while at the same time implicitly being taught learning
to learn skills that could resolve the second challenge identified; measuring the
impact of parental involvement on raising standards. Structured family learning
activities designed using a ‘split screen’ approach could provide a framework of
planned development against which the impact parental involvement has upon
pupil achievement and school effectiveness is measured using qualitative
techniques. Thus integrating two of the models proposed by Bastiani (2000).
21

Theoretical framework for
Learning To Learn
Kolb Experiential learning Hannon ORIM Framework Mezirow
Transformative
dimensions of adult
learning Theoretical framework for Learning To Learn
Building Learning Power ELLI
Positive learning dispositions Dimensions of learning power
Resilient
Disorientating
dilemma • resilience – children being able to realise that
Curious (proactive) they will face challenges and that they need to
Adventurous (up for a challenge) cope with their emotions when faced with these
Determined (persistent) challenges and to persevere;
Flexible (trying other ways)
Observant (details/patterns) Observation
Focused (distractions)
Resourceful • creativity – children being encouraged to use
Questioning ("How come?") their imagination and not be constrained by
Open-minded ('negative
capability') rules.
Playful ("let's try….") Testing in new situations
• critical curiosity – children developing a
sense
Imaginative (could be….) Forming abstract concepts of wonder to try and find out what is really
Integrating (making links) Concrete experience Transformation going on (Why? What?, Where?, How?
Intuitive (reverie) questions are important);
• meaning making – children becoming good
connectors who can see that what they might
be learning in the classroom relates to the wider
world and who can make links with prior
knowledge and learning in their own lives;
Reflective Reflection Critical reflection • strategic awareness – children becoming
Clear-thinking (logical) responsible for their own learning and having a
Thoughtful (where else could I
use this?)
Perspective
transformation toolkit of strategies which they are able to use in
Self-knowing (own habits) any particular learning situation;
Methodical (strategic) • changing – children having a philosophy and
Opportunistic (serendipity)
Providing opportunities for
learning confidence that they can be more effective
Self-evaluative ("How's it
going?")
Showing recognition of the
child's activities learners over time and develop strengths in
other learning dimensions;
Reciprocal learning relationships – developing children as
Collaborative (team member) effective partners in learning with their peers,
Independent (can work alone) teachers and other people;
Open to feedback
Attentive (to others) Interaction with the child
Empathic (other people's shoes)
Imitative (contagious) Providing a model of a learner
22

The Learning Tree – A Family Learning project
Widening Parental Involvement by breaking down the barriers
Redressing the Power Imbalance
Over a period of seven years the Learning Tree project has delivered over 50
family learning workshops throughout Wiltshire and as far a field as Cornwall
and Singapore, enabling over 3,500 adults and children to experience
learning together. Examples will be drawn from these workshops and
analysed using the literature review related to parental involvement and
lifelong learning. Details of specific workshops are collated on the Learning
Tree website.
Experience of what works and what does not work has enabled a model to be
developed that is representative of Wolfendale’s (1992) reciprocal relationship
within the school community between parents, children and school staff. The
methodology detailed in the diagram begins to redress the power imbalance
which is identified within Coleman’s (1998) ‘triad’ as a barrier to parental
involvement.
23

Model adopted to develop reciprocal relationship between
Teaching staff, parents and pupils.
24
• Personal invitation
• Peer group influence
• Teacher reminder
• Setting up on Friday
• Saturday workshop
• Passport with photo of
the make and take
and their participation.
• Points means prizes
incentive scheme for
attendance
• Celebration
assemblies
• Assembly
• Newsletter
• Letter
• Poster
• Invitation with reply
slip
• Meeting with PTA
• Saturday
workshop
• Presentation at a
staff meeting.
• Assembly
• Register notices
• Friday setting up
• Saturday
workshop
• Evaluation
School
staff
School
The
Learning
Tree
Building a relationship with the
school.
Identify need with teaching staff.
Designing workshop
• Whole school assembly
• Key stage assembly
• Parents attend assembly
• School council workshop
PupilsFamily
members

