teachers parents cooperation loizos simeou

8/11/2019 Teachers Parents Cooperation LOIZOS SIMEOU

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teachers-parents-cooperation-loizos-simeou 1/26

Teacher–Parent Cooperation:

Strategies to EngageParents in TheirChildren’s School Lives

LOIZOS SYMEOU

ABSTRACT: This article examines the collaboration of 2 teachers with thefamilies of their pupils. The data were collected during an ethnographicstudy conducted in a rural school in Cyprus. The data set includes indi-vidual interviews, focus groups, observations, and the researcher’s jour-nal. These 2 teachers, with different perspectives on parental involve-ment, adopted different but effective strategies to involve parentsactively in their children’s school lives.

Schools are viewed as providing educational opportunitiesand achieving their aims only insofar as what they offer

builds on and directly engages with the fundamental educa-tion and “curriculum” that the child experiences at home(Bernstein, 1975; Bloom, 1982; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990;Coleman, 1990; Lareau, 1987; Marjoribanks, 1979). Not surprisingly, school–family relationships are considerednowadays a significant determinant of the quality of the ed-ucation provided.

Nonetheless, there are fears that attempts to bring family and school closer may widen the gap between socially andeconomically deprived children and the rest of the children.

Therefore, even the most ardent proponents of initiatives for engaging families in their children’s schooling admit that

benefits occur only when families are “aware, knowledge-able, encouraging and involved” (Epstein, 1992, p. 1141).

502 Journal of School Public Relations Volume 27—Fall 2006

06-743_08_Symeou.qxd 1/3/07 10:48 AM Page 502



Similar caution is needed in relation to claims that thesefindings apply for all grade levels, children’s ages, andphases of children’s schooling; for all types of schools (i.e.,urban, suburban, rural); and even for so-called difficult anddisadvantaged schools. Moreover, the lack of homogeneity among families’ profiles and needs must be taken into seri-ous consideration when attempting a description of the na-ture and extent of school–family relationships, even withinthe same context.

This article reports on the efforts of two elementary school

teachers in a rural Greek–Cypriot elementary school to co-operate with the families of their pupils. It presents thesetwo teachers’ active but different approaches to collaborate

with their pupils’ families, and it explores the ways that they managed to make parents feel comfortable with school and

become actively engaged in their children’s school lives. The data reported were collected during an ethnographic

study conducted in Homer and Vicky’s school, the two par-ticipant teachers. The school—with a professional staff of a female principal, a deputy, and eight teachers—served a so-

cially deprived, working-class community with 450 habi-tants, named the Old Village.

The data were collected from individual and focus-groupinterviews and observations. Individual interviews were con-ducted with the two participant teachers, the school’s prin-cipal, and a number of pupils and their parents. Addition-ally, separate focus-group interviews were conducted withparents and pupils. All interviews were fully transcribed. A descriptive content analysis approach was followed, usinginductive coding techniques (Seidman, 1998; Strauss,

1987).Moreover, during occasional prearranged school visits,

the teachers, their pupils, and their parents were observedin situ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000), namely, duringevents at which parents were involved—for example, theChristmas-evening celebration, national anniversary mornings, and the end-of-the-year graduation. Some par-ent-association general assemblies and school fairs were

Strategies to Engage Parents in Their Children’s School Lives 503




also observed. The observations were made casually (Burns,2000) and yielded significant ethnographic data of copious,handwritten field notes recorded in the researcher’s journal,

which served for comparison between the two teacher casesand as a source of background information.

The following part of the article uses the data to present Homer’s and Vicky’s perspectives on parental involvement and the strategies that they employed to involve parents ac-tively in their children’s school lives. Anonymity of the schooland participants has been safeguarded, and all names are

pseudonyms.

HOMER: THE ACTIVELY LISTENING TEACHER

Homer was in his second year of teaching at the Old Vil-lage School and his fourth year of teaching in total. Hisfourth-grade class numbered 16 children, most from de-prived socioeconomic backgrounds. The school principal(H–II),i his colleagues (RD), and his pupils’ parents (P–II,

P–FG) considered Homer an extremely dynamic and inno- vative teacher who was sensitive to pupil issues. They allfelt that he was responsive to his pupils’ parents andserved families and their needs for the sake of his pupils’progress. Homer was most committed to being inventive inoffering pupils as many out-of-class learning and culturalexperiences as possible. Similarly, he put his links withparents high in his professional agenda and claimed that these connections are a determinant factor of his pupils’school success (II).

His views and practices about linking school and familiesappeared to be underpinned by his beliefs about the role of parents in the education of their children. Homer strongly

believed that parents have the overall responsibility for chil-dren’s school success. Apart from the great value of parents’involvement for their children’s school performance, parentsshould be involved because it is they who have the overalland ultimate responsibility for their children’s school suc-

504 LOIZOS SYMEOU




cess (not the schools and not the teachers). According toHomer, although teachers should do their best for pupils’progress and although this might succeed only throughgaining the active collaboration of parents, it is parents whoshould be accountable for their children’s success. As hepointed out, “it is one thing for teachers to do their best for their pupils and quite another who is responsible for ensur-ing their success” (II).

The focus of Homer’s policy was therefore to keep parents“as close as possible to render them more knowledgeable”

(II). This was to be achieved by communicating both in per-son and in writing with his pupils’ parents. He explained hispolicy as follows: “When you don’t have frequent contacts,

you cannot do something; therefore, I pursue a meeting withthem. In other words, I don’t let anyone keeping a distancefrom me for a long time” (II).

