Conference 2000Denmark
Parents as Partners: illusion or
reality?
Issues from Denmark and England
1.1
Introduction
This
chapter has a number of aims: firstly, it seeks to
explore similarities and differences in the attempts
to achieve greater parental involvement in education
in two European countries; secondly, it attempts to
analyse the problems that have emerged in the two
countries as a consequence of this endeavour and,
finally, it seeks to offer an explanation as to why
the goal of greater parental involvement remains
illusive. While attempts to increase parental
involvement have been part of the policy agenda of
most European countries for a number of years it is
interesting to note that there has been a significant
shift in the nature of the debate regarding the form
that parental involvement should take. The source of
the shift of focus can be attributed, in general
terms at least, to the impact of the ideas of the new
right and the importance they gave to the application
of market-forces to both economic and social systems.
One important consequence of this shift has been to
change the focus of parental involvement from that of
relatively passive involvement in generalised support
for learning to one of direct responsibility for key
elements of policy implementation such as school
management and the raising of academic standards.
Changes
such as these represent an important part of the
rolling back of the welfare state regarded as an
integral component of the ‘new’ economics.
The impact of these changes was not experienced in
the same way in every country because of the
different conceptualisations of the nature and
purpose of the welfare state in different contexts.
It is the implications of the attempt to change the
focus of parental involvement in education in two
countries: England and Denmark, which form the basis
of this chapter.
2.1
Contexts
In both
England and Denmark there have been active attempts
to import the notion of market economics into
education and to urge schools and teachers to raise
standards. Both counties have questioned some
previously taken for granted elements and have sought
to impose greater scrutiny and accountability
throughout the education system. Increased parental
involvement has figured highly as a means through
which government assumed these policy imperatives
might be realised. In both countries, however, the
strategy of increasing parental involvement has
proved problematic and there appears to be levels of
resistance and reluctance on the part of both parents
and teachers to endorse this new strategy. In the
course of this chapter we will (a) examine some of
the reasons for this situation, (b) offer suggestions
as to its causes and (c) make suggestions for how it
might be changed.
Although
both Denmark and England share some common aspects of
culture and history they have inevitably given
different emphases to their social and economic
systems. It is not, however, the intention of this
chapter to provide a comparative analysis of these
systems, interested readers might consult Ravn(1994)
for a full review of the evolution of policy and
practices. However, it is necessary to provide the
reader with some reference points in relation to the
development of the welfare state in the two countries
and the implications this has for the attempts to
achieve greater parental involvement.
The
first of these reference points relates to the
perception of the welfare state. In Denmark, for
example, the role of the welfare state is inexorably
linked to a national consensus regarding the creation
of an egalitarian state based around social harmony.
This is to be achieved in a number of ways but
fundamental to its realisation is the role of
publicly funded agencies providing high quality
services to all citizens as of right. This is in
marked contrast to the situation in England where the
welfare state is regarded as the means by which the
state ensures that a minimum safety net of provision
is available below which no individual or family is
allowed to fall. This has resulted in very different
perceptions of quality of the institutions and the
individual employees of the agencies of the welfare
state in the two countries. In Denmark, for example,
there is a high regard on the part of citizens for
the quality and availability of the services provided
and the professionalism of those responsible for
their delivery. This contrasts somewhat with the
situation in England where there is an almost
continual obsession with issues such as waiting
lists, poor levels of service and a low regard for
the professionals who work in the services concerned.
While teachers, social workers and social educators
continue to be held in high regard in Denmark they
are often the subject of considerable criticism by
the media and indeed government in England. Even the
advent of ‘New’ Labour has not seen any
diminution of the criticism of schools and teachers
for failing to deliver an appropriate level of
educational standards. In the recently published
report of the Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED
1999) it is alleged that around 14,000 teachers in
England and Wales were inadequate and should be
replaced. In Denmark although there is no such overt
admonishment of teachers and their ability to teach
effectively although the traditional high regard for
teachers is being questioned in the light of
comparisons of international standards in areas such
as reading, mathematics and science. This concern has
even lead to a questioning of the effectiveness of
the ‘Folkeskole’- the 7-16
‘common’ school for all pupils - as a
deliverer of high quality education although there is
no immediate attempt to create the diversity of
provision in the structure of schools as there is in
England.
