In this section, I discuss the main findings relevant to each research question
RQ1: What are the barriers to and facilitators of parental involvement in the case study schools?
Decentralisation is intended to improve the operational efficiency and promote a more responsive approach to education service delivery at the district, community (urban and rural) and school level (World Bank, 2004; Akyeampong et al., 2007), however, from the current study, parents in the two rural school communities appeared to have been placed at some considerable disadvantage when it comes to ensuring greater responsibility for contributing and managing education service provision. Specific barriers to and facilitators of parental involvement identified in this study relates to socio-economic factors, literacy and language, communication, relationships and discipline.
Socio-economic factors as a barrier to Parental Involvement
In rural communities, schooling costs have been found to be disincentive to active parental involvement in schools (Avotri, 2000; Oduro, 2000; Akyeampong et al., 2007). The study findings reveal that the recent introduction of the capitation grant could not absolve all the parents’ financial concerns. Parents claimed providing such items as school uniform, sandals, food and exercise books took a huge toll on their meagre family budgets. It is therefore, important that any examination of parental involvement takes cognisance of the unique profile of each parent, since it determines the capacity and inclination of parents to engage with the school. The current study also found that some parents in-spite of their economic difficulties were found to mobilise funds and foodstuffs as their token appreciation of teachers whose subject areas recorded high pass at BECE. Parents’ contribution in kind rather than with actual money is actually a way of very actively involving people.
Literacy and Language as a barrier to Parental Involvement
The low literacy level among parents and community members limited their involvement in structures like the PTA and SMC (Adam, 2005; Donkor, 2010). The current study reveals that most parents had low literacy and limited formal education to be able to help children in their home work. In-spite of this handicap, most parents relied on extended and community members for assistance. Thus, when parents are eager to see their wards through formal education, their own illiterate status does not become a handicap. Evidence from the current study reveals that even though GES directives on the conduct of PTA/SMC and other school-wide events (GES, PTA/SMC, 2001) recommended the use of local language, the use of English was clearly a real barrier to parental involvement in school activities.
Communication as a barrier to Parental Involvement
Communication takes many forms within the different fora. While it can act as barrier can also act as facilitator. The study findings suggested that more openness on the part of school staff engendered increased parental involvement in school affairs. For example, in School 2 community, parents expressed the view that increased contacts with teachers led to increased confidence and even more contacts. Parents were sometimes excluded from communication that were important within formal fora, for example, in the current study, the situation in School 1 community where the head teacher was accused of not encouraging broader consultations among those that mattered was likely to foment mistrust and discourage active parental involvement in school activities.
Relationships and Discipline as barrier to Parental Involvement
As discussed in the literature review, the relationship between various actors in education can be viewed on a continuum such that at one end it is very conflictual characterised by tensions and conflicts, while at the other end it is very positive in nature (Baquedano-Lopez et al.,2013). It certainly calls into question the idealistic notion that everyone is working to promote cooperation and harmony. The study highlights some tensions and challenges that can arise from the overlapping spheres of influence between parents, PTA, SMC and school.
Even though the GES abhors the practice of corporal punishment and frowns on intimidation, verbal or physical in schools (GES, 2001), the findings from the current study reveal that verbal abuse and the practice of corporal punishment to children for their inability to do homework was common in both school communities. The practice led to open hostilities between teachers on the one hand and parents and children on the other. This finding implies that the posture or attitude of school heads/ teachers
affect parental involvement in school. Another source of power struggle revealed by the current study was in the monitoring role of the SMC. SMC members are often regarded as intruders and the entire body perceived as counterweight to the head teacher’s authority, leading to tension and conflicts (De Grauwe et al., 2005; Afful-Broni, 2005; Dunne et al., 2007).. In the current study, it was evident that the apparent power play between SMC members and teachers with regard to monitoring and supervision of the school did not go well with some teachers particularly in school 2 community. The school staff felt as professionals, they had the mandate to handle school matters and that the SMC’s intervention was perceived as an intrusion.
This section has highlighted that parents, schools and communities have different interests, expectations and capacity and for that matter mutual collaboration might suffer some challenges in the form of tensions and conflicts as discussed above. The way out as suggested by this study includes equity measures involving schools’ organising training for school governors and other empowerment approaches (Baquedano-Lopez et al., 2013) and creating space for parental involvement in school decision-making. These findings echo the views expressed by Torre and Murphy (2016) that school leaders and teachers must have welcoming attitudes and take responsibility for reaching out to parents to build strong relationships and ensure that communication occur on regular basis in an atmosphere of mutual respect and care.
