Barriers To Parental Involvement in Education

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol Library]

On: 27 January 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773509252]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415680

Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model

Garry Hornbya; Rayleen Lafaelea
a
College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Online publication date: 22 January 2011
To cite this Article Hornby, Garry and Lafaele, Rayleen(2011) 'Barriers to parental involvement in education: an
explanatory model', Educational Review, 63: 1, 37 — 52
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Educational Review
Vol. 63, No. 1, February 2011, 37–52
Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory

model
Garry Hornby* and Rayleen Lafaele
College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Educational
10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
CEDR_A_488049.sgm
0950-3110
Original
Taylor
02010
00
[email protected]
GarryHornby
000002010
and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1473-348X
Francis
Review (online)
The issue of parental involvement (PI) in education is notable for the extensive
rhetoric supporting it and considerable variation in the reality of its practice. It is
proposed that the gap between rhetoric and reality in PI has come about because
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 09:00 27 January 2011
of the influence of factors at the parent and family, child, parent–teacher and
societal levels which act as barriers to the development of effective PI. This article
presents a model which has been developed in order to clarify and elaborate on the
barriers in each of these four areas. First, parent and family factors are discussed,
focusing on parents’ beliefs about PI, parents’ current life contexts, parents’
perceptions of invitations for involvement, and class, ethnicity and gender. Next,
child factors are addressed, focusing on age, learning difficulties and disabilities,
gifts and talents, and behavioural problems. Then, parent–teacher factors are
discussed, focusing on differing agendas, attitudes and language used. Finally,
societal factors are addressed, including historical and demographic issues, political
issues, and economic issues. It is argued that the model will enable education
professionals to achieve a greater understanding of the barriers to PI, which is a
necessary precursor to the development of more effective PI in education. The
model can also be used in pre-service teacher education and professional
development courses for education professionals, as well as for identifying areas
of future research on PI.
Keywords: parents; teachers; schools; parental involvement
Introduction
Parental involvement (PI) in the education of their children has been regarded as an
important element of effective education for at least 40 years (see DES 1967). There
is now an extensive research literature indicating that PI is advantageous for children
of all ages (Cox 2005; Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Eccles and Harold 1993;
Epstein 2001). This includes home-based PI such as listening to children read and
supervision of homework as well as school-based PI such as attending parent educa-
tion workshops and parent–teacher meetings. The effectiveness of both home-based
and school-based PI in facilitating academic achievement has been reported by several
reviews and meta-analyses of the literature (Fan and Chen 2001; Henderson and Mapp
2002; Jeynes 2005, 2007; Pomerantz, Moorman, and Litwack 2007). Other benefits of
PI which emerge from these reviews include: improved parent–teacher relationships,
teacher morale and school climate; improved school attendance, attitudes, behaviour
and mental health of children; and, increased parental confidence, satisfaction and
interest in their own education.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online

© 2011 Educational Review
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
http://www.informaworld.com
38 G. Hornby and R. Lafaele
Despite widespread acknowledgement of these potential benefits however, there

are clear gaps between the rhetoric on PI found in the literature and typical PI practices
found in schools. As stated by Christenson and Sheridan “… there is still more rhetoric
than reality about family and school working together as genuine partners” (2001, 18).
This view is reinforced by the findings of two surveys. First, a survey of 1035 second-
ary school teachers in the United States found that 83% of teachers considered that the
level of PI in their schools should be increased (Binns, Steinberg, and Amorosi 1997).
Second, a survey of parents in the UK reported that 72% of mothers wanted more
involvement in their children’s education (Williams, Williams, and Ullman, 2002).
There is now extensive literature available for teachers on improving PI that
includes such things as templates for various PI activities, meetings, programmes
and workshops (Bastiani 1989; Blank and Kershaw 1998; Boult 2006; Grant and
Ray 2010; Hornby 2000; Henderson et al. 2007). In addition, a number of theoretical
models of PI have been developed. These range from Sattes’ (1994) simple three-
dimensional framework of commitment, training and variety, to Lueder’s (2000)

more complex “energy-in and energy-out” model, which argues for an expansion of
the traditional roles of family support for schools and for schools reaching out to
families. In contrast, Christenson and Sheridan (2001) have suggested that the four
key elements for enhancing PI are: approach; attitudes; atmosphere; and actions.
Swap (1993) has proposed that there is a hierarchy for PI beginning with the “protec-
tive model”, moving through “school-to-home transmission” and “curriculum enrich-
ment models” to the preferred “partnership model”. Hornby (2000) has combined
elements of a number of models to create a framework that elaborates hierarchies of
parental contributions and parental needs in order to provide a model for involve-
ment which includes eight types of PI: communication; liaison; education; support;
information; collaboration; resource; and, policy. Epstein (2001) has distinguished
six types of PI: parenting; communication; volunteering; home tutoring; involvement
in decision-making; and, collaboration with the community. Epstein’s model
presents family, school and community as overlapping spheres of influence, the
congruence of which is of considerable importance for the optimal development of
children.
The literature on PI therefore encompasses research indicating the effectiveness of
PI, the reported value given to it by both educators and parents, and a substantial
collection of theoretical models and practical guides aimed at its development. The
reality of PI is however, quite different.
Henderson and Berla (1994) summarised the situation succinctly when they stated,
“The benefits of effective collaborations and how to do them are well documented
across all the age ranges of schooling. Still they are not in widespread practice” (18).
Fifteen years later this situation has not subtantially changed. The current reality is
that there is considerable diversity in the type and degree of PI, with modal practice
being at the more traditional end of the spectrum which focuses on a one-directional
flow of support from parents to schools. The typical approach reflects a lack of
consensus, guiding framework and training on PI, which not surprisingly results in
variable effectiveness (Hornby 2000; Lueder 2000; Pomerantz et al. 2007).
There are many reasons for the gap between what is said and what is done in the
name of PI and these can be conceptualised as barriers to PI. The various barriers to
PI can be categorised by adapting Epstein’s (2001) framework of overlapping
spheres of influence focused on the three areas of family, school and community.
For the purpose of discussion in this article these three spheres of influence have
Educational Review 39
Figure 1. Model of factors acting as barriers to PI.
been adapted to become: broader societal factors, which influence the functioning of
both schools and families; parent–teacher factors; individual parent and family
factors; as well as an additional focus on child factors. This article presents a model
which has been developed in order to clarify and elaborate on the barriers in each of
these four areas (see Figure 1). These barriers to the establishment of effective PI in
education are discussed below. First, individual parent and family barriers are
discussed, focusing on parents’ beliefs about PI, parents’ current life contexts,
parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement, and class, ethnicity and gender.
Next, child factors are addressed focusing on age, learning difficulties and disabili-
ties, gifts and talents, and behavioural problems. Then, parent–teacher factors are
discussed, focusing on differing agendas, attitudes and language used. Finally, soci-
etal factors are elaborated on, including historical and demographic issues, political
issues, and economic issues.
Figure 1. Model of factors acting as barriers to PI.
Parent and family factors