This
leads to the second point of reference as a further
important difference between the two countries lies
in the Danish view that education is not just about
the formal process of schooling. In Denmark there is
a consensus that much of the process of education
occurs outside the formal structure of schooling and
is undertaken directly by families through their
involvement in other facilities available through
community and other facilities. This contrasts
somewhat with the view taken by the majority of
parents in England and Wales who have come to regard
the school as the essential source of education.
Although this view may appear to be a gross
generalisation it can be supported in a number of
ways. It is interesting to note, for example, that compulsory
education does not begin in Denmark until children
are seven years old a situation which contrasts with
that in England where the compulsory age for starting
school is significantly earlier. In Denmark extensive
pre-school provision exists in the form of day-care
facilities available to parents who wish to make use
of them. What is interesting, however, is the
emphasis within these facilities which is focused
very much on play rather than formal learning. It is
also interesting to note that although education is
compulsory in Denmark schooling is not and there is a
much greater freedom for parents to provide education
outside the state system either individually or by
joining forces with other like-minded parents who are
concerned about the ethos offered by the Folkeskole.
This opportunity to access ‘private’
education in Denmark is reinforced through a system
of funding whereby the State provides considerable
support to such schools to make them accessible to a
wide range of families, a situation which contrasts
markedly with that in England where fee levels for
private schools are often prohibitive.
A third
reference point indicating the difference between the
two countries lies at the structural level. Mention
has already been made of the different starting point
for compulsory education and this leads to a more
fundamental difference with the Danish Education
system based around the ‘Folkeskole’ - a
7-16 comprehensive school for all pupils. In England
and Wales, however, the system is built around a
distinction between primary and secondary education
and allows for an increasing diversity in the types
of school available, with schools at secondary level
able to ‘select’ some of their pupils and
to offer particular specialisms’ in a way that
is not found in Denmark. There is also of course, the
existence of a significant ‘private’ sector
in England whereby parents can ‘buy’ an
education for their children outside that offered by
the State.
A final
point of reference indicating differences between the
two systems lies in the extent of the legislation and
reports about education which have considered the
issue of parental involvement. In England and Wales,
for example, there has been an interesting link
between the impetus given to parental partnership
through legislation and the reporting of government
commissioned enquiries into various aspects of the
education system. From Newsom (1963), to Plowden
(1967) via Vernon(1972), Court(1976) and Warnock
(1978) there have been endorsements of the
educational value of increased parental involvement
reflected in legislation or government circulars.
This ground swell of advocacy as we noted in the
introduction was characterised by the attempt to
improve the amount of support schools and teachers
could expect from parents either by enhancing
resources, supporting teachers in classrooms by
direct teaching either in schools or at home. The Education Acts of 1986 and 1989
Act, however brought about a significant change in
the relationship between schools and parents.(see for
example Burkhardt 1991) Governing bodies were
required to have at least four parent representatives
together with representation from the local business
community. These changes (together with those brought
in by the 1988 Act) can be regarded as forming a
watershed in the relationship between schools and
parents. Bastiani, a significant contributor to the
field, highlighted the parameters of the shift that
was being engineered in the relations between parents
and schools:
"Relations
between families and schools, between teachers,
parents and pupils have in a fairly short period of
time, become an important contemporary concern. To a
large extent, this is because such issues figure
prominently on the agendas of politicians,
professionals and parents alike" (Bastiani, J.
1989 p5)
He
continued by reporting how, with varying degrees of
enthusiasm, those involved in the process of
education had to come to accept that the nature of
the relationship between parents and schools was
changing and that new modes of interaction and
understanding would be necessary if full advantage
was to be taken of this new situation. Bastiani
further suggested that there were three underpinning
beliefs and values which characterised this new
relationship, namely:
Notions
of parental rights
The
role of parents in supporting learning
The
value of parents as a resource in the
classroom
The
direct contribution that parents make as
educators in their own right
These
changes can be seen as the culmination of the
politicising of what had previously been an
uncontested area of publicly provided provision
through the process of introducing market economics
into the relationship between schools and parents.
