Frederik Smit, & Geert Driessen (2007). Parents and schools as partners in a multicultural, multireligious society. Journal of Empirical Theology, 20(1), 1-20

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157092507X188557

Parents and Schools as Partners in a Multicultural, Multireligious Society

Frederik Smit and Geert DriessenInstitute for Applied Social Sciences (ITS) of the Radboud University Nijmegen

[email protected]@its.ru.nl

Received 20 December 2006; accepted 30 January 2007

Summary In recent years Dutch society has had to deal with an influx of large and highly divergent migrant groups. Dutch education faces the task of accommodating these differences. Parental involve-ment and participation are increasingly seen as important elements in the interplay of upbring-ing and informal and formal education. In this respect it appears that immigrant parents’ involvement and participation lag behind that of Dutch parents. Th is article deals with recent trends in the relationship between schools and parents, its significance for children’s develop-ment and how it links up with aspects like norms and values, religious education and identity development. Th e article presents the results of an extensive empirical study conducted in Rot-terdam, a city which for some time now has been confronted with the aforementioned demo-graphic phenomena on a massive scale and tries to allow for it in its educational policy. Th e study focuses particularly on differences and similarities in ideas about the parents-school relationship among ten ethnic groups.

Keywords parental participation, education, multicultural, multireligious

Introduction

In recent years Dutch society has had to deal with an influx of large and highly divergent migrant groups. Th ey differ particularly in regard to culture, lan-guage and religion (Driessen, 2002) and Dutch education faces the task of accommodating these differences. In practice that is not always easy (Klaassen et al., 2005; Smit et al., 2004a). Parental involvement and participation are increasingly seen as important elements in the interplay of upbringing and informal and formal education (Smit, Doesborgh & Van Kessel, 2001). But in

Journal of Empirical Th eology 20 (2007) 1-20 www.brill.nl/jet

Journal of Empirical Theology

JET 20,1_f2_1-20.indd 1JET 20,1_f2_1-20.indd 1 4/20/07 9:58:54 PM4/20/07 9:58:54 PM

2 F. Smit, G. Driessen / Journal of Empirical Th eology 20 (2007) 1-20

this respect it appears that immigrant parents’ involvement and participation lag behind that of Dutch parents. Th is article deals with recent trends in the relationship between schools and parents, its significance for children’s devel-opment and how it links up with aspects like norms and values, religious education and identity development.

In this context we report on the results of an extensive empirical study conducted in Rotterdam, a city which for some time now has been confronted with the aforementioned demographic phenomena on a massive scale and tries to allow for it in its educational policy. Th e study focuses particularly on differences and similarities in ideas about the parents-school relationship among ten ethnic groups. Finally we present some conclusions and recommendations.

Th eoretical background

Developments in parents-school relationship

Th ere has been growing interests in parents’ role and influence in education in recent times. Internationally the accent is increasingly on parental and com-munity involvement as a strategy to make education more effective (Klaassen & Smit, 2001; Sleegers & Smit, 2003).

Epstein (1992) maintains that children perform better at all levels, have more positive attitudes towards school and expect more from school if their parents are concerned and enthusiastic about it and involved in their children’s schooling. Th is is borne out by a lot of research: giving parents opportunities to participate in their children’s education positively influences both the cog-nitive development and performance of learners and their parents’ attitudes towards school (Driessen, Smit & Sleegers, 2005). Accordingly closer integra-tion of the activities of schools, parents and local communities is advocated so as to eliminate the widespread phenomenon of separation between the school and the outside world.

Despite the importance attached to parental involvement in education, the actual nature of that involvement is by no means clear. Th e term is used to indicate diverse parental activities, ranging from conscious involvement with their children’s learning and well-being at school to parents’ evenings organ-ised by the school and formal participation in school boards and participation councils (Smit, 1991). In addition there appear to be different ‘practices’, experiments and experiences arising from the various forms of parental participation in schools (Sleegers & Smit, 1999; 2003).


F. Smit, G. Driessen / Journal of Empirical Th eology 20 (2007) 1-20 3

Epstein (1995) offers a useful and widely applied classification of six types of parental participation:

1. Parenting: Helping all families establish home environments that sup-port children as students and helping schools understand families.

2. Communicating: Designing and conducting effective forms of twoway communication about school programs and children’s progress.

3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing help and support for class-rooms, school functions and student activities.

4. Learning at Home: Providing information, ideas and opportunities to families about how to help students at home with academic decisions, homework, and curriculum-related activities.

5. Decision-making: Including families in various aspects of school governance.

6. Collaborating with Community: Strengthen and support schools, stu-dents and their families, and from schools, families and students to sup-port the community.

Parents and education

Parents are the parties primarily responsible for their children’s sustenance and education. Government does not concern itself with the contents of educa-tion. International treaties such as the European Declaration of Human Rights (art. 2, protocol 1), as well as church documents like the Codex Iuris Canonici and the papal encyclical Gravissimum Educationis (1968), confi rm parents’ prerogative in education and in choosing the most suitable education for their children. Good rapport between education (and upbringing) at school and what parents provide at home is a basic premise of freedom of education (Smit & Claessen, 1997).