The need to widen parental involvement is in the majority of situations initiated
by the Head teacher. Therefore the balance of power is immediately skewed
towards the needs of the school and in particular the fulfilment of a range of
initiatives relating to the Every Child Matters agenda and specifically Section 4
of the School Evaluation Framework.
Common barriers related to widening parental involvement are identified as:-
• A need to engage with ‘hard to reach parents’
This term relates to parents who do not complete reading record books
regularly, have negative contact with the school often related to poor
behaviour and unauthorised absence and do not tend to support their
children by attending parents evenings, information evenings and
school events.
• Engagement of fathers.
• Engagement of boys particularly at Key Stage 2.
Firstly, to begin to engage with ‘hard to reach’ parents one of the barriers
preventing them from engaging, namely the institution of the school with its
perceived rigid structures and hierarchies, curriculum speak and protocols
needs to be broken down to enable the parents to begin to feel comfortable
with becoming involved. The Learning Tree project has achieved this by the
family learning activity being presented not as an event organised by the
school but from outside of the education system. The project is run by parents
for parents. It models what parents can achieve for themselves. This can be
developed further as in the case of family learning at St. Pauls primary school
(2003) where the activities were delivered by the Learning Tree and yet all
the publicity and the organisation of getting families involved was carried out
by the Parent Teacher Association who entitled the event ‘We can do it!
(2003) .As family learning is embedded within a school learning community it
can begin to have its own separate and unique identity such as The Saturday
Academy at Nythe Primary School (2006 - onwards)
25

Although initial contact with a school is mostly at a senior level which is
essential to gain commitment and for sourcing and securing funding, for
greatest success to widening parental involvement control of the family
learning event needs to be disseminated to teaching staff and parents in order
to enable ‘the triad’ to see and accept that education is part of the parent’s
role; that Desforges’(2003) parental ‘self efficacy’ is developed and that the
importance of family learning in modelling lifelong learning is infused
throughout the school community. For example the PTA or teaching staff can
become involved by organising and serving breakfast at the workshop.
During the seven years of the project many reluctant dads have found
headteachers to be human. Heads are disarmed of any superiority their
position may afford them when they are cooking bacon rolls for 100 in a
school kitchen. Although the PTA are parents who are already involved in
their children’s learning, they can influence other parents to join in.
Playground “chit chat” is a very effective way of encouraging parents to
attend.
However ‘hard to reach’ parents may not feel comfortable with an
enthusiastic PTA member. Here children can influence their parent’s decision
making as to whether to become involved. The personal invitations given to
each child, the whole school assembly and if possible the session on learning
to learn delivered to the school council all contributes to reversing the role of
parent and child and teacher and child by giving children confidence to learn
through ownership of the family learning activity. In promotional assemblies
Children are encouraged to think about how much time they spend outside of
school as opposed to the 15% spent at school and therefore how important
their family is to their learning.
They are encouraged to look at the different ways they enjoy learning and to
think about learning throughout life. An example shared with many 100s of
children over the years has been that of my father who at 79 still has piano
lessons because he wants to learn and still improve. Recently this example of
lifelong learning has been taken one step further when after 30 years of not
playing the clarinet, I promised a school assembly of 150 children that I would
begin to learn again. Three months later I returned to play Finzi’s ‘Carol’ to
150 stunned children proving that learning never stops if you are resilient to
have a go, be adventurous and are up for a challenge!
26

These learning dispositions are encouraged in the children through modelling
to them at an assembly what they will be doing at the family learning activity
such as building a water rocket or an elastic band powered car. Immediately
they possess more knowledge about a specific activity than the adult they will
bring to school. In addition ICT is often used in the activities and children are
encouraged to consider that they often know more than their parents and
therefore take on the role of teacher.
To summarise, the start of a collaborative learning relationship between child
and adult is developed long before the family learning activity takes place.
The power imbalance identified as a barrier to widening parental involvement
begins to be equalised through modelling learning to learn dispositions and
building the child’s confidence and curiosity. An understanding of their own
parent’s ability to learn as adults is reflected upon by the children who take
the message home enthusiastically and ‘sell’ the idea of coming to school to
do something fun with an adult family member. Parents hearing the message
from the child, seeing publicity headed up not by the school but by an outside
organisation and/or the PTA begin to feel less reluctant to become involved
and barriers begin to be broken down.
27