Observations of Homer’s relating to parents during their visits at the school (OB) showed that he seemed friendly and was skillful in chatting with them and treating them cor-dially. Moreover, he sustained warm, social, and personal re-

lations with most of them, and unlike many of his col-leagues, he rarely felt the need to use his professional statusto deny parental requests (PII). His basic goal was for par-ents to feel free to contact him as often as possible. This wassomething that he stressed to his pupils’ parents duringtheir first formal teacher–parent meeting, which took placeone evening early in the school year. Even though it was not the school’s policy, Homer gathered all his pupils’ parents inhis classroom, introduced himself, and pointed out how im-portant he considered their frequent communication with

him to be and the significance of cooperating with the schooland him for the children’s sake (OB). After enumeratingsome occasions when he wanted them to communicate withhim, he vigorously concluded, “I want you to cooperate withme, to have regular communication with me. The relation-ships between the school and the pupil, the pupil and theparent, the parent and the school, the relationships betweenthis triangle have particular importance” (OB).





Having established his vision of parent–pupil–teacher co-operation, he then challenged them to provide him with their own expectations for him and to inform him about any as-sistance that they needed, particularly, assistance with sup-porting their children’s schoolwork. Parents apparently felt free to express their expectations and worries, and they com-municated them articulately. Homer explained later that heseriously considered many of their demands and tried to in-corporate them in his everyday practice. For example, he im-plemented their suggestion to write pupils’ homework on the

blackboard so that all pupils could copy it into their notebooks and so that parents would know about it (P–II, P–FG).

Another idea that emerged from parents’ suggestions dur-ing that initial meeting was the communication folder, anidea that parents actively used during that school year andthat proved to be the most significant of all Homer’s family outreach practices. The folder was used “by both the parentsand the teacher when something needs to be transmitted”(P–FG, mother). More specifically, “when the teacher wantsto tell us [the families] something important, he writes it in

this booklet. The same applies for us; we can write some-thing in the booklet, the teacher sees it, thus we can com-municate” (II, Mr. Ioannou).

As Mr. Ioannou stated, this idea was a convenient two-di-rection communication practice between the family and theteacher for messages that were not urgent. Pupils’ parents,such as Ms. Euphemia, expressed positive comments about this institution: “I consider this as very pioneering, and it issomething that we have suggested ourselves [the parents] a few years ago. That specific year the pupils were causing

problems to their teachers, and my husband suggested tothe teacher that it would be good if there was a communica-tion booklet so that when the teacher had anything to report . . . because it did happen that year, some pupils to be pun-ished for serious things without the parent knowing. A child

will not go and tell him [the parent], ‘You know, I have beenpunished today,’ so we suggested the booklet, but I don’t know, they considered it a weird idea and therefore they did

506 LOIZOS SYMEOU

06-743_08_Symeou.qxd 1/3/07 10:48 AM 06



not [do it]. . . . This year, when Homer introduced it, I wasthrilled, because I found it very pioneering” (II). Families alsosaw it as a helpful means of communication when a parent could not visit the teacher (P–II, P–FG). It was always therefor any parent to use alongside other communication av-enues, such as visiting or calling the teacher.

Despite the value that parents placed on this strategy,Homer himself had serious apprehensions about how fami-lies construed its value and how it was eventually put intopractice. In the long run, the folder was used only when one

side or the other wanted to report “bad news.” Homer be-lieved that this practice was hindering parents from utilizingit in other circumstances. He also admitted his own mis-treatment of the folder (II, FG), using it most times for send-ing prescriptive messages such as “Dear Ms. M, Sam needsto read his reading passage more times” (II).

Homer therefore stressed another practice that he believedmore satisfactorily fulfilled their needs and his own. As heexplained, communicating directly via the phone “works out much better. . . . I will call him [the parent] and talk to him

differently either at his job—I’ve got all their phone numbersat work—or at home, immediately, any moment, and not by

writing in the folder, which will mean that I will be waitingfor their response. . . . There are parents who cannot come;there are parents who both work, truly” (II).

As parents (II) and Homer explained (II), Homer permittedthe parents to call him during his lunch breaks or during thetimes when he had no class, if there was no other appropri-ate way of contacting him, or when something urgent cameup. To achieve this, he gave parents a time table signifying

the days and times that he could be reached by phone. Once,for instance, while Homer was in the staff room during thefirst break, a mother called asking for him (OB). Homer in-terrupted his breakfast, and he and the mother had a5-minute chat. She was calling because she was having dif-ficulty coming to the school to get information about her son’s school performance. In a friendly way, Homer ex-plained to her that her son was progressing academically,





was genuinely trying to inhibit his involvement in deviant behavior, and was actively participating in class activities.He also described to her a relevant incident that took placeearly that week.

Homer also called parents himself, if the parents had not responded to a written request for a meeting, when an im-mediate problem had emerged concerning the children’s ac-ademic performance or behavior, or when the children had a health problem or accident in the school (II, FG).

Homer consciously cultivated the most welcoming atmos-

phere when parents met him, in or out of the school. He always appeared friendly and warm, always referred to them by their first name, and always welcomed them with a gen-uine greeting: “First of all, I would like to tell you that I am

very happy that you came to see me today” (OB). Then, totrigger discussion, he gently asked the parent to evaluate hisor her child’s attainment: “I urge them to tell me how they see their child, whether they feel that [he or she] is pro-gressing, whether they feel that [he or she] is facing difficul-ties, if the child has a problem lately with homework” (II).

