The role of parents in the schooling and education of young people is well documented, with the general consensus that increases in parental involvement and engagement results in better outcomes for young people. Opportunities for parents to influence decision-making in schools is understood to a lesser extent. The extent to which parents are typically permitted to participate in school life demonstrates that we need to better understand the ways in which parents and schools can collaborate more meaningfully to carry the agenda for equitable education forward. To achieve meaningful parental participation, schools - both physical and online - must commit to relinquishing power in favour of parents, evaluating their perceptions of parents, and raising up the voices of parents who may be underprivileged or underrepresented.
*Note: Although my area of most interest is the context of online schools, the much of the following can also be applied to physical, 'bricks and mortar' schools.
Introduction
Remote learning has advanced significantly in the last three decades. In the 1700s, remote learning was facilitated by post. In the early 1900s, the advent of the radio permitted learning through this medium. These early innovations for learning provided a template on which online learning has been developed (Holmberg, 2005). Furthermore, the advent of American virtual charter schools, in the early 2000s, paved the way for the online learning world by providing supplemental learning programmes to unique student populations (Hasler-Waters, Barbour & Menchaca, 2014). Undoubtedly, the two years of the Coronavirus pandemic have accelerated the growth of online learning to the extent that this mode of learning has now been normalised. There are at least 74 online schools globally, with over 57000 students enrolled in 33 of the respondent schools (ISC Research, 2022). While the majority of online schools are based in the USA and UK, this is not solely a westernised venture, with schools also launching in Kenya, India, Columbia and Kazakhstan (ibid).
The availability of online education offers a feasible option for acquiring knowledge, instead of relying solely on the conventional classroom settings. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for modernising teaching and learning methods, as most maintained schools were ill-equipped to transition to complete remote learning, predominantly through no fault of their own. Online schools were prepared. Across the spectrum of online schools available, a variety of delivery methods are used: asynchronous learning, where students access learning materials, provided by their teacher at their own pace; synchronous learning, where students and teachers attend live lessons in the same online location and time; blended learning, where the same students attend in-person lessons, as well as online lessons; and hybrid learning, where different students attend both in-person and virtually (ibid). Of the 33 schools, referred to earlier, only three of these schools are fully synchronous, where all learning takes place live with a teacher (ibid). Synchronous online schools will be the context of my research.
Online schools have the potential to revolutionise education and redefine our relationships with parents. These settings offer accessible, high-quality education to young people from diverse social and educational backgrounds. With the inclusive potential of online education motivating parents to enrol their children in this setting, it is crucial for online schools to better understand the role of parents in these environments. Collaborative efforts between parents and schools, involving active participation and engagement, have the potential to significantly enhance the outcomes of young people. The extent to which parents can participate, in other words, influence decision-making, in online schools is the focus of this research. With the international and diverse nature of global online schools, the local knowledge of parents, and their varied perceptions and interactions with education should be included incorporated into school decision-making.
***
Definitions
Parents
For the purposes of this article, the term ‘parent’ encompasses “any adult who has a significant caring role in relation to a child, particularly those with an interest or involvement in the child’s learning” (Goodall, 2017, p.6).
Online Schooling
Online learning encompasses various learning formats that comprise both synchronous and asynchronous elements. This article, however, concentrates on the live and synchronous mode of learning. In this format, learners interact directly with their online teacher and peers at scheduled times each week.
Online education empowers teachers, as pedagogical experts, to deliver curriculum content, provide learning assistance, evaluate student progress, and offer feedback for improvement. Like in traditional settings, online teachers facilitate peer interactions and collaboration to enhance the learning process. Both anecdotal evidence and research demonstrate that online teachers build strong, positive relationships with learners, while providing a high level of curricular support (Drysdale, Graham & Borup, 2016; Velasquez, Graham, & Osguthorpe, 2013). Historically, young people with learning differences, mental health and wellbeing challenges, as well as those with an ideological preference for home education, have tended to choose online synchronous learning as their preferred mode of education. (ISC Research, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted negative perceptions on the viability of synchronous online schooling and increasing numbers of families, from a cross-section of global society, are opting for this mode of education (ibid).
