Conference 2000Norway
Parents In Education-The Norwegian
Case
1. Introduction
By
August 1999 Norway was implementing a new education
act which was passed by the Storting (the Parliament)
in June 1998. This new act covers for the first time
both compulsory education, that is primary education
(age range 6-13, grades 1-7) and lower secondary
education (ages 13-16, grades 8-10), and upper
secondary education (grades 11 - 1 3/14) including
grammar type as well as vocational type of
post-compulsory education. In the present context we
limit ourselves to the parent-school legislation and
regulations, findings and considerations pertinent to
compulsory or basic education. Actually, as regards
the relationship between parents and teachers or home
and school, the intentions and formal requirements
stated by the prevailing 1969 Education Act (for
basic education only) and subsequent regulations seem
by and large to be kept unchanged in the new
documents informing school practices into the next
millennium. However, as is generally the case in
education, as elsewhere, the formal statements are
not necessarily transformed into practice according
to the intentions behind them. A recent government
white paper (see Section 3 below) presents the formal
facts and actual knowledge as well as offers
recommendations as to in which ways the school-home
relations might be further improved to meet the
intentions. Obviously, the deliberations and
recommendations of this white paper constitute
important ground-work for the formal regulations
following the above-mentioned new education act. A
draft version of such regulations is at present
(March 1999) out for a general hearing.
In the
following I will first point out the legislation and
formal regulations which at present are governing
parental participation in school affairs. Incidents
where the new act or the regulations in progress,
differs, or seem to differ, from the existing ones,
will be specifically commented upon. Secondly, based
on my own research and other studies I will try to
describe how home-school relations and parental
participation in school matters are functioning in
Norwegian schools. In a final section I will comment
briefly on the reasons why we are not likely ever to
see all the intentions of good home-school relations
fulfilled. Although that being the case this section
also includes some recommendations as to how
home-school relations might be improved.
2. Legislation
and Regulations
According
to the object clause of the prevailing 1969 Education
Act, primary and lower secondary education shall
"...in agreement and co-operation with the home
... help to give the pupils a Christian and moral
upbringing etc.". (In the 1998 act the order of
the words 'agreement' and 'co-operation' has been
reversed.) Thus, the object clause clearly stresses
the shared responsibility between home and school for
a successful upbringing of the pupil. Nevertheless,
the amount and quality of school-home relations may
often be restricted to carrying out the formal
minimum requirements which include:
A
Co-operating Committee (samarbeidsutval) at each
school consisting of two representatives of the
teaching staff, one member of additional staff, two
from the Parents' Council (see below), two pupils and
two people representing the municipality, the one of
whom being the headteacher. The Co-operating
Committee, which is a consultative body for the
headteacher and the Municipality Council, is entitled
to voice its view in all matters concerning the
school. (1969 Education Act, § 32, appearing in a
slightly modified version as § 11 - 1 in the 1998
act.)
A
Parents' Council (foreldrerdd) to promote the common
interests of the parents and contribute to the active
participation of parents and pupils in the creation
of a good school environment. The Council should aim
to: create a good relationship between the individual
homes and the school, establish conditions which
enhance the wellbeing and growth of the pupils and
establish contact between the school and the local
community. The Parents' Council has a Working
Committee (Foreldrerfidets arbeidsutval) which also
selects two parent representatives for the
above-mentioned Co-operating Committee. (1969
Education Act, § 30, corresponding roughly to § 11
-4 in the new act.)
Class
contacts, one female and one male parent, for each
class to serve as a link between the parents and the
Parents' Council, and the parents and the class
teachers. (Section 62 of the 1989 Regulations for
basic education from the Ministry of Education,
Research and Church Affairs [referred to below as the
Ministry of Education or MOE]). In the draft version
of the new regulations there is no mention of these
class contacts but such class contacts are taken for
granted.
Conference
hours, at least twice a year, between the school and
the individual parent(s), preferably including the
pupil, who, after the age of 12 years, has the right
to participate (ibid., Section 9. 1). This, as well
as the following requirement, is kept as § 2-2 in
the draft version of the new regulations.