Parents responded positively to this approach and usually unfolded their doubts, worries, and stress about their at-tempts to support their children’s school success (OB). Onemother, Ms. Makrygianni, for instance, shared her concernsabout her daughter: “My child lately doesn’t . . . while she

was feeling self-confidence she started losing it. I asked her why, and she told me, ‘One day in class my teacher told meto read and insulted me.’ What should I do?” (OB). [ Q1:]

Another mother, Ms. Charilaou, described to Homer her own plans to deal with her son’s progress in handwriting:

“Look, I have decided to take action with my son. I inform you now as well so that you know what I am planning to do, because he wasn’t okay with his handwriting despite my telling him to improve it and making it neater” (OB).

After listening to the parents, Homer built on their com-ments, grasping some elements of the parents’ replies andthen adding his own perspective, pointing out important as-pects of the children’s schooling that gave the parents a more complete picture. In doing so, he did not avoid sharing

508 LOIZOS SYMEOU

[ Q1:

Please

reevalu-

ate this

transla-

tion. For

example,

perhapsit could

be “My

child . .

. was

feeling

self-con-

fidence

[but]

started

losing

it. I

asked

her

why,

and she

told me,

‘One

day in

class

my

teacher told me

to read

and [it]

insulted

me.’

What

should

I do?” ]




problems, and he intentionally saved the good news for last:“I always finish with the good news so that I don’t stressthem. When you start with the good news, everything seemsall right, and then you start talking about the bad things—

your mind sticks at the bad things. . . . That is why I start with the bad news and then I tell them, ‘All these that I told you are just a part of the picture. There is the good self in your child that is this, and this, and that.’ . . . And thismakes them feel pleased and relaxed. . . . I remind them that “your son is good, your daughter is good’” (II).

Through these communication strategies, Homer managedto emphasize the children’s strengths and weakness in anhonest manner, a tactic that parents appeared to appreciateand one that thus succeeded in keeping them coming toschool. As Homer maintained, “if I tell them that everythingis going well, they might rest assured; if I tell them the truth,at least they will know to do something . . . since [when] youtell them that things are good, they will not step their feet inschool again” (II).

Parents generally seemed quite relaxed when approaching

Homer, and many of them called him by his first name.Moreover, they felt comfortable discussing with him their fears and agonies regarding their children’s schooling and,particularly, their difficulties in dealing with school issues or events where they felt helpless or inadequate (OB, P–II). They found that his insistence on their sharing their observationsand difficulties in handling school matters supported them.Homer explained his method by saying, “Thus, I can see in

which way I can help or how much I can count on them for support.” Homer’s success in earning parents’ confidence to

cooperate with him might have stemmed from parents’ senseof setting common goals with him for the children’sprogress, as well as from the value that he placed on par-ents’ points of view. In the following occasion, we see Homer explicitly reinforcing the value of communication and recog-nizing the parent’s action:

HOMER: Thank you for informing me the other day for [thereason for a student’s not doing] her essay, and whenever





there is a similar case, please just write me down a similar message in the communication folder.

MS. ANDREOU: She couldn’t make it because she had her af-ternoon English private lesson, and it was already 10 o’clock in the evening and we were still studying . . .

HOMER: It is good for me to be informed about it so that Iknow as well, so that I am informed of what is happening. Iliked it that you informed me. . . . I didn’t tell her off, some-thing I would have done if you hadn’t informed me. (OB)

Parents of Homer’s class who were interviewed agreed that he is a teacher that a parent can discuss things with. As Ms.Euphemia explained, “Sometimes, us parents, we cannot ex-press ourselves and cannot be absolutely understood” (II).

Thus, Homer’s distinctive readiness to be “open to discus-sion” and “hear and then say his opinion” (P–II) was highly

valued by parents. All these parents compared their experi-ences with Homer with years of experience when they didnot dare to visit their children’s teachers because they wouldhave been devastated by what they would hear.

At the end of a briefing, Homer always thanked parents for coming to school to visit him. To urge the parent to keep inclose contact with him, Homer often concluded the conver-sation by saying, “As you see, with our communication, wecan improve your child’s performance; it is only this contact that sustains a warm relationship, which helps us follow on”(OB).

Trying to encourage parents to communicate with him asmuch as possible and sustain their direct contact, Homer urged them to visit him at school any time. Even though he

always reminded them that he expected them to meet himduring the weekly visiting period,ii he was always willing tospend some of his nonteaching hours to meet, rather thansend them away and insist that they come during the officialtime: “When a parent comes during the break or early beforeour sessions and I know that he is spending time from his

working hours and that it’s a matter of precious time and heknows that this is an opportunity to see me, I will take ad-