For the government of the day these changes were part
of both a general strategy of releasing market forces
throughout society and also of targeting education
for very specific purposes. Under- achievement, the
transmission of ‘inappropriate’ values, an
insufficiently focused curriculum and poor teaching
were just some of the issues the government wished to
address by unleashing the power of the market.
Parental involvement was to be the vehicle for
bringing about these changes. As consumers of a
service regarded as below standard parents would
become the engine of change bringing, in conjunction
with the support of local business and commerce an
impetus for change and a challenge to the so called
‘educational establishment’. The impact of
greater parental involvement would, it was hoped, be
seen through a closer scrutiny of practices, a
concern with standards and a reassertion of the
importance of ‘traditional’ values; it was
also anticipated that ‘new’ ideas about the
management of resources would be forthcoming.
In
Denmark there has never been the clinical division
between parents as supporters of learning and as
‘consumers’ of a service. There has,
therefore, not been the need for the State to
legislate or exhort in the same way that it has felt
necessary in England. This can be appreciated most
clearly by simply examining the volume of legislation
regarding parental involvement that has been
introduced. Essentially, policy regarding parental
involvement can be found in three pieces of statute.
As early as 1958 legislation provided for parents to
be directly involved in the decision regarding the
placement of their children on the academic or
vocational track within the Folkeskole. By 1970
Danish parents were extended the right to be
represented on the compulsory School Boards which
govern all educational and caring institutions. These
rights have been further extended in schools by
legislation in 1975, 1989 and most recently in 1994.
It is interesting to note how the emphasis in the
legislation has, however, changed to give greater
weight to the contribution that parents can make to
improving the educational achievements of children.
For example, the Act of 1994 transfers powers given
to the Municipalities in earlier legislation to the
School Boards. There are interesting similarities and
differences in this piece of legislation and that
found in England. For example, the Danish School
Boards are now charged under Section 40 of the Act in
Folkeskole (1996) with the following
responsibilities:
Supervising
the activities of the school and ensuring
they fall within the remit set by the
Municipality.
Laying
down the principles for the activities of the
school
Approval
of the school budget
Approving
teaching materials
Proposals
for the curriculum of the school
A
general responsibility for monitoring
progress and report on progress to the
Municipality.
Within
this general framework the School Board has
particular duties which include:
the
organisation of teaching
co-operation
between home and school
information
about pupil progress
the
allocation of work between teachers
the
general arrangements for pupils during the
school hours
Interesting
differences with the situation in England occur at a
number of levels. In Denmark the School Boards have a
more direct involvement in issues of teaching and
learning than they do in England through their
responsibility for curriculum and the organisation of
teaching. This is part of a process of devolvement to
both school and municipality allowing a strong
community influence to operate within schools. This
close relationship between the School Boards and the
intermediary agency in the guise of the Municipality
is significantly different than that between the
local education authority (LEA) and governing body in
England. In effect the degree of devolvement of
responsibilities in Denmark has proceeded at such a
pace that the Ministry of Education now acts in a
consultative capacity and exerts influence not
through edicts but through the publication of
materials, advice and suggestion aimed at inspiring
schools to respond. This is in marked contrast to the
increased centralisation that has occurred in England
with LEAs progressively emasculated in favour of
direct control of schools from the Ministry.
In other
areas there are broad similarities with
responsibility for budgets, and dissemination of
information being a common responsibility of parental
bodies in the both countries. However, despite the
absence of the sharp divide been ‘home’ and
‘school’ so prevalent in England and Wales
we can still see the impact of market thinking in
Denmark and in the attempt to increase the
responsibilities of parents for both the management
and the levels of achievement in schools. For
example, in addition to power passed to the school
board the Basic School Law (1994) requires a
greater degree of co-operation between parents and
teachers to improve the development of pupils
‘knowledge and understanding’ indicating
quite clearly how the shift has taken root.