Parents’ beliefs about PI
Parents’ beliefs about various issues can act as barriers to effective PI. First, the way
that parents view their role in their children’s education is crucial. Parents who believe
that their role is only to get children to school, which then takes over responsibility for
their education, will not be willing to be actively involved in either school-based or
home-based PI. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) reported that this attitude is
more prevalent in some communities and national cultures than others, but that there
is considerable variation within these. For example, Clark (1983), in his research on
high achieving students from low-income black families, found that what distin-
guished the parents of these students from others at the school was that they believed
that they should be involved in their children’s education, by both supporting their
learning at home and interacting constructively with schools. Clark found that parents
of high achieving students had a greater belief than the other parents that they could
effectively help their children to do better at school.
The belief that parents have in their own ability to help their children succeed at
school is the second belief which is crucial to PI. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
(1997) point out that parents with a low level of belief in their ability to help their
children are likely to avoid contact with schools because of their view that such
involvment will not bring about positive outcomes for their children. For some parents
lack of confidence in helping their children may be because the language of instruc-
tion is not their first language and they feel they cannot communicate effectively with
teachers. For others, it can come from them having had negative experiences with
their children’s previous schools, or through them experiencing either learning or
behavioural difficulties during their own schooling. Lack of confidence may also
come from parents taking the view that they have not developed sufficient academic
competence to effectively help their children. This view is more apparent as students
progress through secondary schools and their academic work becomes more advanced
(Eccles and Harold 1993). Such views act as a barrier to PI, despite widespread
acknowledgement that the ability to support children’s learning does not require a
high level of education from parents (Clark 1983; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
1997; Hornby 2000).

The third type of parental beliefs which are critical to involvement in their
children’s education are parents’ views about children’s intelligence as well as how
children learn and develop their abilities (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997).
Parents who believe children’s intelligence is fixed and that school achievement is
mainly due to children being lucky enough to have high ability will not see the point
in getting too involved in their children’s education. They believe that children’s
innate ability will set a limit on their achievement so that such things as encouraging
children to do their homework or attending parent–teacher meetings at school are
viewed as a waste of time. Alternatively, parents who believe that achievement at
school depends as much on effort as ability, and that children’s abilities can always be
developed, are more likely to be positive about PI. Related to this are parents’ beliefs
about the role they should play in supporting this development, in fact their beliefs
about child rearing in general (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997). Parents who
believe that the way they bring up their children will have considerable impact on their
development are much more likely to be positive about PI than parents who believe
they can have little impact on their children’s development.
Parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement

Another potential barrier to PI is parents’ perceptions of the level of explicit and
implicit invitations for involvement. When parents think that PI is not valued by teach-
ers or schools they are less likely to get involved (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
1997). Therefore, parents’ perceptions of invitations from schools are considered
crucial in developing effective PI. Epstein (2001) has found that parents are most
effectively involved when teachers actively encourage PI. Teachers with positive,
facilitating attitudes toward involving parents encourage more parents to become
involved and increase the effectiveness of PI (Eccles and Harold 1993). When parents
perceive that teachers are not open to involving parents this acts as a major barrier to
PI. Similarly, schools which are welcoming to parents, and make it clear that they
value PI, develop more effective PI than schools that do not appear inviting to parents.
Secondary schools are often seen by parents as large bureaucratic organisations which
are not welcoming to parents, which is considered to be one of the reasons why there
is a tendency for higher levels of PI in primary than secondary schools (Eccles and
Harold 1993).
Parents’ current life contexts

Several aspects of parents’ life contexts can act as barriers to PI. Parents’ level of
education will influence their views on whether they have sufficient skills and knowl-
edge to engage in different aspects of PI (Green et al. 2007). For example, parents who
did not complete high school may be diffident about helping their children with home-
work once they get to secondary school. Also, parents without university degrees may
feel in some ways inferior to teachers who they know are better qualified than them
and therefore be reluctant to work closely with teachers.
Family circumstances can be major barriers to PI. For example, solo parents and
those with young families or large families may find it more difficult to get involved
in PI because of their caretaking responsibilities. Parents’ work situations can also be
a factor. When parents are unemployed money could be an issue as they may not be
able to afford a car or to pay babysitters in order to get to school meetings. For parents
with jobs, whether both parents work and the kind of jobs they have may be issues.
When both parents work there will be less time available for both home-based and
school-based PI. Also, while some jobs allow little flexibility for taking time off for
school-based PI, other jobs may leave parents too tired at the end of the day to help
children with homework (Catsambis 2001; Green et al. 2007).
Finally, parents’ overall psychological resources may be a barrier to PI. For exam-
ple, parents with poor physical or mental health or without an effective social support
network, including extended family members, may find it difficult to engage effec-
tively in PI (Eccles and Harold 1993).
Class, ethnicity and gender