***
What's the different between parental involvement, engagement and participation?
Parents' roles in their children's learning are complex and varied, encompassing a multitude of ontological differences. However, there is a general agreement in the literature that parents have a beneficial influence on their children's education. In this field of study, the terms ‘involvement’ and ‘engagement’ are often used interchangeably, while some scholars argue for their distinct and discrete differences (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Recent literature has redefined parental involvement and engagement as a progressive continuum with the goal of promoting interactions that are less centred on school and more focused on empowering parents to be fully involved in their child's education (ibid).
Parental involvement
Parental involvement has been conceptualised “to establish a common language and focus for the activities that take place in a scholarly community” (Graham, Henrie & Gibbons, 2014, p.2). Other authors provide a general consensus that involvement covers basic parental interactions: school-home communications and attending parent-teacher conferences (Epstein, 1987; Fantuzzo, Tighe & Childs, 2000; Grolnick & Slowiaczeck, 1994; and Manz, Fantuzzo & Power, 2004). Later works in the area of parental involvement demonstrate a gradual evolution to parental engagement in learning.
Parental engagement
Effective parental engagement is more than the typical interactions initiated by schools with parents. Instead, it entails a family-centred approach that promotes collaboration between parents, children, and schools. (Goodall, 2017). Both involvement and engagement focus on parents’ interaction with their children’s learning; however participation focuses on parents’ decision-making ability and influence in the school.
Parental participation
The concept of "participation" revolves around empowering parents by redistributing power. This shift enables parents to possess the necessary influence to ensure that schools genuinely listen to and enact their opinions and suggestions (Arnstein, 1969). The participation of all parents, particularly from underprivileged backgrounds could “induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society” (ibid, p.216).
***
What do we mean by 'citizen participation'?
Literature on citizen participation is multidisciplinary. Research into participation is understood to be associated with social activism and theory (Fals Borda, 2001; Freire, 1970) and can be attributed to the earlier, pioneering scholarship of Kurt Lewin (1948). Additionally, a number of typologies have been developed since Arnstein’s seminal ‘ladder of citizen participation’ (Arnstein, 1969) (see the figure below). Developed for the urban planning sector in 1960s USA, Arnstein’s heuristic has been adapted and utilised to evaluate citizen power, control and decision-making influence (Burns, Heywood, Taylor, Wild & Wilson, 2004). The ladder has been widely applied to other sectors, with its application aspiring to allow “nobodies ... to become somebodies with enough power to make the target institutions responsive to their views, aspirations and needs” (ibid, p.217). Arnstein’s heuristic aims to “enable the have-not citizens ... excluded from political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future ... which enables them to share the benefits of the affluent society” (ibid, p.216). The key themes of disenfranchisement and marginalisation impacting citizen’s ability to shape decisions which affect them are clear from Arnstein’s framework and continue to be pertinent today (Gaber, 2021).
The eight-rung ladder has three main categories: non-participation, degrees of tokenism, and degrees of citizen power. Non-participation implies no citizen or community power and involves externally imposed strategy or policy, which may be “contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation ... [and] enables powerholders to “cure” or “educate” the participants” (Arnstein, 1969, p.217). Tokenism describes attempts by those in power to give individuals a voice; however, change may not be forthcoming as powerholders continue to control any decision that may influence change. Tokenism, as the same suggests, provides superficial reassurances to individuals and communities, regarding their level of influence, and there is no guarantee that citizens have “the power to ensure that their views will be heeded by the powerful ... hence no assurance of changing the status quo” (ibid, p.217). Although thought to be least evident in organisations, the higher rungs of citizen power aspire to provide citizens the opportunities to authentically lead change that impacts them. In relinquishing a level of control to parents, schools will allow better collaboration with parents to enact change.
