1

Parent and community involvement in education from an international comparative perspective. Challenges in changing

societies

Frederik Smit en Geert Driessen ITS - Institute for Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

www.frederiksmit.com www.geertdriessen.nl

Abstract This paper focuses on the pedagogical responsibilities of parents and schools, as well as the care provided by socializing agencies and in pedagogical contexts such as local communities. The key question is whether education should be limited to the transfer of knowledge and skills or more specific attention should be paid to the pedagogical function of education. A review of the literature was carried out on the tasks of schools and parents and the relations between education, parenting and care in a changing society. The countries that were given particular attention were: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, England, France, Sweden and the United States. In addition, an email survey among international experts in Europe and the United States through ERNAPE and INET was conducted. This paper presents the results of both studies. 1. Introduction The debate on the primary tasks of schools and parents is held in many countries. The key question is whether education should be limited to the transfer of knowledge and skills or more specific attention should be paid to the pedagogical function of education. Another question is what practical consequences such a pedagogical focus may have. This contribution on school-parent relations does not only look at school-internal factors, but also at the pre-school, early-school, and out-of-school situations, and at the school-family relation in a changing society. More specifically, this issue involves the pedagogical responsibilities of parents and schools, as well as the care provided by socializing agencies and in pedagogical contexts such as local communities. The practical aspects include, for example, the organisation of education and provisions to schools, the concretisation of joint responsibilities, the reinforcement of parental participation, and the conditions that need to be met before school and family may be considered pedagogical partners. In 2004, the Dutch Education Council, the primary advisory body to the Dutch government, requested the Institute for Applied Social Sciences (ITS) of the Radboud University Nijmegen to conduct further international comparative research on this matter. Having taken the above into account, the following research questions were formulated: � What is the primary task of schools and what is the primary task of parents? � How do parenting, care and education relate to each other in a changing society? � Is a different organisation of education required and do schools need to be more adequately

provided for care and pedagogical tasks? In order to answer these research questions, two sub-studies were carried out in early 2004. The first one was a review of the literature on the tasks of schools and parents and the relations between education, parenting and care in a changing society. The countries that were given particular attention were: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, England, France, Sweden and the United States. The second sub-study included an email survey among 125 international experts in Europe through

2

ERNAPE (European Research Network About Parents in Education) and 100 INET (International Network of Scholars) - a network of mainly American researchers and policy officers. The survey’s primary goal was to get a detailed picture of the debates on the relations between education, parenting and care in a number of countries. Secondly, we wanted to sketch a picture of an alternative organisation of education that is deemed necessary and more adequate provisions to schools for care and pedagogical tasks. The key questions in the survey were: ‘What are, at present, the main topics in your country regarding child care and school-parent-community relations? Are there any bottlenecks and pitfalls in these relations? What are the solutions to these problems?’ A concise questionnaire with open answer categories was used. The responses consisted of answers to the questions posed, often complemented by relevant documentation and website references. In the sections below, the questions of this study will be answered from an international perspective. This contribution has been structured as follows. First of all, we provide an overview of the primary tasks of parents and schools. Next, we deal with the collaboration between these two parties in changing times, and then describe the barriers they encounter. Subsequently, we assess various developments and review the apparent effects. We then sketch a picture of an alternative organisation of education and more adequate provisions to schools for care and pedagogical tasks. The final section contains a summary and a number of conclusions. 2. The primary tasks of parents and schools In all West European countries and the United States, the prime responsibility for providing for children and their education rests with the parents. Governments do not interfere with the content of this education. The primacy of parents with regard to the upbringing and their choice of suitable education for their children has been laid down in international treaties such as the European Declaration of Human Rights. It is assumed that parents will prepare their children for school, guide and teach them, and create a pedagogical climate that is conducive to the children’s learning and good behaviour at school (Epstein & Sanders, 2000). School is the gateway to future labour and social participation. Education prepares students for their future in terms of career, private life and participation in society. In nearly all countries, the view that preparation for labour is a primary task of schools, particularly where knowledge and skills (‘qualifications’) are concerned, has never been really contested. The preparation for social functioning has always been considered a primary task in education too, but this has not always been given the same amount of attention and has not always been realized in the same way through the years. The preparations for work, private life and society can be differentiated analytically, but cannot be distinguished as separate domains in the actual educational setting. What usually is given priority in West European countries and the United States is the qualifying function of education: preparing students for the labour market through the transfer of knowledge and the reward of diplomas. In response to this, the past few years have seen a renewed attention to moral standards and values and to school as a professional and living community. Particularly in the United States and England, values education does not only focus on knowledge and skills, but also on the development of views and attitudes. Involvement is a key notion here. In addition to the acquisition of skills, students should also develop the willingness to use their skills for the benefit of society. The intensive combination of in-school and out-of-school learning helps foster such social involvement. It is usually expected from schools that they also contribute to the functioning of pre-school, early-school and out-of-school facilities in collaboration with the local government. In the United States, there is a powerful, slightly nationalistic movement to use education to produce ‘Americans’. Education is more than just training students for the labour market, it also encompasses a pedagogical task. The American educational philosopher Dewey (1938) laid the foundation for democratic education: school should contribute to the education of democratic citizens. ‘Civics’ is therefore a compulsory subject at practically all schools. Although there is strict selection in the American education system, non-formal education is a major aim. Every individual must have the opportunity to develop themselves. American schools are therefore saturated with pedagogical tasks:

3

producing American citizens who can shape their own lives independently and are able to participate actively in society (‘Democratic Education’). Schools in Western Europe are usually institutions that primarily transfer knowledge. National tests and examinations force schools to focus on knowledge transfer. In nearly all the countries, the achievement-oriented approach has been reinforced and many educational reforms have been implemented over the past twenty years, somewhat to the detriment of the socializing role of schools. As a result of the constant pressure from authorities to reform, many schools are now suffering from innovation fatigue. Currently, the emphasis is on ‘practitioners’ knowledge’. A major aspect of the harmonisation of school activities and parent activities is how teachers, parents and pupils perceive the ‘pedagogical’ task of the teacher and the ‘educational’ task of the parents. As already mentioned, in the Netherlands and the other countries studied, the prime responsibility for the education of children rests with the parents. The division of tasks is usually clear. Schools educate, parents care. Intellectual development is regarded to be one of the primary tasks of schools. Whereas parents usually consider behavioural problems to be the school’s responsibility, teachers think this is the parents’ responsibility. Over the past two decades, in nearly all the countries studied, legal measures have been taken with a view to strengthening the position of parents. 3. Collaboration between schools and parents in changing times How do education, parenting and child care relate to each other in a changing society? Over the past few years, most of the countries under review have developed initiatives to integrate the supply of education and care more adequately and to provide initial impetus to new types of collaboration between schools, care facilities, parents and local communities.

3.1 The supply of education and care France excepted, there is no country that has a balanced supply of education and care as integral part of the primary education system. Over the past two decades, however, the interest in pedagogical and educational activities of pre-school, early-school, and out-of-school facilities has grown considerably. This development is not only visible in the Netherlands, but also in, for example, the United States and England (European Commission 2002). This attention has to do with a number of developments. First of all, the increased labour participation of women and changing family structures have created a greater demand for day care centres, pre-school playgroups, and out-of-school facilities. Furthermore, such activities are increasingly regarded as means to better prepare children and parents in socio-economic disadvantaged situations for formal schooling in the education system and make them become more involved. The aim here is prevention of cognitive and socio-psychological developmental delays (Driessen, 2004). Pre-school, early-school and out-of-school services cover a wide range of facilities and activities, each category having its own target groups, objectives and approach. Much of what is being used in the Netherlands and Germany originates from the United States, particularly where compensatory and special support activities are concerned (OECD, 2001). In 2003, more than half of the Dutch municipalities were working on the development of a community school. The community school programme consists of the components of education, care, sports and culture. The emphasis is on activities for four- to twelve-year-olds, particularly geared towards staying over and after- and out-of-school care. The aim is to overcome the antithesis between the ‘cognitive’ school and ‘non-cognitive’ out-of-school learning (MacBeath, 2003). Apparently, the broad-based combined school or community school mainly seeks to create a broader base for child education. In addition, schools may develop services for parents, such as pedagogical support and language courses.