The creation of learning opportunities.
Right time, right place, right activity
Many schools the project has worked with focus on the need to gain greater
parental involvement from men within a family, particularly to support boys
with their learning. In addressing this issue, not from the perspective of the
school, but from the perspective of adult males within the family three barriers
have been identified as preventing men from being ready, willing and able to
develop a role in supporting their children in lifelong learning.
Firstly, parental involvement has to be at a time that will accommodate work
hours, shift patterns and access times for men. Evaluation of feedback from a
structured conversation with parents at Nythe in 2007 showed that 85% of
those interviewed thought that Saturday mornings are the best day to deliver
a family learning activity, with 39% considering Sunday morning a good time.
Only 0.08% thought Saturday pm was the best day and time.
However reasonable notice needs to be given with regard to the date and also
timing needs to be flexible. This is particularly relevant in families where
fathers may only have access on specified weekends. To engage with families
and to develop life long learning the learning environment of the home as
described by Hannon (1993) needs to be created.
Secondly, the family learning activity has to be in the right place. Small
chairs, confined spaces and classroom paraphernalia all contribute to alienate
men either because of their own negative experiences of school or because of
the perceived feminisation of the primary environment. Recent figures show
that men account for just 16 per cent of all primary school teachers. (Beckford
2008).
Experience has shown that halls, gyms and outside areas are the most
appealing areas to attract dads to school. They offer larger areas of space for
moving around, bigger furniture and can be disguised quickly to become a
design and development laboratory, a launch pad or a race track.
28

However attendance statistics at family learning activities held at one school,
but open to the cluster of schools suggests that although some parents
attend their own child’s school with reluctance they are even more reluctant to
attend another school in their area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that as
parents we feel apprehensive to visit another school because it may confirm
that we made the wrong choice in selecting a school.
The third factor which prevents men from becoming involved is their ability to
become engaged with their child’s learning. For example, a family learning
session focusing on literacy and the use of the story The Gingerbread Man is
unappealing. However by creating Claxton’s (2006) potentiating environment
the activity can become both challenging and appealing. At Southbroom
Infants’ school in 2008 by combining work the children had been doing in
Literacy on the story of ‘The Gingerbread man’ with work in Science on
changing materials, a cross curricular activity was created. This involved the
learning disposition of resourcefulness and asking a ‘What if’ question.
Instead of the Gingerbread man trusting the fox to carry him safely across the
river and then getting eaten the Gingerbread man found a bridge to cross the
river. Then, using the learning disposition of resourcefulness, families were
encouraged to experiment with different materials such as spaghetti,
newspaper or K’nex to build the bridge. Finally, through building in an element
of challenge by testing the strength of the bridges to breaking point, there was
an opportunity to experience failure and therefore develop resilience.
To summarise, through offering a learning opportunity at a time that suited
family members; creating a space that was non-threatening and an
experiential based activity with an element of risk and the need for
collaboration, adult males within the family were offered a learning opportunity
that they felt comfortable to be ready, willing and able to become involved.
29

Engaging with female family members
In focusing on factors that will encourage adult family members to become
involved in their children’s learning the question of whether female members
are discouraged by these factors has to be considered.
There is no evidence to suggest that considerations of time and place are any
different for male or female family members. However qualitative data does
suggest mothers use the opportunity for dads to take children to an activity on
a Saturday morning “Learning tree is his time with the children and I get to
have a bit of space for myself.” (Nythe Enquiry Walk 2007)
Turning to the type of activity, evaluation of water rocket workshops delivered
at five Primary Schools in Wiltshire over a five year period illustrates the
breakdown of participating families.
Gender Family Learning Workshop
321 Blast off!
St. Peters
2003
St. Pauls
2004
Walwayne
2005
Nythe
2006
Lainesmead
2008
Male 58% 54% 33% 56% 48%
Female 42% 46% 67% 44% 52%
Boys 61% 64% 53%* 60% 57%*
Girls 39% 36% 47% 40% 43%
This workshop was designed specifically to attract ‘dads and lads.’ although
this is never overtly stated in publicity. It incorporates technology, water the
outdoors and an element of competition. The data illustrates that in three out
of the five workshops more adult males than females did attend and in all five
workshops more boys attended than girls. Interestingly in the two workshops
Walwayne and Lainesmead where more adult females attended than adult
males, the percentages of boys* attending are both lower than in the three
workshops with high adult male attendance.
30

Firstly the data suggests that this type of workshop does attract men and yet
is not necessarily unappealing to women. Qualitative data indicates that
women attending the technology based workshops are apprehensive if it
involves the use of tools or technology based language. However on
completion of the activity the sense of achievement is visible and a common
remark is, ‘I thought this was far too technical for me to make, but I did it.’
(Smith S. 2007).
The data may also indicate that a greater number of boys will engage with
learning if they have a male learning model rather than a female. This would
be a key benefit to a school and fulfil an identified need. As a consequence of
this finding the project uses male facilitators drawn from a wide age range.
Gender Family Learning Workshop
Box of Delights
St. Peters
2003
Margaret Stancomb
2005
Hullavington
2007
Male 39% 14% 33%
Female 61% 57% 67%
Boys 40% 35% 64%
Girls 60% 65% 36%
Attendance data from family learning activities that have a craft and literacy
based theme suggest that men are less interested in getting involved in this
type of activity. The data is too small to conclude if this activity appeals to
girls more than boys and more data needs to be collected.
To conclude, the creation of a third space through the transformation of a
school hall, an outdoor area or an ICT suite into a learning environment that is
neither school nor home to meet the needs of both adults and children
encourages wider participation. Specific groups such as dads and lads can be
targeted without necessarily excluding mums and girls. However data would
suggest that men will engage more with activities with a literacy theme if it is
delivered from an experiential perspective that includes technology and
science rather than art and craft.
31

