Discussion

Why the interest in home–school partnerships?

This project (and much of the literature on home–school partnerships) is based on the following assumptions:

• parental involvement in education is a good thing (and the more the better); and,
• home–school partnerships can help lift student achievement.

However, we found very few examples of home–school partnerships, in either the literature review or in the empirical research component of this project, that had data showing improvements in student achievement.  Furthermore, the term “home–school partnership” is being used to describe such a range of initiatives aimed at enhancing parents’ involvement in the education of their children that the purpose of the partnership is often not clear.

There seem to be two broad rationales put forward in discussions about these kinds of partnerships. In the first, partnerships are seen as an important way of enhancing democratic participation and in bringing schools, and the communities they serve, closer together. In the second, and this is the one we focus on here, partnership is seen as a way of lifting achievement.

This idea stems from the substantial research literature showing that (at least some forms of) “naturally occurring” or “spontaneous” parental involvement in education is beneficial to children’s educational achievement (Pomerantz and Moorman, 2007). The assumption is that interventions aimed at increasing parental involvement will also have positive effects on achievement. This is an assumption that needs some unpacking. If this is the case, what is the nature of this relationship? However, if assuming for the moment that there is a relationship between parental involvement and achievement the following questions arise: What sorts of involvement make a difference, how, and to whom? Could it be that parents who are naturally involved with their children’s education are involved in a qualitatively different manner from those parents who are “induced” to be involved through interventions such as home–school partnerships? Can we assume that home–school partnership initiatives will necessarily have the same beneficial effects as naturally occurring parental involvement?

To complicate matters further, the terms “parental participation”, “involvement”, and “engagement” are being used interchangeably with “home-school partnerships” in the literature. The range of the nature and purpose of home–school partnership initiatives in the empirical part of this project further illustrates the general lack of clarity associated with the term.

In the proposal for this research project, we said we would concentrate on home–school partnerships that fitted into the first four of Epstein’s six categories of “shared responsibility” (parenting, communicating, volunteering and learning at home) as these seemed most closely linked to raising student achievement. However, as it turned out, our case studies did not fit neatly into this model. Many of the case study schools had strategies in place that covered all these four categories, and even within just the one category of “communicating”, communication could be one-way or two-way; and it could be about individual students, pedagogical issues, or school organisation.

The purpose of communication could be any one (or a combination) of the following:

1. Building relationships;
2. Giving information about the individual or the school. (The school information could be focused on learning or organisational matters);
3. School home alignment. (This could be aimed at producing “school-like homes” or “home-like schools”);   or
4. Working together to create something different.

Thinking carefully about home–school partnerships

Given this level of complexity, it seems timely to pause and think carefully about the nature and purpose of home–school partnerships. Timperley and Robinson (2002) suggest that one of the factors that contribute to the lack of coherence in this field is that neither the literature on partnerships for participatory democracy, nor that on partnerships for lifting achievement, deals adequately with the multi-dimensional nature of partnership. They argue that partnerships have both a relationship and a task dimension. The success of partnerships depends on how well the partners integrate the relationship and task dimensions to work together and learn from each other. In addition, the way power is distributed—and how (if at all) this is acknowledged—is an important influence on effective partnerships.

There are examples in the research literature, and from our own case studies, that suggest that the establishment of programmes is in itself unlikely to result in more equal, strengths-based partnerships if it is not accompanied by support for teachers, in particular, to think clearly about the purposes of the partnerships. For instance, if those running parent evenings think their aim is to encourage families to incorporate school-like practices into their homes, the focus of the sessions will be quite different from sessions that are aimed at families and schools bringing their respective skills and expertise together to create learning opportunities for students that neither partner could provide on their own. If the intention is to develop strengths-based partnerships both parties need, at the very least, to share an understanding of the intent of the interaction, the task involved and their respective roles.

This of course requires effective two-way communication. Equal partnerships do not necessarily mean that both partners need to do the same things, but rather that they have complementary roles to play in the education of children. It is important that partnerships allow flexibility and are responsive to differing (and changing) needs so that families can be involved in ways that are meaningful for them.

The relationship dimension of partnerships

Regardless of the ultimate purpose of the partnership, the establishment of relationships is an essential first step. In the case studies, strategies were sometimes in place specifically to enhance relationships. At School B, for example, the principal spoke about six different strategies all aimed at strengthening home–school partnerships. With the exception of the three-way learning conferences, all these strategies seem to focus on relationship building and communication even though the purpose of home–school partnerships, as described in the school newsletter, is to raise student achievement. The principal saw relationship building as an essential step in developing a school learning culture.

