Denník N

Slovenka na Harvarde skúmala zapojenie našich rodičov do vzdelávania. Pozrite sa čo odporúča.

Už ste zaplatili príspevok na toaletný papier, knihy a školské výlety? Naozaj takto pomáhate nášmu školstvu? Ako rodičov zapojiť a čo hovorí dobrá zahraničná prax skúmala Martina Beďatšová na Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Dnes publikujeme závery jej práce a prieniky s našimi plánmi v strane Za ľudí.

Chcete sa ako rodič podieľať na stratégii školy, alebo chcete spolurozhodovať o jej fungovaní? Pomôžete s maľovaním v kmeňovej triede vášho dieťaťa? Nerobíte zle, ale nie je to úplne ono.

Prídete na stretnutie s učiteľom pripravený, pýtate sa tie správne otázky a je pre vás skutočným partnerom, ktorý spolu s vami sprevádza vaše dieťa na ceste k dospelosti? Robíte lepšie.

Štúdia nám ukazuje, čo by sme mali urobiť, aby sme rodičov zapojili ešte viac.

Zapojenie rodičov do života školy je extrémne dôležité. Nie kvôli suplovaniu štátu v materiálnom zabezpečení vybavenia školy, ale kvôli dieťaťu a jeho napredovaniu. Na Slovensku vnímame zapojenie rodičov najmä cez dobrovoľnícku a finančnú výpomoc, prípadne účasť na besiedkach. Niektorí tiež sedia v radách škôl, no máloktorí z nich sa vedia reálne zapojiť do rozvoja školy.

Zapájanie rodičov sa dá robiť aj inak. Toto sú inšpirácie, na ktoré upozorňuje Martina Beďatšová:

Komunikačná diaľnica s rodičmi

Experiment z Chile ukazuje, že keď zaviedli informovanie rodičov o výsledkoch, správaní a záškoláctve detí pomocou smsiek a pravidelných každo-týždňových e-mailov, ich výsledky z matematiky sa dramaticky zlepšili. Znížilo sa tiež záškoláctvo aj zlé správanie a deti menej prepadávali. Čím frekventovanejšie rodičia informácie dostávali, tým lepšie výsledky ich deti mali.

  • Čo z toho vyplýva?
    Infraštruktúru máme vybudovanú, volá sa elektronická žiacka knižka. Jej využívanie je však veľmi rôznorodé. Učiteľom umožňuje efektívne komunikovať s rodičmi, nemusí ísť len o známky. Kľúčové je, aby rodič vedel zmysluplne na informáciu zareagovať a dieťaťu pomôcť. Učiteľ môže napríklad napísať: „Evička dnes našla nové riešenie príkladu z matematiky, môžete ju veľmi pochváliť aká je nápaditá.“ alebo „Jožko bol celý deň smutný. Pri odchode zo školy sotil spolužiaka zo schodov. Porozprávajte sa s ním.“ Rodič sa vie o vzniknutej situácii s dieťaťom porozprávať, pochváliť, podporiť, či vyhrešiť. Nestane sa to však samé od seba. Učitelia potrebujú čas a podporu, aby takúto spätnú väzbu vedeli rodičom dávať. Zároveň musíme minimalizovať byrokraciu, ktorú od nich vyžadujeme. Musíme napríklad prestať chcieť, aby duplicitne vypĺňali aj tradičnú papierovú triednu knihu. Toto závisí najmä od riaditeľov.

Mini-konferencie medzi učiteľmi a rodičmi

Štúdia uvádza osvedčený formát stretnutí, na ktorých učitelia vysvetľujú rodičom, čo sa ich deti budú učiť a ako im vedia zmysluplne pomôcť. Rodičia si spolu s učiteľmi nastavia ciele na nasledujúci rok a sledujú ich plnenie. Rodičia sa tiež medzi sebou pravidelne stretávajú, aby sa porozprávali čo im funguje a ako ich deti napredujú.

  • Čo z toho vyplýva?
    Ak by sme zainvestovali do tréningu pre učiteľov, môžeme postupne testovať mini-konferencie aj na Slovensku. Učiteľom musíme však vytvoriť priestor a obsahovo ich pripraviť, aby takýto formát práce s rodičmi na svojich školách vedeli vyskúšať. Nemyslím si, že bude fungovať na všetkých školách, ale pri ideálnom nastavení učiteľov a najmä kritickej masy rodičov, môžu byť stretnutia príjemným oživením na niektorých školách.

Návštevy učiteľov v domácnostiach

Skúsenosť z marginalizovaných komunít v južnom Sacramente v Kalifornii ukazuje, že návštevy učiteľov v domácnostiach môžu mať pozitívny efekt na vzdelávací systém. Primárne v otázke dochádzky detí. Rodičia sa ukázali byť v ich prirodzenom prostredí, kde sa cítili bezpečne, otvorenejší a začali si budovať so školou prostredníctvom učiteľov vzťah. Následne viac dbali na to, aby ich deti do škôl chodili.