An important element of harmonising the activities of school and parents is the way teachers, parents and learners regard the teacher’s ‘upbringing’ task and the parents’ ‘educative’ task (Cutler, 2000; Onderwijsraad, 2003). In the Netherlands, as noted already, the primary responsibility for upbringing rests on the parents. On the whole the division of tasks is clear. Th e school teaches; parents do the upbringing. Studies by the Onderwijsraad (2003) and Smit et al. (2004a) show that responsibility for inculcating norms and values rests primarily on parents. Intellectual development is seen as the school’s task. But this ‘general’ view is not shared or practised by everybody to the same extent.



Th us parents often consider behavioural problems as the school’s responsibil-ity (Van Oord & Schieven, 2003), whereas schools hold parents responsible for deviant behaviour (Krumm & Weiss, 2000). Th ere are also major differences between the manner and extent to which Dutch and immigrant parents assume responsibility for their children’s education. In addition there is con-siderable variation among immigrant parents, relating inter alia to their reli-gious background, orientation to the Western world and integration with Dutch society (Driessen, 2003; Driessen & Doesborgh, 2003; Driessen & Smit, 2005; Pels, 2000). Immigrants moreover tend to distinguish between different ‘spheres of life’: the school is responsible for everything that happens at school, parents for what happens at home, and the police for what happens on the streets (Driessen & Bezemer, 1999).

In recent years statutory measures have been taken to strengthen parents’ position (Epstein, 2003; Smit, 1991;Vermeulen & Smit, 1998). Since 1981 the Wet Medezeggenschap Onderwijs (Education Participation Act, EPA) has provided a formal basis for regulated control. Th e fact that the EPA assigns the parental group a place on the participation council may be seen as recognition of their educational responsibility (Akkermans, 1987; Smit & Claessen, 1995).

Parental involvement

Parents play a role in the school in various capacities. According to Vermeulen and Smit (1998) a meaningful analytical distinction can be made between parents as co-shapers or constituents of education (school founders, managers, members of participation councils) and as consumers of education (critical customers, rightful clients) who can demand certain products from schools (Laemers, 2002).

Growing numbers of working mothers and single-parent homes mean that schools will increasingly function in inter-organisational networks of welfare institutions, churches, school clusters, forms of pre- and after-school care with homework supervision and the like. Th e concept of parental participation has broadened: parents are seen as part of a ‘social community’. Exchange of expe-rience between school and (religious) community entails identification of community resources and services and integrating them with existing school programmes, educative practices at home and child instruction. Th e underly-ing idea is that schools cannot meet children’s needs on their own, indepen-dently of the community in which these children live.

Internationally the term ‘partnership’ is increasingly used to express the notion of meaningful cooperative relations between schools, care institutions,



parents and local communities (Epstein, 2001; Ravn, 2003; Smit, Moerel & Sleegers, 1999; Smit et al., 2005). Such partnership entails a process in which the parties are intent on assisting each other and optimally harmonising their contributions with a view to enhancing children’s learning, motivation and development (Davies & Johnson, 1996).

Seeing parents and school as ‘educative’ partners means two-way communi-cation. On the one hand it requires greater parental involvement in school affairs, on the other schools should provide more family-oriented reinforce-ment of parental skills. It has to be a process in which the partners set out to enhance each other’s skills and help each other so the results will benefit learn-ers (Epstein, 2001).

Th is process comprises diverse activities which, whilst all contributing to the partnership, differ greatly from each other. Th ey range from schools offering parents assistance at home, parents’ assisting with learning activities in the classroom (e.g. ‘reading mothers’, i.e. mothers assisting the teacher during reading lessons), parents’ evenings and helping out at school functions (e.g. religious services) to parents’ formal participation in school boards and partici-pation councils and offering integrated services to the local community — all these fall under partnership. Th ere are also various activities by parents-school collaborative ventures arising from the different forms of parent involvement (Sleegers & Smit, 2003; Smit et al., 2000). At the same time there are obstacles to good partnership in regard to values and norms, educative style, manner of parental support, and parents’ and children’s linguistic proficiency (Grozier, 2001; Lopez, 2001; Pels, 2000).

Values and norms

Society is becoming more and more pluralistic. Differences between popula-tion groups manifest themselves in all sorts of areas from day-to-day lifestyle to fundamental values, norms and beliefs (Hermans, 1997). Cardinal values in Dutch society are: people’s equality irrespective of religion, race or sex; indi-vidual autonomy; personal development; and freedom of expression. Some of these key values are entrenched in the constitution. Th e Education Participa-tion Act stipulates the norms that members of participation councils, directors and managers have to satisfy. Th at provides some sort of guideline to the behaviour required of people in certain positions. Parent training in participa-tion councils is largely aimed at providing them with the necessary skills to play their roles on the council adequately.