Nurturing learning conversations
In the early development of workshops the team considered that for parents to
fully appreciate their role in modelling learning to their child they needed to
understand the mechanics of learning to learn; the premise being that to
understand the conversation you need to learn the language fully.
Therefore workshops were designed to include a session separate from the
children where parents were informed of the latest learning to learn
approaches that were being proposed as key to Lifelong learning. Many of
the schools the project team worked in were using learning to learn
approaches and some who were participating in the vibrant schools project
were using Claxton’s Building Learning Power.
However very few parents were aware of these approaches. To support the
session families were given the Campaign For Learning booklet detailing the
Learning to learn approach of the 5R’s adopted by the campaign which is very
similar to the 4R’s of Building Learning Power.
An example of such a workshop was ‘Get the Learning Bug’ delivered as part
of a science week at Southbroom Infants’ school (2007). The analogy of
creating an electrical circuit to make a connection was used to describe how
we learn through acquisition of knowledge by enquiry, accommodation of
knowledge with what we already know through testing and reflecting and the
assimilation of knowledge to transform our thinking and ‘put the light bulb on’
A 20 minute session was presented to parents on Learning to learn.
Meanwhile children were shown in a separate session how to make the bug.
They were also primed to take on the role of teacher when working with the
adults.
The effectiveness of this approach on providing a role for the adults to support
their children as lifelong learners was unsatisfactory. In our enthusiasm to
spread the word on learning to learn we had fallen into the trap of the bolt on
solution, the hints and tips approach and had ignored Claxton’s (2006 :14)
‘infusion approach’ We had also altered the balance of power in the
relationship we were trying to develop with the families. Because the adult
group were met for the first time at the session by the facilitate ability levels of
the group of adults were unknown and therefore differentiation was difficult.
32

Some adults were familiar with the concept of life long learning from their work
experience and gained confidence by making links to their existing
knowledge, others were not and found the terminology and concepts difficult
to grasp and too disorientating in the short session.
However the children’s session proved to be successful. They relished the
role reversal and the responsibility and confidence their new role gave them.
This went some way to counteracting the fragility some parents were
experiencing and although overall the feedback from the activity was positive,
the session needed to be reviewed.
Building upon this experience the team identified that a powerful tool that
could be shared with parents was that of questioning. Through simple open
questioning techniques drawn from a member of the teams mentoring
experience parents could begin to demonstrate fairly rapidly all four of
Claxton’s learning dispositions in themselves and begin to nurture them within
the children.
In the problem solving family learning activity ‘Which came first, the chicken or
the egg?’ (Nythe 2007) again parents and children were separated for a short
session – children to brain storm the problem of building a chicken that could
lay chocolate eggs and parents to have modelled to them the power of open
questioning.
33

During the joint session team members observed a greater emphasis being
put on questioning by the adults. Examples recorded included:-
Questions posed by adults to children during practical activity of
making a chicken from recycled materials that could lay chocolate eggs.
(Nythe 2007)
(Looking at scrap materials to build the chicken from) ‘What could this be?’
‘How does a chicken lay an egg?’ Can we think of two ways to make it
drop the egg?’
‘If mum was here, how would she build it?’
In response to question from child ‘That’s a really good question. I don’t
know the answer, shall we ask someone?’
‘Can we think of anything we know already that works like this?’
Through the development of questioning skills learning dispositions of
observation, flexibility, curiosity, playfulness, integration, thoughtfulness and
empathy were all being nurtured. Instead of bolting on the 4 R’s the activity
was acting as a vehicle, enabling both adult and child to build their learning
capacity.
To summarise through the acquisition of simple questioning skills a learning
conversation could be nurtured without the need to understand the syntax or
semantics of the language in great detail. We were beginning to appreciate
the power of modelling and imitating behaviour.
To develop this approach further Claxton’s concept of split screen thinking
has been adopted in the design, planning and delivery of family learning
activities.
Building learning capacity through split screen thinking
Unlike a teacher constrained by the curriculum, the family learning activities
created by the project can evolve from the learning disposition trying to be
developed. Therefore the concept of split screen thinking advocated by
34