  • Čo z toho vyplýva?
    Na Slovensku vidíme ako by to mohlo fungovať na napríklade projektu Omama. Máme inštitút sociálnych pracovníkov a pedagógov, ktorí môžu túto veľmi záslužnú činnosť vykonávať. Nemyslím si, že by sme mali vyžadovať, aby túto neľahkú činnosť začali robiť aj všetci bežní učitelia. Tým, ktorí by však chceli, by sme mali vytvoriť podmienky a najmä dať adekvátne vzdelanie. Cez osobu učiteľa si vedia vylúčené komunity vybudovať veľmi potrebnú dôveru k škole. Tá je kľúčová nie len pre dochádzku, ale aj pre celkový vzťah detí ku vzdelávaniu.

Na viaceré zistenia štúdie reaguje aj náš program. O jednotlivých opatreniach strany Za ľudí sa dočítate na: https://za-ludi.sk/program/vzdelavanie-veda-a-sport/

 

***

Martina sa po štúdiách na London School of Economics (LSE) a práci pre prestížnu konzultačnú spoločnosť rozhodla vrátiť do školy a momentálne študuje postgraduálny odbor verejná politika na Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Po ukončení štúdií sa chce vrátiť na Slovensko a prispieť k zlepšeniu vzdelávania doma. Prečítajte si jej štúdiu v origináli:

 

Parental engagement in the education system in Slovakia

December 2019

Martina Bedatsova

This paper analyzes the role of collaboration between parents and schools in improving educational inequality and student outcomes in Slovakia. After reviewing the evidence and establishing that parental engagement initiatives have the potential to drive improvements, the paper focuses on mapping effective parental engagement policies and the potential to integrate them into the Slovak education system. While the analysis identifies challenges such as capacity constraints that need to be addressed, the overall recommendation highlights the merit of these policies and identifies specific programs with the highest potential to succeed that Slovakia could implement.

Introduction

The paper is split into three sections. The first section frames the problem and establishes a strong connection between family environment and student outcomes, identifying parental engagement policies as a potential component of the educational reform in Slovakia and a topic for further exploration. The second section follows this conclusion by mapping and evaluating a range of parental engagement policies that have been implemented around the world. The last section builds on previous discussion to draw key policy implications for the Slovak context, including an overview of the main barriers to meaningful parental engagement and a list of recommended policies and steps.

The role of parental engagement

Framing the problem: educational outcomes in Slovakia

Slovak education system has faced a number of challenges in recent years, manifested by a substantial decline in PISA test results (OECD 2019; see also figure 1a). Educational inequity is among the highest on the list, with a growing understanding and a consensus emerging over the previous years on the importance of socio-economic background, which has bigger effect on student performance in Slovakia than most of the other OECD countries (Šiškovič & Toman 2015). For example, 16 % of the difference in science score in PISA (2015) can be attributed to the socio-economic status of students, compared to the OECD average of 13% (OECD 2018; see also figure 1b). Students from socially disadvantaged background are much more likely to repeat the grade (14%, compared to 3% in the overall population (MPC 2013)) and complete compulsory education before completing primary school as a result (Slovak Ministry of Finance 2019). The situation is particularly pressing for Roma minority, as highlighted for example by the fact that only 4% of young people who grow up in these marginalized Roma communities are enrolled in tertiary education, compared to 31% in population (ibid). Moreover, PISA results highlight that the impact of students’ economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) may be increasing over time (Šiškovič & Toman 2015). As indicated, Slovakia has seen large declines in PISA scores relative to average OECD trend, and it appears this gap is driven primarily by the worsening scores of lowest-performing students, with higher-performing students staying largely on par with OECD (Šiškovič, Toman, 2014; figure 1a).


Figure 1a:
PISA Math scores by percentiles: difference between Slovakia and OECD average[1]

Figure 1b: PISA Science scores (2015) by ESCS quartiles

 

The case for parental engagement: impact of family environment on student outcomes

Having established the impact of educational inequity and the need to improve outcomes especially among the lowest-performing students, it is important to examine which policies may be most effective to address this challenge. To do that, a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of the achievement gap Is required. The literature documents that the attainment gap for students from disadvantaged background is to a large extent driven by family characteristics, including the level of parental involvement and parenting style. There are multiple plausible mechanisms of how these aspects can affect outcomes – for example, parents of students from worse socio-economic backgrounds may have less time and capability to study with their children; they may also set lower expectations or struggle to provide an environment conducive to learning. A body of empirical evidence confirms the findings on the role of family environment, with the Coleman report from 1966 being among the first and most seminal findings to place focus on family environment. Looking at the recent evidence, Gould et al (2019) find causal correlation between parent-child human capital and highlight the direct effect of quality of time as the main channel that links parental education to their children’s outcomes. Similarly, Villena-Rodán and Ríos-Aguilar (2012) find that spending time with a child has a direct causal effect on children’s cognitive test scores. A meta-analysis by Jeynes (2011) shows the impact holds across race, gender and socio-economic background; however, there is a high correlation between socio-economic status and the level of parental involvement.