Despite
the approaches adopted in both countries there is,
however, little convincing evidence that the
endeavours to involve parents to a greater degree
have succeeded. Numerous accounts exist in the
literature of particular local initiatives but the
general picture is much more depressing. Many of
these initiatives focus on efforts to continue the
involvement of parents as supporters of learning.
Few, however, point to successes in involving parents
in key areas of the operation of schools. Typical of
the more recent studies in the United Kingdom are
those of Deem et al (1996) and Munn (1997) both of
whom have highlighted the fact that despite their
increased powers governing bodies have exercised very
little influence over what happens in the key areas
of : teaching and learning; the curriculum; the
management of resources or staffing policy. What
apparently characterises so many of the areas where
parental involvement is supposedly realised is
deference on the part of the parental representatives
to the ‘professional judgement’. Some
schools still have difficulty in finding the number
of parent governors required by law. Rarely are
parents involved in anything other than peripheral
issues they are more likely to act as rubber stamps
for the proposals and suggestions of the
professionals usually in the form of the headteacher.
Many teachers still bemoan the absence of parents
from parent evenings and their short lived
involvement in schemes to support learning.
Both
through creating a market economy and by attempting
to increase democratic participation parental
involvement has failed to materialise in the way that
it was envisaged. Wherever one looks it appears as
though the rhetoric of parental involvement seems not
to have been fully realised. Certainly, the consumer
revolution seems to have, at best, stalled and the
involvement of parents as supporters of learning to
be no more than stuttering along. There is still,
therefore, a reluctance on the part of many parents
to pick up the consumerist mantle when it comes to
education suggestions that despite legislation,
exhortation in the United Kingdom and encouragement
and belief in the role of local communities to
exercise a democratic mandate in Denmark there are
inherent difficulties in realising the ambition of
parents taking more responsibility for the operation
of education in schools.
3.1
Issues and Dilemmas
Given
the difficulties experienced in the two countries the
question must be addressed as to whether the
endeavour of achieving greater parental involvement
is inevitably doomed to failure. In the following
section we will suggest that there are a number of
dilemmas inherent in this endeavour. These dilemmas
can be best understood by analysing the role of the
school within society. Various commentators have
attempted to account for the evolution of the
relationship between parents and schools, David
(1994) for example has suggested that the shift we
have described above reflects changes in the
political landscape with the values of the
‘left’ replacing those of the
‘right’. Although this is an interesting
analysis we want to suggest that such a simple
dichotomy does not fully reflect the complexity of
the situation and that a more comprehensive account
is called for. We will suggest that there are at
least three ways in which the relationship between
parents and schools can be understood but that they
are not wholly adequate.
3.1.1
The school as a democratic institution
Increasing
parental involvement is one very clear way of
reinforcing the notion that the school exists as an
instrument in the furtherance of the principles of
the democratic state. By increasing the involvement
of parents within the school the state can be said to
be strengthening the democratic values on which it is
based. In attempting to achieve this involvement the
state is, however, faced with a dilemma. That dilemma
is, in simple terms, whether it is asking parents to
become involved as citizens or as parents -
the two not necessarily being synonymous. The natural
interest of parents, however, is uniquely, with their
children. In subscribing to the education system
provided by the State parents are engaging in a form
of partnership; they are in effect hoping to have
their unique expertise shared with that of the
teachers and the school. If this partnership is to
flourish then the school and the teacher have to
achieve a consensus around certain mutual
obligations. If either side to these arrangements
fails to maintain the contract then there is the risk
that the partnership will break down. In both Denmark
and England the parameters of the contract are
broadly similar and include the provision of an
appropriate curriculum suitably adapted to individual
needs and an environment in which learning and
socialisation can take place. Parents are required to
support the school by ensuring their children conform
to its general expectations of behaviour and
attendance. Whilst a consensus exists around the
operationalisation of these contractual obligations
then a consensus exists and a form of partnership can
be said to exist. The potential for the partnership
to be disturbed arises at a number of levels.
Classically, the disturbance occurs when children
experience difficulties in their social, emotional
physical or intellectual development and parents and
teachers have to meet to resolve problems. Resolving
these problems tests the nature of the partnership.