RQ 2: What are the fora for parental involvement?
This study has allowed me to identify the two broad areas for parental involvement that can be loosely described as formal and informal. It is interesting to note that not all parents interviewed were involved in these formal and informal fora. The formal fora relate to governance and decentralisation policy and the study suggested that the two that were key were the SMC and PTA. For example, the SMC fora appeared in some
cases to ensure that schools perform to the best of their abilities by monitoring teachers to check for lateness, drunkenness and other ethical behaviours in both communities. The PTA fora appeared to view its role rather differently with the PTA fora focused mostly on aspects of school development issues such as provision and maintenance of school structures and furniture, teacher welfare and maintaining links/networks with both communities for school improvement. The informal fora were forums for building parental/community/ school relations and networks and these relate most closely to the PTA. In the current study, these provided the means for the mobilisation of parents to participate in school events such as cultural festivals, sporting activities and speech and prize-giving day. PTA members in the current study were found to share the belief that informal interactions at their children’s school helped them to interact with fellow parents and ascertain information about their children’s progress from school authorities. It also served as a supportive community network through which bereaved members of the PTA were given special donations. School finance, teacher motivation, teacher discipline and accountability are all examples where there was found to be some overlapping role between these two key fora. Both the PTA and SMC have school, community and parent representation highlighting the interconnectedness in school governance.
RQ3: What forms of involvement are parents engaged in at the case study schools?
Specific forms of parental involvement identified in this study related to financial matters and governance frameworks. These relate to the formal and informal fora identified above. There is also less formal involvement at the individual level and those involved as a parent might at times be a grandparent or other relatives as one was an aunty in School 2 community. This links explicitly to what I have argued about the term ‘parent’, the need to recognise the importance of the extended family system as a child
in this context belongs to the extended family, not his/her biological parent so everyone does what they can to help in the child’s upbringing (Addae-Boahene and Arkorful, 1999).
Parental Involvement in Financial Matters
The study highlighted parental involvement in financial matters as one key area and it cuts across the SMC and the PTA but looks different in the two fora. The SMCs were involved in the administration of the capitation grant scheme in both school communities. The procedure for release of the capitation grant begins with input from the teachers and then their head teacher, who, upon completion, has to discuss with the chairperson of SMC for approval (GES Guidelines for Capitation Grants, 2005). On parental involvement in the Finance Committee, an appendage of the SMC, the current study unearthed a discrepancy between the two study schools. Whereas parents used the committee as a channel to engage in financial matters in School 2, the same cannot be said of School 1 where the head teacher and staff appeared to have acted in financial matters without the involvement of the school governors. This has to do with the leadership or management style which touches more on whether people feel they are having the capacity to contribute or not seeing the role of parents as valuable or as an encroachment on their professionalism.
The study also highlighted the very important role of the PTAs in both case study schools where they were engaged in fund-raising to support their respective activities. School 1 was into maize and cassava production whereas School 2 was engaged in woodlot forestry products. In the current study, the PTAs of both study schools used levies collected from members for the provision and maintenance of school infrastructure, to support teachers’ welfare and as incentives to boost performance in public examinations. In School 1, most parents felt the payment of PTA levies and
other school contributions constituted a hindrance and some said it was a deterrent to their involvement in school affairs. These are communities where poverty and survival and intergenerational disadvantage issues are common. It appears there is also some fear or coercion on the very disadvantaged communities of parents expected to make up the shortfalls elsewhere in the system but also some making an excellent effort to support.
Parental Involvement in Governance Frameworks
A second key form of involvement disclosed by the current study relates to governance frameworks. However, this role relates only to the SMC fora. In Ghana, SMCs are mandated by the GES Handbook (2001), to superintendent over four main areas of basic education, namely, school policy, school development, school administration and finance. From the current study, the two SMCs appeared to focus more on the monitoring of teachers than on issues relating to school policy and development. SMC members who were interviewed attributed the neglect of these other parts of their official functions to the lack of appropriate orientation about those roles. Somehow, members in both SMCs claimed that, in spite of their inexperience in management, monitoring came easy to them, all they needed to do was to make regular visits to schools to check for teacher lateness, drunkenness and other immoral behaviour. In both schools, increased involvement of the SMC in monitoring was not welcomed by teachers. In fact, in School 2 community, a teacher threatened to quit if what he considered as an intrusion continued. Study findings reveal that parents filled this role despite being in many cases rather poorly equipped by their own education and that this could be positive in developing understanding of education.