In terms of sizing the effect, recent evidence highlights that parenting may be even more important than schools in affecting achievement (Dufur, Parcel & Troutman 2013), even though the consensus on the relative impact of family compared to the role schooling system is not clearly established and different studies point to the different estimates, there is no doubt that it does have a substantial impact and that schools reforms can be “reversed by family, negated by neighborhoods, and might well be subverted or minimized by what happens to children outside of school.” (Berliner 2005)

In Slovakia direct evidence of the impact of family involvement is limited, but indirect evidence suggests similar conclusions. Parents with higher status more likely to support child’s development and preparation at home (Katrňák 2004) and a survey from one of the least developed regions in Slovakia shows that students with less educated parents have worse outcomes (Bomba and Zemančíková 2014). Despite these findings, recommendations on how to close the achievement gap often focus solely on the school environment, for example, improving teacher’s skills, increasing number of teaching assistants and material resources (OECD 2019, Čokyna 2019). However, without involved parents, any impact that education system and educators may achieve is limited – we cannot expect schools alone to do heroic work of compensating for all the external influences.

 

The role of school-initiated parental engagement programs

The last part of this section discusses whether a closer collaboration between schools and parents and targeted parental engagement can in fact be an effective way to close this parenting gap. As Jeynes points out (Jeynes 2011), the fact that certain parenting behaviors lead to better outcomes may not automatically mean that parental engagement policies should be pursued aggressively as some of the desirable behaviors may be hard to teach and learn or could be better developed in different ways (for example via early-age parenting interventions). Moreover, the focus should be also kept on addressing the underlying factors such as long-term unemployment and poverty to ensure that less students grow up in disadvantaged backgrounds in the first place. However, with these caveats in mind, meta-analyses of the literature suggest that parental engagement programs are effective (eg. Jeynes 2011, Henderson and Mapp 2002, Senechal and Young 2008), as do multiple studies focusing on the impact of specific interventions (eg. Bergman 2015, Sheldon & Jung 2015). A seminal study analyzing key factors behind successful schools in Chicago also found parent-school ties to be one of the key ‘essential supports’ which made the success possible (Bryk 2010). Schools are important ‘tools’ to leverage to enhance the parenting skills; and crucially, home-school partnerships also have intrinsic value in improving the relationship in student’s ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner 1981).

 

Overview of the parental engagement policies

Having established that parental involvement programs work and could drive improvements in the Slovak education system, it is important to define more specifically what effective parental engagement looks like and evaluate different types of initiatives that could be pursued. Parental engagement refers to any activity through which parents (or other adults and caretakers raising the child) support the education of their child provided by formal schooling system. Since the range of policies included under this umbrella is wide, it is beneficial to group them into categories to facilitate the mapping and evaluation. The literature on parental engagement offers multiple such categorizations (for example Epstein’s framework of six types of involvement: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, collaborating with the community). The figure 2 attempts to combine the perspectives offered by different studies to produce a comprehensive overview of the main policies in the parental engagement area:


Figure 2
, based on Epstein & Salinas (1992); Sénéchal & Young (2008); Henderson et al. (2007); Appleseed Foundation (2006)

 

The overcharging categorization (developed for the purpose of this study) distinguishes policies based on their instrumental goal – whether they are focused on enhancing the quality of education at a school-wide or an individual student level. The distinction between school- and student-level policies is important as each group may require different types of skills, resources, mindsets and crucially, a varying level of involvement by an individual teacher. The school-level policies could in theory be executed by school’s family-outreach coordinator (or other staff member assigned with this responsibility) as it requires less personalization and less specific knowledge of student’s development held by the teacher.

The first group – school-level policies are oriented on involving parents to improve the overall quality of the school and contribute to its community life. That does not mean these policies do not improve student outcomes and reduce the achievement gap – they can do so indirectly, and often they have in fact been implemented with this goal in mind. In the Unites States, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (more widely known as the No Child Left Behind Act) of 2001 has focused heavily on accountability and transparency, including empowering parents to make decisions as a cornerstone to improving the quality of schools, especially in the most disadvantaged areas (Appleseed Foundation 2006). The policies in this area typically emphasize the importance of access to data about the school performance, for example in the form of ‘report cards’ in the case of NCLB (ibid). Armed with the necessary information, parents can more meaningfully advocate on behalf of their children and are empowered to shape the school’s trajectory by participating in developing the school improvement plan in case of Title I schools; requiring additional services or transferring a child to another school, if warranted (ibid). The mechanism of participation in decision-making and accountability sounds appealing but it is hard to assess the impact of these initiatives on school improvement due to limited evidence. It also appears unclear to what extent parents are interested in this type of involvement; a survey of parents from England suggests that parents seem to value information that will help them support their individual child (such as information about what their child is learning) more than the information they tend to receive, which includes reports about school policies and performance (Education Endowment Foundation 2018). Even the countries with relatively developed parental influence structures such as Denmark report low interest among parents to engage in some activities, such as participation in school boards (OECD 2006).