There are also barriers relating to class, ethnicity and gender of parents that are rele-
vant when accounting for the gap between rhetoric and reality in PI. Differences in
class, ethnicity and gender may play a role in determining the degree to which parents
are involved with schools (OECD 1997). While the rhetoric on PI does include
suggestions of how to overcome the typical disadvantages of social class and ethnic-
ity, it does so with an essential bias of white middle-class values that ignores differ-
ence and diversity. It is a rhetoric of PI that benefits, and is committed to, a dominant
white middle-class involvement which, unsurprisingly, is precisely the group of
parents who are the main participators in PI (Bastiani 1989). Those largely involved
are, as defined by teachers, the “good parents” who typically are white middle-class,
married and heterosexual (Reay 1998).
Reay (1998) suggests that it is these parents who possess cultural capital which
matches that generally valued by schools. In contrast, working-class parents, though
possessing their own undervalued cultural capital, are aware of the difference between
the cultural capital they possess and that of teachers. Reay (1998) concludes that, for
working-class families, home-school relationships are about separateness, whereas for
middle-class families they are about interconnectedness, and this difference shapes
their respective attitudes to PI. In general, minorities are less involved, less repre-
sented and less informed, and are less likely to have access to resources, as well as
more likely to have problems associated with language, transport, communication and
child care. They have substantially different relationships with teachers, who most
often share white middle-class cultural capital (OECD 1997). In comparison, white
middle-class parents face no such obstacles in becoming involved at school. They
have the resources and power to enable them to continue to seek advantages for their
own children, for example, by engaging home-help to free up time for greater involve-
ment at school. This type of class related PI helps maintain the current inequalities in
the system and the gap between rhetoric and reality (Reay 1998).
Barriers related to ethnicity and culture are also important. A report by Koki and
Lee (1998) explains some of the issues involved in PI for parents in New Zealand who
have come from the Pacific Islands. They make the point that it is impossible to under-
stand these issues outside of the context of the history of Pacific education and cultural
tradition, but the reality is that PI programmes typically pay scant regard to these
issues. For example, there is a general lack of skill and knowledge about how to capi-
talise on Pacific cultural background positively when trying to involve parents. Since
within these cultures there is a significant emphasis on titles and social class, with an
understanding that lineage and culture are family domains, whereas education is
considered the domain of schools, it is argued that PI will remain limited unless
support is gained from community and church leaders (Koki and Lee 1998).
In another study Young (1998) examined the impact of cultural issues in the devel-
opment of trust between Mexican-American parents and schools in the United States.
The study found that the “existence or absence of trust between the home and the
school affects the development and sustenance of meaningful parental involvement”
(Young 1998, 1). Young’s finding that cultural roles, expectations and values play a
pivotal part in how trust is perceived and developed, is further evidence of the need to
be aware of the context of culture and ethnicity. Failure to understand the impact of
ethnicity on PI and to incorporate programmes that are genuinely inclusive of other
cultures is probably another reason why the practice of involving parents in schools is
typically less effective than it could be.
It is also significant that, despite policy and research supporting the importance of
PI in schools, the term itself is a misnomer because, as Reay (1998) points out, the
reality is that it is predominantly mothers’ involvement. Since most of the rhetoric and
research ignores the issue of the gendered nature of PI, it also fails to consider and
evaluate its impact on practice. However, analysis of the “mother’s world” does
clearly show there are tensions, power issues, contradictions and compromises
involved in determining levels of PI. The involvement of many mothers is heavily
influenced by their family-focused lives and this context puts constraints on how they
understand, respond to and interact with, educators and educational systems. Their
view of educational issues is often vastly different to that of educationalists since it is
concerned with a holistic focus on the family unit (David et al. 1993).
There have also been significant changes over the past few decades in family struc-
tures, and the political, economic and historical context in which mothers’ involve-
ment occurs. Now mothers face balancing issues of working with schools, negotiating
boundaries, increased workload, participation in the labour market, as well as the
effects of class, marital status and ethnicity. These issues contribute to the reasons for
the discrepancy between the rhetoric and typical practice of PI.
Child factors
Age
The age of children can be a barrier to the involvement of parents since it is widely
acknowledged that PI decreases as children grow older and is at its lowest level for
children of secondary school age. The tendency for PI to be greater for parents of
younger children may be partly because younger children are more positive about
their parents going into school. Whereas, older children are less keen about school
involvement, such as parents going on class trips, which is at least partly due to
adolescents wanting to become independent of their parents (Eccles and Harold 1993).
However, adolescents are still considered to desire and benefit from their parents
being involved in other ways, such as helping them with homework and making
subject choices. Deslandes and Cloutier (2002) found, in their study of 872 14-year-
old children in the United States, that over three quarters of these adolescents were
willing to show their parents what they learned or did well on at school, ask parents
for ideas for projects, listen to parents tell them about when they were teenagers, and
take home notes, notices and newsletters. Also, in their study of children’s perspec-
tives on PI, Edwards and Alldred (2000) found that children referred to far more PI
occurring in the home setting than at school. In spite of these findings, parents, and
sometimes teachers, can misinterpret the situation and assume that older children
do not want parents to be involved in their education, which can act as a barrier to
effective PI.
Learning difficulties and disabilities