4

3.2 Educational partnership Various terms are used to describe this type of collaboration between parents and schools, for example, ‘parental involvement’, ‘parent participation’, ‘school-family relations’ and ‘educational partnership’. Internationally, the term ‘partnership’ is increasingly used as a useful concept to substantiate the meaningful cooperative relations between schools, care providers, parents and the local community (Ravn, 2003). Partnership may then be construed as a process in which those involved intend to support each other and in which they try harmonize their contributions as much as possible with a view to improving students’ learning, motivation and development. According to those ERNAPE and INET respondents, parents and school as educational partners should lead to two-way communication. On the one hand, this partnership will involve parents more in what is happening at school; while, on the other, the school will reinforce the parents’ skills in a more family-oriented way. It should be a process in which the partners aim to reinforce and support each other’s skills do that the results will make a difference for the pupils. Various activities are mentioned that may help shape this process: providing home support to parents, supporting learning activities in class (e.g., reading aloud by mothers), parents’ evenings, parents lending a helping hand at school (e.g., during celebrations), formal parent participation in school boards and participation councils and integral services to the local community, all shared under the umbrella of partnership. In most European countries, schools provide information on school activities and the pupils’ progress. Parents are usually fairly well informed, but would like to be informed more through the internet (Martínez-González, 2003). The survey shows that experts complain that schools tend to just ‘drop’ information and not really communicate about topics that interest parents, that the provision of information is aimed too much at the average parent and that very little attention is paid to groups of immigrant parents and parents with problem children. Internationally, parental involvement is much larger in primary education than in secondary education. Parents in primary education in particular consider themselves co-experts and therefore equal to teachers (Nuutinen, 2001). Approximately half of the parents (mothers in particular) who have children attending primary school in the Netherlands perform activities that may be labelled as some form of informal service, whereas only 7% of the parents perform such activities in secondary education. It is striking that almost one-tenth of the parents in the Netherlands never visits school, whereas one-third of the parents in the US never responds to the request to come talk with the teacher. The other countries score somewhere in between. 4. Barriers in school-parent collaboration There are a number of barriers in practice that impede a successful and lasting collaboration between parents and schools. One major bottleneck is the way in which teachers perceive their role of teacher. The communication between teacher and parents becomes difficult when the teacher see themselves as ‘expert’ (Lasky, 2001). Differences of opinion between parents and teachers regarding the teachers’ professionalism may thus render the collaboration more difficult (Crozier, 2000; David, 2003; Van der Wolf, 2003). In France and Germany, there is not such a prominent ‘partnership’ culture as in the other countries under review. Teachers prefer to keep a ‘professional’ distance between themselves and parents. The fact that they depend on parents as ‘suppliers’ of pupils is experienced as problematic by the teachers in these countries. Teachers and parents sometimes join hands, but only as long as the teachers benefit from this collaboration. In many countries, however, there is a trend in which schools initiate projects to increase parental involvement and schools and parents do increasingly act as partners (Montandon, 1997). According to ERNAPE and INET respondents cultural differences between family and school, lack of cooperation and conflict relations are potential risk factors for parental involvement in care and educational activities. The views that teachers with a strong bias towards higher socio-economic milieus have with regard to the desired parental support (the parent as ‘supporter’) and education may disturb the communication and collaboration with parents. For example, teachers and schools tend to

5

think that families that do not meet this middle-class-family standard are less able to raise their children properly. These parents are therefore not always taken seriously and are also considered troublesome if they do not display the pedagogical behaviour that teachers and schools deem important for children (‘parent as a problem’). In short, in actual practice, the idea of partnership, in which there is a relation based on mutual respect, trust and shared interests, still seems to be an unattainable ideal. The above-mentioned aspects are described comparatively in Diagram 1. Diagram 1: Differences in a number of countries as regards the relations between parents, school and community

Netherlands Belgium Germany England France Sweden US Task school

Focus on knowledge transfer: not much attention to social skills, standards and values.