Example 1: Power of parents in Denmark

(based on OECD 2006, p. 85)

“In Denmark, parents have long played an essential role in the running of schools, including the folkeskolen. In 1990, the parents’ role in school decision-making was further strengthened with the creation of boards of school governors. Each board consists of five or seven parent representatives elected by all parents whose children are enrolled in the school. In addition, there are two representatives elected by and from among the school’s employees and two student representatives, so that parents are in the majority. The board of governors develops the guidelines for a school’s activities, approves the school budget and decides curriculum and staffing matters. According to 2001 evidence described in the background report, Danish parents are very committed to their children’s schooling and on average spend three hours a month at the school.”


Parents can also engage at a school level by participating in various school initiatives. This can include extracurricular as well as instruction-related activities and a range of involvement options from being an audience member to volunteering and organizing. Common activities in this area include “back to school nights”, showcases and performances or holiday celebrations. The evidence shows that this type of involvement generally achieves low to none impact on student outcomes (Jeynes 2011) but can serve other important functions, such as making parents feel familiar and welcome in the school environment; building relationships between the school and parents, and crucially among parents themselves; saving resources and broadening the offering of school activities.


Example 2: Parents as teachers

(based on Mapp & Soo Hong chapter in Christenson & Reschly 2009)

LSNA’s Parent Mentor Program, developed in 1995 in Chicago, aimed to invite parents who were often socially isolated in their community to help relieve school’s capacity pressures and work as teaching assistants for small stipend. Many of the parents ended up volunteering extra hours and developed important leadership skills as well as sense of self-esteem as a result. Since 1995, the Parent Mentor program has trained over 1,000 parents in eight local schools.

Key lessons: By focusing on empowering previously marginalized parents, the program achieved substantial improvement in the school community life and engagement of parents beyond those involved in it as the empowered parents began to shape the school environment in ways that was more welcoming. The case study also highlights the importance of perceiving parents as assets, as opposed to disruptors or deficits, and identifying creative ways to involve them.


Example 3: Physical space matters

(based on Appleseed Foundation 2006)

Alps Elementary School has established a Family Resource and Literacy Center where parents can come after school to spend time with their children or meet with other families. The Centre also provides information and consultations with a Family Resource Coordinator present on site two days a week. Parents can also attend workshops, organize support groups or volunteer opportunities and use the resources such as library and games that can be borrowed.

Key lessons: Often a barrier to successful engagement is the sense among parents of a school as a distant entity, where they do not belong or do not feel comfortable at. Making adjustments to physical space and opening up a school building for other purpose can substantially increase the sense of belonging and by extension, improve school’s community life as parents feel empowered to engage. Furthermore, these resources are extremely helpful as a direct assistance to parents trying to support their child’s development but lacking the means to do so.


In contrast to this, student-level policies focused on encouraging parents to support their own child’s skill-development and education serve to directly compensate for some of the causes of the achievement gap. One of the main ways through which this can be achieved is effective communication between parents and schools, based on mutual trust and a sense of equal partnership (Weiss et al 2002). Parents have the unique knowledge about their child, her or his strengths, challenges and the environment and understanding this context is critical to effective teacher instruction. Meanwhile, the teachers and educators hold superior knowledge regarding the standards students have to meet, effective learning methods as well as the student’s behavior and performance in the classroom context. Sharing this personalized information and know-how in a respectful, actionable and timely way with parents can substantially improve outcomes by lowering monitoring costs and updating parent’s beliefs (Bergman 2015). The form and medium of communication also matter; as a range of communication options grows and parents have less time to keep track of the various developments, it is important to avoid information overload and use targeted messaging. Generally, text messages and regular weekly emails are the most appropriate to provide timely updates, while methods such as home visits and effectively designed parent-teachers conferences are important tools to share the deeper information about parents’ aspiration for their child with the teacher, and vice versa, teacher’s observations and tips on how parents can support even better their child’s development. (Education Endowment Foundation 2018)


Example 4: Text messaging in Chile

(based on Berlinski et al 2016)

The authors piloted a program of sending data on student outcomes like absenteeism, grades, and student conduct to parents using high frequency text messaging. The sample was 1,500 students in eight elementary schools in a low-income region of Chile. They conclude that “after four months, treated students had significantly higher math grades, improved attendance, a lower prevalence of bad behaviors, and were less likely to fail the grade at the end of the year. Treatment narrowed parent-school information gaps.”