Claxton has driven the creation of the activity rather than necessity to teach a
body of knowledge.
The table below illustrates firstly, the common methodology that has been
adopted for all Learning tree workshops to correct the imbalance of power and
create a learning environment that is not threatening to families. Secondly, it
illustrates the learning disposition predominantly focused upon in each
activity. Although there is a focus upon one of the 4R’s this is not to the
exclusion of the other three. Claxton’s theoretical framework is a neat
construct for the purposes of explaining how learning capacity can be built. In
reality it is harder to separate the dispositions. It is difficult and indeed not
desirable to be playful (resourceful) and not curious (resilient) at the same
time.
Families are introduced to the theme of the workshops through the
promotional materials – posters, invitations, newsletter and an assembly as
well as the programme given to each family on arrival at a workshop. All the
materials are ‘infused’ with the learning dispositions to be nurtured in families
rather than teaching them through a parenting session. However separate
parent sessions can be planned into the family learning activity if through
working with the school it is agreed this would be appropriate, but these are
planned in an informal way and focus on questioning skills rather than specific
learning dispositions.
Throughout the family activity facilitation is used rather than instruction. If a
parent is supporting the child too much, giving instructions and judging the
child, they are not stopped and told this is wrong, as in some situations an
element of this type of behaviour may be appropriate, but not as a constant.
Instead, The Learning Tree team work alongside the families, building and
creating the model. At the same time the learning disposition to be
emphasised is modelled through language and behaviour.
35 Newspaper
bridges
‘Loads of money’
penny bridges

‘Split Screen Thinking’
Family Learning
Activities
Barriers to Parental Involvement Learning dispositions for Life Long Learning
Learning to Learn – Claxton’s Building Learning Power
Disposition predominantly focused upon in activity
Balance of Power
‘Triad’
Creation of a learning
opportunity
‘Third Space’
Resilience Resourcefulness Reflectiveness Reciprocity
Common Methodology used for each activity to
overcome barriers to parental involvement
• Need identified
with Head
teacher
• Relationship
developed with
teaching and
support staff –
staff meeting
• Relationship
developed with
PTA if it exists
• Relationship
developed with
school council
• Posters,
newsletter,
personalised
invitations
• Whole School
assembly
• Friday pm set up
making staff, parents
and pupils aware of
something different
happening.
• Saturday morning
delivery. Flexible, open
sessions, Pre-booking
optional. Registration
paperwork minimal.
• Simple programme and
instructions
• Activity distributed as a
kit.
• Hall/gym, playground,
ICT suite transformed
to ‘third space’
• Layout workstations
open to all
• Materials mostly
recycled and equipment
freely available
• Secure area for
personal belongings
• Background music
• Breakfast
• Workshop leaders
modelling behaviour to
achieve activity and at
same time displaying
learning dispositions.
321 Blast off
Water Rockets

Scrapheap Challenge
CD Tanks

Box of Delights
Pop up theatres/story
boxes

Learning Bugs
Battery torch

Angels of ……
Christmas Angels

Ginger Bread Man
Bridges

Chicken and Egg
Scrap chicks that lay
choc eggs

Carnival Time
Chicken hats

Balloon boats
Air powered boats

Kites 
Den building
Cloth and pole
framed tents

36

Impact
Much of the impact the project has had on widening parental involvement and
enabling families to support their children as lifelong learners has been
measured using Bastiani’s (2000) ‘Stakeholder approach’. Qualitative data
has been collected after every workshop through feedback forms, informal
discussions, structured conversations, comments collected on post its and
photographs. A continual evaluative loop similar to ‘Kolb’s learning cycle,
used widely in family learning, has enabled an on going reflective process to
take place. Through the consideration of views and judgements made by
teachers, parents and children what works and what does not work has been
identified.
54% of the activities carried out by the project have been ‘one offs’, dictated
by the availability of funding. The table below illustrates the primary schools
in Wiltshire where The Learning Tree has delivered more than one family
learning event. Although feedback from these ‘one off’ schools is positive with
an average of 96% of families describing on evaluation forms the experience
of attending the activity as very good, it is evident from the table that the
impact of the project can be measured most accurately from the qualitative
and quantitative data collected from Nythe. Here a sustained programme of
family learning has been maintained during 2006 and 2007 and continued into
2008/2009 through the use of extended schools funding.
Primary School Number of
Learning Tree Events
Period of time
St. Peters 5 2001 – 2004
St. Pauls 2 2004
Walwayne 3 2005 -2006
Southbroom
Infants’
2 2007 – 2008
Nythe 11 and a further 6 planned 2006 – 2008/2009
Lainesmead 2 2008
Quantitative data collected from attendance figures illustrates that a cohort of
102 children from a roll of 146 have attended more than one family learning
event with at least one adult family member. 77% of families attending in the
first year had attended three out of four family learning activities and 92% of
37