Knowledge-oriented, disciplining.

Knowledge transfer and a tradition of attention to Bildung.

Knowledge transfer.

Knowledge transfer.

Core subjects much attention to social skills. Individual design of innovations.

In addition to knowledge transfer, school has pedagogical tasks, ‘civics’ is an examination subject.

Task parents

Parenting and educational support as partners of the teacher. Influence through various bodies (board, participation council, parents’ council).

Parenting. Responsible choice of school. Limited participation.

Parenting. Increasingly acting as partners of school. Participation through class and school councils.

Parenting and responsible choice of school as consumers. Co-determining school policy through school board.

Parenting. Parents and schools in separate domains. Participation through class and school councils.

Partnership between parents and school. Co-determining school policy through school board.

Schools expect parental support in the sense that parents should contribute at home to the school’s success. Influence through school board and ‘charter schools’.

Task community

In most large cities: projects aimed at community schools.

Limited. Limited. Only Ganztag-schulen.

Limited, project-based.

None.

Schools as community centre and day care centre.

Tradition of schools as ‘communities’ for day care and education.

Education, upbringing and care

Pre- and after-school care facilities are emerging practically everywhere.

Ample supply of pre-school care.

Ample supply of care.

Ample supply of pre-school care.

Ample supply of pre-school care.

Fair amount of pre- and after-school care.

Much pre-school care available.

Actual provisions

None.

None. None. None. None. Schools draw up their own policy.

Professional standards.

Desired provisions

Better harmonisation of parents’ and schools’ wishes and interests. Competence profiles of teachers.

More parent participation.

Open communication between parents and school.

Better harmonisation of parents’ and schools’ mutual expectations. Competence profiles of teachers.

More cooperation between parents and schools.

Better harmonisation of parents’ and schools’ wishes and interests.

Financial support of projects.

5. Developments in school-parent relations Over the last few years, in most countries, the relations between education, care and parenting have changed, introducing greater independence of schools and further professionalisation of the teaching profession and the quality policies schools. On the basis of our review of the literature and survey, the following developments have been identified (Goldring & Sullivan, 1996, Smit, Van der Wolf & Sleegers, 2001: x A development towards a wider parental choice of schools. Following the United States and

England, the government policies in most European countries approach parents as consumers.

6

What we see here is in fact the introduction and implementation of the economic market mechanism in education. Parents are seen as customers, who are very well able to decide for themselves to which school they send their children. This also implies the introduction of a superficial bond between consumer and producer.

x There is a trend towards schools and parents to lay down their mutual expectations in a ‘home school contract’ upon enrolment, which they then amend from time to time, depending on the progress that the pupil in question is making. Over the past twenty years, in the United States and nearly all European countries, education acts have been revised to include sections on school-parent relations.

x Parents are increasingly seen as customers or clients who may place demands on the products of schools, as is common in the United States and England. In many countries they have the means to call schools to account through a complaints procedure or disputes committee, if necessary.

x It has become more desirable to involve parents and communities more actively in the governance, management and policies of schools and to render account to them. In most countries, efficiency, transparency and accountability are key words in the political arena. In the United States (Davies, 2003; Putman, 2000), but also in Europe (European Commission, 2002), ample attention is given to the role of social cohesion in the continuation of a society and the role of citizens in local communities.