510 LOIZOS SYMEOU




vantage of this opportunity. . . . ‘Rather than not coming,come to see me early in the morning.’ . . . There are somecases that really deserve giving them a chance. . . . If I sparea few minutes to tell them, ‘Your child is studying. I want him to study these few things, and I will check it tomorrow,”it is only 5 minutes in the morning that can make the dif-ference” (II). By maintaining this stance toward parents,Homer was risking his relations with his colleagues. He com-mented that he actually felt resentment by his colleagues

who feared that his practice would lead to similar demands

from their own pupils’ parents. This was something that heappeared to handle quite successfully by sustaining warmrelationships with his colleagues and at the same time es-tablishing clearly his pedagogical concerns about linking

with his pupils’ parents. A significant aspect of Homer’s policy was his stubborn ef-

forts to bring all parents to the school to meet him, in par-ticular, parents of those pupils facing academic difficulties,

because “many times parents fear that their child is rejected,and they, as parents, are insulted and do not come to the

school” (II). Homer proudly indicated that, apart from onefamily (the Christou family), all the others were in regular contact with him and were well informed about how they could become involved in their children’s school lives. Par-ents pointed out that they felt knowledgeable about their children’s performance in school and could recognize their own role in their children’s school success (P–II, P–FG). Evenfamilies that had been less inclined to come to the school inprevious years or whose children were not doing so well ac-ademically pointed out that they found in the face of Homer

a teacher actively interested in their children, one who washonest with them and who valued their opinions.

Having succeeded in bringing all his pupils’ families to theschool, Homer targeted the Christous, a distant and hard-to-reach family. Homer’s attempts focused on persuading themto visit the school periodically to meet him and on convinc-ing them that their daughter Georgiana was not succeedingacademically and needed their support at home. As Homer





explained, Georgiana “is the weakest pupil in class. . . . [Inthe beginning of the school year] she was lazy and very friv-olous. . . . For you to understand, she never started a sen-tence with capital; her spelling was dreadful . . . and she wasplaying dumb. She was forgetting to do things; she wastelling me fake excuses. Her last year’s teacher had the sameproblems; many times she was often not even coming at school, pretending she was sick” (II). Homer managed, first,

by being honest about the child’s school performance withthe mother, who was the family member responsible for the

child’s schooling, and, second, by not giving up their case.Ms. Christou had been avoiding coming to the school. As sheexplained (II), she did not want to be embarrassed by hear-ing the bad news regarding her daughter’s performance.

Therefore, whenever Ms. Christou met a teacher, she pre-tended that her daughter was doing well at school. Homer and previous years’ teachers had noticed this pattern andthought that she was too proud to admit that her daughter

was not a high achiever, because it would reflect negatively on herself or her family, and thus she did not visit the

school. Ms. Christou had a different explanation and indi-cated that her daughter’s previous teachers had misled Ms.Christou about her daughter’s academic performance: “Let’ssay . . . my younger daughter . . . I am not saying that sheis having a lot of difficulties, but she had a problem with her spelling and her reading . . . where we did not have . . . let’ssay, the teacher during the previous years was telling methat she was good. This year . . . somehow . . . we were not doing well. . . . She has the capacities; she is not a child whohasn’t got a sharp mind” (II). A second reason for Ms. Chris-

tou’s not coming to the school could have been some nega-tive past experiences with the teachers of her older children.Ms. Christou explained that all her children faced some ac-ademic difficulties, and she hinted that teachers neither pro-

vided her the appropriate guidance nor did they respect her family. Ms. Christou avoided contact with the school, andshe may have contributed to Georgiana’s negative attitudestoward the school by persuading her daughter to distance

512 LOIZOS SYMEOU




herself from both her classmates and her teachers (II), whoconsidered her inferior and were certain, according to her, tomake her and her whole family’s life miserable.

Homer, intent on bringing all parents into school, sent Ms.Christou a note that convinced her to come to meet him at the weekly visiting period. On their initial meeting, Ms.Christou tried to anticipate Homer’s evaluation of her daughter’s class performance. Homer commented afterward,“She came with arrogance, with confidence, let’s say . . . and,as I always do, I asked her, ‘What do you think about your

child?’ . . . She told me, ‘The only problem that Georgiana always had was her spelling’ and tried to close the subject andconsider that she is more or less fine. Then I told her, ‘Of course, spelling is a problem, but it’s not your daughter’smajor problem. Georgiana has many problems as well asmany capacities of course, hence we are here together today.’ . . . In a way she showed that she was shocked andsaid that she understood the situation” (II).

At this meeting, they identified ways that Ms. Christoucould help her daughter at home so that she would improve

in spelling and reading. They also decided to meet again.Even though Homer was convinced that Ms. Christou now understood that there was a need for their systematic coop-eration and that she would come to see him again, as they agreed, Ms. Christou did not appear at the school for the fol-lowing 2 months. Moreover, she was not supporting Geor-giana, as they had agreed. Homer described what happenedas follows: “I invited her again. I called her and told her tocome to the school. ‘You must come to the school; it is nec-essary for us to discuss various issues.’ She came here and

I confronted her . . . and I told her that I want her to comein 15 days. . . . When she came after 2 weeks, I told her that I wanted to see her husband as well. In exactly 2 weeks’time, her husband came with her. . . . In 2 weeks, she washere again” (II).

By insisting on her coming to school and by making it clear that he would not give up, Homer managed to convinceMs. Christou of the need for both parents to jointly support





their daughter for her to progress in school. Homer indicatedto Ms. Christou that “the child has a lot of potential. In other words it is not a matter of mind but a matter of indifference.I am sure that she can do very well, but she has to get in a routine that will be strictly followed” (OB).

After a series of visits to the school every fortnight duringthe weekly visiting period, Georgiana changed her attitude inschool, and her performance improved. Ms. Christou herself confessed during the interview that “with the teacher’s in-terest, I think that my daughter has made progress” (II),

pointing out that she tried to be as informed as possible: “Ialso get informed about my child via the communicationfolder. If we have any problem, [Homer] might write down inthere, ‘We have a problem in . . . ’ and I sign it. She comesand brings it to me. I wrote to the teacher myself the other day when she had some difficulties with doing her geography exercise. . . . I wrote it to the teacher” (II).