Children’s performance at school can be a barrier or facilitating factor for PI. When
children are struggling with their school work, due to learning difficulties or disabili-
ties, then parents are generally more inclined to be active in PI activities (Eccles and
Harold 1993). In fact, many authorities on special needs education consider that
involving parents is an essential aspect of effective education for children with disabil-
ities or learning difficulties (Hornby 1995; Seligman 2000). Because the involvement
of parents is required for the process of implementing individual education
programmes this facilitates PI for many parents of children with learning difficulties
or disabilities. However, this is not always the case since there are many possible areas
for disagreement between schools and parents of children with learning difficulties or
disabilities, which can act as barriers to effective PI. For example, when parents
consider that their children can achieve more acdemically or when teachers want more
support from parents in backing up at home what children are working on at school
(Seligman 2000).
Gifts and talents

For children who are doing well at school it is usually a pleasure for parents to
attend parent–teacher meetings, so children being gifted or talented is usually a
facilitating factor for PI. However, barriers to effective PI can be evident when
parents consider their children are academically gifted if this view is not shared by
teachers (Montgomery 2009). Parents in this situation tend to lose confidence in the
school and therefore reduce their involvement with teachers. Also, many children
who are acdemically gifted become frustrated at school, typically because they are
being insufficietly challenged, and either begin to underachieve or develop behav-
iour problems. Either situation is likely to lead to conflict between parents and
teachers which then acts as a barrier to effective PI.
There is also potential for conflict between teachers and parents of children who
are talented in extra-curricular areas such as sport or musical abilities. Developing
their talents in these areas demands that children put in a lot of time and effort prac-
ticing or competing, which often requires them to take time off school and can lead to
them getting behind with their academic studies. Schools vary in how understanding
they are of the needs of such children and when parents consider that schools are not
responsive to the extra-curricular demands on their children it can prove to be a barrier
to positive PI.
Behavioural problems
When children develop a reputation for exhibiting challenging behaviour their parents
can be reluctant to go into schools for fear of getting more bad news. In fact, there is
usually a negative corelation between PI and children’s behaviour problems, such that
the more disruptive the behaviour the less parents are inclined to be involved with the
school. When behaviour problems become so severe that schools begin to consider
suspension or expulsion conflict between schools and parents is almost inevitable and
presents a formidable barrier to meaningful PI (Parsons 1999).
Parent–teacher factors
Goals and agendas
Related to the parent and child factors discussed earlier is the issue of differences in
goals and agendas between families and schools involved in making home–school
alliances a reality. Parent and teacher interactions and roles are frequently shaped by
differing expectations and vested interests (Wolfendale 1983). The PI rhetoric that
exists is not merely a function of a simplistic desire to benefit children, but also the
result of these differing and sometimes opposing goals and agendas. For example,
governments and schools may, from the perspective of their goals, see PI as a tool for
increasing school accountability to their communities and for increasing children’s
achievements, or as a cost effective resource, and a method of addressing cultural
disadvantage and inequality. However, parents’ goals are more likely to be focused on
improving their children’s performance, wishing to influence the ethos or curriculum
within the school, and wanting to increase their understanding of school life (OECD
1997). Teachers also have their own goals for PI, as is illustrated by Rudney (2005)
who reports that the focus of teachers is on PI in the areas of homework, providing a
nurturing environment, raising money, as well as attending school events and parent–
teacher meetings.
Parent–teacher meetings provide a good example of how much the goals and agen-
das of parents and teachers can differ. Bastiani (1989) has suggested that teachers’
goals for parent–teacher meetings include: discussing children’s progress and any
difficulties they are having; finding out from parents how children are coping with
school; identifying ways in which parents can help their children at home; and, iden-
tifying potential conflicts with parents. Parents goals for parent–teacher meetings
include: discussing children’s progress and any difficulties they are having; compar-
ing their children’s progress with that of others in the class; learning more about the
school and methods of teaching used; and, questionning teachers about any concerns
they have (Bastiani 1989). So it is clear that, although there are similarities, there are
also important differences in parents’ and teachers’ agendas for these meetings which
could act as barriers to the establishment of effective PI.
Adelman (1992), in discussing the impact of these differing goals, considers that
home–school relationships are based upon an agenda of socialisation, where schools
attempt to shape parental attitudes and practices so that they facilitate schooling. He
suggests that models and rhetoric concerning PI often have underlying agendas that
are largely concerned with meeting the needs of the school or society and it is possible
to differentiate the many different types of PI according to whether they are about
improving individuals or the school (Adelman 1992). These differences in goals
create conflicts which limit the type and success of PI practices, and result in frustra-
tion as each party seeks to maximise its own agenda, independent of, and often in
opposition to that of the others. Understanding these underlying and typically covert
agendas provides an example of the influence of the complex context in which PI
occurs.
Attitudes
Another critical factor in understanding the complexity of the difference between
what is said and what is done in regard to PI is the attitudes of parents and teachers.
It is at this level that the impact of many of the other factors already discussed
becomes evident. Teachers and parents each bring to the melting pot of PI personal
attitudes that are deeply rooted within their own historical, economic, educational,
ethnic, class and gendered experiences. There persists amongst many teachers a defi-
cit model of parents which is manifested through attitudes whereby parents are
viewed as “problems”, “vulnerable”, or “less able” and are therefore best kept out of
schools (Hornby 2000). However, within the context of the new neo-liberal market
driven economy, where parents are often constructed as consumers, parental attitudes
have changed from ones of deference and helplessness to a recognition of their rights
(Bastiani 1993). Nonetheless, as Bastiani states, “parents speak with many voices”
(as cited in Waller and Waller 1998, 113) and they are far from being a homogenous
group, generally lacking clear agendas, and possessing little political power
(Munn 1993).
At a fundamental level parents and teachers may also differ in their understanding
of the relationship between schooling and education. If education is largely about
schooling then logically it is teachers that possess the greatest knowledge, skills,
power and expertise. If however, schooling is merely a part of education, then there is
a clear shift in power and expertise towards parents, who are intimately involved in
the other 85% of children’s education which occurs outside of school (Munn 1993).
To put it succinctly, “Should school teachers educate children while parents humbly
support the schools? Or … Are parents the main educators of their child, while schools
supplement home-learning with specialist expertise?” (OECD 1997, 52). Clearly,
differing attitudes on this point will have major repercussions for how PI is perceived,
structured, valued and most importantly, how it is implemented.
There are many assumptions made about parents, including a pervasive notion that
they are increasingly not meeting their responsibilities nowadays, as once was done in
the past. Whereas, research findings suggest that parent–child relationships are
increasingly more loving, that child health has improved and that abuse once tolerated
is no longer accepted (Rudney 2005; Waller and Waller 1998; Wolfendale 1983).
However, media and television constantly highlight negative examples of parenting
and often portray parents as weak, incompetent and besieged by problems. Many