Across the multiple disciplines, Arnstein’s ladder typology has been used as an accessible starting point and lens through which to critically examine the fields in which there is potential for participation. Additionally, the themes of power and control, engaging communities, achieving change, equality and liberation of (underprivileged) participants, and the achievability of attaining higher levels of participation have also emerged during a review of the literature in this area.
Although participation is multidisciplinary, it is the participatory aspirations that relate them, and which is of most interest to this research. There are two key features that are common to the fields of participation. Firstly, participation attempts to improve individual, community or societal situations, and secondly, people are involved in informing and shaping change that impacts them. By participating actively, communities can gain control over their own context and reduce their dependence on larger organisations, such as health care services controlled by the government (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). While participation does imply increased opportunities for individuals to influence decisions and change that impact them, a hierarchical structure between those in power and individual citizens remains. This does call into question the extent to which individuals have power and control to truly participate, generate knowledge and influence change. Even in cases where citizens, or more specifically in this context, parents, appear to be given the opportunity to share their views and opinions, the ultimate power to enact change lies with teachers and school leaders. There is little research available to suggest that interactions between schools and parents extends beyond tokenism.
Participation aims to challenge deep-rooted systemic inequalities and repression, enhancing the social context and mobility of community members. Although a popular aspirational approach, many concerns and criticisms of the aforementioned participation typologies are apparent in the literature. Prior to exploring the benefits and criticisms of participation, I will next explore the participatory models applied in a variety of contexts.
***
Emerging themes from literature on 'participation'
A wealth of information has been explored regarding the real-world application of participation in various sectors, which may be extrapolated for parental participation in schools. Since the development of Arnstein’s heuristic, a number of scholars have produced adaptations to better incorporate the complexities of communities. The main themes that appear to permeate the literature and underpin the concept of participation are: power and control, engaging communities, achieving change, equality and liberation of (underprivileged) participants, and the achievability of attaining higher levels of participation.
***
What are the benefits of participatory approaches?
Throughout the literature on the range of participatory mechanisms aimed at the ideals of greater citizen power and control, four main principles, relevant to this article, have been identified (Townsend, 2013, p.332):
1. Engaging community perspectives
The overall aim of this theme is the idea that researchers should engage with the perspectives of individuals of the communities in which they interact. Although difficult to achieve, and thus aspirational, meaningful participatory mechanisms should permit community ownership of change, the production of knowledge that refers to or affects them. Unequivocally, participation “begins with people’s problems ... and communities [who] ... suffer from material deprivations, social deterioration, or political disenfranchisement” (Park, 1999, p.143). Seen as disempowered, participatory mechanisms are reserved for communities who are perceived to be disadvantaged, whose “needs are often urgent”, and may benefit from participatory intervention (ibid). As referred to earlier, including the perspectives of diverse communities and the ways in which they interact with education, will better mould the strategies, policies and interventions that schools employ to support their communities.
2. Achieving change through participation
The intention of participation is to improve the lives and circumstances of the communities identified. Engaging with individuals in a collaborative and participatory manner is believed to produce more beneficial outcomes and “attempts to enable change that is meaningful and relevant for the local community” (Kramer, Kramer, Garcia-Iriarte & Hammel, 2011, p.272). Additionally, the literature has demonstrated that participation is thought to be a means of generating equitable social change (Savin-Baden & Wimpenny, 2007).
Through generating knowledge directly with those affected in the community, there are aspirations to link this with social action concurrently (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009). Achieving the desired change is brought about through community members, organisation leaders, and policy-makers collaborating towards shared aims. Where many of the barriers to participation arise from political spheres, which disempower and deny individuals in the community, it is important to explore the role of power and control in participation.