A norm is the articulation of a value that serves as a guideline for human conduct. Th e Education Participation Act lists a number of norms that



competent authorities have to take into account in decision making (Smit, 2006), for instance that pedagogic, personal and material interests should be considered when deciding on school funds. Major resolutions, for instance on mergers or closing down a school, may not be taken without first dealing with the consequences of the decision for staff, parents and learners.

Attention to values, norms and identity of the school In the view of many parents on boards and participation councils attention to the school’s values, norms and identity is being eroded. Expansion has meant that (parents on) boards are bypassed and governing bodies take complete charge of quality control (including issues of identity). In discus-sions with participation councils governing bodies put the accent on the significance of the school’s denominational identity for its practice (‘what’ issues), whereas members of participation councils and school executive boards (i.e. the principals who manage the school on a daily basis) would prefer to discuss schooling concepts and courses (‘how’ issues), for instance how the school community’s perception can colour that identity. A large proportion of parents experience expansionary operations as an ‘expropria-tion project’ when it comes to their ability to help shape school identity at an executive level. Central executive bodies put common interest first and regard the interests of individual schools as derivatives of that. On the other hand the consequences of mergers can be far-reaching. One parent recounts that since their school merged with two other schools issues of identity (e.g. basic religious needs) are once again tackled explicitly at board level and old traditions like hanging Advent wreaths have been reinstated.

Source: Smit et al. (2000).

Insofar as schools pay attention to values and norms they have a choice between putting the accent on transmitting subject matter or on learners’ needs, sup-posed or otherwise. Th e first may be called subject matter-oriented and the second learner-oriented worldview-related education (Claassen & Mooij, 1995). Presentation of values and norms can be differentiated into an unbi-ased (‘teaching’) and a biased (‘preaching’) approach by the teacher (Imelman et al., 1986). If we combine the two dimensions, we get a typology of value transmission (see scheme 1). Th e contents of the four cells are based on the distinction made by Van der Ven (1985) into value transmission (learning and



especially recognising values and norms, e.g. banning racism); value communi-cation (incorporating pluriform values and norms into the education process); value development (a process in which learners appropriate norms and values); and value clarification (learners’ questions about life and its meaning, which teachers treat objectively and neutrally).

Scheme 1: Typology of dealing with values in schools

preaching teaching subject matter-oriented value transmission value communication learner-oriented value development value clarification

Parents and religious/worldview-related educationCooperation between school and parents in regard to religious/worldview-related education is considered a ‘basic duty’, which promotes communica-tion on norms and values at school. Teachers try as far as possible to give the school’s worldview-related identity concrete shape in conjunction with parents. Schools devote special attention to parents-school partnership in the area of religious/worldview-related education. In primary education the emphasis in dealing with values is generally on value transmission and development (‘preaching’) and in secondary education on value communi-cation and clarification (‘teaching’).


Function of identity

Th e institution’s identity comprises the specific, distinctive features of its con-cept of education. Its worldview-related dimension consists in images, values and norms deriving from a particular religious tradition. Th at tradition includes not just religious images and church rituals but also a certain lifestyle. In addition to a worldview-related dimension identity has others, for instance a pedagogic dimension (e.g. adopting a stance on norms of dress and criminal-ity), a didactic dimension (e.g. a learner-centred learning climate), an organi-sational dimension (e.g. a climate of co-determination) and a societal dimension (e.g. active participation in society).



In the case of worldview-related identity we make the following distinction:

– narrow identity (identity-specific aspects): the way the worldview-related identity of the institution is manifested in specific worldview-related pro-grammes, sub-programmes, themes, courses, et cetera, for example morn-ing assembly, religious services, religious education, catechesis, pastoral work.

– broad identity (identity-integrating aspects): the way the worldview-related identity permeates every aspect of policy implementation in the institution, such as goals, tasks, climate, organisation, management, design of the build-ing, personnel policy and fi nance (Van Oers & Gelauf, 1992).

Most school boards/governing bodies formulated or reformulated their iden-tity at the turn of the last century (Smit et al., 2000).

Contributing to upbringing and education in the area of identity Christian parents usually consider it important that their children should acquire a particular Christian attitude to life without themselves explicitly conveying it in their upbringing. In a number of Catholic primary schools a few parents have taken over the pastor’s task. Th ey organise and prepare children for their fi rst communion and confirmation. As a rule they can use school facilities free of charge. Th e parish assists parents in initiating learn-ers into the customs and rituals of the Catholic denomination. Th e teachers concerned sometimes fail to attend ceremonies (over weekends), which is experienced negatively. Th e same parents are often active in running the youth choir and (family/children’s) services so as to initiate children into the Christian faith as transmitted and taught by the Catholic Church. On the whole the approach to religious/worldview-related education is mono-religious (traditional). In secondary education a handful of parents (two to five) lend a hand with liturgical services and worldview-related workshops (one-day or one-week), in which they usually opt for a modern religious approach to the tradition.