Routine
use of 'book of messages (meldinsbok) for the
exchange of information between home and school on
home work, illness, application for absence etc.
(Information on series misbehaviour has to be
forwarded in a separate letter to the borne!)
The 1997
(National) Curriculum for the 10-years 'Basic School
(Lxreplanverket for den 1O-Srige grunnskolen) has
gained the status of regulation, thus being formally
binding for the teachers' and the school's
activities, not - as previous national curricula -
having the status of guidelines. The following are
excerpts from the section dealing with the
relationship between home and school (pp 60-61):
"Schools
support homes in the task of raising a new generation
and preparing it for its tasks in society.
The
main responsibility for bringing up children rests
with their parental guardians, who must accordingly
be given a share of the responsibility for schools.
Co-operation between homes and schools is a mutual
responsibility. Schools are under an obligation to
provide suitable facilities for co-operation with
homes. One requirement for successful co-operation is
good communication, which calls for good information
from schools to homes.
Homes
and schools must seek together to promote the
progress and development of pupils and keep each
other informed. […]
Arrangements
must be in place to enable parental guardians to play
an active part in the development of the school, in
ways and on a scale compatible with their other
activities and jobs. […]
Where
each individual pupil is concerned, the chief
responsibility for co-operation rests with class
teachers and homes. Parental guardians join with
teachers and pupils in establishing a good class
environment. […]
As
class contacts, as representatives in co-operative
bodies, and in other forms of co-operation, parental
guardians have opportunities to influence and share
in the responsibility for the class, the school
community, and the part played by the school in its
locality. It is also important for them to
participate in school evaluation. School personnel,
pupils and parents must co-operate in the elimination
of teasing, bullying and other offensive behaviour
(From a provisional translation prepared by the
Ministry of education)."
In
the light of these more general, still binding,
statements in the Curriculum, some of the details in
the present formal regulations may be seen as
superfluous.
In
addition to these arrangement for home-school
relations at local level, there is a national level
body, Foreldreutvalet for grunnskolen (FUG), in
English translation the Parents' Committee for Basic
Education. This body, which was established in 1976,
authorised by law in 1988 and affirmed in § 11-9 of
the 1998 act, has a counselling mandate with the
Ministry of Education in matters relating to parents'
interests and participation in education. Including
the leader and deputy leader the FUG has seven
members, all being appointed by the Ministry of
Education among people already having demonstrated
interest and dedication for home-school co-operation
at local or municipal level in different parts of the
country. The committee is carrying out information
work and counselling services towards parents,
schools and municipalities across the country.
3. Practising
home - school co-operation
The
formal requirements as to home-school contacts
described above may, as we have seen, be traced back
to the 1969 Education Act (for Basic Education) and
subsequent national curricula and regulations. Over
the years a number of studies have been carried out
to look into the extent to which the formal
requirements and the intentions behind them have been
lived up to. Such research on teacher-parent
relations suggests that the conference hours are, for
the parents, the most highly valued form of contact
with the school, although the discussions tend to be
restricted to a narrow focus on the pupils' academic
progress and school behaviour, whilst broader issues
related to the family situation, peers and the local
environment are left out. (Loken 1977, Kvalsund et
al. 1991). Based on a number of case studies,
Mellin-Olsen and Rasmussen (1 977) provide a very
critical view of the role of the school in relation
to pupils at odds with the system. They accuse the
school of being more concerned with whitewashing
itself by putting all the blame on the home rather
than with co-operating and sharing responsibility
with the parents.
In a
study specifically designed to follow up whether or
not the intentions behind the formalised school-home
arrangements had been met Flo and Grondahl (1984)
described the parent meetings at class and school
level as empty bodies with a very limited say.