When both parties to the contract can avoid feeling
threatened and bring their unique knowledge into what
can be regarded as a problem solving process the
chances are that the partnership will be preserved
and the problem resolved. This is not always the case
and a power struggle can ensue leading to a breakdown
in the consensus.
In
Denmark it might be assumed that there would be a
much greater opportunity for parental involvement to
be enhanced. This has proved not to be the case. In
England where traditions of participation in the
operation of agencies are not so firmly embedded it
has proved equally difficult to achieve fuller
participation by parents. As this model of
partnership its unlikely, therefore, to account for
every possible interaction between parents and
teachers, conflict is, we suggest, an inherent
element of the system.
3.1.2
The School as part of the market economy.
As we
have indicated above the international trend over the
last decades has been to invest individual citizens
with greater ‘rights’ as consumers. The
motivation for this in part at least has been that it
is only through greater participation that higher
levels of efficiency will be attained and in the case
of education higher standards as measured by improved
attainments of pupils achieved. This trend has been
implemented in two principal ways. Firstly, parents
have been imbued with greater rights, more
responsibility and more information to enable them to
play a more direct role in the running of schools.
This has involved the progressive devolvement of
powers to school boards or their equivalent. In
Denmark Section 40 of the 1995 Act makes it clear
that schools are the responsibility of the
Municipality which has had the effect of reducing the
influence of the central Ministry. In the United
Kingdom school governing bodies have been given
increased powers at the expense of the LEA, with the
consequence that the Department of Education and
Employment has assumed a greater ‘hands-on’
role in the direction of education policy. Secondly,
there has been an attempt to create a market or
quasi-market within the education sector to induce
the benefits assumed to arise from greater
competition. In the United Kingdom there is evidence
of the operation of market forces. Parental choice
has, for example, resulted in differential flows of
pupils between schools with the more popular schools
attracting more pupils and the additional resources
that arise from greater numbers. As these forces
continue to operate the logic is that the least
successful schools will ultimately become non-viable
and cease to exist leaving only
‘successful’ schools able to deliver a
‘high quality’ education. In Denmark there
has not been such a full expression of market forces
as parents have had the right to send their children
to any of the available Folkeskole for a number of
years.
In both
countries, however, there is no convincing evidence
that, in embarking on this course of action
governments have succeeded in circumventing the
continued reluctance of many parents to become as
fully involved in education as was hoped. The attempt
to encourage parents to regard schools as part of a
market economy has not increased parental involvement
to any significant degree and has led to the creation
of a number of further dilemmas. These include:
the
need to rethink the relationships between
individual schools, local government and the
central ministry;
the
extent to which parental choice operates in
favour of certain families, and
how
the rational planning of provision can be
made compatible with the operation of market
forces.
3.1.3 The
school as an institution of symbolic control
Our
final model as to why parental involvement has not
been fully realised relies on the hypothesis of
Bernstein (1990)which suggests that education acts as
an agency of symbolic control, a means by which the
State seeks legitimisation and maintenance of its
determining role within society. The idea of symbolic
control relies on the assumption, that there is some
superficial connection between the political culture
of a society and the system of political decision
making. As part of this assumption it is
suggested that not all ideas and visions of how the
State is to function are transferred with the same
strength from the political culture to the political
decision makers. It is, however, the ideas
which are passed on from the political culture to the
political decision makers which exist to perform
symbolic control. According to Bernstein the same
principles apply within the education sector and the
application of this principle can be seen in the ways
that within education, legitimacy and hierarchies are
established through differential values attributed to
different aspects of learning. According to
Bernstein:
"We
shall define the pedagogic discourse as the rule
which embeds a discourse of competence (skills of
various kinds) into a discourse of social order
in such a way the latter always dominates the
former.
The
rules constituting pedagogic discourse are not
derived from the rules regulating the internal
characteristics of the competencies to be
transmitted." (Bernstein, 1990, 183)
One
implication of this is that the rules of the school
system and the way they are implemented are obviously
more favourable to some children and families than
for others.
We can
see the operation of symbolic control in relation to
the issue of parents as partners in a number of ways.