Factors conducive to parental involvement in aspects of worldview-related identity Th e following factors help to improve parents-school cooperation in iden-tity construction in relation to both the school’s denominational affi liation and learners’ education and moulding in the fi eld of identity:

1. parents as educators: the extent to which parents initiate children into the Catholic culture;

2. information furnished to parents by the school: the extent to which the school informs parents about formulated Catholic identity and the edu-cation of learners in this regard;

3. parental supportive activities at school: the extent to which parents con-tribute to identity at the school and group level;

4. parental assistance with learning activities at home: the extent to which parents help to educate their children’s identity in the home;

5. formal avenues for participation: the avenues open to parents for infl u-encing identity policy and the actual process of constructing learners’ identity;

6. parental functioning in management: the extent to which parents infl u-ence school identity and the substance of lessons at executive level;

7. cooperation of parents, school and community: the extent to which parents, school and (religious) community cooperate in developing learners’ identity.


A study in a multicultural city

Research problem and design

As a result of secularisation, individualisation, fragmenting value systems and an increasingly multicultural society many West European countries, more specifi cally cities, are focusing anew, both politically and socially, on the peda-gogic and socialising function of the school, the transmission of values and norms, and educative tasks relating to this.

In primary schools upbringing and personality development are usually regarded as a joint responsibility of parents and schools (Smit et al., 2005).



Parents are concerned about the excessive supply orientation in education, insufficient attention to value transmission and increasing diversity of learners (Smit et al., 2005; Klaassen & Leeferink, 1998). In their turn teachers, espe-cially in large cities, have to deal with ‘new’ kinds of families and are increas-ingly seen by parents as problem solvers, partners, co-educators and caregivers (Smit & Driessen, 2002).

Th e questions in this study seek to gain insight into the (influence of ) vari-ations in educative responsibility between home and school in different cul-tures, and the concomitant (desirable) changes in child-raising and educational practices.

Th e research problem is the following:

– What are the causes of differences in responsibility with regard to education and upbringing experienced by (groups of immigrant) parents and schools/educational institutions?

– What control mechanisms could be used to harmonise the contributions of (immigrant) parents and schools to learners’ development of norms, values and social competencies?

Rotterdam is an example of a community very much engaged in the education of its residents. In this regard the position of disadvantaged groups has always been a focus of attention. Th e city’s population comprises more than 175 nationalities, language groups and cultures. As much as 60 percent of primary school children are from foreign backgrounds and many have severe learning deficits. Rotterdam’s integration policy regarding ethnic minorities is aimed at creating a society in which residents who belong to these minorities will have equal access, both individually and as groups, to developmental opportunities. More especially it seeks equal participation by ethnic minorities in the areas of education, the labour market, income generation and social activities.

In collaboration with Rotterdam migrant organisations 900 interviews were conducted with immigrant parents of primary pupils. Both long-standing and new migrant groups were approached, including parents from Turkey, Morocco, Suriname, the Antilles, Cape Verde, Pakistan, the former Yugosla-via, Somalia and Russia. A hundred parents from each country were inter-viewed. In addition 100 Dutch parents were interviewed to determine differences and similarities with immigrant parents.



Research results

Consultation Virtually all immigrant parents attach great importance to consultations with teachers about their children’s progress. Th e majority say they are not kept properly informed by the school. To recently arrived immigrant parents con-tact with the school is a major factor in their adaptation to the new culture. Especially those with a poor command of the Dutch language feel it is a deficiency that schools make so little effort to strengthen the links with them.

When teachers, parents and learners need to arrange matters between them they can negotiate. Negotiation would be one of the strategies to achieve this goal. For (groups of ) immigrant parents consulting with teachers may be less of an option, because it is not necessarily permissible in their coun-tries of origin and because they have only lived in the Netherlands for a fairly short time (Lindo, 1996). Another major factor, of course, is that many immigrant parents have had little education themselves and have a poor command of Dutch. Religio-cultural factors may also enter into it, for instance the fact that Muslim mothers are not permitted to speak to male teachers.

Big differences Th e study revealed big differences between groups of immigrant parents and Dutch parents as regards their ideas about and expectations of education. Basi-cally all parents want their children to have the best education possible and want them to be happy at school. Th e parents’ own education, faith and tradi-tional culture are the principal frame of reference for their upbringing of their children. On the whole immigrant parents are more self-critical regarding their role as educators than Dutch parents. Most parents see upbringing and education as a task shared by themselves and the school. Often they are not sure about the exact responsibilities each party has or should have. For instance, many parents would like to play an active role in their children’s education, but are put off by teachers, because they are either unwilling or unable to dis-cuss issues of education and child raising with them. Newcomers from Paki-stan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Russia in particular consider it important to be able to have a say in the values and norms that are transmitted at school.