Key lessons: To be effective, information has to be timely and actionable (parents have to understand the information and what they are supposed to do with it). The frequency of the contact also matters when parents were sent more total messages the positive effects were larger. Moreover, there is evidence of positive spillover effects on other students whose parents were not a part of the program.

 

Example 5: The power of home visits

(based on Sheldon & Jung 2015)

Parent-teacher home visit project (PTHV) is a strategy for engaging educators and families as a team to support. A group of teachers and families in a low-income neighborhood in south Sacramento, California, came together in 1998 to address a deep distrust between the school district and the community. Out of this, parents and teachers created PTHV based upon community organizing principles of empowerment. The model focuses on building trust and communication and collaborating toward shared goals for student success. PTHV model has been shown to produce substantial improvements in student outcomes, especially through improving attendance.

Key lessons: It is very important to reach out in an environment that parents are familiar with and can feel relaxed in, even though teachers must be aware it may be initially perceived negatively (as a supervision or Child Protection Services visit) so it is crucial to communicate the purpose of the visit well. To achieve impact, the visits should be focused not on lecturing or sharing information but on building trust and relationship, listening and asking questions about the parents’ dreams for their child.


Beyond communication and information exchange, other types of parental engagement policies focus on how schools can motivate and empower parents to support their child’s learning at home. The most typical way in which parents get involved is by helping with homework, even though the evidence on the effectiveness of this support is mixed (Jeynes 2011). In any case, studies show that teachers can play a critical role in encouraging effective parental involvement, for example by explaining how the homework supports learning goals, being accessible to parents in case of questions and sharing strategies about how to motivate and respond to student homework performance (Walker et al 2004). However, parents’ role in supporting their child’s education at home goes far beyond assistance with homework and can be expressed in very clear but also very subtle ways. Jeynes (2011) and others find that the subtle ways, such as creating a supportive learning environment and setting high expectations may have the largest effect on student outcomes. However, there is no doubt that clear manifestations of parental support, such as shared reading, are critically important in influencing student outcomes especially in the early ages of child’s development. Lack of this support partially explains the achievement gap for student from worse socioeconomic backgrounds as on average, the parents of these students have lower involvement (due to their belief that they cannot provide it well but also other reasons (Hoover‐Dempsey et al 2005). Hence, programs that can effectively empower parents to provide this support have potential to achieve substantial impact and many studies show that they do (Senechal & Young 2008).


Example 6: Parent-teacher conferences done right

(based on Mapp & Kuttner 2013)

APPTs, Academic Parent Teacher Teams, are a novel version of the traditional parent-teacher conferences that are typically focused on simply passing on updated and necessary information. APPTs are workshop-style meetings where parents meet the teacher in groups. They are focused on explaining what specific educational goal students are working towards and discussing strategies how parents can support achieving it. The sessions are followed by an individual goal-setting exercise between a parent and a teacher, where they together choose a specific goal for 60-day period and meet to evaluate the progress after this period.

Key lessons: The power of tying meetings to the educational outcomes and facilitating exchange of ideas and experiences between parents too. Key success of the goal-setting exercise is also the reasonable time period, which allows for multiple goals per school year to be set.

 

Example 7: Homework TIPS

(based in Epstein 2016)

The name TIPS refers to Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork, a special type of interactive homework developed to facilitate partnership between family and school. Colorado Department of Education partnered with Johns Hopkins University and teams of Colorado educators to develop TIPS assignments for literacy in grades K-3, which were specifically written by and for Colorado teachers. The results suggest that “with TIPS Interactive Homework, more and different parents were engaged with their children, regardless of family background or child’s starting skills.”

Key lessons: Effectiveness of homework is often mixed but it can be designed to facilitate multiple important goals – designing homework is just as important as assigning it.


Having reviewed the examples, one conclusion should perhaps be clear – parental engagement is not easy and the way in which it is executed matters. As one of the most prominent academics in the area of parental engagement Karen Mapp contends, “we must acknowledge that the issue of engaging parents effectively is a complex and multifaceted one that requires an understanding of the importance of context” (Mapp in Christenson & Reschly 2009, p. 350) Successful implementation of parental engagement policies requires a number of general conditions to be satisfied. First of all, it is important that these programs are “not stand-alone projects or add-on programs but are well integrated with the school’s overall mission and goals” (NEA 2008, p. 1). The parental engagement policies take substantial resources and executing them in haphazard, ad-hoc fashion will not yield the desirable improvements. Hence, it is crucial to establish what is the goal they should meet and use this criterion to identify programs to invest in and evaluate their success. Secondly, as has been already implied above, the parental engagement policies need to be approached through the partnership mindset and relationship-focused (Mapp & Kuttner 2013). If these policies are not accompanied by a genuine desire to meaningfully involve parents in order to benefit students, the programs can easily turn into box-checking exercise that is only executed to fulfill certain expectations. Lastly, the figure above provides high-level mapping of the policies implemented but clearly, the success is not only about what the schools are doing but also how. Thus, beyond the brief discussion above, an important factor to consider is the age – as the needs of the students change over time (especially towards the increasing desire for autonomy), the programs have to be adapted. (Hill & Tyson 2009)

