TUBERIAS Y VALVULERIA

Parental involvement and partnership in education has been the subject of considerable research, (Epstein 1986; Degado-Gaitan 1991; Chavkin 1993; Ashton and Cairney 2001; Bleach, 2008). Policy rhetoric emphasising parents as partners has been accompanied by a search for ideal partnership arrangements between homes and schools to enhance

and Degado-Gaitan (1991) as promoting a sense of collaboration and shared responsibility in children’s education. According to Pugh and De’Ath (1989, p.68) partnership is ‘a working relationship that is characterised by a sense of purpose, mutual respect and the willingness to negotiate’. This implies a sharing of information,

responsibility, skills, decision-making and accountability. The Scottish Executive (2007) in its publication Reaching out to Families, also suggests that partnerships are built on mutual respect and a two-way process of schools and parents learning from each other, a process which Feiler (2010) argues should be a positive and constructive framework. Block (1993) points out that partnership means to be connected to another in a way that power is roughly balanced. Views of partnership are based on mutual trust, common goals and two-way communication. It is a collaborative relationship between two parties and parental involvement in schools, according to Block (1993), is a means of

establishing it.

Swap, (1993, p. 67), identified four partnership models. A protective model exists when parents hand over responsibility for educating their children to the school, teachers concur with this and parents see teachers as answerable for children’s learning. A school- to-home transmission model, with the direction of contact being from teachers to parents, recognizes that parents’ active involvement in children’s learning contributes to higher achievement and teachers view parents as a valuable resource in transmitting school values and skills to children. A curriculum enrichment model sees the school develop the curriculum so that it reflects the values, history and culture of the various communities it serves. It acknowledges that parents have expertise and skills that can broaden and augment the curriculum. In a partnership model a collaborative relationship impacts on all aspects of the school’s ethos. A whole school approach among teachers leads to children succeeding and standards being raised. Extended family members are committed to working with the school and community resources are used to enrich the school’s curriculum and provide support to the staff.

Jackson and Remillard (2005) argue that Swap’s partnership model may be suited to schools where children are not achieving well and point out that extensive collaboration

between teachers and parents should include two-way communication and opportunities for informal gatherings with more families involved, and for longer, and being productive and purposeful. Allen (2007) agrees that an important factor in developing the sort of partnership described by Swap (1993) is a school’s willingness to establish collaborations that are built on the diversity of family and community practices. In an examination of home literacy and numeracy practices, and the roles of home and school in fostering children’s literacy and numeracy development in Australian schools, Warren and Young (2002) note that the rationale for parent / school partnership is to maximise learning opportunities. Warren and Young (2002, p.226) also observe that ‘as we move into productive partnerships, schools need to ascertain the knowledge parents have and do not have and incorporate these strengths and weaknesses into two-way conversations when working together to support children’s, and adults’ literacy and numeracy development’.

2.3.1 Partnership and parental responsibility

Principle Seven of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) states that ‘the best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents’. A policy in England, Every Child Matters (DfE, 2003c) and in Ireland a white paper in education, Charting Our Education Future (1995, p.139) emphasised parents’ responsibilities such as nurturing a learning environment, co-operating with and supporting the school, and fulfilling their special role in the development of the child, irrespective of socio-economic background.

Bridges, (1994), considers that competing conceptualisations of the relationship between parents and schools reflect different views of the roles, rights and responsibilities of parents, the conditions under which schools will work most effectively, the

professionalism or otherwise of teachers and the circumstances in which children’s learning most effectively takes place. Bridges focuses on parents as puzzled bystanders, supporters, partners, governors, co-educators and customers. Principals and teachers often talk with satisfaction and comfort about having supportive parents, or with

choice in sending their child to a particular school. Bridges, (1994), claims that in making that choice parents are entering into a relationship which entails obligations of support. As co-educators, parents must be regarded as a major developmental and educative force in their children’s lives. Macbeth (2005) agrees that parents are integral to schooling, that parents, not teachers are primarily responsible in law for the education of their individual child and are therefore first-line clients of the school.