To them the training provided is a less important condition or threshold than it is to long-standing immigrants from places like Turkey, Morocco, Suriname, the Antilles, Cape Verde and Pakistan.

Th ese groups differ among themselves. Cape Verdian, Surinamese and Pak-istani parents find it frustrating that they cannot have a say at school because they cannot speak Dutch well enough. Many Moroccan mothers have hardly any real contact with the school because they cannot read or speak Dutch. Surinamese parents are somewhat exceptional, because they can’t see the point of exchanging information about upbringing and education. Th ey don’t want to devote time to it. A possible explanation may be their educative ideal: become Dutch but remain Surinamese. Th is would suggest than in their heart of hearts they prefer their own cultural background and want to transmit it to their children. Another interpretation is that in their private domain (e.g. at home, in the family, in their community) they live according to their own culture, whereas in the public domain (including the school) they observe Dutch norms and values. Within these separate domains everyone has her or his own responsibility and exchanging information about it is not deemed necessary. Clearly living in two cultures could be problematic for the children concerned.

We found that poorly educated, long-standing immigrants in particular are more hesitant about assisting in the classroom. In this respect Moroccan, Cape Verdian and Pakistani parents beat everyone else. Poorly educated newcomers, by contrast, are much less inhibited and may even be more active in the class-room than highly educated newcomers.

Parents across the board attach great value to learning to observe rules. Th eir main educational goals are sticking to the right path and being honest, fol-lowed by taking responsibility and the equality of men and women. Only a tiny group of Dutch parents consider it important that their children should obey religious rules. By contrast most Moroccan and Pakistani parents find observance of these rules important, because they give their children a reli-giously oriented upbringing. Cape Verdian parents correspond with Surinam-ese and Pakistani parents in that they have high aspirations for their children’s school careers and want them to excel. Somalian parents consider it very important that their children should learn that men and women are equal. Th e same applies to the predominantly Muslim Turks and Pakistanis. Th e (Catho-lic) Antillians and Cape Verdians likewise endorse this educational goal. Dutch parents set the greatest store by the goal that their children should learn to cooperate.



Most parents feel that communication with teachers about worldview-related education is moderate. In their view teachers know little or nothing about their views on the subject, since there is (almost) no discussion about it.

Muslim parents assign religious education goals priority. Th ey consider it important that children should obey religious precepts both at home and at school. In addition they set store by conformist educational goals and concern for norms and values. Th ey also believe that migrant organisations should play a bigger role in parents-school relations.

Muslim schools Th e majority of newcomers are Muslims. In the highly secularised Dutch society they are conspicuous for the importance they attach to their reli-gion and their active practice of it. Dissatisfaction with the perfunctory attention or total disregard of their faith in existing schools led them to establish almost 50 Muslim schools in a fairly short time. In these schools children are given an opportunity to perform religious rituals like prayer and fasting. Th ey also have religious lessons completely devoted to Islam and the Qur’an (Driessen & Bezemer, 1999). A recent study found, how-ever, that whereas such schools devote a lot of attention to confessional forms of religious education (cf. ‘preaching’), some Muslim schools pay only limited attention to the statutorily mandatory teaching of religious movements (cf. ‘teaching’) (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2002). Th is sub-ject is explicitly aimed at introducing children to a broader spectrum of spiritual trends than just Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Knowledge of different trends enables children to make their own choice.

By and large the educational goals of immigrant families differ greatly from those of Dutch families. Uprooted from their own traditions, many foreign migrants tend to maintain a strict regime for their children and to create a world of their own in this, to them, alien environment. Th eir limited com-mand of Dutch, if any, reinforces this attitude. Th e lack of adequate orienta-tion to society produces all sorts of fuel for conflict. Th us they fail to understand the way teachers deal with their children, especially when they misbehave. In this respect Somalian parents are conspicuous. Th ey tend more than other parents to report constant problems with schools about educational goals, teachers’ use of language, and gender differences between parent and teacher.



Impediments Th ere are various obstacles to a good partnership between parents and teach-ers. Immigrant parents are often regarded as a single, homogeneous group with a traditional mentality and orientation. Parents maintain that teachers have a poor regard for their educationally supportive behaviour. Th ey experi-ence it as a deficiency that teachers do not keep them informed about the school’s objectives and methods. Th ey would like to be told how the educative ideas of the school can be harmonised with those in the home. Moroccan parents, for instance, consider it vitally important that their children should not get involved in crime. Th ey would like to discuss it with the school, but feel they are not taken seriously.

Participation Dutch parents, at any rate those in the upper social echelons, are accustomed to having a say in school affairs. Negotiation is something they learned from childhood. Parents often experience it as a culture shock to encounter the Dutch ‘polder model’ (i.e. decision making based on negotiation and consen-sus) mentality. Th ey observe that their children have a say at school, whereas they receive little or no information to enable them to join in the exchange. Hence immigrant parents across the board are not satisfied with the degree of co-determination they have in regard to the norms and values that the school transmits. As much as two thirds of these parents want to know more about prevailing norms and values. Turkish, Antillean and Pakistani parents are more inclined to stress their desire to be better informed about ways in which they can exert an influence. Immigrant parents would also like teachers to devote more attention to religious issues. In this respect Muslim parents are particu-larly concerned. Th ey feel they are taken more seriously if their children attend a Muslim school.