3. Power and control
Power and control are central to the ability of individuals to influence change. The “power to frame the reality of others” relates to the way in which individuals’ perspectives are understood and represented (Chambers, 2002, p.160). The intent of participatory approaches is to democratise the involvement of communities and to allow their voices to be heard on issues that impact them (Holland & Blackburn, 1998). This enhances the more common scenario of change implementation, influenced by those in power, with no guarantee of involving community members. The level to which those in power, and the communities they serve, are influencing change and are themselves being influenced, should be seen at least in equal measure. In empowering communities, there is confidence that empowerment also occurs on an individual level, eventuating in individual and community-wide change (Flicker, Savan, Kolenda & Mildenberger, 2008). Denying participation inhibits individual influence, limits the power of communities and further perpetuates inequalities for who decisions are being made (ibid). Participatory mechanisms should endeavour to ensure “maximum participation by members of the community” (Comstock & Fox, 1984, p.109), which can be achieved through providing a safe environment for individuals to articulate their attitudes and perspectives.
4. Ownership and construction of knowledge
Engaging aspirationally in communities, through participatory means, implies the aim of achieving a better understanding of these communities. In obtaining knowledge from these communities, it is argued that those with more power investigate and produce knowledge about less powerful individuals, therefore perpetuating their powerful positions (Gaventa, 1993). Therefore, an aspiration of participation is for the process to be emancipatory and not authoritarian. In taking this Habermasian approach, where “enlightenment” about communities comes from participants, authorities should entrust knowledge development to the communities it aims to enlighten (Habermas, 1974, p.40). Engaging in this collaborative action returns “the power of knowledge production and use to ordinary and oppressed people [and] will contribute to the creation of a more accurate and critical reflection of social reality, the liberation of human creative potential, and to the mobilisation of human resources to solve social problems” (Maguire, 1987, p.39). Community knowledge creation should not be viewed as an ultimate goal, but rather as a means to challenge established beliefs, and to transform behaviour and practice.
These themes above are often interconnected, for example, power and control permeating the other three principles highlighted above. In acknowledging and exploring the political dimension of power and control, participation could be seen as the means to narrow the void between repressed communities and those with more power. As highlighted here, participation has emancipatory benefits and utilises the knowledge of affected communities for good. Participation is not without its critiques, which are explored more fully in the following section.
***
What are the critiques of participation?
Previous sections of this articled have examined some of the literature and delved into the diverse array of reasons and arguments for participation. Nevertheless, numerous criticisms have been directed towards this approach to community and social transformation, as well as the way it is portrayed in scholarly works. The main themes of critique are explained below:
1. Authenticity of participation
One of the main critiques of participation is that these aspirational mechanisms of change are not as genuinely democratic and emancipatory as powerholders declare them to be. To ensure sustained community and social change, participation must be engaged with, over extended periods of time, reaching beyond the lip-service paid by some organisations and participatory programmes (Goodman, 2001). In many cases, the limits to participation are argued to be limited to consultation - a “highly passive connotation”, which may be perfectly acceptable (Sinclair, 2004, p.110). In limiting individuals and communities to passive engagement, and failing to engage communities in active participation, implying “some presumption of empowerment for those involved” (ibid), change is unlikely to result.
To be effective, participation must actively confront ingrained political ideologies, where powerholders support necessary interventions instead of “carp[ing] and prescrib[ing] from the sidelines” (Christens & Speer, 2006). In bringing scholars and communities together, the challenge of conflicting intentions and agendas emerge, which may limit the impact of participatory projects. School leaders and teachers should commit to an authentic desire for parents to be more influential in decisions which impact them.
2. Agendas of the participatory sphere
Participatory collaboration between powerholders and community members aspires to empower those involved. A challenge arises whereby participants are permitted to enact change through the lens of the programme at hand, thereby being guided by facilitators. When “a stronger person [the facilitator or powerholder] wants to change things for a person who is weaker [the participant] ... there is no complete escape from this paternal trap” (Chambers, 1983, p.141). Indeed, the power imbalance between powerholders and communities may result in dependency. Communities and participants requiring validation limits the scope for emancipation and the rejection of power hierarchies (ibid). Indeed, there are instances in the literature where parents have expressed a desire for more power, but when asked, defer to teachers and school leaders as the perceived 'knowledge-holders'. However, I argue that there is much to learn from parents, their experiences and cultures which could inform the school on how to better collaborate and support young people and their families.