Beyond these important considerations, one last critical point regarding the parental engagement policies in general is how they should be mandated, implemented and managed. It is clear that ultimately schools and teachers execute the parental engagement; however, a question remains as to whether these programs should only arise out of the school’s decision and initiative or whether a central (national or regional) governing body should, and in fact could, mandate them. One has to acknowledge that without the buy-in at the school level, a nationally-mandated policies can at best motivate some schools to take up the programs meaningfully; or perhaps lead precisely to the box-checking exercise, where schools implement programs without any real value simply out of compliance; or at worst, mandating can cause backlash, resistance and potentially, programs implemented in a way that is in fact detrimental to the parental involvement and parental sense of being invited. Another important consideration is scalability – many of the examples highlighted above refer to relative targeted, ‘pilot’ programs that have been initiated by schools, districts or foundations but not mandated.

 

Applying to Slovak context

While Slovakia has a number of formal programs aimed to foster parental involvement, they are mostly in the form of traditional, less impactful initiatives The formal programs include traditional parent-teacher conferences (two times per year), information-sharing and communication of student outcomes (grades and basic indicators such as absences) to parents using online ‘grade’ reports and participation of parents in the school governance by having appointed representatives in the School Council. Despite the existence of these programs, there are some indications that the overall level of parental engagement is relatively low. For example, only 10% of school leaders feel pressure from the majority of parents to hold high academic standards (Šiškovič & Toman 2015) and a study conducted by ‘To dá rozum’ initiative highlights that 25% of schools communicate with parents about their expectations in formulating the school curricula (To da rozum 2019). Moreover, study of parents’ beliefs conducted in the Czech Republic, a neighboring country with very similar culture, history and education system, highlights that 72% of parents believe the schools should do more to collaborate with parents (EDUIn 2011). Thus, there appears to be a space for expansion of some types of the parental engagement policies.

 

Barriers and challenges

Having outlined the rationale for the expansion of parental engagement initiatives, we also need to consider whether contextual factors may pose certain challenges and potentially influence the policies’ desirability. To some extent, the challenges described below are common across many contexts and the evidence suggests that many of them can be overcome (Mapp & Kuttner 2013).

Among the most significant challenges that could hamper successful implementation of these policies is the quality of teachers and their preparation. There is no doubt that teachers are the central element in the execution of the parental engagement and many studies document the need for rigorous, specific training on how to engage parents in order to enable them to be successful (Mapp & Kuttner 2013). Given the general consensus about the need to improve education and preparation of teachers in pedagogical faculties in Slovakia, this may arguably be expecting too many changes from teachers which may feel overwhelming. However, if new guidelines for teacher education were to be developed, it would provide unique opportunity to incorporate the parental engagement training into this education. Another potential issue related to teacher’s capacity may be the lack of time to engage in these activities, given the other demands teachers may face such as leading extracurricular activities or preparing lessons. While studies show that teachers who were initially resistant but try parental engagement activities often come to see their value and the fact that over the longer term, they even save time as teachers can rely on parents to help, the concern is nevertheless valid. One way to partially address it is providing resources for schools to hire family partnership coordinators.

For the policies focused on helping the most disadvantaged students, it is important to note that the schools serving these students generally have comparatively lower quality of teachers; less resources to work with and less capacity (Varsik 2017). Requiring them to implement parental engagement can thus create further pressure and will likely not be effective without further assistance and parallel reforms, such as the ones aimed to build teacher capacity. In the absence of these remedies, the programs could further exacerbate differences if only schools in more well-off areas will implement the policies effectively.

 One also has to consider practical barriers that often prevent participation by parents, such as problems with transport (especially for parents living in poorly-connected marginalized settlements), language barriers for parents from Roma or other minorities as well technological barriers, such as limited usage of email and other technologies among certain parent groups. Awareness of these barriers can help ensure they are systematically tackled and accommodations are provided. A harder practical barrier to overcome may be lack of parents’ time or capacity and confidence to engage in their child’s education. In terms of time, flexibility on the side of schools about timing of the activities is important. Addressing the capacity challenge is more difficult but can be improved as parents develop relationships and trust towards schools and use their advice.

Moreover, one should also consider ‘softer’ psychological or cultural barriers that may be present. Many authors show how the success of parental engagement policies hinges on the right mindset and belief system among stakeholders – both families and educators (Henderson et al. 2007). Thus, previous beliefs may have to be slowly shifted to ensure both sides see the relationship as an equal partnership towards a shared goal, rather than animosity and disagreement or a sense of superiority by one group over the other.