Perhaps the situation has improved. In the
above-mentioned Kvalsund et al, study covering 19
schools and 1,000 parents, almost 2/3 of the parents
had taken part in the last arranged parents' meeting
at class level, 1/3 of whom claimed the meeting to
have been of great value, whereas the rest described
the benefit as either modest or very limited. Parents
having children in small schools were more likely to
participate in parents' meetings at class or school
level than those having pupils in larger schools. In
another study from the early 90's, Lund (1991)
focuses on the new demands made upon the teachers by
the emphasis of the 1987 (National) Curriculum
Guidelines on greater parental say in the running of
a school which is supposedly more integrated with the
local community. Building on extensive interviews of
teachers and parents, the author stresses the
importance of improved routines for co-operation and
communication. For such co-operation to be successful
there must be a willingness on both sides - i.e.
parents and teachers - to accept mutual insight into
their respective values, concerns and priorities.
I am now
turning at some length to my own study of
developments in Norwegian schools during the period
of intensive in-service activities after the
introduction of the 1987 (National) Curriculum
Guidelines (Solstad 1997). During 1989-91 a
relatively large scale follow-up study was carried
out in the county of Nordland, covering all the
around 300 basic schools (i.e. primary, lower
secondary and combined primary and lower secondary)
in the county. The survey data of this study, which
also included some 20 case studies, focused
particularly on the types of communication employed
between school and home, on the degree of school
staff commitment to home-school relations and on
whether the scope of such contacts and relations
seemed to be broadening in line with the more
specified intentions of the then newly introduced
1987 Curriculum. The case studies also include
interviews with parent representatives. A particular
concern of the study was to identify whether
practices on home-school relations were part of the
school's policy or rather up to the individual class
teacher(s).
That the
home-school relationship was seen as important from
the school's viewpoint is evidenced by the fact that
it was by far the most commonly debated topic in
planned staff discussions. Home-school matters were
reported to have been debated in formal staff
settings by 90 per cent of the schools compared to
issues such as views on knowledge' by 65%, 'school
and community' by 50%, and school and working life'
by 30%. While home-school relations may form a
popular theme there is little evidence in the data of
any real consensus on how they can be fostered. In
1991, for example, while 62 per cent of the schools
were agreed on the number of parent meetings per
year, fewer than 40 per cent could agree on the
organisation, content, length, and timing of them. It
can be seen that the cultivation of genuinely joint
school-parent-community activities is not proving
easy.
Yet many
schools were striving to improve matters. For
example, about four in ten schools set up courses to
introduce the elected parent representatives to the
1987 Curriculum. These were valued by teachers and
parents. The following two comments from the case
study interviews are reasonably typical:
"We
arranged a course on school-home relations for staff
and class contacts with an externally recruited
course leader. This contributed to eliminating the
distance between parents and teacher. We[the
teachers] did not have to take the role of the
teachers. The parents felt more secure when we were
'pupils' together " (Headteacher)
"I
think it is very important for the class contacts to
be trained. We have far too little knowledge about
the new curriculum." (Chairperson.
Parents' Working Committee)
Even
when intentions are of the best, there can be a
degree of reserve between parents and teachers about
entering the domain of the other. This phenomenon,
also noted by Lund (1991), is evident in the
following quotation from a parent representative:
"It
is surely difficult to bring something up with the
teachers that may be within their area [of
responsibility]. As a parent you don't have much of a
say. Perhaps it has become a tradition, at least in
rural areas, that we [the parents] just wait for the
teachers to take the initiative. But I do think most
teachers are happy if we do take initiatives.
(Chairperson, Parents' Working Committee)
And from
the other side:
"Our
intentions was to get the parents to take the
initiative, but we have not succeeded. ... The
parents say they feel insecure. They are,
however, positive and are keen to participate."
(Teacher)
The data
indicate a promising increase in the percentage of
schools involving parents in school activities. For
example, relative to 1989, when 50 per cent of
schools involved parents as resource persons or
specialists in particular topics, 65 per cent did so
in 1991. However, the principal participation of
parents tends to be in school sponsored activities
such as class parties, ski days and excursions where
in 1991 parents were reported to be participating by
80-90 per cent of the schools. Across the school
types and sizes, 6 per cent or fewer involved parents
in daily teaching, partly reflecting traditional
attitudes among parents and teachers alike, and
partly reflecting the fact that most parents,
including mothers, are working during school hours.