Developing communities, as desired by its members, may not be consistent with the agenda of the powerholders. Collaboration with facilitators may lead some to question their intentions. In addition, the participatory practices of facilitators have been disputed, with some studies highlighting contradictions between aspirational narratives and working practices (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). A conflict is apparent between those who believe participatory approaches to be empowering and those who believe they are a tyrannous means of control. Moreover, the grouping of individuals with similar demographics such as ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation, as a one “community” is problematic and implies homogeneity of diverse groups. Within these overarching groups, the individuals within these communities have their own with rich and varied backgrounds and perspectives, which should also be taken into account.
3. Homogenisation and objectification of communities
The term ‘community’ is largely unproblematic and typically refers to a group of individuals with common interests and characteristics. In other words, ‘community’ implies that individuals within the group are both homogeneous and harmonious (Mohan, 2001). However, the homogenisation and objectification of communities perpetuates the marginalisation of the groups proposed to be freed by genuine participation (Cooke, 2001).
While communities consist of “a host of divergent points of view, significant cleavages, competing vested interests and splintered subgroups”, some generalisations, Arnstein argues, can be justified as communities do refer to each other in general terms (Arnstein, 1969, p.218. A problem with this is that generalisations diminish complex circumstances and invalidate individual views, replacing these with contrived extrapolations, which results in participation limited to the level of tokenism. When seeking perspectives from individuals within a community, powerholders should ensure a rich and varied set of views are gathered and should avoid the assumption that a few individuals speak for the many. In doing so would permit a limited number of participants to obtain privilege over non-participants who will not experience the same benefits. Going further, enacting change on the perspectives of the few, assumed to be the views of the many, disturbingly emulates neo-colonial practices, where the powerful, under the guise of ‘saving’ or ‘curing’, control the powerless (Cooke, 2001).
4. Tyranny of participation
A further criticism of participatory ideals is that they do not live up to their aspirations. The tyrannous discourse of participation highlights practitioner cynicism of “participatory processes [being] undertaken ritualistically, which turn out to be manipulative, or … in fact harm those who [are] supposed to be empowered” (Cooke & Kothari, 2001, p.1). A lack of critical analysis reinforces the hegemony of participation, highlighting that an “unjust exercise of power [is] counterintuitive and contrary to its rhetoric of empowerment” (ibid, p.3). Critics have identified an additional irony of participation in that an “inevitabl[e] tyrann[y]” opposes the claim that participation is reflexive (ibid, p.13). While reflections of the literature generally support the aims of participation, the opposing voices disapprove of the uncritical application of participatory mechanisms that fail to take into account the complexity and undesirable effects of their implementation.
The themes and key elements identified in previous sections of this article impact parental participation. In exploring participation as a more general concept and its application, the following sections link participation in online schools, as well as the potential barriers to this.
***
The potential for parental participation in online schools
As a relatively new mode of education, the role of parents in the online, synchronous learning space is not well documented. Exploration of the literature draws upon the frameworks of parental engagement, developed in physical settings (Epstein, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey, 2005). While the role of parents has been explored in the virtual charter schools in the USA and Canada, the application of prior frameworks are “insightful but incomplete” (Liu, Black, Algina, Cavanaugh & Dawson, 2010; Waters, 2012). More recent frameworks developed to better understand the role of parents in online settings are predominantly focussed on parental engagement in learning, continuing the omission of participatory mechanisms in online schools (Borup, West, Graham & Davies, 2014).
Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) have been historically perceived as the ‘gold standard’ in parental participation; however the influence of parents in physical schools has been limited to ‘partnership’ with the school, with the aspirational heights of ‘citizen control’ being out of reach (Stelmach, 2016). The parents have more direct involvement in decision making, but ultimate power and control lies with the school leaders. According to Arnstein's framework, parent-school collaboration involves a reciprocal flow of information rather than a genuine sharing of power that is central to authentic participation (ibid).