Given the developments identified, the question is to what extent promoting parental involvement is effective. In the following section we will discuss this question in more detail. 6. Effects What are the effects of the initiatives to better harmonize education and care, and to optimize the collaboration between schools, care providers, parents and local communities? The parent-child programmes used in pre-, early- and out-of-school facilities prove to have positive effects on the participating parents, but we found hardly any effects on the socio-emotional and cognitive development of children (Driessen, 2004). The Community School’s functioning generally does not lead to a change in the teachers’ task expenditure or to an increased task load. It is unknown what the effects of cooperation between the Community School and parents are when it comes to achieving the school’s objectives. Offering parents the opportunity to participate in their children’s education seems to have a positive effect on the pupils’ cognitive development and performance (Epstein & Sanders, 2000). Parent participation is therefore also considered one of the principal components or characteristics of effective schools. Besides effecting children’s school performance, various studies found parent involvement to have positive effects on pupils’ social functioning. This concerns aspects such as pupil behaviour, motivation, social competences, teacher-pupil relations and inter-pupil relationships (Jordan, Orozco & Averett, 2001). Besides the abovementioned effects at pupil level, studies aimed at improving parent involvement at schools also revealed that changes affect the parents. Supporting the school at home in the upbringing can lead to parents having a positive attitude towards school and even to changes in educational behaviour (Jordan, Orozco & Averett, 2001). Furthermore, positive links have also been encountered between parent involvement in school and the relationship with the community. For example, parent involvement also proves to have to do with the functioning of the school organisation and the local community. Greater parent involvement has a positive influence on the climate at the school and the school’s orientation towards its immediate surroundings (increased openness). The findings of research into the functioning of cooperation projects in the United States and European countries reveal that harmonisation between parents, school and the community has led to results over the past few years. Furthermore, the findings of qualitative research have made it clear that experiments with parent participation can vary: they can concern the stimulation of an open relationship between parents and the school, active parent and community participation in the school’s administration and policy and strong partnerships between the school and the local community

7

(Davies, 2003; Epstein & Sanders, 2000). In spite of the progress achieved and the various parent participation project experiences, pedagogic harmonisation between school, family and community is far from optimum at the average school. An attendant factor is that communication between parents, staff and the community concerning the harmonisation of upbringing and education is problematic and that each party’s responsibilities are not clearly defined. These results are in line with those of an international comparative study in which the position of parents towards school in European countries proves to be relatively weak and requires reinforcement in order to be able to view those involved as equal partners in education (OECD, 1997). Although collaboration between schools and parents can contribute to the improvement of children’s cognitive and social functioning, parents and schools tend to often have a one-sided relationship. Internationally the position of parents vis-à-vis school proves to be relative and requires reinforcement in order to be able to view those involved as equal partners in education. This particularly applies to parents from lower socio-economic milieus and ethnic minorities. For this group of parents, whose children often perform worse and who could benefit from good cooperation, the chasm between school and family proves to be wide. The proponents of partnership recognise the danger that the gap between school and family might continue to exist and are justifiably concerned. It is for that reason that they lobby for partnership for all parents, schools and local communities. A number of measures have been proposed in order to realize this, of which we will mention a few to conclude with. 7. A different organisation and improved equipping of education towards upbringing and care First of all it seems to be of crucial importance to support parents in the shaping and improving of their upbringing practices. As indicated above there are important differences in upbringing style and home environment which influence the development and learning process of children. Based on the positive effect of the school-supporting upbringing environment on children’s development, Levin & Belfield (2002) propose the conclusion of a social contract between parents and schools. The underlying idea being that the parents and school oblige one another to actually change the family and school practices by executing the agreements contained in the contract. They thereby distinguish three, mutually reinforcing strategies which can be implemented, namely: the provision of information (good practices), family assistance (home help, skill training, etc.) and external support (work, healthcare, pre-school education, tutoring, etc.). Entering into such a (moral) contractual partnership between the parents and the school is more formal for both parties and is primarily focused on integrally supporting parents in the shaping of a more school-like environment within the family. According to ERNAPE and INET respondents successfully engaging in and realizing an educational partnership pre-supposes that the organisation of schools will change towards an open system that is flexible and responsive to external developments. This pre-supposes an organisation which maintains open communication and dialogue between parents, teachers and the board of directors and in which teachers and parents view each other as partners who – in good mutual cooperation – shape the school’s objectives and organisation. According to Moore & Lasky (1999) many schools experience difficulties in the transformation to such an open organisation. In practice teachers are more inclined to shield themselves from parents, protecting themselves against too great an influence and parent involvement in their work, thereby often referring to their professionalism and acquired expertise. If parents become too involved in teachers’ daily work all manner of personal and professional tensions arise between the two. In order to solve this tension, teachers should have different strategies for dealing with various parents, be open towards parents from different socio-cultural backgrounds with whom they should communicate openly and they should develop useful, positive cooperation relationships with parents (Nuutinen, 2001). According to ERNAPE and INET respondents schools will also have to pay more attention to the various wishes and interests parents have. The school will have to actively try to gain more insight into the interests and wishes of parents which the latter generally do not utter explicitly. Whether or not these efforts to also activate the quieter (or less involved) parents will succeed greatly depends on