Although only a handful of the follow-up schools (the
follow-up data, included only 107 schools) had
carried out systematic mapping of parental knowledge
and experience by 1991, the willingness and skills to
involve parents occasionally in topic work seems to
be improving, for 65 per cent of the schools reported
such practice in 1991compared with only 50 per cent
in 1989.
The
schools were also asked to report on the kind of
issues most frequently dealt with in meetings with
the parents.
Principles
on home work, the setting of behavioural limits and
questions related to educating for co-responsibility
were the most frequently mentioned issues, and all of
these issues were more often debated in 1991 than in
1989. (Solstad 1997, pp 210-217)
A white
paper, St rneld nr 14 (1997-98): Om foreldreniedverknad
i gr-unnskolen (On Parental Participation in Basic
Education) (MOE 1997), refers to a number of studies
on home-school co-operation based on empirical data
from the mid-90ies, that is from a period after the
more intensive in-service and development activities
following the 1987 curriculum reform (cf Solstad
1997, 'p 139). A study by Vestre (1995), covering a
representative sample of parents having pupils in
3rd, 6th or 9th grade, indicates that most parents,
actually 9 out of 10, are satisfied with the
information provided by the schools. Almost all of
the parents are judging the school to be listening to
what they say, whereas some 15 per cent feel their
ideas to be rejected by the school. Direct complaints
towards the teacher or the school were voiced by 37
per cent of the parents, but no less than one third
of these believed many other parents do not risk
making complaints for fear such negative utterances
might damage their own child. (MOE 1997, p 19.)
The
white paper also refers to recent studies indicating
that the parents' moderate interest in discussions on
the content of the teaching and learning activities
of the school is related to the settings for such
participation established by the school. Development
work in which parents as resource persons were
actively drawn into the planning process indicates
that parents may be happy to get far more involved
in, and willing to take responsibilities for, the
pupils learning activities than is usually considered
to be the case. (Op.cit, pp 19-20.)
During
spring 1997 the Ministry of Education carried out a
survey particularly addressing the functioning of the
Parents' Councils or, rather, of the working
committees (WC) for these councils, the Parents'
Working Committees (WC). The survey was designed to
include a national sample of 1,000 schools of which,
however, only a half returned the questionnaire. Thus
the following main findings may arguably give a
somewhat too optimistic picture of the situation:
94 per
cent of the schools had pointed out class contacts;
13 per
cent of the schools had arranged courses for the
class contacts. (This percentage is markedly lower
than the one indicated by rny own data from around
1990 referred to above. Perhaps such courses were
deemed more necessary in the period just after the
introduction of a new curriculum?);
79 per
cent of the new WCs were informed about their tasks
by the headteacher, 64 per cent by members of the
retiring WC;
67 per
cent of the WCs regarded their co-operation with the
Co-operating Council to be good or very good, and 87
per cent judged the co-operation with the head or
deputy head to be of that quality;
51 per
cent of the WCs were asked by municipality bodies or
representatives to take part in discussions on
matters related to their school. (Op.cit., p 21).
As
pointed out to in Section 2 above, each school has a
Co-operating Committee serving in a consultative
capacity for the headteacher (or ultimately the
Municipality Council) formally being in charge of the
running of the school. Being just 2 out of 9 members'
in the council the parents constitute a clear
minority in this body in which power anyway is quite
limited. As part of a more comprehensive tryout of
alternative local government arrangements the rural
municipality of Sund, south-western Norway, were
during the period 1988-95 granted permission to
introduce, school councils' (skolestyre) for each of
its schools with the stated aim to "...give the
parents real influence through a committed
co-operation with the school, and to give the
employees a greater say on their working
environment'. The parents, elected within the body of
all parents having children in the school, made up
the majority of this council which also included
representatives for the staff pointed out by the
union(s). The headteacher served as the secretary for
the council which was trusted the final say in
matters such as budgeting, time-tabling, local
curricula, and disciplinary affairs. An external
evaluation of this set up was carried out, the main
findings of which were:
As
laypersons, not knowing enough about school matters,
the parents often felt themselves 'over run' by the
teachers who, in the view of the parents, were using
the council for union politics purposes;
Real
parental influence in the council was wholly
depending on the attitudes of the headteacher and the
ways in which he/she planned the meetings. In most
cases the parents felt their say to be very limited;
Parental
influence was heavily restricted due to a highly
regulated school system in which a large part of the
power is in the hands of the teachers anyway;
Most of
the parents were not seen to be more engaged in
school matters than before the introduction of these
school councils for each school. (Ibid.).