families when asked how many of the six activities offered in 2006/2007 they
thought they would attend said they would try and attend all of them. These
figures seem impressive, but it is not until matched with the profile of the
school and the qualitative data collected from teachers and adults that their
significance is understood.
Nythe draws children from a mixed socio economic and cultural background.
The percentage of children with English as their second language is currently
10% and 23% of children have SEN. On two occasions the school has faced
closure because of falling rolls and because of an Ofsted report which placed
it in the category of having serious weaknesses.
Feedback from teaching staff indicate that although many of the families
attending the Saturday activities are families already engaged fully in their
children’s learning a growing percentage of them could be described as the
‘hard to reach’.
However it is not until the qualitative data captured from parents who
participated in an enquiry walk lead by a consultant from the National College
of School Leadership is analysed that a true picture of the impact the project
is making on the parents can be made.
The table illustrates that the family learning activities delivered at Nythe over a
two year sustained period have impacted upon power relationships, the right
time, place and opportunity for adults and children to learn together, and have
modelled learning conversations which the feedback clearly illustrates are
being imitated at home.
In addition the Saturday Academy has provided the school with a parent
governor, an opportunity for Year 7 pupils to return to school to continue
learning with their families, acting as role models to Year 6 pupils and
contributing to transition. Finally, it has provided teachers who attend with an
opportunity to observe pupils learning outside of the classroom and provide
an in-sight into that child’s personal approach to learning. For example, a
child was observed using problem solving techniques, asking ‘What if’
questions and making links with existing knowledge when building a water
rocket with her mother who, although the adult was happy for her daughter to
38

take on the role of teacher. The teacher remarked that this child was normally
very quite in the classroom and reluctant to contribute in front of her peers to
science topics. He now realised that he could switch on her capacity to learn
if he made it more experiential and reflected on the roles he and his pupils
were taking in his class.
Finally, the impact of the project can be measured by the school’s overall
effectiveness in 2007 with a value added measured at 100.3 and a coverage
indicator of 89%. ‘The Nythe Saturday Academy was recreating a sense of
identity and community ties that is usually perceived as having broken down
in modern society’ (Wood 2007:6). It can be argued that this approach is
contributing to the overall effectiveness of the school by developing Smith and
Spurling’s (1999) active learning agents and creating a role for families as
learning models to support their children as Life long learners.
39

Qualitative data from Parents at Nythe Primary School
2008
Power relationship
(Reciprocity)
Learning environment 3rd
space
(Ready, will and able to learn)
Learning dispositions
4 R’s
“I would just be doing the house work or shopping and my
daughter would be in bed watching Saturday TV, learning tree
gives us quality time with our children.”
a learning opportunity where both
adult and child can focus on learning
together without distractions of home.
“Learning tree is his time [father who works shifts] with the
children and I get to have a bit of space for myself.”
A learning opportunity offered at a
time when a father can be attentive
and children can develop as effective
partners in learning.
“It is a great way to learn together, we usually pull it apart and
put it back together again several times to see if we can do it
better. There’s usually a trip to the library like when we did the
bird feeders we put it up and then wanted to find out about the
birds that were coming into the garden.”
The environment created makes
people feel positive about learning.
Resilient –curious, determined,
flexible, observant.
Resourceful – questioning, playful
Reflective – methodical,
opportunistic.
Reciprocity – collaborative,
imitative, open to feedback
“We usually take it to Grandparents in the afternoon; it’s a
great stimulus for talk that would usually be quite mundane.”
Intergenerational
Developing a close relationship with
adults
Extending learning opportunity
beyond the classroom and beyond
the 3rd
space created by family
learning activity
Reflective – giving children
opportunity to develop a
philosophy about their learning, to
become self knowing.
“The children get to know how to do it and show us what to
do.”
Role reversal giving children
confidence and adults opportunity to
recognise/respect their child’s learning
and heighten their expectations
Reciprocity – collaborative
learning partnership
Develop strategic awareness – a
toolkit of strategies that they can
share.
“You’re never too old to learn.” said one granddad.” Intergenerational. Opportunity to
model life long learning.
Vertical age groups are made to feel
welcome in school and seen in school
by children and adults.
Creation of a learning community
“Sometimes I haven’t got a clue, I give it a go and I get it
wrong, we’re showing children that we are willing to learn and
show them that we can mistakes to.”
Equalising the power imbalance
To gain respect from children through
not always knowing the right answer.
A learning environment where you
can make mistakes and not be
judged.
Resilient – face challenges but
persevere.
“My son loves it when I go into his class” Increasing parental capacity for
involvement – both child and parent
feel confident to participate in learning
Adults welcomed into learning
community.
Reflective – create a feeling of
serendipity
“They see us all getting on and they know we talk to each other
so they have to think about how they behave because we’ll find
out what they’ve been up to when we all meet up again!”
Developing a collective responsibility
that is non judgemental or competitive.
Opportunity to model expectations,
values and beliefs and to relate to
other experiences of parenting.
Collaborative working
40