 

Recommendations

As mentioned previously, parental engagement works best when it is systematically pursued, comprehensive and integrated into the school or national ecosystem. However, this section highlights the most promising policies that could serve as a starting point in Slovakia, chosen based on a few criteria: a) the effectiveness of the specific program in terms of improvement of student outcomes; b) their relative ease of implementation and suitability for the local context described above; and c) potential to bring important additional benefits.

Looking at the categories outlined in the Figure 2, it appears that policies on the school-level to improve accountability and decision-making capabilities already exist to some extent and focusing efforts on enhancing their effectiveness would not be as fruitful undertaking. It is important to provide parents formal avenues to raise concerns and contribute to the decision-making if desired (the way that Slovak school do by mandating a number of parents’ seats on the school council and having a parent council). However, encouraging further engagement beyond the voluntary one is a challenging endeavor and the impact from achieving it successfully unclear; this cost-benefit calculation seems to suggest it may not be the best investment. Furthermore, the biggest challenge that these formal parental forums often face is their unrepresentativeness (with the disadvantaged parents typically participating much less (OECD 2006)) – even more challenging barrier to overcome as the barriers to participation among these parents are typically not just logistical, but also psychological, along the lines described above. The other school-level policies focused on building the school community life are important, but no clear recommendation emerges that could be pursued on the policy-making level. No one-size-fits-all is possible for these activities and what opportunities schools choose to pursue to involve the parents should be their choice, based on their context.

Given the evidence presented and the challenges of inequity that Slovak education system faces, the student-level policies appear to be the most fruitful avenue. A range of examples was presented and many more exist around the world. Synthesizing this knowledge and the three criteria mentioned above, the policies with the highest potential could thus be:

  1. Implementing more effective communication and Information sharing initiatives
    • These measures would not present significant new burden for teachers and are relatively cost-effective while having potential to drive large impact. The online grade report (“internentová žiacka knižka“) could be used as a first step to generate the information and communicate it to parents via text messages (or other method that the parent prefers). The additional advantage of this measure is the potential to mandate it centrally.
  2. Re-inventing parent-teacher conferences
    • Similar to above, this measure does not require significant mindset shift as the parent-teacher conferences already exist in Slovakia. The key is to make them more effective by adjusting their form and content to the APPT-style workshop meetings. Implementation could be achieved by providing regional training to teachers on how to lead these meetings and using the government’s capacity to develop guidelines and materials that teachers and parents could use.
  3. Encouraging home visits (especially in the disadvantaged communities)
    • It is hard to imagine that this measure could be mandated by the national government – forcing teachers to complete visits against their will, especially in the marginalized Roma communities, could easily cause more harm than good. However, home visits have an immense potential to drive meaningful engagement and could thus be encouraged through softer means, by disseminating the knowledge about their value to schools and incorporating the training on best practices into the teacher preparation.

Beyond the advantages of the parental engagement highlighted in the other parts of this essay, these three measures could bring further benefits if executed well. These include a spillover effects on parents in terms of helping them build leadership and other capabilities and increased sense of self-esteem; multiplier effects by affecting other children in the household through improved parental skills; ensuring culturally sensitive and responsive schooling; and crucially, securing more sustainable student outcomes that do not diminish once students leave the school building.

Finally, there are few general recommendations that have to be mentioned. Firstly, while the essay focused on the engagement of parents and families with the schools, it is important to note that similar mechanisms and arguments apply for the engagement of the local community (cooperation with non-profit organizations, businesses, wider family members etc.). The value of the community should not be overlooked. Secondly, as with any policy, it is critical to monitor and continously evaluate if the results are meeting expectations; and adjust the course if needed. Thirdly, parental engagement policies should not be used to distract from the key underlying challenges that cause the inequity in the first place, such as generational poverty, labor market discrimination, school segregation etc.. These have to be addressed too. Similarly, it is important to pursue parallel reforms of the education system that will also place Slovak schools in a better position to execute parental engagement, as well as invest into early education and parenting through valuable programs such as Omama that can develop parenting skills early on and thus maximize the impact on the child development. Finally, while the essay makes an argument for why these policies should be pursued by comparing their benefits and costs, it may well be the case that given the limited resources and capacity, there are other even more important and impactful programs that should be prioritized. This essay does not attempt to make comparative assessment of the relative value of different interventions that could improve student outcomes.

 

Conclusion

Despite the commonly accepted notion that what happens outside of school matters for student outcomes, much of the discussion about education system reform focuses on school improvement policies, such as teacher recruitment, curriculum design or school leadership. The initiatives that would increase parental engagement are notably absent. However, as shown, these policies could substantially contribute to improving student outcomes and the research consensus appears to be shifting more and more in the direction of parental engagement as not just ‘a nice to have’ element but an essential part of school operation. While more study is needed to evaluate this potential in the Slovak context in more detail, the analysis above highlights a number of general best practices and preliminary recommendations that could be implemented to help address the challenges in its education system.

 

References

Appleseed Foundation. (2006). It takes a parent : Transforming education in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act : Recommendations regarding the vital role of parents and guardians in achieving student and school success. Washington, DC: Appleseed.