8

the extent to which schools consider these groups of parents serious partners in dialogue. Furthermore, the extent to which more actively involved parents are willing to shape various forms of parent involvement together with immigrant and poorly schooled parents will play a role. It is crucial for this to be based on the recognition of the various interests and wishes. This recognition should constitute the basis for a consensus-oriented dialogue. This enables an integral, planned approach to parent involvement at school level to be developed. In such a situation the involvement perspective, whereby the deployment of parents for all manner of the school’s odd jobs and offering support to parents at home for the school’s benefit should be central, should be able to develop more in the direction of an interaction perspective whereby teachers, parents and the school exchange ideas on the development options of children with one another as equal partners in education and upbringing. According to the Dutch Council for Social Development, the originally African saying ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ may take on a new, modern meaning. All those involved in education and parenting ought to add new content and new meaning to these ‘village’ principles, which include reciprocity, shared responsibility, trust, social bonding and social control. The underlying idea is that school is not the only body that can meet the needs of children, irrespective of the community in which these children live. Parents and schools constitute a significant part of a network surrounding the pupils. In performing their tasks, schools are not isolated, but are part of communities. Support from the community or communities is a prerequisite for improving social control at school. The ‘community school’ concept is based on a broad conceptualisation of the mission that schools have in the community and the position that the community occupies in schools (Putman, 2000). In this approach, school does not take the central stage. Instead, the community is seen as the centre of learning and education. This approach has been worked out in the ‘community school’. The aim is to connect the culture of the community with the culture of the school. In a ‘community school’ the school facilities are accessible to every member of the community, have school activities been integrated with community activities, and is the curriculum in line with the general values and needs of the community. According to ERNAPE and INET respondents in such an approach, the gap between school and community is largely bridged. 8. Summary and conclusions Question 1: What is the primary task of schools and what is the primary task of parents?

In all West European countries and the United States, the prime responsibility for providing for children and their education rests with the parents. School is the preparation for labour and social participation. A major aspect of the harmonisation of school and family is how teachers, parents and pupils perceive the ‘pedagogical’ task of the teacher and the ‘educational’ task of the parents. The preparations for work, private life and society can be differentiated analytically, but cannot be distinguished as separate domains in the actual educational setting. The domains of knowledge, skills and attitudes interact and overlap each other. Compared to other countries, education in the Netherlands is highly differentiated, primarily focused on knowledge transfer and diplomas, and much less on the transfer of moral standards and common values. Internationally, there is a trend towards the schools’ educational tasks and the parents’ parental tasks becoming more and more intertwined.

Question 2: How do education, parenting and care relate to each other in a changing society?