Self-help organisations Most immigrant groups in the Netherlands have established self-help organi-sations to look after their common interests. Newcomers in particular con-sider it a major task of these organisations to improve communication between immigrant groups and schools. Th is is complicated, however, by the differences between and within the various groups. It means that the input and function-ing of these organisations are not always effective or efficient.



Conclusions

Th is research report indicates, in the first place, that there are major differences between the various ethnic groups, but also that the majority of parents are interested in the education their children receive. Th ey claim to be concerned about it and want to participate in it. Many of the problems encountered have to do with communication between parents and schools. Compared with Dutch parents, immigrant parents are more concerned about actual commu-nication than about its contents. Th is applies particularly to immigrants with a poor command of Dutch. In their view the communication is mainly one-way: the schools provide some information but are not sufficiently open to immigrant parents’ specific ideas, wishes and expectations. According to them matters relating to their religious beliefs, emphasis on cognitive as opposed to socio-emotional educational goals, and disparities between the pedagogic approaches at home and at school are hardly discussed, not even unilaterally, let alone by the two parties together. Very often schools and parents are not at all clear about each other’s practices and ideas.

Proper contact between parents and schools and close parental involvement are vital to put the school’s identity on the agenda and break the ‘spiral of silence’. Communication about norms, values and matters of interpretation can help clarify uncertainties and enable the parties to jointly realise the values cherished by the entire school community — staff, parents and learners.

Th e study does not make the causes for the lack of proper communication quite clear. Th e problem is not confined to immigrant parents but applies to Dutch parents as well (Vogels, 2002). Undoubtedly a major reason lies with the parents themselves: their generally poor command of the Dutch language, their poor education and unfamiliarity with the Dutch educational system. It also seems likely that not all teachers have the specific communication skills to deal with the heterogeneity of foreign languages and cultures. Hence initial teacher training and refresher courses should devote more attention to this aspect. Another reason is probably that it is unusual to speak about, let alone discuss norms and values and the pedagogic and didactic approach to these. Th at approach is implicit in the choice of a particular school with a particular educational slant. In the days of homogeneous Dutch learner populations it probably wasn’t an issue at most schools, but the advent of large numbers of immigrants with a huge diversity of languages, cultures and religions has changed all that. As a result good, two-way communication has become cru-cial (Smit et al. 2004b). Th at the endeavour to improve communication is not a redundant luxury is evident from the first evaluation of the output and



use of the complaints mechanism instituted in schools (Vermeer & Wiersma, 2000).

Recommendations

On the basis of this study several recommendations can be made. Although the study was conducted in Rotterdam, the results probably apply to other communities with immigrant components (cf. Denessen et al., 2001; Smit & Driessen, 2005; Smit, Driessen & Sleegers, 2001; Smit et al., 2003).

– Schools have to take explicit account of the backgrounds, desires and expec-tations of parents from diverse ethnic groups.

– Immigrant parents should be regarded as serious partners rather than mere suppliers of children, partners that the school needs to ensure that learners are happy and perform well.

– Schools have to regard immigrant parents as partners who make a distinc-tive input in education and the transmission and development of values.

– Schools could indicate to parents clearly what is expected of them in regard to education and value transmission.

– It is essential that teachers and parents should be open to each other, take cognisance of each other’s cultural and religious backgrounds (communica-tion and clarification of values), and that education and upbringing be regarded as a joint task and responsibility.

– Th e involvement of immigrant parents in education should be higher on the policy agenda of school boards and schools.

– Schools could try to break the ‘radio silence’ on questions of meaning between parents and staff and should make parents-school cooperation in religious/worldview-related education an important component of their task load. Th at entails devoting explicit attention to the parents-school partnership in religious/worldview-related education. Partnership could be incorporated into the school’s mission. In addition schools could invest in a search for innovative contacts with parents tailored to their life worlds. Th at means proceeding step by step, constantly gauging the feelings of all parties about how cooperation can be effected.

– In cooperating with parents in religious/worldview-related education the school’s premise for dialogue should be the inability and embarrassment of parents and teachers to communicate about religion. Th ey should initiate



discussions on conventions and behavioural rules at home and at school and what values and norms from (religious) traditions feature in these.

– Immigrant parents could be challenged more explicitly to help improve the quality of the school and thus shoulder their responsibility for the school and society.

Bibliography

Akkermans, P. (1987). Medezeggenschap van ouders en de invloed van de maatschappij. In Vrijheid van onderwijs, nu en morgen. Verslag van een studiedag van de Onderwijsraad op 3 juni 1986 ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof. dr. I.A. Diepenhorst als algemeen voorzit-ter van de Onderwijsraad (pp. 9-18). Zwolle: Willink.