There is often an impasse that materialises in parent-school relations, in which parents express a desire to have increased influence in school life; however, they have limited knowledge to participate. The power dynamic at play is often evidenced by the fact that parents frequently defer to the expertise of teachers and leaders, rather than drawing upon their own knowledge of their children and communities (Torre & Murphy, 2016). Acknowledgment has been made of the shift towards a "post-deferential" society that recognizes the importance of parents having a voice and being heard, particularly in the context of schools (Coleman & Firmstone, 2014). This shift away from a top-down approach is reflected in both law and public policy, as demonstrated by Scotland's introduction of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006, which aims to enhance home-school partnerships (Education Scotland, 2021).
In light of the global reach of online education and the intricate, multifaceted nature of its communities, it is crucial to implement participatory mechanisms that draw inspiration from and are tailored to other sectors, such as health, housing, planning and the environment, and tertiary education. By elevating parents to the echelons of "partnership" and "delegated power," such mechanisms can pave the way for “healthier, more productive, and safer communities” (Foster-Fishman, Collins & Pierce, 2013, p.1).
Greater parental participation may be the key to unlocking better home-school relationships; however, there are a number of barriers that prevent parents participating. The following section outlines these barriers.
***
Barriers to parental participation
Numerous obstacles to parental involvement and engagement in physical settings have been thoroughly documented, and many of these may also apply to participation in online schools. These barriers are multifaceted, stemming from both parents and schools. They include language barriers, low parental self-esteem, low socioeconomic status, variations in parenting strategies, negative school experiences, and demanding work schedules (Kim, 2009). In addition, several other factors such as teachers' negative perceptions of 'hard-to-reach' parents' efficacy and capability, teachers' self-efficacy, school policies and leadership, inadequate communication and timing, the school culture, and range of opportunities for parents all affect parental involvement and engagement (ibid). Although these barriers can be encountered individually, they are often intertwined, magnifying the difficulties faced by parents.
A significant barrier to parental participation, particularly relevant to an international online school context, is a lack of cultural capital. The utilisation of the theories of cultural capital and social reproduction has enabled scholars to comprehend the dynamics that exist between parents and schools. Despite the lack of unanimity regarding the exact definition of "cultural capital", the possession of "linguistic and cultural competence" (Bourdieu, 1973, p. 80) and the display of styles and dispositions that are consonant with the dominant culture, have been found to contribute significantly to the perceived success of individuals within the school environment (Collins, 1993). Parents who have the necessary resources and understand the school culture, which are typically more aligned to White, middle-class families, are likely to have children who perform better academically than children from families with lower socioeconomic status or ethnic minority groups (Kim, 2009). Indeed, society’s class system is reproduced by schools (Bordieu, 1973). In engaging less involved parents, schools have the opportunity to reshape their ‘habitus’ (how one’s disposition influences one’s actions), leading to increased collaboration (Kim, 2009). As habitus is “not fixed or permanent” (Navarro, 2006, p.6), there is an alternative argument that schools, teachers and leaders should make efforts to shift their habitus, to meet the needs of families, where they are, to ensure all cultures are welcomed and celebrated (ibid).
***
In order to elevate parental participation in online schools, there must be a commitment to change our beliefs of, and practices with, our parent communities. We must move beyond the parent deficit model to support parents - where they are. Although parents have some degree of control over their actions, it is politically duplicitous to suggest that they are solely responsible if their children experience poor outcomes. With “the doctrine of personal responsibility perform[ing] the neat trick of transforming the victims of poverty, discrimination and poor schooling into irresponsible parents who are solely responsible for their children’s educational failures” (Dudley-Marling, 2001, p.184), schools and educators must critically evaluate their perceptions and biases of 'hard to reach' communities, and allow for a redistribution of power in schools. Only with “fruitful collaborations [and] knowledge com[ing] from the knowledge bearers within diverse communities [can we] take the agenda of equitable education forward” (Khalid & Singal, 2021, p.22).
References
Comments