As a result of changing social relations (double-income families, immigration), the parents’ parenting tasks and the schools’ educational tasks are overlapping each other more and more. Consequently, the boundaries between education, parenting and care become diffuse. The traditional institutional differentiation between education, parenting and care thus comes under pressure, particularly where pre- and early-school facilities and primary education are concerned. Pre-school, early-school and out-of-school services cover a wide range of facilities and activities. In the United States and nearly all European countries, the number of pre-, early- and out-of-school facilities have increased over the past few years. In contrast to France, the Netherlands has no balanced supply of education and care as integral part of the primary education system. Therefore there is usually no harmonisation between these facilities and primary school as regards content, and an unbroken line of

9

development is hardly ever guaranteed. Socio-ethnic groups use these facilities in various ways. There are no relations between the use of these facilities and the cognitive and non-cognitive competencies of children. Over the past few years, most of the countries under review have developed initiatives to integrate the supply of education and care more adequately and to provide initial impetus to new types of collaboration between schools, care facilities, parents and local communities. Despite positive experiences with parent participation projects in various countries, the pedagogical harmonisation between school, family and community at average schools still leaves much to be desired. The parents’ position vis-à-vis school is relatively weak and needs to be reinforced in order for them to become equal partners in education. There is some empirical evidence for the significance of parent participation in relation to children’s learning, but caution is required when drawing general conclusions about the effects of parent participation on children’s learning and development.

Question 3: Is a different organisation of education required and do schools need to be more adequately provided for care and pedagogical tasks?

Given the increasing social need for integrating education, care and pedagogical tasks, a balanced supply of education and care is required. Schools ought to develop an outlook on the harmonisation of education and pedagogical tasks, as well as strategies to continue and improve the dialogue between parents, school, care providers and the local community (‘partnership’). Not only is a different organisation of education desirable, the parties involved (teachers and parents) should also be better equipped to meet these increasingly higher expectations. The professionalisation of the contacts between schools, parents, care providers and the local community will need to be evaluated on an annual basis. 9. References Crozier, G. (2000). Parents and schools – partners or protagonists? Oakhill, Trentham Books. David, M. (2003). Minding the gaps between family, home and school: Pushy or pressurised

mummies? In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (75-88). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.

Davies, D. (2003). Beyond partnership: the need for independent citizen activism for school reform in the United States. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (51-64) Gdansk, University of Gdansk.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press. Driessen, G. (2004). A large-scale longitudinal study of the utilization and effects of early childhood

education and care in the Netherlands. Early Child Development and Care. 174 (7-8), 667-689.

Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social research. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Education (285-306). New York, Kluwer Academic.

European Commission (2002). Key data on education in Europe 2002. Brussel/Luxemburg, ECSC-EC-EAEC.

Goldring, E. & Sullivan, A. (1996). Beyond the boundaries: Principals, parents and communities shaping the school environment. In K. Leithwood e.a. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (195-222). Dordrecht/New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jordan, C., Orozco, E. & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family & community connections. Annual Synthesis 2001. Austin, TX, National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools/Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Lasky, S. (2001). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher-parent interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education. 17(4), 403-415.

Levin, H. & Belfield, C. (2002). Families as contractual partners in education. Consulted, December 15, http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/965_OP44.pdf

10

MacBeath, J. (2003). Learning outside school. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (pp. 227-230). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.

Martínez-González, R. (2003). New information and communication technologies (ICT) at home and at school. Parents' and teachers' views. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (147-160). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.

Montandon, C. (1997). Les familles et l’ecole ou panacee?. Genève, Université de Genève. Moore, S. & Lasky, S. (1999). Parents involvement in education: models, strategies and contexts. In

F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (Eds.), Building bridges between home and school (13-18). Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Nuutinen, P. (2001). Teachers, power relativism and partnership. In F. Smit, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (Eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents, schools and community (5-10). Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instiute.

OECD (1997). Parents as partners in schooling. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (2001). Starting strong. Early childhood education and care. Paris, OECD.

Putman, R. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Ravn, B. (2003). Cultural and political divergences in appoaches 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 (9-18) Gdansk, University of Gdansk.

Smit, F., Wolf, K. van der, & P. Sleegers (2001). (Eds.), A bridge to the future. Collaboration between parents, schools and community. Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Institute.

Wolf, K. van der (2003). Teacher stress, challenging parents and problem students. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel & B. Ravn (eds.), School, family, and community partnership in a world of differences and changes (135-146). Gdansk, University of Gdansk.