Claassen, A. & Mooij, T. (1995). Kwaliteit in onderwijs. Begrippen vanuit levensbeschouwelijk perspectief. Nijmegen: ITS.

Cutler, W. (2000). Parents and schools: the 150-year struggle for control in American education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davies, D. & Johnson, V. (eds.) (1996). Crossing boundaries with action research: a multina-tional study of school-family-community collaboration. International Journal of Educational Research, 25, (1), 75-105.

Denesen, E., Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2001). Culture differences in education: implications for parental involvement and educational policy. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents, schools and com-munities (pp. 55-65). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Driessen, G. (2002). Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement. International Review of Education, 47, (6), 513-538.

. (2003). Family and child characteristics, child-rearing factors, and cognitive compe-tence of young children. Early Child Development and Care, 173, (2/3), 323-339.

Driessen, G. & Bezemer, J. (1999). Islamitisch basisonderwijs. Schipperen tussen identiteit en kwa-liteit? Nijmegen: ITS.

Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2003). Gezinsomstandigheden, opvoedingsfactoren, en cognitieve en niet-cognitieve competenties van jonge kinderen. Nijmegen: ITS.

Driessen, G. & Smit, F. (2005). Integration, participation and education. Effects of minority parents’ societal participation on their children’s cognitive and non-cognitive competencies. In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero & B. Rodríguez-Ruiz (eds.), Family-school-community partnerships merging into social development (pp. 171-190). Oviedo: Grupo SM.

Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2005). Parental involvement and educational achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 31, (4), 509-532.

Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships, Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan.

. (1995). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and com-munity partnerships. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (eds.), Family-school links: how do they affect educational outcomes? Hillsdal, N.J.: Erlbaum.

. (2001). School, family and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, Con.: Westview.



. (2003). No contest: why preservice and inservice education are needed for effective programs of school, family and community partnerships. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), Family and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 190-208). Gdansk: University of Gdansk.

Gravissimum Educationis (1968). Verklaring van de Christelijke opvoeding in de plechtige zitting van het Tweede Vaticaanse Concilie van 28 oktober 1965 goedgekeurd en afgekondigd. Trans-lated from Latin by M.H. Mulders & J. Kahmann. Hilversum: Gooi en Sticht. Reeks: Ecclesia Docens, 193.

Grozier, G. (2001). Excluding parents: the decentralisation of parental involvement. Race, Eth-nicity and Education, 4, (4), 329-341.

Hermans, C. (1997). Secularisering en multiculturalisering als maatschappelijke krachten in het veranderingsproces van confessioneel onderwijs. In C. Hermans & J. van Vugt (eds.), Iden-titeit door de tijd. Reflectie op het confessionele basisonderwijs in een geseculariseerde en multi-culturele samenleving (pp. 5-27). Th e Hague/Nijmegen: ABKO/Katholiek Studiecentrum.

Imelman, J., Meijer, W., Ploeg, P. van der & Wissink, R. (1986). Tussen leuren en leren. Kampen: Kok.

Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2002). Islamitische scholen en sociale cohesie. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.

Klaassen, C. & Leeferink, H. (1998). Partners in opvoeding in het basisonderwijs. Ouders en docenten over de pedagogische opdracht en de afstemming tussen gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Klaassen, C. & Smit, F. (2001). Tussen gezin en school. Verschuivingen in opvoedingsdenken en opvoedingspraktijken. In Raad voor Maatschappelijke ontwikkeling, Aansprekend opvoeden. Balanceren tussen steun en toezicht (pp. 179-258). Th e Hague: Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling.

Klaassen, C., Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Vroom, X. de (2005). Minority parents, integration and education in a changing society. In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero & B. Rodríguez-Ruiz (eds.), Family-school-community partnerships merging into social devel-opment (pp. 373-389). Oviedo: Grupo SM.

Krumm, V. & Weiss, S. (2000). Ungerechte Lehrer: Zu einem Defizit in der Forschung über Gewalt und Schulen. Psychsozial, 23, (1), 57-73.

Laemers, M. (2002). Ontwikkelingen in de positie van ouders in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs. In D. Mentink (ed.), Jaarboek onderwijsrecht 1997-2001 (pp. 51-63). Th e Hague: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid.

Lindo, F. (1996). Maakt cultuur verschil? De invloed van groepsspecifieke gedragspatronen op de onderwijsloopbaan van Turkse en Iberische migrantenjongeren. Amsterdam: Spinhuis.

Lopez, G. (2001). On whose terms? Understanding involvement through the eyes of migrant parents. Paper AERA annual meeting, Seattle WA.

Oers, J., van & Gelauf, J. (1992). De identiteit van de katholieke school. Schoolbesturen en een eigen beleid. Th e Hague: KBO.