Homer’s colleagues were skeptical of his persistence withthe Christous, and his efforts were a topic of their conversa-tion. Once, for instance, when Ms. Christou visited Homer

during the weekly visiting period and Homer was leaving thestaff room to meet her in his classroom, all his colleagueslaughed in a friendly fashion and made weird signals to him

while one of his colleagues said, “Homer, you’ve got visits,eh?” (RD). Their reaction aimed at teasing Homer for not giv-ing up his efforts with parents, particularly for a child whohad “no chance” and whose family was considered a “lost case.” Homer smiled to them and nodded, implying that herecognized that the meeting would not be an easy one but that, at the same time, he was determined to give it a

chance, despite what his colleagues thought.

VICKY: THE ACTIVELY INVOLVING TEACHER

During the study, Vicky was the school’s first-grade teacher and in the second year of her teaching career. Vicky was a

well-organized and competent teacher. Like Homer, she had

514 LOIZOS SYMEOU




clear views about the need to maintain strong links withpupils’ parents. Discussions with her, however, revealed that her overall philosophy differed from his both in practice andin perspective. In contrast with Homer, she believed that parents—especially, those of first graders—could not handlethe educational demands of their children. Hence, her goal

was to inform them and train them to become involved suc-cessfully in their children’s academic lives.

Vicky had already had a rich experience working withpupils’ parents. The previous school year, she introduced a

radical program of parents’ daily visits to her class so that they could observe and, in some cases, be involved in learn-ing activities taking place in school, thus indirectly trainingparents for assisting and supervising their children at home(II). Parents could come to school any day that they wantedto and attend the class during the first teaching periods. De-spite her ambitious aim and the initial success of her inno-

vation attempt, the program created—as Vicky herself ad-mitted (T–FG)—problems that affected the whole school. Mr.Moses, a member of the parent association that year, ex-

plained how the scheme began successfully but gradually got out of Vicky’s control: “Unfortunately, some motherstook advantage of the fact that other parents could not makeit and ended up being in their child’s class every day. Thisresulted in a boomerang, because from that point onwardssome kids didn’t want to go to school without their ‘mama.’

After that, more problems occurred, because the ‘mama,’ in-stead of assisting the teacher, was going to make allegationsagainst the teacher and was gossiping about her with other teachers. Thus, a conflict was created among the teachers. .

. . We tried; both the school’s inspector and the parent as-sociation supported the idea, even though some parents

were against it in the beginning. Finally, it ended badly” (II).Reflecting back, Vicky (II) blamed her inexperience in deal-ing with parents and the ill organization of the innovation asthe main reasons for its outcome.

During the following year, with a strong belief that it wasfor the benefit of children to have their parents involved and





in close contact with their children’s schoolwork, Vicky per-sisted in her efforts and implemented a new program. De-spite hesitation of her colleagues, the principal, the schoolinspector, and the school’s parent association, she planneda new intervention. This time, she explained (T–FG), she se-lected various activities aimed not only at achieving her owneducational goals but also at meeting parents’ expectationsand views regarding the most needed and appropriate prac-tices for supporting their children’s schoolwork. Thus, dur-ing the year of the study, Vicky organized a meeting sched-

ule with all her pupils’ parents—mostly, mothers. Eachmeeting served a different purpose, depending on Vicky’steaching aims and parents’ needs at the particular time.

The first meeting took place during the first week of theschool year, when Vicky invited (both in writing and by phone) all the parents of her class to a preliminary “getting toknow each other” gathering (T–II). This first meeting was heldduring school time, and only mothers attended. Nearly allmothers were there. During that initial meeting, Vicky briefly presented her teaching priorities, demonstrated some basic

teaching activities in language and mathematics that she would use in class, and explained to them how she expectedthem to contribute at home. Parents seemed to appreciate

Vicky’s initiative and noted that it was a useful gathering that managed to “present the way children are taught and how parents can assist at home” (P–FG, mother). Vicky stressedthe value of this initial meeting because many families had a child in first grade for the first time and had no experience

with new teaching methods in learning to write, read, andcalculate: “It is not as it is in the other grades where the

pupils participate in the lesson’s delivery; rather, it is a dif-ferent stage. Let’s say, first, I had to explain to them how their child should read a sentence, how to work out sen-tences; there are mothers who do not know how to do so” (II).

A month later, Vicky organized a second meeting with allher class parents during the annual Parents’ Communica-tion Evening (OB). Instead of having a short briefing witheach individual family, as most other teachers did, Vicky

516 LOIZOS SYMEOU




met with all the parents of her pupils, including, this time,many fathers. After briefly introducing herself, she pointedout some activities that she considered basic “parentalschool duties,” and she demonstrated some language activi-ties that she considered important. Vicky explained her ra-tionale as follows: “We made clear from our first meeting

what I would expect from them, how I would like them toread their sentences with their child during that first 3–4

weeks, and then, at the Parents’ Communication Evening, when we had progressed enough, I told them more about

how to work with syllabicating, which was our main learn-ing goal during that phase” (II).