For example, in England the governing body may well
choose to favour certain groups of pupils in school
at the expense of others or it may respond more
favourably to demands from certain parental groups as
opposed to others. In Denmark this may happen at the
level of the municipality as well as at the level of
the school board. The reason why these tendencies
will emerge is that certain parents will be more
adept at mastering the symbolic code of their school
and/or LEA than others. They will, therefore, be able
to understand its demands, making them more effective
in arguing the case as they see it in favour of their
child(ren). Those parents who do not master the
symbolic code are ‘handicapped’ when
engaging with the school and its formal systems and
structures.
The
concepts of symbolic control are useful in
highlighting a number of fundamental paradoxes in
relation to the involvement of parents as partners.
We can illustrate the nature of these paradoxes with
reference to two examples which we are confident our
readers will recognise. We will begin with the case
of Peter, a 12 year old boy with moderate learning
disabilities. Peter has problems in
sustaining relationships with his peers; he is prone
to misbehave and become violent towards his
classmates. From Peter’s point of view the
problem is that, unknown to his teacher, his
classmates tease him causing him to lose his temper.
Peter can never explain himself in these situations
with the outcome that the teacher tends to take the
side of his classmates. As the situation develops
Peter is less and less able to give his account of
the situation increasing his sense of frustration.
Inevitably,
one day a serious situation develops. It is a
practical craft lesson, Peter is told to cut out a
piece of wood precisely 24 centimetres long. The
teacher has written the instructions on the board but
because Peter has severe problems with reading
numbers he cannot complete the task correctly. The
teacher is annoyed and asks, in a rather derogatory
way, one of Peter’s classmates to help him. As
the classmate does this he sticks out his tongue at
Peter who immediately loses his temper and throws the
saw towards his classmate. In an instant the class is
in chaos. The teacher turns round and demands to know
what has happened. He is greeted with a whole chorus
of boys shouting that: ‘Peter has thrown a
saw.’ The teacher’s reaction is instant; he
orders Peter to go to the headteacher. Peter runs out
of the door shouting and crying. He runs to the
special needs teacher with whom he has an arrangement
that he can always see her when he gets into trouble.
The special needs teacher and Peter discuss the
situation. Peter announces that he will never return
to the craft lesson. After a long discussion he is
persuaded to return but only if the special education
teacher explains to the craft teacher the nature of
Peter’s problems with reading. The special
education teacher discusses the situation with the
craft teacher and the next week Peter finishes his
work. At home he and his parents have talked about
the situation, and they have decided that they want
Peter to have an alternative activity until term
ends. The parents talk to the headteacher about the
problem and their proposal. The headteacher agrees,
and Peter is given alternative work for the remaining
craft lessons.
There
are a number of important issues in this situation
which need to be highlighted. Firstly, there is the
availability of sustained support available to Peter
from the home. Secondly, there is the role of the
parents in analysing the situation and devising
practical and acceptable alternatives which the
school can implement. Finally, there is the agreement
amongst the staff to enter into a process of
negotiation and dialogue when Peter experiences any
difficulties. Clearly, the resolution of this problem
was dependent on a number of factors but instrumental
is the role of the parents in creating a momentum of
pressure to which the school can do nothing but
respond. The parents are able to express their
legitimate ‘rights’ in a way which is both
forceful yet non-antagonistic towards the school.
They recognise both their ‘rights’ and also
the real problems caused by their son. However, in
searching for a resolution of the problem they are
able to balance these competing demands.
This can
now be contrasted with an other situation in which
the interaction between parents and the school takes
a very different course. In this case, Martin, also a
twelve year old pupil with learning difficulties
experiences a similar situation in a lesson. He is
reprimanded by the teacher, arrives at the
headteacher’s office and explains himself. In
the break after the lesson the teacher gives his
version of what happened. The teacher concludes that
he cannot take the responsibility for Martin in the
class any longer and demands that Martin is
permanently excluded from the craft lessons. In
reviewing the case the headteacher is confronted by a
number of situations where Martin has faced
difficulties with his teachers. He concludes that
Martin has had enough chances and decides that this
is no longer an appropriate school for him. He
believes there is no point in waiting for a formal
assessment of Martin and telephones the educational
psychologist and demands that Martin is immediately
excluded. The parents are informed about the decision
and although they accept the decision ask that he is
allowed to spend some time with them at home before
he enters his new school. In their minds this is the
best that they can do for their son in the
circumstances.