Bergman, P. (2015). Parent-Child Information Frictions and Human Capital Investment: Evidence from a Field Experiment. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2015.

Bergman, P., Edmond-Verley, C., & Notario-Risk, N. (2018). Parent skills and information asymmetries: Experimental evidence from home visits and text messages in middle and high schools. Economics of Education Review, 66, 92-103.

Berliner, D. C. (2005). Our impoverished view of educational reform. New York: Teachers College Record,

Berlinski et al (2016). Reducing parent-school information gaps and improving education outcomes: Evidence from high frequency text messaging in Chile.

Bomba, L. & Zemančíková, V. (2011). Vplyv socioekonomického statusu rodiny na prospech ţiaka v škole – súčasný stav na Liptove. PEDAGOGIKA.SK, 2011, ročník 2, č. 3: 145-171

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryk, A. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 91(7), 23-30.

Christenson, S., & Reschly, A. (2009). Handbook of school-family partnerships. New York, NY: Routledge

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.

Čokyna, J. (2019). A okraje máš kde? Bratislava: N Press, s. r. o

Dufur, M., Parcel, T., & Troutman, K. (2013). Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? Social capital effects on academic achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 31(1), 1-21.

Education Endowment Foundation (2018). WORKING WITH PARENTS TO SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LEARNING: Guidance Report. London: Education Endowment Foundation

EDUin (2011). VZTAH RODIČŮ A ŠKOLY JEJICH DÍTĚTE. EDUin. Prague

Epstein, J.L & Salinas, K. (1992). School and Family Partnerships Encyclopedia of Education Research, 6th edition, New York: Macmillan

Gould, Simhon, Weinberg (2019). Does Parental Quality Matter? Evidence on the Transmission of Human Capital Using Variation in Parental Influence from Death, Divorce, and Family Size. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2019.

Henderson, A.T.  & Mapp, K. L.(2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Henderson, A. et al (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: New Press: Distributed by W.W. Norton.

Hill, N. E. & Tyson, D. F. (2009). „Parental Involvement in Middle School: A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Strategies That Promote Achievement.“ Developmental Psychology 45, no. 3: 740-63.

Hoover‐Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Sandler, H., Whetsel, D., Green, C., Wilkins, A., & Closson, K. (2005). Why Do Parents Become Involved? Research Findings and Implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education & Urban Society 35(2): 202-218

Jeynes, W. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. New York: Routledge.

Katrňák, T. (2004). Odsouzeni k manuální práci: Vzdělanostní reprodukce v dělnické rodině. Praha: Slon

Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. (2013). Partners Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships. SEDL.

Mayer, Kalil, Oreopoulos, Gallegos (2015). Using Behavioral Insights to Increase Parental Engagement: The Parents and Children Together (PACT) Intervention. NBER Working Paper Series

Ministry of Finance Slovak Republic (2019). Revízia výdavkov na skupiny ohrozené chudobou alebo sociálnym vylúčením. MFSR Bratislava

MPC (2013). Prieskum o postavení žiaka zo sociálne znevýhodneného prostredia v základnej škole – priebežné výsledky, MPC Prešov

NEA (2008). NEA Policy Brief: Parent, Family, CommunityInvolvement in Education. NEA Education Policy and Practice Department, Center for Great Public Schools, Washington, D.C

OECD (2006). Demand-sensitive schooling? Evidence and issues. OECD, Paris

OECD (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. OECD, Paris

OECD (2019). OECD Economic Surveys Slovak Republic. OECD, Paris

Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The Effect of Family Literacy Interventions on Children’s Acquisition of Reading From Kindergarten to Grade 3: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of Educational Research, 880-907.

Sheldon, S. B., and Sol Bee Jung (2015). „The Family Engagement Partnership: Student Outcome Evaluation.“ Johns Hopkins University: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, 1-30.

Šiškovič, M. & Toman, J. (2014), PISA 2012: Výsledky PISA v kocke, MSVVS Bratislava

Šiškovič, M. & Toman, J. (2015). OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for the Slovak Republic. MSVVS Bratislava

To da rozum (2019). Analýza zistení o stave školstva na Slovensku. To da rozum. Bratislava

Varsík, S. (2017). PISA 2015: Porovnanie vybraných charakteristík vzdelávacích systémov. MSVVS Bratislava

Walker, J., Hoover-Dempsey, K., Whetsel, D., & Green, C. (2004). Parental Involvement in Homework: A Review of Current Research and Its Implications for Teachers, After School Program Staff, and Parent Leaders, 1-10.

Weiss, H. B., Lopez M. E., Kreider H. & Chatman-Nelson, C. (2002). Preparing Educators to Engage Families: Case Studies Using an Ecological Systems Framework.

[1] “Volume I – PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do” dataset, Table I.2.3d

 

 

 

Teraz najčítanejšie