Parents, as the prime educators of their children, are expected to provide ‘school-trained’ children (OECD 1997, p.25; Bastiani, 2000, p.24). They must meet the developmental needs of their children for safety, security, routines and rules. As role models for their children, parents must demonstrate consistent respect for all other ‘legitimate authorities’ in the child’s life (Garanzini, 2000, p.249). Parents have the responsibility to prepare their children with the necessary life-skills for functioning in school and society. In a pre- election speech given by Barack Obama (2008) at Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts in Thornton, Colorado, while emphasizing the need to adequately support schools and teachers, he declared that there was no program or policy that could replace parental involvement in their child’s education. From day one he contended that responsibility for children’s education must start at home.

In Ireland the Education Act (1998) gave statutory recognition to the National Parents Council Primary and enshrined the right of parents to be consulted and informed on various aspects of school organisation, including their children’s records, school plans, policies and accounts. The act, however, did not, according to Bleach (2008) set out the role and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children’s education and a

subsequent Education Welfare Act (2000) made parents responsible solely for their children’s school attendance. However, apart from ensuring that their children attend school regularly, neither laws nor policies in Ireland can force parents to be involved in their children’s education (Bleach 2008). Conaty (2005-2006) considered if the role of parents as prime educators was a mere aspirational statement and whether the onus was on parents, or on schools, to ensure children could read and numerate.

2.3.2 Social class, social capital and learning partnerships

O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005, p.65) argue that the theory and practice of social capital as outlined by Coleman (1988, 1990), Putnam (1993, 1995) and Bourdieu (1986), is useful as a ‘conceptual lens’ for informing learning partnership approaches for social inclusion in education, and helpful in highlighting ways forward for educational institutions working with disadvantaged groups. Coleman (1988, 1990) considers that social capital exists in the structure of social relations built up over time between individuals. These relationships lead to productive activity as obligations and

expectations, the flow of information, norms and sanctions, and skilful leadership are used for the benefit of people and educational achievement. Putnam (1993, 1995)

contends that a well functioning society results from the amassing of social capital where moral obligations, social values, especially trust, and social networks, such as

membership of voluntary associations, lead to coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

According to O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005) Bourdieu’s theory of social capital offers socio-cultural explanations for why disadvantaged groups remain excluded from the educational process. Three interrelated constructs are key to Bourdieu’s (1986) social capital theory. Habitus is dispositions that shape action. O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005, p.68) look upon habitus as objective structures and subjective perceptions, social and cultural messages shaping individual thoughts and actions which are a product of prior experience and which impact on human behaviours. In terms of home-school relations, the temperaments and orientations parents and teachers have towards each other are part of their habitus. According to Bourdieu (1990) habitus positions groups and individuals to play the game of schooling more and less easily. The second construct, field, includes in its parameters, roles, and goals of interaction; it comprises implicit definitions of how teachers should engage families and what counts as success. O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005, p.70) see field as a ‘structured space of forces and struggles’ consisting of an ordered system and an identifiable network of relationships that impact on the habitus of individuals. Education is a field since it sets its own rules that regulate behaviour. When certain individuals enter the field they have a greater capacity to manipulate ‘the rules of

the game’ through their established capital appropriation. Those in disadvantaged contexts may ‘play the game without questioning the rules’.

The final element in this model is capital which O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005) divide into four categories. Economic capital, such as income and resources, enables individuals to purchase educational services. Economic capital, however, relies on social capital, such as networks and contacts for individual gain. In education this means access to areas of expertise, resources and support and is a question of who you know rather than what you know. The third category, cultural capital, comes in three forms, objectified,

embodied or institutionalised (Grenfell & James, 1988). Objectified forms may be books, necessary for the early acquisition of literacy and numeracy, or may be qualifications or the availability of computers. Embodied forms may be connected to an educated person such as accent and learning disposition, and institutionalised forms may be the type of school attended. Symbolic capital represents ways in which capitals are perceived in the social structure. All forms of capital define positions and possibilities for individuals engaged in any field such as education. O’Brien and O’Fathaigh (2005, p.73), while dismissing the idea that working-class parents are not interested in their children’s

education, contend that any debate on educational disadvantage and learning partnerships for social inclusion must take Bourdieu’s theory of social capital into account and that learning partnerships must work with and not for disadvantaged groups.