We have,
therefore, to ask the question why these two very
similar situations are resolved differently.
Peter’s parents, as we have seen, were well
informed about their son’s problem and were not
prepared to accept a solution which they or Peter
would not find acceptable. This situation was well
understood by all those who were involved. Their
ability to understand the complexity of the situation
and to utilise the processes of the symbolic code of
the pedagogic discourse with the school enabled them
to act as competent advocates for their child.
Martin’s parents on the other hand were unable
to exercise that level of understanding; they could
not convince the headteacher that he had to search
for alternative resolutions other than exclusion. The
only concession they could achieve for their son was
a short moratorium before he was transferred to a
special school.
On
reflection we can see that although the outcomes for
the two pupils were the same the processes involved
were very different and resulted in different
experiences for those involved. Peter had been fully
involved in the decision making process, and left the
school maintaining his self-esteem; he had been heard
and understood. Martin on the other hand had been
cast more in the role of an onlooker and his
exclusion had been achieved without any real
involvement on his or indeed that of his parents. It
would not be unreasonable to assume that as a result
of the experience he would feel diminished having a
reduced self-esteem and belief in his own capacity to
influence decisions that were made about his future.
As
Bernstein said: "The pedagogic discourse embeds
a discourse of competence into a discourse of social
order". Peter and his family had influence on
what happened, Martin and his family had not. No one
can remove Peter’s learning difficulties, but
because of his parents insistence on influencing and
letting their son have some influence on decision
making he was able to maintain his self-esteem.
Maintaining self esteem is very important, because it
provides the strength to cope with difficulties.
Peter’s parents insisted on their right as
parents to act as advocate for their son. However,
they were also cognisant of their role as citizens as
they entered the problem solving process and accepted
that their son had exceeded the boundaries regarded
as acceptable by the school and the other pupils.
Because of their ability to master the operation of
the symbolic code of the school, they were not
rejected as a set of ‘difficult’ parents
but accepted as co-problem solvers and participated
in the process which determined their son’s
future. We hope that by including these examples we
have demonstrated the way in which the symbolic code
operates in respect of parental partnership.
4.1 The
intractability of dilemmas and the acknowledgement
of complexity.
In
concluding this chapter we will build on the various
explanations that have been forwarded to account for
the failure to develop greater parental involvement.
We have
suggested that the failure to achieve greater
parental involvement transcends national boundaries,
different traditions and attitudes to participation
in the agencies of the State. Efforts to involve
parents either as supporters of learning or as
consumers seem to achieve only limited success. We
will now return to the question of whether this is
inevitable. In the three models outlined above
generalised explanations are offered to account for
this failure. We would suggest that while each of
these models offers a partial account it is
impossible, given the complexity of the issue, for
any one model to offer a convincing explanation. The
complexity of social situations is such that they
frequently generate a series of dilemmas which cannot
be resolved by a single explanatory model. The
solution, therefore, in coming to terms with these
dilemmas is, in the best tradition of post-modernism,
to begin by accepting the notion of complexity and
the absence of single explanatory models. The
endeavour is to attempt to capture as much of this
complexity by accepting the relativity of varying
explanations that are offered. In attempting to bring
about change in any one particular site the task,
therefore, becomes one of applying the various models
that are available and testing them in context. The
evidence that is forthcoming from this process can
then be used to highlight possible factors which
might identify avenues which are worthy of pursuit.
In relation to greater parental involvement the
implications of this would, we suggest, appear to be
complex but nonetheless achievable.