Throughout the school year, Vicky continued to organizesessions for her pupils’ parents during schooltime. Duringthese meetings, parents received information regarding theclasswork and guidelines on how to deal with home activi-ties. It is noteworthy that in no cases were these morninggatherings attended by a father; hence, both the teacher (II)and the parents (P–II, P–FG) referred to it as the “mother mornings.”

Five of these mother mornings involved parents visiting Vicky’s class, as in the previous year. This time, however, Vicky drew on parents’ suggestions that, in some class vis-its, parents should attend only as viewers and not as partic-ipants and that, in others, the teacher should demonstratethe content of some teaching sessions without the presenceof the pupils. Each of these sessions concluded with a dis-cussion on what the mothers had observed.

During each of these class visits, Vicky tried to offer moth-ers the opportunity to observe her teaching learning activi-

ties so that they would become aware of her teaching aims,approaches, and practices during that particular teachingphase: “I want parents to see how I teach my pupils toarrange the mixed sentences of a short text in a logical se-quence and how we do it again and again, thus being able topractice the same activity at home” (II).

In the second semester of the school year, Vicky organizedanother two mother mornings during the weekly visiting





period. In these sessions, pupils were not present, and Vicky offered information regarding classwork, as well asguidance on ongoing educational and pedagogical issues. Inthe March gathering (OB), Vicky demonstrated how themothers could assist their children to write a brief essay at home. The meeting started with a brief introduction to themothers about new developments in the way the class

works and how parents can support the teacher’s work at home. Then Vicky circulated their children’s essay books sothat the mothers could see their children’s first attempts to

compose an essay. She showed the mothers how she moti- vated pupils to write the essay and how she facilitated their efforts. They then discussed what parents should expect from children at that particular age in essay writing andhow much the adults should interfere in the process. At theend of the meeting, she gave mothers the opportunity todiscuss with her specific doubts and ambiguities regardingindividual pupil’s essays. Vicky also advised mothers onhow to prepare their children for the school’s national day celebration, demonstrating how to prepare their children’s

costumes and how to help their children learn their recita-tion for the event. The theme of a second gathering was that of reading short stories and fairy tales in the class and at home.

Overall, the mothers that participated in the mother morn-ings were highly satisfied with Vicky’s initiative and favor-ably compared this approach to their individual briefings

with her during the weekly visiting period. One of the bene-fits was the opportunity for the mothers to share their doubts, suggestions, ideas, and solutions about how to sup-

port the child successfully: “We talk mainly about our chil-dren in general, not for your own child, for all children’s

work in general. This is important, because my own diffi-culty can be the same as the other lady’s, and the opposite.It is important for me; hence, I have not missed any of thesegatherings regardless of my work and the fact that I have tofind a baby-sitter for my newborn” (II, Ms. Aristeidou). Somemothers also pointed out (P–FG) that these meetings en-

518 LOIZOS SYMEOU




hanced their children’s school commitment. The mothersclaimed that their children were always interested to find out what they discussed with the teacher and what they had todo to fulfill the teacher–mother agreements.

Mothers claimed that the main merit of these meetings was that parents could learn to align their homework assis-tance with teachers’ classwork: “The way [teachers] teachtoday is much different from the way we [parents] weretaught” was a common justification among participant mothers (P–II, P–FG). “We see how the teacher teaches, and

we take the way things are done and assist our children sim-ilarly at home,” another mother explained (FG). Some par-ents pointed out that they observed how to use the school-

books at home, which “change every now and then” and,particularly, “the more recent books, [which] have a lot of difficult stuff” (FG). Most mothers were interested in observ-ing particular types of schoolwork—especially, mathematics,

because of their difficulty with the mathematics text and ex-ercise books.

Many suggested that such a practice would be useful at all

grade levels. As one mother suggested, “every school year isdifferent. . . . I want to know how the lesson is done in theupper grades, as well. I just want to get inside to see what my child does correctly, how good he is” (P–FG). Most be-lieved, though, that this practice was appropriate whenpupils are in the lower grades, especially in the first grade,“because Grade 1 is the class where a lot of assistance isneeded at home as well. By watching in the class, you seethe way the teacher works; thus, you see in what way moreor less you will help the child at home” (P–FG, mother).

Correspondingly, many mothers valued the class visit be-cause it gave them a firsthand experience of their children’sclass and school behavior. As Ms. Spyrou proclaimed, “youcan see how your child responds in the class, how he or sheis doing during the lessons, something that you don’t know,no matter how much information and description you aregiven by the teacher. . . . If you do not see yourself, it is not the same” (II). Some parents suggested that this firsthand





experience of their children’s school attitude might lead to a better coordination of action between the teacher and theparent and thus enhance a child’s school performance. Ms.Steliou (II), for example, maintained that by discussing her observations with her son and Vicky (that her son seemedreluctant to actively participate in oral classroom activities),her son soon altered his class behavior.

Vicky also contacted her class parents via written noticesto all parents. Like the mother mornings, these notices hadtwo goals: to provide general guidance about the classwork

and aims and to explain an activity that her pupils wouldengage in at home. Parents were delighted with these notes,particularly, those on children’s homework responsibilities(P–II, P–FG). According to parents, it is most important that families be informed about common concern issues—for in-stance, tips on how children should study at home, how they should behave in school and at home, and so forth.

