True partners? Exploring family-school partnership in secondary education from a collaboration perspective

ABSTRACT

Although the benefits of family-school partnership are clear, secondary schools struggle to successfully realise this partnership. Drawing on interview data from Dutch parents of secondary school students, this study aims to explore underlying structures of family-school partnership and opportunities for improvement. We defined family-school partnership as boundary crossing in collaboration between equal agents. Using a framework for analysing interdisciplinary collaboration, we explored what levels of co-work can be observed in parents’ accounts and what factors affect parents’ agency in family-school partnership. In total, 24 parents participated in 11 individual semi-structured interviews and 3 focus group interviews. Data were analysed using a template analysis. The analysis showed that, although coordination and collaboration can be observed in the partnership, the most common level of co-work is cooperation. Furthermore, the findings show that at each level of co-work, the agentive roles of parents are affected by equality of condition, including: access to resources, recognition of expertise, and acknowledgement of authority. The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the relationship between families and schools by breaking down the complex concept of family-school partnership into smaller, more tangible and more manageable components. Defining levels of co-work, different agentive roles and different levels of equality helps to deepen the theoretical understanding of the interrelated aspects of family-school partnership. In practice, defining components that are observable may lead to actionable insights.

KEYWORDS:

• Family-school partnership
• collaboration
• agency
• secondary education

Introduction

Family- school partnership is an important factor for student success. Research shows that family-school partnership has positive effects on both academic achievement and the well-being and motivation of students (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Epstein, 2018; Green et al., 2007; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). In terms of objectives, parents and teachers seem to be the perfect match for partnership; they both strive for the well-being of the child (Epstein, 2018; de Ruyter, 2018). Nevertheless, schools struggle to promote an effective dialogue between teachers and parents around the educational support needs of the student (Goodall, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). It is especially challenging to establish or maintain effective family-school partnership in secondary education because, at the secondary school level, the student gradually gains autonomy and, increasingly, the school becomes the realm of the student (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011).

Since family-school partnership is such an important factor in student success, a better understanding of the interrelated aspects that affect the collaborative practice between parents and teachers in secondary education is needed. This is especially true when students experience difficulties, because, when they collaborate effectively, parents and teachers can co-create a supportive learning environment (Goodall, 2018). By drawing on interview data from Dutch parents of secondary school students, this study explores the underlying structures and opportunities for improvement in family-school partnership. The study examined the levels of co-work found in the partnership, and the factors that affect parents’ agency. The study aimed to give voice to the parents’ perspective, which is less well represented in research in comparison to the teachers’ perspective, particularly in the lower tracks of secondary education (Paseka & Schwab, 2020).

The benefits of family-school partnership for the student are closely related to parental engagement with student learning (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Through parental engagement, the student receives support for both skill and motivational development (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Pomerantz et al., 2007). The support can be home-based, when, for example, parents assist the student with homework or school-based, when, for example, parents interact with teachers (Epstein, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). In both types of support, it is clear that effective parental engagement does not happen in isolation. In order to provide adequate support, parents need to exchange knowledge and information with their child’s teachers (Epstein, 2018; Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). In doing so, parents and teachers become partners.

Past research has revealed barriers to and facilitators of this partnership (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Examples of facilitating factors in family-school partnership include mutual respect, equality and trust (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Examples of barriers are differences in the socioeconomic standing between parents and teachers, differences in non-aligned goals and agendas and the difficulties that arise when children grow more autonomous in their teens (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011).

The aforementioned differences are apparent barriers, but they can also be interpreted as manifestations of underlying malfunctioning structures (Goodall, 2018). Goodall (2018) argues that a more fundamental issue – the lack of equal agency in collaboration between parents and teachers – hinders effective family-school partnership. In the present study, we use a framework for analysing interdisciplinary collaboration to examine parent-school partnership from the perspective of co-work between equal partners.

The Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaboration (FIC) is the result of a previous study that integrates theories on knowledge sharing in boundary crossing with theories on identity and trust in interdisciplinary teamwork (Gerdes et al., 2020a). The FIC is a dynamic tool that can be used both theoretically and in practice. In an empirical study on collaboration between teachers and child supporters, the initial FIC, which included the notions of knowledge sharing, identity and trust, was extended to include the notions of proximity, availability and agency (Gerdes et al., 2020b). The constructs within the framework apply to situations where stakeholders with different backgrounds, expertise and perspectives try to join forces. In family-school partnership, both parents and teachers are valuable sources of knowledge when it comes to students’ learning trajectories (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). In most cases, parents have been nurturing, supporting and teaching the child since birth. Teachers possess knowledge on formal education and social processes within the classroom (Goodall, 2018). Therefore, in this study, family-school partnership is regarded as boundary crossing in collaboration between knowledgeable partners.