We begin
by recognising the multi-dimensional nature of the
way that the school as a public institution can be
conceptualised by pupils, parents, and other members
of the community. By accepting this
multi-dimensionality and the inherent complexity that
arises from this we suggest that one possible way
forward is for those charged with the task of
increasing parental involvement to initiate a process
of review and evaluation based on those situations
where individuals(pupils, parents or other members of
the community) have had cause to question or
challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of a school. This
review would examine the ways in which that challenge
became manifest and the responses made by the school
to that challenge. A series of questions could then
be applied to test the extent to which the processes
involved facilitated or obstructed participation. The
questions would draw from the analysis offered in the
three models outlined above; they would be
supplemented by additional site or situation specific
questions. For example, one direction the review
process might take would be to question whether or
not the interests of one group of parents was being
advanced at the expense of another. In this way it is
suggested it is possible to identify both general and
specific factors which might inhibit the progress
towards greater involvement.
5.1
Conclusion
Parental
involvement remains a chimera. We would suggest that
a number of conditions need to be in place for this
goal to be realised. It is clear that legislation
provides a necessary framework through which
involvement can be achieved. However, legislation on
its own is not a sufficient condition for this goal
to be achieved. Likewise exhortation on its own or in
combination with legislation will not create the
necessary conditions for this to be achieved. We
would suggest that in the analysis above we have
pointed to a number of additional factors which have
to be considered. Firstly, there is a need to ensure
that school boards or governing bodies operate as
democratically as possible. This involves a
commitment to all parents as equal partners in the
running of schools and that no sectional interest is
allowed to have undue representation on the governing
body. This is to be reinforced through the operation
of the second factor - the need to ensure that
processes of exclusion or rejection masked by the
exercise of symbolic control are not operating
against the interests of certain parents. This
involves ensuring that effective problem solving
systems are in place to resolve conflicts between
parents and schools ensuring that negative
impressions about schools are not transmitted to the
local community. A third contributory factor would be
allowing parents to exercise ‘real’ power
over fundamental decisions regarding the operation of
schools. Both Denmark and England have attempted to
achieve this but as we have seen there is relatively
limited scope for action either because most school
budgets are already committed or because of
resistance to involve parents in the domain of
pedagogy and curriculum which are retained as part of
the areas of ‘expertise’ of the
professionals. We acknowledge the difficulties in
achieving this but if parents are to act not only as
consumers but also as experts in their own right then
they are more likely to do so if they are given power
to make ‘real’ decisions. In this way the
application of market forces is likely to see the
realisation of a more effective partnership between
parents and schools.
We
suggest that by drawing on the analytical tools
offered by three models outlined above and by
engaging in what we choose to call a process of
review focusing in particular on the areas we have
outlined, will produce a context in which greater
participation can be achieved. The process of review
may well highlight barriers and obstacles to wider
participation and increase the extent to which
schools become part of communities and parents become
both supporters of learning and active participants
in the direction of local institutions.
Dr
Kirsten Baltzer and Alan Millward
References
Bastiani, J.
(1989) Working with Parents: A whole school approach
NFER- Nelson. London
Bernstein,
B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Vol. 4
Class Codes and Control. Routledge. London
Burkhardt, G
(1991) Parent Power in UK Schools- The Increased Role and
Responsibility of School Governors. Unicorn Vol.17 No.
3
DES Newsom
Report (1963)
DES
(1976)Court Report HMSO London
DES(1967)
Plowden Report HMSO. London
DES (1972)
Vernon Report HMSO London
DES (1988)
Education Reform Act HMSO London
David, M. E
(1993) Parents, gender and educational reform. Polity
Press. Cambridge
Deem, R et
al (1996) Active Citizenship and the Governing of
Schools. OUP Buckingham
HMCI (1999)
Annual Report DfEE London
Ministry of
Education Act on the Folkeskole (1996) Danish Ministry of
Education Copenhagen
Ministry of
Education (1997) Administration of the Folkeskole. Danish
Ministry of Education. Copenhagen
Ministry of
Education (1996) Aims and Central Knowledge and
Proficiency Areas Danish Ministry of Education.
Copenhagen
Munn, P
(1997)Parental Influence on School Policy: Some Evidence
From Research
Ravn, B
(1994) Expectations about parents in Education in
Scandinavian Countries in Expectations about Parents in
Education Macbeth, A and Ravn, B (eds) University of
Glasgow
Warnock, M.
(1978) Special Educational Needs HMSO. London
Back to 2000 Book Index
|
