Guion 3

2.5.1 Decision making processes

Decision making occurs when either something needs to change or when something is attempted for the first time (Doya & Shadlen, 2012). It can be regarded as a problem solving activity in that the decision making process results in the selection of a course of action among several alternative scenarios (Schacter et al, 2011). Decision making is described as a process that can either be rational or irrational and will be based on either explicit or tacit assumptions (Schacter et al, 2011).

38 A model encapsulating the stages of decision making was developed by B. Aubrey Fisher in 1994 (Fisher, 1994). Fisher’s Interact System Model comprises of four stages:

1) Orientation stage – members meet and start to get to know each other.

2) Conflict stage – disagreements and disputes occur once members have

become familiar with each other.

3) Emergence stage – unanimity begins to emerge as opinions and tacit

assumptions are resolved

4) Reinforcement stage – members make a decision

Group norms (as discussed in chapter 2.5.1) are an influential factor in the quality of decision making processes (Fisher, 1994). The making of a decision requires collaboration between the members of a group yet when group members become more familiar with each other there is a tendency to argue and create more of a dispute to agree upon one decision. Fisher (1994) argues that this process leads to a more successful decision however there can be situations when some members may not want to argue further due to an avoidance of social censure (Stainton-Rogers, 2007).

An individual’s mood and emotions can also have an impact on decision

making. Bower (1981) coined the term ‘state-dependent remembering’ to

explain the phenomenon of the influence of mood working as a retrieval cue to memories/materials which in turn impacts on the decisions that are made. He postulated that happy feelings make positive materials come to mind and the same is true of negative feelings. A study by Lerner & Keltner (2000) proposed a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice hypothesising that, ‘fearful people made pessimistic judgements of future events whereas

angry people made optimistic judgements’ (p.473). Loewenstein and Lerner

(2003) classified emotions during decision making into two types: anticipated emotions and immediate emotions. Anticipated emotions are not experienced directly but instead are the expectations (or anticipation) of how the person will

39 feel once the impact of the decision has been experienced (Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003). Immediate emotions are those experienced during the decision making process and are influenced by the environment or the individual disposition of the person (Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003). As Raghunathan & Tuan Pham (1999, p.60) state, ‘emotions have distinct influences on decision making processes’.

2.5.2 Engaging parents in decision making processes

Engaging parents is often challenging and problematical for schools. The Lamb Inquiry (DCSF, 2009) was commissioned to explore how parental confidence in the Special Educational Needs system could be improved and also how to break down the barriers between the school and parental engagement. One of the conclusions of the report was that a stronger partnership between schools and parents was needed. The Inquiry found there was a profound impact on children’s progress when schools had effective engagement with parents. One of the foci of the recommendations of the Lamb Inquiry was to develop a stronger voice for parents especially in projects that engaged parents at a more strategic level. Examples include projects developing local provision, reviewing the transition through early years provision into school and also decision making (such as parents being part of the panel that advises the local authority on whether or not to proceed with a statutory assessment of a child’s special educational needs).

Other research also suggests that parental engagement is maximised when parents are actively engaged in decision making (Harris & Goodall, 2007; Irvine, 2005). The ‘Spectrum of Public Participation’ is helpful in understanding the different levels that parents can be involved in decision making. The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), founded in 1990 to respond to the rising global interest in public participation, coined the phrase ‘Spectrum of Public Participation’ (see Table 2-2) to summarise the different levels that the public can be involved in the decision making process.

40 The spectrum ranges from informing the public which has a minimum level of public impact to empowering the public where the final decision making is in the hands of the public. The higher the level of public impact the more meaningful is the engagement in promoting sustainable decisions.

Increasing Level of Public Impact

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Public Participation Goal To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspiration are consistently understood and considered To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution To place final decision- making in the hands of the public Promise to the public We will keep you informed We will keep you informed, listen and acknowledge concerns and aspirations and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternative developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision

We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible We will implement what you decide Example techniques Fact sheets Web sites Open houses Public comment Focus groups Surveys Public meetings Workshops Deliberative polling Citizen advisory committees Consensus- building Participatory decision-making Citizen juries Ballots Delegated decision

41 The studies examining successful parental engagement have engaged parents at the levels of ‘Consultation’, ‘Involvement’ or ‘Collaboration’ (see Harris & Goodall, 2007; Goodall et al, 2011). At these levels the purpose of decision making can be about the individual child (such as decisions made in a Special Educational Needs review meeting) as well as whole school issues (such as whether the school requires an undercover playground area). Examples of how parents can be engaged for whole school issues include parent forums, surveys and questionnaires, meetings and workshops, being a member of the governing body.

However there are several barriers to engaging parents in decision making processes, not least that parents can feel disempowered and marginalised with the perception that decisions have already been made with little scope for influencing them (Bell,1999). This power differential (as discussed in chapter 2.4.2) is a major factor on parental engagement in decision making and it is argued it is the responsibility of the professional to be cognisance of this and take action accordingly (Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997; Dunsmuir et al, 2004; Taylor & Gulliford, 2011). Thus how professionals (namely school staff) perceive the issue of parental engagement is a major influence in the decision making process.

2.6 Conclusion

It takes a whole village to raise a child. (African Proverb)

In summary research indicates that schools who work in isolation from parents struggle to improve children’s achievement. Yet teachers who endeavour to gain the support of parents, carers and the home find that this support is indispensable for helping children to not only achieve but to also sustain their achievement (Ranson, 2011). The more engaged parents are in the education of their child then the more likely their child is to succeed (Desforges, 2003). In addition, schools which include parents in a variety of meaningful ways and

42 work to actively embrace racial, religious and ethnic and language differences, increase communication and trust between school and parents (Hoover- Dempsey & Sandler (1997); Desforges (2003)).

It is important to recognise that parental engagement is not the same as parental involvement because engagement implies that parents are an essential part of the learning process (Harris & Goodall, 2007). However, parents have differing perceptions of their role. Some parents perceive they have no role in their child’s education; others perceive their role at the level of raising concerns; whilst other parents perceive their role at the level of participating in policy making (Irvine, 2005). The level at which a school is able to engage with a parent is dependent on many factors including parents’ motivations; socio- economic status and gender; as well as overcoming several other barriers to engagement.

A key factor in mediating parental engagement is understanding which level of the hierarchy of role conception parents are motivated to be at. The reasons as to what can motivate or hinder a parent to become engaged are complex. Not only is it apposite to be aware of the significance of the proximal and distal social systems that work to limit or enhance parental engagement but consideration should also be given to factors related to parents’ intrinsic motivation. Research indicates that people who are more intrinsically motivated have more excitement, interest and confidence resulting in increased performance and persistence with a task (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Factors related to intrinsic motivation include the psychological concepts of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Accordingly there are many potential barriers to parental engagement. A multilevel approach encompassing institutional, individual and contextual factors which incorporates teacher approach, attitude and practice can begin to counteract many of these barriers. In addition focusing on enabling and

43 encouraging parents to be engaged with decision making processes (that is to work with parents at the stage of collaboration and empowerment from the Spectrum of Public Participation) also helps to promote and develop more meaningful parental engagement.

Therefore it is not so much a question of, why should schools invest in increasing and improving their engagement with parents, but how can schools increase and improve their engagement with parents. As Harris & Goodall conclude:

Schools need to place parental engagement at the centre rather than the periphery of all that they do. Parental engagement in children’s learning makes a difference – it is the most powerful school improvement lever that we have (2007 p.70)

44