In schools that had specific programmes in place, such as parent evenings based on the Ministry of Education HSP model, the initial aim of these programmes was often just to get parents into the school and to build relationships, both between teachers and parents, and between parents and other parents. These initiatives are perhaps particularly important in schools that do not serve already closely connected communities with values and practices similar to those of the school. The focus of the strategy changed has in some cases, over time from being initially relationship-based to becoming more learning-based. If the purpose of the partnership is lifting achievement, explicit strategies are needed to produce the shift in emphasis from the relationship dimension to the task dimension of the partnership.

The task dimension of partnerships

Even where the partnership had progressed to being explicitly focused on student learning there were still a range of different purposes. In many of the case studies the task dimension of the partnership was home–school alignment. At a very basic level this often simply involved schools communicating to parents, usually via newsletters, about organisational issues to do with school. Sometimes these newsletters also contained information for parents as to how to support their children’s learning.

Similarly the home–school partnership parent evening sessions at some schools give information to families about school programmes and ways that these could be supported in the home in an attempt to align home–school practices. Parents and students interviewed were often appreciative of these initiatives as illustrated by the following quotes from one school:

It didn’t happen before because we just did our homework by ourselves, before HSP started, and sometimes got them wrong, and we were slacking with the homework before HSP. Now parents make sure we do our homework. (Student)

My grandchild loves me coming to school. The learning curve for us as parents is huge—teaching us how to help our kids with homework. (Grandparent)

In both of these examples, the school holds much of the power and the emphasis is on getting parents to collaborate with school activities.

The Learning Pathways programme at School D and the whanau homework project at School G illustrate partnerships where the task dimension is more than simply encouraging parents to support school practices. The purpose of these initiatives is for the school and the community to work together to create something different, rather than the school “rolling out” its practices into the home. In both these case studies, the people in the community are seen as the resources and critical to the students’ learning. They contribute something to the learning that the school cannot do alone.

The integration of relationship and task dimensions in partnerships

Although it may be useful to think about partnerships in terms of either relationships or tasks, these two dimensions clearly interact with each other. At School F for instance the way power was shared between the school and parents meant that the original task of the partnership could be re-negotiated by parents to meet changing needs. This school originally ran the MOE HSP: Literacy programme but then adapted it in response to feedback from parents.

The school found that the parents wanted to know more than what activities to do to help their children at home. They wanted to know about progress, achievement and assessment and so the school modified its approach to better suit the parents’ needs and to ensure teachers could also learn from parents. The initiatives at this school were clearly driven by needs expressed by the community, rather than by needs perceived by the school. The task dimension of the partnership changed from encouraging parents to participate in school-like activities to developing a shared “language of learning” across the school community as parents became more confident in the school setting and willing to take a more active role in determining how they would participate in their children’s learning.

At another school the interplay between the relationship and task dimensions of a partnership was illustrated by the comments of a Maori teacher. In her view, even if there was a clearly understood shared task Maori parents would not become engaged in the education of their children unless they felt they were genuinely valued by the school and that there was a commitment to “things Maori”.

Nature of partnerships

In “mainstream” schools, traditionally the relationship between teachers and parents is that of professional and client. Children go to school to learn specific cognitive/ academic skills from the experts (teachers). There is generally a clear differentiation between what teachers do and parents do. At the mainstream case study schools, parents saw their role as being to support the school in the education of their children. They said things like “the teachers are the educators and our role is to reinforce what they say”, “the school’s role is to teach the academics”, “our role is to support the teachers” and “ensure our children are ready to learn”. To be able to fulfil their role as they saw it parents felt they needed to have good communication with the school, accurate information about their children’s progress and information about school programmes in general. Our case studies support the work of Katyal and Evans (2007). Like them we found that, whilst parents and teachers saw that their roles overlapped in terms of their responsibility for socialisation of children, teachers also had specific roles as the “experts” when it came to teaching and learning. This does not negate the need for mutually respectful relationships, it just emphasises that “equal” does not necessarily mean “the same”. Successful partnerships do not mean the partners have the same roles and have to do everything together—levels of interaction between partners will vary from one context to another.

In our special school and the kura kaupapa Maori case studies the nature of the partnerships were very different from those in the “mainstream” schools. The boundaries between home and school were blurred and both the basic power relationships and the tasks in the partnerships were different. Parents interviewed at the special school said they felt the relationship between home and school was different when a child had “special needs”. In particular they felt they had to be more directly involved in the education of their child with “special needs”, and advocate for them. For these children education had a strong focus on developing “life skills” rather than cognitive/ academic skills. This meant that it was essential that there was clear communication between home and school (and other agencies) in order to ensure consistency in expectations and approaches, as the same skills were often being developed by different people in different settings. This in turn meant that the teacher was just one member of a larger team working together to meet the child’s individual needs. Learning programmes were driven by the needs of the individual and determined jointly by school, family and other professionals.