Onderwijsraad (2003). Tel uit je zorgen. Onderwijszorgen van leerlingen, ouders, leraren en het bredere publiek. Th e Hague: Onderwijsraad.

Oord, L. van, & Schieven, P. (2003). Onderwijsmeter 2003. Th e Hague: Ministerie van OCW. Pels, T. (ed.). (2000). Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken

naar gezinsopvoeding en de pedagogische afstemming tot gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum. Ravn, B. (2003). Cultural and political divergences in approaches to cooperation between home,

school and local society in Europe. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 9-18). Gdansk: University of Gdansk.



Sleegers, P. & Smit, F. (1999). De relatie tussen school en ouders: ervaringen met formele ou-derparticipatie. Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (pp. 7720-1-7720-24). Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom/H.D. Willink.

. (2003). Samenwerking tussen leraren en ouders: Variatie, opbrengsten en knelpunten. In Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (pp. 4300-1-4300-20). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom/H.D. Willink.

Smit, F. (1991). De rol van ouderparticipatie in het onderwijs. Een onderzoek naar vorm, inhoud en effecten van ouderparticipatie in het basisonderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS.

Smit, F. (ed.) (2006). Surfen op de golven van medezeggenschap in het onderwijs. MR- stand van zaken 2006. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer.

Smit, F. & Claessen, J. (1995). Medezeggenschap in het onderwijs. Nijmegen: ITS. Smit, F. & Claessen, J. (1997). Hebben ouders invloed op de identiteit van de school? In

C. Hermans & J. van Vugt (eds.), Identiteit door de tijd. Reflecties op het confessionele basisonderwijs in een geseculariseerde en multiculturele samenleving (pp. 105-129). Th e Hague/Nijmegen: ABKO/Katholiek Studiecentrum.

Smit, F. & Driessen, G. (2002). Allochtone ouders en de pedagogische functie van de basisschool. Nijmegen: ITS.

. (2005). Parent-school-community relations in a changing society: Bottlenecks, pitfalls and solutions. In R.-A. Martínez-Gonzáles, Ma del Henar Pérez-Herrero & B. Rodríguez-Ruiz (Eds.), Family-school-community partnerships merging into social development (pp. 171-190). Oviedo: Grupo SM.

Smit, F., Doesborgh, J. & Kessel, N. van (2001). Onderzoek naar het functioneren van de relatie ouders en basisschool. Ouderparticipatie: een nieuw missie-statement? Nijmegen: ITS.

Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2004a). Opvattingen en wensen van allochtone ouders: tussen wens en werkelijkheid. Een inventarisatie van de verwachtingen en wensen van ouders ten aanzien van de basisschool en educatieve activiteiten in Rotterdam. Nijmegen: ITS.

Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Sleegers, P. (2001). Th e relationships between parents of ethnic minor-ity children, the schools and supporting institutions in the local community. Some ideas for the future. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (eds.), A bridge to the future. Collabora-tion between parents, schools and community (pp. 255-258). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Smit, F., Moerel, H. & Sleegers, P. (1999). Experiments with parent participation in the Nether-lands. In F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf, & P. Sleegers (eds.), Building bridges between home and school (pp. 37-42). Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO Kohnstamm Instituut.

Smit, F., Driessen, G., Sleegers, P. & Hoop, P. (2003). Ethnic minority parents and schools: strategies to improve parental involvement and participation. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 105-118). Gdansk: University of Gdansk.

. (2004b). Expectations and wishes of ethnic minority parents regarding education and schooling. Paper 12th International Roundtable on School, Family, and Community Part-nerships (INET), San Diego, CA, 12 April 2004.

Smit, F., Mensink, J., Doesborgh, J. & Kessel, N. van (2000). Een extra klontje roomboter. Onder-zoek naar de rol van ouders bij de levensbeschouwelijke identiteit op katholieke scholen, de houding van ouders ten opzichte van schoolbesturen en de behoefte aan bijscholing van alterna-tieve besturen van openbare scholen. Nijmegen: ITS.

Smit, F., Driessen, G., Vrieze, G., Kuijk, J. van, & Sleegers, P. (2005). Opvoedings- en opvangac-tiviteiten van scholen in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs. Een inventarisatie van de stand van zaken met betrekking tot de relatie onderwijs-opvoeding-opvang in het



Nederlandse onderwijs. In Onderwijsraad (ed.) , Onderwijs in thema’s (pp. 159-228). Th e Hague: Onderwijsraad.

Ven, J. van der (1985). Vorming in waarden en normen. Kampen: Kok Agora. Vermeulen, B. & Smit, F. (1998). De veranderende positie van ouders in het primair en voort-

gezet onderwijs. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 27-37. Vermaas, J. & Wiersma, H. (2000). De klachtenregeling in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs:

spiegel of bliksemafeleider? Tilburg: IVA. Vogels, R. (2002). Ouders bij de les. Betrokkenheid van ouders bij de school van hun kind. Th e

Hague: SCP.