teachers make assumptions that some parents are not interested or do not really care
about their children’s education (Hornby 2000). Whereas, parents often feel ignorant
of the curriculum and processes of schools. They may believe that teachers are seeking
a superficial relationship and are only concerned with addressing problems rather than
working toward solutions. In this context, it is not surprising that there is a lack of
mutual understanding between parents and teachers with the result that mistrust builds
and barriers increase.
It is widely accepted that the vast majority of parents do care about their children’s
education, and that working-class parents care just as much as middle-class parents
(Epstein 2001; Wolfendale 1983). Further, most teachers are genuine in their desire to
actually find solutions and to engage meaningfully with parents. Teachers are nowa-
days however, working in an environment where they are increasingly held account-
able for children’s achievements (e.g. through the publication of the results of national
tests) and are often required to assume responsibilitiy for tasks for which they have
received little or no training, including working closely with parents (Hornby 2000;
OECD 1997). The result is that the gap between the assumptions held by parents and
teachers contributes to the gap between the rhetoric and reality of PI. This gap in
assumptions and the disparity between the goals of parents and teachers, can result in
poorly planned attempts to increase PI which may result in parents and teachers being
pushed further apart, thereby increasing distrust (Waller and Waller 1998).
A comparison of two studies of parent and teacher attitudes illustrates the depth
and breadth of the attitudinal obstacles that play such a central part in the gap between
reality and rhetoric in PI. First, a parental attitude survey conducted by the National
Opinion Research Centre (1997) in the United States shows that parents believe over-
whelmingly that schools see them as being valuable for their child’s learning and that
they want both themselves and teachers to learn more about ways they can be involved
in schools. Parents wanted more involvement, particularly in the areas of the educa-
tional programme and decision-making. Second, an investigation into teacher percep-
tions shows that they have quite specific ideas about the type, frequency and the nature
of the PI that they wanted from parents (Baker 1997). The participants in this study
expressed a desire that parents support their ideas and efforts and, although recognis-
ing that parents face some barriers, they expressed a belief that, if parents really
wanted, they could find ways to be more involved. They saw support of homework as
being very important along with the need for parents to care properly for their children
physically and emotionally. They believed parents to be good resources of skills,
talents and funds, but also often saw them as questionning their professionalism.
Language
Another major factor in understanding the rhetoric-reality split is an examination of
the language used. There is considerable confusion in this area across all dimensions
of PI. The issue of what is really being said is itself filled with contradictions and
anomalies. Although there is, on one level, a consensus that PI is desirable and worth-
while, there remains throughout the literature an array of theories and ideas concern-
ing the “how” and “what” of that involvement. The language which is used to describe
both the participants and the processes involved defines the interactions to some
extent. For example, when talking about “parents and professionals”, the language
itself defines one, professionals, as expert and the others, parents, as non-experts
(Bastiani 1993; Munn 1993; Wolfendale 1983).
In addition, there has developed a widespread use of the term “partnership” at all
levels from school brochures to government policy papers. Despite its wonderful
“feel-good” nature its use is problematic. The use of language such as partnership,
sharing, mutuality, collaboration, reciprocity, and participation, masks the inequalities
that exist in reality in the practice of PI (Reay 1998; Wolfendale 1983). Despite the
use of terms like partnership which, according to Bastiani (1993), should actually be
about shared purpose, negotiation and mutual respect, home–school relationships are
typically much more adversarial, and about rights and power. According to Bastiani,
parents’ experience is often of a system that “talks with a forked tongue” (1989, 8).
Similarly, Hegarty (1993, 129) describes the word “partnership” as filling people with
a “warm glow of right thinking”, but criticises it because it leads to feelings of
complacency that are counterproductive to action. He argues that it is a term that has
vastly different meanings to different people and that, although often used with little
recourse to its implications in terms of power or practice, it is in reality about a
process.
Drawing on the literature, Lueder (2000) provides an interesting example of the
imbalance between the language used and the underlying meaning and intent. Lueder
discusses the gap between rhetoric and reality and talks of the need to shift our think-
ing to schools working with and supporting families. He bases his model of parent–
school interactions on the theory that there is a central problem in parental support of
education because large numbers of parents, whom he names “missing parents”, are
not involved in education at home. He proposes a “self-renewing partnership model”
of PI based on the idea of what he terms “energy-in”, which is an extension of the
traditional roles of families in supporting schools, and “energy-out”, which involves
schools supporting families. He presents a detailed list comprising eight “Parent
Partner Roles” which are ways in which parents can support the school. The list is
hierarchical with each step depending upon the prior one and viewing parents through
such roles as nurturer, communicator, supporter, advisor and collaborator. There is
recognition of the barriers that many families face which he categorises as either
family, school or community-based barriers. In recognising that some parents may be
disenfranchised from school he has formulated a “Strategic Partnership Planning
System” to help identify “family populations to be targeted”, and to select strategies
and best practices to help them resolve their problems (Lueder 2000, 6).
Lueder’s work contains considerable sound and well supported theory and the
language he uses leaves the reader thinking that this is indeed a book about parental
partnership. However, critically analysing the substance of his model illustrates the
problem that exists so often with the language used. Though the model focuses on
“partnership” as its overall aim, the reality is that the model may be counterproductive
to building a real partnership since it appears to assume that parents are problems. The
model is based on the principle that parents are “failing” and need help from experts
to ensure that education operates as it should and that the, “case of the missing parents
can be solved” (Lueder 2000, 7). A partnership based on the premise that one party is
a problem is likely to be doomed from the start. It is parental understanding of this
covert agenda that inhibits the success of many such plans to increase PI.
Further, although the term “parent partner roles” creates that “warm glow of right
thinking” which Hegarty (1993, 129) referred to, the content of each of Lueder’s
(2000) eight steps is concerned only with school directives of how parents should
engage with schools. As a partnership it is one-sided, presenting no accommodation
to, or even acknowledgment of, parents’ goals, but instead aiming to employ parents
in such a way that school agendas and concerns are met. This is at odds with the notion
of partnership suggested by Bastiani (1993) where there is mutual respect, negotiation
and shared purpose. In fact, the stated purpose of the energy-out half of the model,
where the language so nicely refers to schools reaching out to support families, is “to
create the collaborative relationships and to enhance the families’ willingness and
ability to play their Parent Partner Roles” (Lueder 2000, 6). In this respect, the model
appears to be simply a tool for schools to groom and shape parents to ensure they meet
goals that the “experts” have developed. This illustrates that there is a gap between
rhetoric and reality in part because the language of the rhetoric itself is not in harmony
with the substance of that rhetoric.
Societal factors
Historical and demographic factors
Further understanding of the development of the rhetoric-reality gap can be found in
examining the historical context in which PI occurs. Behind the gap lies an historical
background of social and educational development and change (Bastiani 1989). The
history involved provides a silent and often unacknowledged barrier to involving