Similarly at the kura kaupapa Maori the partnership between home and school was integral to the way the kura operated. The kura’s policies, practices and processes arose from a commitment to education being a joint endeavour between whanau and kura. The parents interviewed thought the responsibility for the overall well being of students was shared between individual whanau and the kura. They felt that as a collective, whanau held the authority for making kura-wide decisions. The kura serves the whanau and when parents decide to enrol their children in kura, they also make a commitment to working in partnership with the kura. Here home–school partnerships are not a desirable extra, they are absolutely fundamental to how the school operates.

Neither the special school nor the kura kaupapa Maori could operate without home-school partnerships. For different reasons, both schools have developed different ways of working with parents that could provide “food for thought” for mainstream education. The vision of the new New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, p7) is “Young people who will be confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.” If this vision is to be realised mainstream schools will need to think carefully about how they connect with families to ensure that students’ learning outside school is recognised and validated as well as what happens inside schools. Kura kaupapa Maori and special schools may provide useful examples to support this thinking.

Partnerships are context-specific

The examples discussed above of the special school and the kura kaupapa Maori clearly illustrate how context affects the nature of a partnership. There were many other examples of this in our case studies. Two case study schools served areas where there was clearly a strong sense of community. One of these schools was rural, the other, although urban, served a clearly defined geographical area. At both these schools, parents and school staff spoke of the important role parents played in involving other parents in the school. Many parents knew each other outside school and this meant parents communicated with each other about school events. In the case of the rural school, staff also lived within the community and the parents felt this made it easier to build relationships with them. The strong sense of cohesion in the communities served by these schools perhaps implies that, in these areas, the schools themselves do not need to be as proactive in the promotion of home-school links as schools serving more diverse and loosely bound communities.

The low decile schools in this study served communities that were ethnically diverse, with the language spoken in many homes and the home cultural practices being different from those of the teachers. In these schools, the success of home-school partnership initiatives seemed largely dependant on the effective participation of “outreach workers” who were respected within the communities, and on teachers’ commitment. In one area where Early Childhood centres, primary, intermediate and secondary schools were all working together to strengthen links between themselves and between the communities they served, promising results seemed to be indicated. In this area the attendance at Early Childhood centres of Pasifika children had reportedly increased dramatically and parents reported receiving similar messages about education regardless of the age and level of education of their child.

The size of a school was also reported to affect the development of successful home-school partnerships. Principals, staff and parents of small schools all identified the small size as a positive contributing factor in developing positive home–school partnerships. At the secondary school where we interviewed the RTLB, the principal said that she was considering organising the school into five vertical groups for next year, each of about three hundred students, because she felt that the large size of the school inhibited the engagement of both students and their parents.

The age of students was also seen by many parents as a barrier to their involvement in their education. Parents felt their children did not want them to be as involved when they were at secondary school, but also the parents felt less comfortable about going into secondary schools. This was particularly noticeable in the Area School where even though it was one school, parents felt they were much more involved with the education of their younger children. These parents thought specific interventions to encourage parental engagement were especially important therefore for secondary schools.

Common features across case studies

Despite the importance of context in determining what sort of partnerships developed in a school, there still seemed to be some commonalities across the case studies. We saw many examples of new technologies being used creatively to strengthen links between school and home. The Digital Imaging in Special Education project and the Phone Home initiatives were both examples of this. Other schools were posting newsletters on line, setting up blogging areas on school websites and encouraging use of email between school and home. Although such technology can make it easier for some parents to be involved in their children’s education, there is also the potential for this to increase the demands on teachers.

In nearly all of the case study schools, the principal was identified by staff, parents and sometimes students as a key player in the development of successful home-school partnerships. Interestingly most of the principals had only been at the case study schools for a relatively short time. They were all concerned with strengthening home-school partnerships as a way of raising achievement. (Given though that the principals nominated their schools as examples of successful home-school partnerships, this is not surprising.)

Teachers’ attitudes and a shared understanding of the purposes of partnerships and partners’ roles also seem to be critical to the success of home-school partnerships.

Building successful partnerships takes time and commitment

At one case study school, the principal said that over the last few years she had specifically looked for staff who were committed to the principle of home–school partnerships when recruiting new staff. At this school, the staff interviewed saw working with parents as an integral part of their job rather than an “add on”, and could clearly articulate the benefits of having parents involved in the school—both in terms of the school programmes and their own teaching practice.

