Guion 2

How can we narrow the gap in educational achievement without parents being part of the process? Ninety per cent of all caring is done by the parents and carers. It goes the whole way through everything (Dyson et al. 2010 p.16)

The above section explores the multifarious reasons as to what can motivate, or hinder, a parent to become engaged from a theoretical perspective. To help understand how to engage parents it is pertinent to address the issues perceived as barriers to engagement. In order to overcome these barriers Grolnick et al (1997) suggest a multilevel approach where institutional, individual and contextual factors are all taken into account.

34 2.4.1 Barriers to engagement

There are several variables that have been argued to potentially act as a barrier

to parents engaging with their child’s education. These variables fall into the

areas of institutional, individual and contextual factors (Grolnick et al, 1997). It is not realistic to expect schools to alter individual and contextual factors (e.g. income, education, ethnicity, family status etc.) but by being aware that these factors exist schools can mediate some of the barriers to engagement. Furthermore, schools may influence parental construct variables (that is, what parents think and do) which are subject to influence and alteration (Green et al, 2007). In addition, the teacher’s approach, attitude and practice towards parental engagement also have a bearing on parents’ behaviour (Grolnick et al, 1997).

Some of the main variables within contextual factors include work commitments (Peters et al, 2008); family status (Grolnick et al, 1997); social class and cultural background (Crozier & Reay, 2005; Mackenzie, 2009; Peters et al, 2008). As mentioned above, it is important for schools to be aware of prevailing contextual factors because:

parents who are extremely stressed or whose values and attitudes clash with those of the teacher may not receive the teacher’s messages even if he or she is attempting to involve them (Grolnick et al, 1997 p. 547)

With relation to work commitments and family status, where parents find it difficult to be available during the working hours of the day, it is suggested that considering targeting other types of engagement that do not require day-time

availability may be useful in increasing parental engagement with their child’s

35 With regard to social class and cultural background, issues rooted in social class, ethnicity and race can create barriers between the school and parental engagement. As Crozier & Reay (2005) explain,

Where children’s class and cultural background bears little resemblance to that of their teacher’s then connections between home and school may be minimal and tenuous (p.26)

This view is supported by Reay (2005) who postulates that middle class mothers tend to be far more adept at getting their viewpoint across in conversations with teachers and are able to display certainty; self-assurance and an ability to counter oppose viewpoints. Yet working class mothers tended to be, ‘much more apologetic and far more likely to disqualify and, at times, contradict themselves when talking to teachers’ (Reay, 2005 p. 29). Reay (2005) suggests that by targeting parental confidence in their educational knowledge and information about school then parents will feel more empowered to intervene and engage in their children’s education. This is despite social class and cultural contextual variables.

An important variable that falls within the individual factors is the quality of the

relationship between the parent and child. Grolnick et al’s (1997) study

identified that where parents perceive their child as being difficult then they tend to withdraw from such interactions. For example, if the child is perceived as being uncooperative in completing homework then it is postulated that the parent will withdraw from this activity with the child. They suggest that in order to reinstate parental engagement then as well as providing parents with strategies to help them work with their child it is also pertinent to consider parents’ ideas about children’s learning and their perceptions of their role.

2.4.2 The practices of the school

As mentioned above school practices affect parents’ behaviour. The report by Harris & Goodall (2007) for the Department for Children, Schools and Families concluded that:

36

Schools that enable parents to engage in learning consistently reinforce the fact that ‘parents matter’ by developing a two way relationship with parents based on mutual trust, respect and a commitment to improving learning outcomes (p. 5).

It is possible to judge the reasoning behind this statement through a consideration of the opposing condition. That is the condition when the conversations between teacher and parent are of a more traditional mode in that it is one of direction, instruction, guidance and persuasion (Mackenzie, 2009). By bearing in mind people’s propensity to dislike social censure and the influence of the psychological need for relatedness on parental motivation then it is possible to discern that, ‘where one participant exerts a greater degree of control and influence over the directions and content of the talk than the other’ (Crozier & Reay, 2005 p.113) then the minority voice becomes disaffected, disengaged and disempowered (Mackenzie, 2009).

There is a sociological critique regarding the power balance implicit within the

two-way relationship between schools and parents and the ‘meaningfulness’ of

schools’ advances to parents. Vincent & Tomlinson (1997) posit that the concept of partnerships between school and parents is used to justify mechanisms, such as home-school contracts, as a means of controlling parents’ behaviour. They go on to say that although parents are welcomed into the school it is for the purpose of understanding why the school exercises control in the manner that they do:

Examination of the uses of ‘partnership’ by education professionals reveals an implicit marginalising and controlling of parents, aspects of the relationship which are masked by warm references to consensus and congeniality…Parents are audience, volunteers, supporters-from- a-distance; the roles are passive and narrowly defined. (p.366)

Embedded in this critique is a lack of trust between school and parents. Dunsmuir et al (2004) explored the role of trust between parents and teachers as an element of successful parent-teacher partnerships and highlighted the importance of communication in this relationship. However there are barriers to

37 developing successful communication channels between parents and teachers.

Firstly, teachers’ contributions tend to dominate in interactions with parents:

Teachers have, by virtue of their location within an institution and their professional knowledge, a built-in command over the relationship (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997 p366)

In addition increased communication can lead to disagreements and misunderstandings and it is avoidance of conflict and professional defensiveness that leads to teachers shunning communication with parents (Dunsmuir et al, 2004). Therefore careful consideration of the ways that teachers and parents construct and experience their relationship with each other is required (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997).

In order for communication channels to be successful information exchanges need to be open and two-way (Dunsmuir et al 2004) and it is the responsibility of the professional for facilitation of this (Taylor & Gulliford, 2011). Mackenzie (2009) postulates that teachers need to not only be aware of the language they use but also of their body language. Two-way partnership requires trust (Dunsmuir et al, 2004), shared responsibility and accountability (Hartas, 2008) and this is developed through mutual humility and hope (Mackenzie, 2009). Humility in the sense that, ‘without an acceptance that there is something to

learn in every new situation then our minds are closed to new information’ (pxii);

and hope brings the possibility that change can take place.