parents in education. For example, Henderson and Berla (1994) point out that school
organisation, historically structured along factory production lines, continues today.
This is a largely accepted part of our school culture that is an obstacle for both teachers
and parents in their efforts to collaborate more. Many schools still bear the hallmarks
of the formality, inflexibility and timetabling that characterised schooling historically,
and which are counterproductive to forming parent–school relationships that require
flexibility.
Also, traditional definitions of PI have been narrow, with a central focus on
supporting the school and fundraising within an environment where schools assumed
responsibility for, and power over, education. Although modern times have seen a
major shift, with parents now being seen as having an important role to play in educa-
tion, many attitudes and perceptions that have their roots in this traditional heritage
continue to linger. Generally, governments are supportive of the devolution of power
to parents, partly since it suits other agendas they have, but it has come at a time when
there are also major changes to family structures, mobility and work, which are all in
opposition to improved PI (OECD 1997).
These changing family structures are marked by an increase in parental working
hours and mobility, greater numbers of families in which both parents work, accom-
panied by an increased number of divorces and separations, resulting in increases in
sole parenting and the number of re-partnered families. Concurrently, there are fewer
extended family arrangements, a decrease in religious practice, and increased
community fragmentation, as well as greater individualism and competition (David
et al. 1993; OECD 1997). The combined effect of these factors is that significant
numbers of parents are operating with higher stress levels, less money, and less time,
which makes it difficult to develop optimal involvement in the education of their
children.
Political factors
At national government level several factors act as barriers to PI. There is an absence
of specific legislation on PI so it is not surprising that espoused policy on PI, which
relies on voluntary participation by schools, leads to uneven practice (Macbeth 1984;
Hornby 2000). Inconsistency within different sections of education legislation
and differences between government policy and action also play roles in limiting the
practice of PI. For example, governments may outwardly support PI yet concurrently
undermine it through other policies that are in conflict with this support (Bastiani
1993; Munn 1993). This can be seen in New Zealand and the UK where governments
simultaneously seek to promote PI through initiatives such as the “Schooling
Strategy” (MoE 2005) in New Zealand and the “Children’s Plan” (DCSF 2007) in the
UK, whilst at the same time pursuing the politics of educational consumerism that
pushes parents and schools towards competition rather than cooperation. Further,
unless government policy on PI is accompanied by appropriate action, such as strate-
gic implementation, information dissemination and training, it is unlikely to be effec-
tive in improving PI. Government failure in these areas results in a lack of consistency
in approach, the implementation of PI policy being fragmented and therefore barriers
to PI remaining in place.
One determiner of the levels of PI that is decided at a political level is the way
school systems are organised. For example, New Zealand schools have catchment
zones which mean that the vast majority of pupils attending them live in the commu-
nity in which the school is located. Where school zones do not operate, as in most
parts of the UK, many of the pupils attending live outside the community in which the
school is based, which makes it more difficult for schools to build partnerships with
parents (Epstein 2001; Hornby 2000).
Another example of how decisions at national government level affect PI is in
the issue of teacher training. The content of teacher education programmes in coun-
tries such as New Zealand and the UK has in recent years been largely set by
government education policies. Yet despite the policies promoting PI noted earlier
(DCSF 2007; MoE 2005) there is still no requirement to include courses on working
with parents and families in teacher education programmes. The importance of such
courses for providing teachers with the skills to work effectively with parents has
been widely acknowledged (Epstein 2001; Greenwood and Hickman 1991) but
because government policies do not require these they are typically not included.
This is in contrast with the situation in the United States where accreditation stan-
dards (NCATE 2002) require the topic of PI to be a compulsory course in teacher
education programmes. However, a recent survey of the staff who teach these
courses on PI has concluded that they do not include sufficient practical experiences
of PI to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared to work effectively with
parents (Flanigan 2007).
Economic factors
Closely aligned with these political issues are factors of economics and funding. In
many Western countries free market policies have come to dominate economics
resulting in education being organised to service the needs of the market. In essence,
education practices have to justify their share of available funding while operating in
a field that is continually evaluated for increased performance by such means as
national tests of literacy and numeracy. Programmes aimed at increasing PI are
disadvantaged in this climate because they are concerned with a process relating to
long-term rather than short-term goals (Bastiani 1993). The result of these conflicting
pressures between the educational market and funding is that there is little or no
money assigned to develop PI, which clearly limits programmes, resources, training
and further research (Adelman 1992; Sanders 2006). The impact of the market on the
reality of PI is such that economic constraints are echoed in the constraints on PI
(Hegarty 1993).
An example of this is the “Home–School Liaison Scheme” which was set up by