Implications
The implications of the findings from The Learning Tree project in relation to
creating a role for families in supporting their children as lifelong learners are
clear.
A role of model learner can be created if the relationships between parent,
child and teacher are addressed. Learning opportunities must be created for
the adult and child and learning conversations that are based upon the
learning dispositions needed for life long learning must be nurtured. This can
be represented as a simple equation.
41
Role of family
as model
learner to
nurture LLL in
child
Represents the
triad of power
between teacher,
child and parent
This represents
the third space
created for
families to
learn.
Its not home
and not school.
This represents
the learning
dispositions
Which nurture
lifelong Learning
Resilience
Resourcefulness
Reflectiveness
Reciprocity
Brackets represent any activity
created.

However further work needs to be carried out on how this can be integrated
into a school development plan. Some initial work detailed in the table below
has been done to map activities at Nythe against its SDP, but this needs to be
developed.
Secondly, the process illustrated in the table could be used as a framework
against which to measure the degree of parental involvement in a school and
thus the contribution it is making to a school’s overall effectiveness. The
checklist below illustrates a skeleton outline
Elements to engage families weak basic good excellent
1 2 3 4
Relationships
Parent
Child
Teacher
Learning Opportunities
Time
Place
Activity
Learning dispositions
Resilience
Resourcefulness
Reflectiveness
Reciprocity
In addition, the success of Nythe supports the view that any programme of
parental involvement must have long term commitment from a school to see
any positive impact. Also, long term sustainability will only be achieved when
teaching staff, parents and children become more involved in the process of
family learning. Again this is being piloted at Nythe with the introduction of
‘Learning Cadets’ drawn from children who regularly attend the Saturday
Academy and who will work with the Learning Tree to develop family learning
activities using the ‘Split Screen’ approach. Long term plans will also
incorporate closer working with teaching staff and more opportunities to
develop with parents their knowledge of learning to learn. Although this
presents challenges in relation to parental self efficacy, the professional role
42

of the teacher and also the personalised learning agenda for each child; the
impact on raising achievement for everyone far outweighs the challenges.
43

Term Date Workshop
Suggested
Parenting
Session
Target Group Whole
school plus… ECM SEAL 4 R's Initiatives Curriculum
1
September
15th
Getting the Learning
Bug (Battery bugs)
New parents -
supporting
children to
learn New parents
Enjoy and
achieve
New
Beginnings
Learning
Muscles
Environment/
Year of
Reading
Science
Electricity
2
December
1st
The Angel of Nythe
(making angels)
Building
Confidence
Possible Volunteers to
help at school
Making a
positive
contribution
Good to be
me Resilience
Arts mark?
Signing up
more
volunteers
PSHE
festivals/Art -
Anthony
Gormley
3
January
26th
Blast off with me
(rockets)
Anger
Management
attracting Families
who have never
attended by regulars
inviting them Staying Safe
Getting on and
falling out
Reflectiveness
- Learning
Coaches
BECTA safe
use of the
Internet? Science/ICT
4
March 15th
(Easter)
Its Carnival Time!
(There's an awful lot of
chocolate in Brazil)
Positive
behaviour
management
Wider community
-Local businesses
Making a
positive
contribution
(Developing
enterprising
behaviour) Relationships Resourceful
Global
Diversity
Geography,
Science, Art
5 May 17th
'Lets go fly a kite' (kite
making)
Adult
Learners
week IA Whole school
Economic
wellbeing
Going for
Goals Reciprocity
Adult
learners
week
Maths -
shape,
angles,
symmetry
6
June 15th
(Sunday)
Den Building (building
shelters)
Enjoying
reading
together
'curiosity kits'
Dads/Granddads etc.
(Fathers Day)
Being Healthy
and staying
safe Relationships
Reciprocity -
collaboration
Environment/
Year of
Reading Literacy
44