The
evaluators had to conclude that this new set up could
not be seen to contribute to an improved local
democracy within basic education. As a possible
explanation for this finding the researchers referred
to the rural setting of the experiment. The average
level of education among the parents is lower and the
respect for the teachers higher than in more urban
settings. The reporting on a somewhat similar
experiment covering four schools in the urban
municipality of Kristiansand, provides some support
for this interpretation. In this study, where the
experiment schools post facto were compared with four
other schools having the traditional arrangements,
the class contacts and the parents in general of the
experiment schools felt to be more able to voice
their views, experienced more of open discussions on
equal terms with the teachers and enjoyed more
influence on school matters than was the case for the
parents of the four control schools. Though the
method of evaluation may be questioned, it is
interesting to note that the Municipality Council of
Kristiansand has now decided to introduce such school
level councils for all its plus 30 schools, whereas,
as we have seen, the Municipality Council of Sund
decided to return to the standard arrangements.
(Op.cit., p 21-22.)
4. Conclusions
and recommendations
In
Section 2 above I have outlined the formal
arrangements within Norwegian public education
designed to give parents the necessary information
on, participation in and influence over the running
of the schools. This fulfils the requirement of the
object clause of the Education Act stating that basic
education in co-operation and agreement with the home
should help to bring about the learning and
development of the pupils specified by the Act and by
subsequent national curricula. Furthermore, in
Section 3, I have presented, though briefly, most of
the research in Norway looking into the degree to
which the various arrangements function according to
the intentions. In this concluding section I will
first, on the basis of the research works referred
to, make some broad statements on the factual
situation as to home-school relationships before
finally, and courteously, offering a few
recommendations as to in which ways the gap between
the intentions set and the actual state of affairs
could be further narrowed.
The
research findings may roughly be summarised like
this:
The
statutory minimum, the formal set-ups, for
home-school contacts are generally met by the
schools.
In most
schools, there seems to be little formal agreement
within the teaching staff on the organisation and
content of the compulsory school-parent meetings
beyond fixing the number of such meetings during the
school year. Nevertheless, the issue of home-school
contacts has a high priority in planned whole staff
debates.
Though
the parents seem to be largely satisfied with the
information provided by the schools, a substantial
fraction of the parents do not feel the school to be
listening to what they are saying. Some data suggest
that parents may be reluctant to voice direct
complaints fearing their children might be negatively
sanctioned by the school.
The kind
of home-school contact most appreciated by the
parents is the conference hours directly focussing on
the individual child of the parent(s) involved.
Parental
involvement in school activities is generally
restricted to such occasions as class parties,
Christmas workshops and excursions. It also seems,
however, to be increasingly commonplace to draw on
parental knowledge in regular school work when
dealing with specific topics. Parental involvement in
ordinary school activities on a regular basis is
rare.
The
extent to which the school discusses educational
issues with the parents is limited. Only about half
of the schools claim to do so. Issues relating to
homework and defining limits for the pupils'
behaviour are the issues most frequently dealt with
in joint parent-teacher settings.
Most
parents are not only willing, but are positively
interested in greater involvement on a broader scale
in school related activities.
Introducing
school councils with a formalised and greater say in
the running of the school than what the statutory
Co-operating Committee allows for does not
necessarily lead to an increased parental influence,
or to a generally broader parental participation in
school matters.