Finally, Vicky paid particular attention to her communi-cation with parents on an individual basis. She actively urged parents to complement their attendance at all-parent

gatherings with frequent meetings with her during the weekly visiting period. Spending extra time and effort toprovide her pupils’ parents multiple opportunities to get in-

volved in their children’s school lives, she claimed to bestrict regarding parents’ obligation to use the weekly visit-ing period to meet with her. Correspondingly, she encour-aged the parents to visit her only during that hour and not on other occasions. Only for a few families did she make ex-ceptions, trying to be flexible and display a spirit of under-standing: “Andrew’s mother has nine kids; sometimes, I ex-

cuse her. I will devote for her 5 minutes at the most [whenshe comes to school outside of the time set aside for visits],and I indicate to her that we will say more during the visit-ing hour by saying to her, in other words, ‘Okay, but thisisn’t the best time to talk.’ The only exception is Kyris’smother; we are faced with many problems with Kyris’s be-havior; he was crying a lot. . . . He wanted to leave theschool all the time, and we had many meetings [with his

520 LOIZOS SYMEOU




mother]; we became friends, and she was coming at school very often, and she was calling me. Certainly, in this case . . .”(II, Vicky). Similarly, even though she was positive about parents’ calling her at school, she took a firm stance, ex-pecting that, with special exceptions, parents should contact her during the weekly visiting hour.

Normally, the weekly visiting period was an open invita-tion for parents to visit without an appointment. To comple-ment the all-parent gatherings with a guaranteed minimumof meetings with each parent and to permit Vicky to prepare

each parent’s visit by gathering all necessary documenta-tion, she began to schedule meetings with individual parentsduring this time. Instead of expecting the parents to decide

by themselves to show up, as the regulations suggested, Vicky sent a written notice once a term to each family tomeet her for a 10-minute meeting during the weekly visit pe-riod.

During the 10-minute appointment, Vicky informed theparent about his or her child’s performance since their last

briefing. To prepare, Vicky made notes about the child’s ac-

ademic performance and his or her school behavior. Shegathered samples of the child’s classwork or homework inthe various subjects and usually displayed sections of thechild’s exercise books and notebooks, tests and exercises, as

well as other work (OB). She tried to provide quantitativeand qualitative data to parents that would enable them tohave a solid understanding of the child’s work in school, andshe stressed the improvement, stability, or decline of pupils’test performances. Vicky placed particular emphasis on

whether the child was fulfilling his or her homework re-

sponsibilities. A few times, Vicky displayed to parents (with-out revealing names), good examples of work from other chil-dren so that parents had more concrete perceptions about their children’s abilities and class expectations. She usually then informed parents about the child’s behavior and pro-

vided a final opportunity for parents to provide her with any information that they believed to be important. The report-ing character of the 10-minute appointment did not provide





much opportunity to parents to interact with Vicky duringthe discussion.Parents appeared to feel privileged to have the opportunity

to have a 10-minute briefing for which the teacher was fully prepared (P–II, P–FG). They considered Vicky’s invitation im-portant and tried to be as punctual as possible. Parents werealso impressed and satisfied by the richness of the compar-ative data, in contrast with the general and abstract infor-mation that they used to receive when the teacher had not known about their visit in advance.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This article presents two examples of the ways that teachersin a rural state school in Cyprus engage their pupils’ parentsin school life. In this school context, the two teachers, Homer and Vicky, made efforts and took individual initiatives to

work with parents. Their interactions with parents, however, varied from each other.

Homer was impressively committed to his communication with parents and viewed this aspect of his work as both nor-mal and expected, because he believed that parents had a primary responsibility for their children’s education and that families have individual needs to meet this responsibility. Hetherefore appeared welcoming and, at the same time, wasopen to learning from parents. In doing so, he was compe-tent to connect with parents, but above all, he knew how totalk to them. He put them at ease and listened intently tothem to learn every parent’s perspective. He was honest and

direct, and he showed parents their children’s strengths andpotential and where they needed to improve. Accordingly,the parents of Homer’s class appeared to feel comfortableand relaxed during their meetings with him and shared a

warm relationship with him. They had long conversations with him, and his friendly and nonbusinesslike approach,accompanied by his constant, systematic, and persistent ef-forts to bring each parent to the school, resulted in parents’

522 LOIZOS SYMEOU




frequent school visits for discussion of any issues relevant totheir children’s school lives as well as their all-round devel-opment. Parents felt that they were sufficiently understood,that their special interests and needs were met, and that they were supported in fulfilling their parental roles. Homer,

with his impressive commitment to his communication withparents, managed to be the main actor; the person who ini-tiated his own policies and priorities about parents; and to

whom parents, colleagues, and his principal responded. Vicky had a different understanding of teacher–family co-

operation and adopted a different approach in engaging her pupils’ parents. She had a philosophy about the value of parents’ being involved in their children’s education. Centralto this was the notion that parents receive as much infor-mation as possible about their children’s performance sothat they understand their children’s needs; further, Vicki

believed that parents need to know how teaching takes placeso that they are able to foster their children’s schoolprogress. Her priority then was to inform and teach parentsso that they become actively and directly involved in their

children’s education. Although she worked well with parentsas a group, she seemed less keen to collaborate with fami-lies on an individual basis. Her priorities and practices re-flected her unambiguous stance as the expert who trainedparents so that the school fulfilled its aims. She was collab-orative but on her own terms.