The principal of another school where home-school partnerships were also clearly an integral part of the normal programme spoke about the need for commitment of both the school and the parents. This was backed up by another principal who reiterated the importance of staff having time to really think carefully about the implications of home–school partnerships and what was involved. She explained the process she was working through with her staff:

The HSP interventions started in 2005 with a school systems review on our responsiveness to diversity. Then we integrated it in 2006 with our strategic plan and planning. Staff culture needed changing—we had staff meetings about relationships with families- and getting staff to be more aware of our families and to the diverse needs of our students. We needed commitment to all working together with the parents to raise student achievement… Teachers have required PD and a change in mindset. In any interventions you have got to be able to discuss the gnarly bits and work through them. Open discussions rather than top-down. I know when there is the change process, there are going to be implementation dips…Part of this is about leadership and how these things are managed and having systems in place to give it traction, such as Teacher Only Days, looking at all the data and our strategic plan and how well we’ve done. We have looked at the research and discussed this. I’m not mandating the interventions. You need to be listening to staff, but bringing staff along with you. (Principal)

Adapting current school practices

If teachers are supported to think carefully about the purpose of home–school partnerships, so that they can develop a commitment to genuine two-way communication with parents and shared responsibility for education of children, we think there are several current practices that, with slight modifications, could go some way towards achieving this. Parent teacher conferences and homework currently appear to be the natural intersection between school and home. Although the research literature  suggests that both these school practices currently often alienate parents the case studies in both the review of evidence and empirical research components of this project suggest this does not need to be the case.

Several of our case studies suggested that by modifying parent teacher conferences (usually by including the student as an active participant), parents can be encouraged to engage more fully with the learning of their children, and these also provide teachers with useful information about the child from the perspective of the family. Overseas studies show “interactive homework”  as an effective way of raising student achievement. In the New Zealand case studies, the kura kaupapa Maori provides an example of families and the school working jointly together on homework, to provide learning experiences that are relevant to the life of the learner.

There are several advantages of these strategies as ways to enhance parental engagement. Firstly they are focused on individual children, and the case studies clearly showed that parents were interested and concerned in their own children’s learning. Because they focus on individual students these strategies have the potential to support the Ministry of Education’s current focus on personalising learning. They also involve things that teachers already do, so, rather than adding to the workload, they only require teachers to think and work in slightly different ways. These strategies allow teachers to draw on the expert knowledge of parents about their children, and also give parents the specific information about their children’s learning that, according to our interviews, they so clearly wanted.

The new curriculum, with its focus on Key Competencies, makes it even more important that there is effective two-way communication between school and home. Key Competencies are demonstrated when a student adapts what they know and uses this in a new context. Families need to know therefore what the Key Competencies involve, and teachers need information from families if they are to gain a more complete picture of what a student can do. Ideally successful home-school partnerships involve families and teachers working together, drawing on their respective areas of expertise to optimise learning for the student, not just making homes more like school. In the words of one of the principals interviewed:

The more we come to believe that relationships are important for learning, the more we need the parents’ expertise about their child. The old ways are not working—the kids are voting with their feet. We’re a tiny part of the girls’ lives—we over emphasise our own importance. (secondary principal)

These suggestions for adapting current school practices to enhance parental engagement in their children’s education do not mean that initiatives aimed at whole groups, such as parent evenings are not effective—we simply don’t know enough about how and what sorts of parental engagement really make a difference to student achievement. These suggestions about adapting current practices though at least provide an opportunity for “parent voice” to be heard without producing unrealistic work loads for teachers.

Looking forward

Given the current emphasis being placed on home–school partnerships (and the lack of robust data supporting such initiatives) it is important that educators take time to think carefully about the nature and purpose of interactions between school and families if home–school partnerships really are to be effective in reducing disparity and developing successful 21st century learners. What sorts of interactions between home and school actually make a difference to children’s learning? What is really meant by the term “partnership”? What, in essence, is the purpose of these partnerships? Do both partners have a shared understanding of the purpose of the partnership? In what ways are the roles of the partners similar, and in what ways are they different? Are such partnerships inevitably the best option in all contexts? It is perhaps also worth taking time to think about the assumptions that underpin partnership initiatives aimed at students from “minority” groups and to consider ways of ensuring the views of those belonging to these target groups are heard. Do current practices advantage some groups more than others? Do we know enough about what sort of partnerships are beneficial; specifically how they are beneficial, and for whom?