Humberside Local Educational Authority (LEA) in the UK in 1988. In this scheme
schools in deprived areas in and around Hull were provided with additional funding
so they could employ Home–School Liaison Teachers (HSLT) who worked half-time
in this role and half-time as classroom teachers. The 43 HSLTs appointed received
additional training focused on developing effective PI in their schools. The HSLT role
focused on developing partnerships between parents and schools which included
setting up parent rooms, providing parent education and relieving class teachers so
they could make home visits. Despite the clear benefits to schools which resulted from
this scheme, when finances for LEAs were reduced by central government in the
1990s the HSLT scheme was one of the first services to be cut.
Conclusion
Through developing the model described in this article it has become evident that the
issue of PI in education is a complex matter which requires educators to move beyond
simpistic notions about the underlying factors which affect the effectiveness of PI. The
barriers to effective PI, discussed in this article, provide an explanation for the exist-
ence of the gap between rhetoric and reality with regard to PI. Collecting the various
factors together in the model presented has made it clear that PI is shaped and limited
by a divergent range of barriers related to parents and families, children, parent–
teacher differences and societal issues.
Clarification of the specific factors responsible for the rhetoric-reality gap is
considered a necessary precursor to the further development of the practice of PI in
education. The model presented in this article is intended to help all those concerned
with the education of children gain a greater understanding of these factors and thereby
encourage more widespread development of effective practice with regard to PI.
The model is also intended to be used to generate ideas for further research on PI.
Some aspects of the model have been well researched, such as the demographic
factors which influence PI, but little research has been conducted on others, such as
differences between parents and teachers in their goals for PI. Other factors identified
in the model on which further research would be useful are parents’ beliefs about PI
and parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement.
The model has also been developed so that it can be used in the pre-service and in-
service training of teachers, educational psychologists, counsellors, social workers
and other professionals who work in the education system. Studying the model will
enable these professionals to gain greater insight into the factors which act as barriers
to and facilitate the development of effective PI. This will enable such professionals
to develop more effective practices with regard to PI in education so that they can opti-
mise the impact of this important aspect of the educational process.
References
Adelman, H. 1992. Parents and schools: An intervention perspective. Eric Digest: ED350645.
http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Baker, J. 1997. Improving parent improvement programs and practice: A qualitative study of
teacher perceptions. School Community Journal 7, no. 2: 155–82.
Bastiani, J. 1989. Working with parents: A whole school approach. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Bastiani, J. 1993. Parents as partners. Genuine progress or empty rhetoric? In Parents and
schools: Customers, managers or partners?, ed. P. Munn, 101–16. London: Routledge.
Binns, K., A. Steinberg, and S. Amorosi. 1997 The Metropolitan Life survey of the American
teacher: Building family–school partnerships: Views of teachers and students. New York:
Lewis Harris and Associates.
Blank, M., and C. Kershaw. eds. 1998. The design book for building partnerships: School,
home and community. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Boult, B. 2006. 176 ways to involve parents: Practical strategies for partnering with families.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Catsambis, S. 2001. Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary
education: Connections with high school senior’s academic success. Social Psychology of
Education 5: 149–77.
Christenson, S.L., and S.M. Sheridan. 2001. Schools and families: Creating essential connec-
tions for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, R. 1983. Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children succeed or fail.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cox, D.D. 2005. Evidence-based interventions using home–school collaboration. School
Psychology Quarterly 20, no. 4: 473–97.
David, M., R. Edwards, M. Hughes, and J. Ribbens. 1993. Mothers and education: Inside
out? Exploring family-education policy and experience. New York: St Martins Press.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2007. The children’s plan: Building
brighter futures. London: The Stationary Office.
Department of Education and Science (DES). 1967. Children and their primary schools (The
Plowden report). London: HMSO.
Desforges, C., and A. Abouchaar. 2003. The impact of parental involvement, parental support
and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: Research report 433.
London: Department for Education and Skills.
Deslandes, R., and R. Cloutier. 2002. Adolescents’ perception of parental involvement in
schooling. School Psychology International 23, no. 2: 220–32.
Eccles, J.S., and R.D. Harold. 1993. Parent–school involvement during the early adolescent
years. Teachers College Record 94, no. 3: 568–87.
Edwards, R., and P. Alldred. 2000. A typology of parental involvement in education centring
on children and young people: Negotiating familialisation, institutionalisation and individ-
ualism. British Journal of Sociology of Education 21, no. 3: 435–55.
Epstein, J.L. 2001. School, family and community partnerships. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Fan, X., and M. Chen. 2001. Parent involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 13, no. 1: 1–22.
Flanigan, C.B. 2007. Preparing preservice teachers to partner with parents and communities:
An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. School Community Journal 17,
no. 2: 89–109.
Grant, K.B., and J.A. Ray. 2010. Home, school and community collaboration: Culturally
responsive family involvement. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Green, C.L., J.M.T. Walker, K.V. Hoover-Dempsey, and H.M. Sandler. 2007. Parents’ moti-
vations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model
of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology 99, no. 3: 532–44.
Greenwood, G.E., and C.W. Hickman. 1991. Research and practice in parent involvement:
Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal 91, no. 3: 279–88.
Hegarty, S. 1993. Home–school relations: A perspective from special education. In
Parents and schools: Customers, managers or partners?, ed. P. Munn, 117–30.
London: Routledge.
Henderson, A., and N. Berla, eds. 1994. A new generation of evidence: The family is critical
to student achievement. Washington, DC: Centre for Law and Education.
Henderson, A.T., and K.L. Mapp. 2002. A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family
and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Henderson, A.T., K.L. Mapp, V.R. Johnson, and D. Davies. 2007. Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family–school partnerships. New York: The New Press.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., and H.M. Sandler. 1997. Why do parents become involved in their
children’s education? Review of Educational Research 67, no. 1: 3–42.
Hornby, G. 1995. Working with parents of children with special needs. London: Cassell.
Hornby, G. 2000. Improving parental involvement. London: Cassell.
Jeynes, W.H. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elemen-
tary school student academic achievement. Urban Education 40, no. 3: 237–69.
Jeynes, W.H. 2007. The relation between parental involvement and urban secondary school
student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education 42, no. 1: 82–110.
Koki, S., and H. Lee. 1998. Parental involvement in education: What works in the Pacific?
Promising practices in the Pacific region. Eric Digest: ED426835. http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Lueder, D.C. 2000. Creating partnerships with parents: An educator’s guide. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Macbeth, A. 1984. The child between: A report on school–family relations in the countries of
the European Community, Education Studies Series 13. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Community.
Ministry of Education (MoE). 2005. The schooling strategy 2005–2010. Wellington: MoE.
Montgomery, D. ed. 2009. Able, gifted and talented underachievers. 2nd ed. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Munn, P. 1993. Introduction. In Parents and schools: Customers, managers or partners?, ed.
P. Munn, 1–10. London: Routledge.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2002. Professional stan-
dards for the accreditation of schools, colleges and departments of education. Washington,
DC: NCATE.
National Opinion Research Centre. 1997. The study of opportunities for and barriers to family
involvement in education: Preliminary results. Survey, University of Chicago, IL. Eric
Digest: ED 414088. http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1997. Parents as part-
ners in schooling. Paris: Centre for Educational Research & Innovative Publications.
Parsons, C. 1999. Education, exclusion and citizenship. London: Routledge.
Pomerantz, E.M., E.A. Moorman, and S.D. Litwack. 2007. The how, whom and why of
parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of
Educational Research 77, no. 3: 373–410.
Reay, D. 1998. Class work: Mothers’ involvement in their children’s primary schooling.
London: UCL Press.
Rudney, G. 2005. Every teacher’s guide to working with parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Sanders, M. 2006. Building school–community partnerships: Collaboration for student
success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sattes, B. 1994. Parent involvement: A review of the literature. In A new generation of
evidence: The family is critical to student achievement, ed. A. Henderson and N. Berla,
112–13. Washington, DC: Centre for Law and Education.
Seligman, M. 2000. Conducting effective conferences with parents of children with disabili-
ties. New York: Guilford.
Swap, S.M. 1993. Developing home–school partnerships: From concepts to practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Waller, H., and J. Waller. 1998. Linking home and school: Partnership in practice in primary
education. London: David Fulton.
Williams, B., J. Williams, and A. Ullman. 2002. Parental involvement in education: Research
report 332. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Wolfendale, S. 1983. Parental participation in children’s development and education. New
York: Gordon and Breach.
Young, M.D. 1998. Importance of trust in increasing parental involvement and student
achievement in Mexican American communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, April 13–17, in San Diego. (ERIC:
ED423587).

Barriers To Parental Involvement in Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers To Parental Involvement in Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers To Parental Involvement in Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol Library]

On: 27 January 2011

Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model

Online publication date: 22 January 2011

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory

College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online

Despite widespread acknowledgement of these potential benefits however, there

dimensional framework of commitment, training and variety, to Lueder’s (2000)

Figure 1. Model of factors acting as barriers to PI.

Parent and family factors

1997; Hornby 2000).

Parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement

Parents’ current life contexts

Class, ethnicity and gender

Learning difficulties and disabilities

Gifts and talents

history involved provides a silent and often unacknowledged barrier to involving

An example of this is the “Home–School Liaison Scheme” which was set up by

You might also like