Despite the different approaches that Homer and Vicky used in liaising with their pupils’ parents, they both man-aged to make parents feel comfortable with school and be-come actively engaged in their children’s education. Homer

and Vicky communicated extensively and in a systematicmanner with as many parents as possible. They exchangednotes with parents to discuss problems faced by the chil-dren, and parents initiated contacts. Moreover, they calledparents on a regular basis to hear about the childrenand to discuss issues of common concern; thus, parents

were fully informed about various facets of their children’sschooling and subsequently committed to it. Discussions





about schools, teachers, and academic progress were fre-quent. Even “hard to reach” parents were coming to schoolin a systematic manner. Interconnectedness (Lareau, 2000)

between the school and the pupils’ homes was thus devel-oped. Interdependence in school–family relations activatedthe formation of close, intense relationships and networks

between teachers and families and among families. The twoOld Village teachers, probably without being aware of it, by providing their pupils’ parents with ample opportunities tocome to the school, built social networks in the school

community. Their pupils’ parents used the collaborationopportunities granted by the school to build a relationship

with the school and consult with other parents and teach-ers about their children’s educational experience. Parentsmaintained close contact with their children, becamefriends with other parents in the class, interacted socially,and created bonds among themselves, thus activating thegeneration of social capital for their children, as conceptu-alized by Coleman (1988, 1990, 1994).

Homer’s and Vicky’s efforts validate the important role

that teachers play in conveying to parents that the teachers value communication between school and home and in cre-ating ways to engage parents in the school and promoteschool–family collaboration. This was particularly important in this setting, given that school–family relationships appear marginalized in the agendas of policy and practice (Georgiou,1996; Phtiaka, 1996; Symeou, 2002).

Homer’s and Vicky’s approaches can be shared with other schools and teachers within and outside the Greek–Cypriot educational system, but what the two teachers suggest

should not considered models that work anywhere. What might be successful in this small rural homogeneous com-munity may not be equally appropriate in other communi-ties, in other types of schools, and in the cases of other teachers.

Particular caution is needed in relation to considering theheterogeneity of families and their needs. The need for dif-ferentiation of teachers’ strategies is important, and families’

524 LOIZOS SYMEOU




circumstances have to be taken into serious consideration when aiming at successful parent–teacher communication,even within the same educational context. At the same time,

both examples clearly indicate that teachers who valueparental involvement, approach parents with honesty andrespect, and actively seek involvement can establish sup-portive relationships, even with parents who were predomi-nantly poor, uneducated, and initially reluctant to be di-rectly involved. In both situations, the teachers collaborated

with parents in the most appropriate manner per parent, re-

gardless of circumstances and background, so that all par-ents departed from the school knowing better what they need to do to support their children and how to do it.

In conclusion, active and frequent communication andcollaboration of teachers and parents provide interdepend-ence and intensity in school–family relationships. Activitiesand practices that enable teachers, parents, and children tointeract and start knowing one another at a personal levelenable them to feel that they are part of the same commu-nity. As parents get acquainted, they become familiar with

ongoing school programs, practices, and activities; they ob-serve their children’s actions in the school; and they shareinformation about the children with the teachers. Throughestablishing connectedness and interdependent relation-ships, children strengthen their educational resources tofully develop their potential within the school system.

NOTES

1. Key for locating data source. Type of instrument: focus group(FG), individual interview (II), researcher’s diary (RD), observation(OB). Type of participant: teacher (T), family (F), parent (P), child/chidren (C), headteacher (H).

2. A distinctive institution of state elementary schools in theGreek–Cypriot educational system, the the weekly visiting periodallows for parents and guardians to visit their children’s teachersin order to be informed about their children’s school attainment

JSPR





and to discuss with the teachers any school issues. Teachers typ-ically expect parents to come to the school for these 10- or 15-minute briefings on a one-to-one basis.

REFERENCES

Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 3). London:Routledge & Kegan.

Bloom, B. S. (1982). All our children learning . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education,

society, and culture (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London:Sage.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in

education (5th ed.). London: Routledge.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human cap-ital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Suppl.), S95–S120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,

MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Coleman, J. S. (1994). Family, school, and social capital. In T.

Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of

education (2nd ed., pp. 2272–2274). Oxford, England: PergamonPress.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin(Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational research (pp. 1139–1151).New York: Macmillan.

Georgiou, S. N. (1996). Parental involvement in Cyprus. Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Research, 25(1), 33–43.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school rela-tionships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Edu- cation, 60 (2), 73–85.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Lit-tlefield.

Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Families and their learning environment:

An empirical analysis . London: Routledge & Kegan.

526 LOIZOS SYMEOU




Phtiaka, H. (1996). Each to his own? Home–school relations inCyprus. Forum of Education, 51(1), 47–59.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for

researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Symeou, L. (2002). Present and future home–school relations inCyprus: An investigation of teachers’ and parents’ perspectives.School Community Journal, 12 (2), 7–34.

Loizos Symeou is an assistant professor at the School of Humanitiesand Social Sciences of Cyprus College, where he teaches methodol-ogy of educational research, sociology of education, and introduc-tion to pedagogical sciences. His doctorate research examines soci-ological aspects of family–school collaboration in Cyprus. His areasof interest include qualitative educational research, sociology of ed-ucation, pedagogy, family–school relationships, and ethics in socialand educational research. Address correspondence to Loizos

Symeou, PhD, Assistant Professor, Coordinator of Primary EducationProgramme, Department of Education, School of Humanities and So-cial Sciences, Cyprus College, Room 307, PO Box 22006, 1516Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: [email protected]



teachers parents cooperation loizos simeou

Documents