References
45
Abbott J.A. 1999 The Child Is Father of
the Man: How Humans
Learn and Why
Network Educational Press
Ltd
Banbury, M. 2005 Special Relationships
How families learn
together
NIACE,Leicester
Bastiani J 2000 ‘I know it works...’ in
Wolfendale S. and
Bastiani J. eds. The
Contribution of Parents
to School Effectiveness
London
David Fulton Publishers
pp.19-36
Bateson B. 2000 ‘Inspire’, in Wolfendale
S. and Bastiani J. eds.
The Contribution of
Parents to School
Effectiveness
London
pp.52-68
Beckford M. 2008 Just 2pc of early years
primary school teachers
male
Telegraph 7th
August
[Online] available from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/n
ews [accessed 14.08.08]
Campaign For
Learning
2008 Campaign For Learning
publications
[online] available from
http://www.campaign-for-
learning.org.uk/[accessed
28.08.08]
Claxton, G. 2002 Building Learning
Power
TLO, Bristol
Claxton, G. et al 2005 BLP in Action TLO, Bristol
Claxton G. 2001 Wise Up Network Educational Press,
Stafford
Claxton G. 2006 Expanding the Capacity
to Learn: A new end for
education
Opening keynote address
British Educational Research
Association Annual
conference.
Coleman P. 1998 Parent, Student and
Teacher Collaboration
The power of Three
Thousand Oaks, California
Corwin Press,Inc.
Das Gupta P. and
Richardson K.
1995 Children’s Cognitive
and Language
Development
Blackwells
Open University
Deakin Crick R. et
al
2004
Developing an Effective
Lifelong
Learning Inventory: the
ELLI Project
University of Bristol

46
Desforges C.
Abouchaar A.
2003 The Impact of Parental
Involvement, Parental
Support and Family
Education on Pupil
Achievement and
Adjustment:
A Literature Review
Department for Education and
Skills
Research Report RR433
European
Commission
2006 RECOMMENDATION OF
THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL
on key competences for
lifelong learning
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lif
elong-learning-
policy/doc42_en.htm
[accessed 28.08.08]
Every Child Matters 2004 Every Child Matters DfES
publications
http://www.everychildmatters
.gov.uk/ [accessed 28.08.08]
Every Parent Matters 2007 DfES Publications
LKAW/2007
(Forward Johnson)
http://www.teachernet.gov.u
k/ [accessed 28.08.08]
Green L. 1970 Parents and Teachers
Partners or Rivals?
London George Allen and
Unwin Ltd.
Haggart, J. 2000 Learning Legacies
A Guide to Family
Learning
NIACE, Leicester
Mc Beath 2000 ‘New Coalitions for
promoting School
Effectiveness’ in
Wolfendale S. and
Contribution of Parents to
School Effectiveness
London
David Fulton Publishers pp.37-
51
Pahl K .and Kelly S
(p91|)
2005 Family literacy as a third
space between
home and school: some
case studies of
practice
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Smith S. 2007 Evaluation feedback from
Help Your Child to
Succeed course Devizes
Strong Children Project
Smith S. 2008 The Learning Tree Family
Learning project
www.learning-tree.org.uk
[accessed 28.08.08]
Smith S. 2007 ‘The Learning Tree
bringing family learning to
life Wiltshire
Early Years Magazine 2007.
Wiltshire County Council
University or Warwick
Kings College London
2007 Parent Support Advisor
Pilot: First interim report
from the evaluation
http://www.tda.gov.uk
[accessed 1.3.2008]
Wolfendale S. 1992 Empowering Parents and
Teachers Working for
children
London, Cassell
Wolfendale S. and
Bastiani J. eds.
2000 The Contribution of
Parents to School
Effectiveness
London
Wolfendale S. 2000 ‘Effective Schools for the
future: incorporating the
parental and family
dimension.’ in
Wolfendale S. and
Contribution of Parents to
School Effectiveness
London
David Fulton Publishers pp.1-
18
Wood R. 2007 Report on Enquiry Walk Supplied by Nythe Primary

Vibrant Schools Project - The Learning Tree

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Vibrant Schools Project - The Learning Tree

Similar to Vibrant Schools Project - The Learning Tree (20)

Vibrant Schools Project - The Learning Tree