The
notion of running compulsory basic education as a
joint home-school enterprise, and on the terms of
shared responsibility between parents and teachers,
is a demanding one indeed.
Firstly,
though wishful thinking may point otherwise, it is
impossible to disregard the fact that many parents
are neither interested, nor qualified or fit for
entering into this kind of home-school partnership.
This applies to rural as well as urban settings. L
Secondly,
in Norway we have a highly decentralised system of
school governance in which each of the 435
municipalities, a number of which having less than
1,000 people, is in charge of providing an equitable
education for all. Paradoxically, in order to meet
the ideal of equity in the education provision within
a system of great local freedom, the national level
authorities have enforced rather detailed regulations
as to teacher qualifications, class sizes, curricular
matters - and, as we have seen, home-school
relations. Democratic arrangements are not easily
functioning in a satisfactory way when there is very
little left to be decided upon. Both these dilemmas
have in various ways come through in the research
works presented in this paper.
Still,
even though an ideal situation of all parents being
involved on equal terms with the teaching staff in
deciding upon and carrying out an equitable education
for all pupils may be nothing less than utopian, some
suggestions as to in which ways home-school relations
may be improved within the Norwegian setting may be
offered:
As
indicated by research evidence, arranging courses to
train the parents, at least those who are the class
contacts, and for the task of home-school
co-operation, is likely to stimulate parental
involvement and initiatives. Preferably, such
training programmes should be organised in such a way
that parent representatives and members of the
teaching staff are participating on equal terms.
The
attitudes and skills of the school leadership are
known to be of great importance for school
development generally. Developing home-school
relations is no exception. Therefore, any programme
for leadership in-service education should pay
attention to this issue. In fact, without the keen
co-operation and support of the parents, any school
development may prove difficult to advance and
sustain.
To
engage parents on a broader scale and in real
learning pursuits, the parents should be involved at
an early stage and on a participatory basis in the
planning processes, for example in relation to
project work, theme programmes and learning
excursions.
Karl
Jan Solstad
References:
Flo,
K.M. and Grondahl, S.E. (1984): Samarbeid i
grunnskolen: skole - hjem - ridsorganer.
(Co-operation in Basic Education: School - Home
Councils.) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kvalsund,
R., Lovik, P. And Mykiebust, J.0. (1 99 I):
Relasjonar som raknar? (Braking Relations?) Volda:
Moreforsking.
Lund,K.(1991):Erdettemittbord?(IsThisMyResponsibility?)Oslo:UniversitetetiOslo.(Dissertation).
Lov om
grunnskolen av 1969. (The 1969 Basic Education Act.)
Lov orn
grunnskolen og den vidareghande opplxringa av 1998.
(The 1998 Act on Basic Education and Upper Secondary
Education.)
Lxreplanverket
for den 10-@ge grunnsksolen. (The [1997 National]
Curriculum for the 10-Years' Basic School.)
Loken,
R. (1977): Samarbeid heim/skole. (Co-operation
Home/School.) Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
(Dissertation.)
Mellin-Olsen,
S. and Rasmussen, R. (1975): Skolens vold. (The
Violence of the School.) Oslo: Pax.
MOE
(Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs,
1989): Forskrift for grunnskolen. (Regulations for
Basic Education.)
MOE(1997):
Stmeld nrl4(1997-98). Om foreldremedverknadi
gnmnskolen. (White Paperno 14 (1997-98). On Parental
Participation in Basic Education.)
MOE
(1999): Forskri ft til opplxringsiova.
Hoyringsutkast. (Regulations Connected to the
Education Act. Draft Version.)
Solstad,
K.J. (1997): Equity at Risk. Planned Educational
Change in Norway: Pitfalls and Progress. Oslo:
Scandinavian University Press.
Vestre,
S. E. (1995): Foreldresyn pi grunnskolen. (Parents'
View on Basic Education.) Oslo: KUF.
Back to 2000 Book Index
|