For theory development, this perspective provides a deeper understanding of the interrelatedness between the secondary school context, boundary crossing and parental agentive roles in family-school partnership. Also, by introducing parents as co-workers we expect to expand and enrich the FIC framework. In, practice, this perspective provides actionable opportunities for school context analysis and for improving family-school partnerships. In the next section, we will introduce the FIC, explore the three levels within the framework and pose the research questions.

Framework for interdisciplinary collaboration

Teachers and parents represent different spheres or domains in the student’s life: the home setting and the school setting. In boundary crossing, parents and teachers exchange information, skills, and perspectives across the border of these domains (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). The exchange can expand knowledge on both sides (Engeström, 2015), but the degree of expansion is dependent on the level of boundary crossing (Carlile, 2004). The collaboration continuum describes the three dimensions of co-work as cooperation, coordination and collaboration (McNamara, 2012). The levels of boundary crossing, which are transfer, translation and transformation of knowledge, relate to these levels of co-work. Furthermore, the processes of knowledge exchange in boundary crossing appear to be closely related to the social-psychological processes of identity formation and trust formation at the micro level of collaboration (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). The concept of group identity formation and the concept of intergroup trust play a major role in building collaborative capacity (Brattström & Bachmann, 2018; Ellis & Ybema, 2010). As a result, the dimensions of boundary crossing, trust and identity can be related to dimensions of agency, proximity and availability. Operational agency is linked to spatial proximity and reachability. Professional agency is linked to organisational proximity and accessibility. Relational agency is linked to personal proximity and connectivity.

Within the Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaboration (Figure 1), levels of co-work, knowledge sharing, trust, identity, proximity, availability and agency are arranged to provide a tool for analysing co-work settings. The framework connects the dimensions of knowledge sharing in boundary crossing to the continuum of co-work, the continuum of group identity and the dimensions of trust, proximity, availability and agency. The continuums are mutually exclusive; one cannot share a we-identity and an us-them identity at the same time. The dimensions are progressive and inclusive. Trustworthiness, for example, is perceived to be a profound dimension of trust, yet, trust also requires reliability and competence.

Figure 1. Framework for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Cooperation

In cooperation, family and school remain separate and disconnected domains (McNamara, 2012). In practice, this means that parents and school communicate through the vehicle of transfer knowledge; knowledge crosses the boundary between domains without further explanation or elaboration (Carlile, 2004). For example, parents inform the school about their child’s dyslexia and the school reports back to them about the chosen course of intervention. This exchange occurs incidentally and in an unplanned manner. Cooperation is defined by a distinct us-them identity; members of other domains are perceived to be members of an outgroup, whereas members of the own domain are perceived to be members of the ingroup (Beech & Huxham, 2003). Outgroup members are not supposed to interfere with the affairs of the ingroup. As for trust, at this level of co-work, the emphasis is on being a reliable partner – keeping one’s word and being punctual (Luhmann, 1979). Partners rely on the transfer of knowledge and, therefore, partners must have the operational agency to send and receive information. In other words, persons and shared data bases need to be reachable.

Coordination

In coordination, the exchange of knowledge is regulated (McNamara, 2012). For example, parents and teachers meet on a regular base to discuss the learning trajectory of the student. This regulated interaction creates opportunities to align home support and school support. The alignment of support depends on mutual understanding. Therefore, parents and teachers must engage in boundary crossing that involves the translation of knowledge (Carlile, 2004). In coordination, identity gradually shifts to alliance; members from the other domain may come to be perceived as allies, working for the same cause (Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Beech & Huxham, 2003; Ellis & Ybema, 2010). As for trust, the prerequisite for alignment of support practice, is trust in competence. A positive evaluation of an ally’s competence is needed to be willing to harmonise one’s action. Knowledge is translated across the boundaries of family and school, giving parents and teachers the agency to use the translated information within their own professional practice. To execute this professional agency, the information needs to be accessible. This means that knowledge needs to be both reachable and understandable, e.g. information must be written in language that is accessible for parents.

Collaboration

In collaboration, trajectories merge. Parents and teachers seek to integrate perspectives and support practices (McNamara, 2012). Boundary crossing consists of knowledge integration which leads to knowledge transformation. (Carlile, 2004). Participants negotiate meaning across the boundaries of their distinct practices, causing the boundaries to blur (Carlile, 2004; McNamara, 2012). While working towards shared objectives, parents and teachers develop a we-identity, perceiving the other as member of the ingroup (Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Beech & Huxham, 2003; Ellis & Ybema, 2010). In this situation, trust moves to the more profound and personal level of trustworthiness; as objectives become intertwined and the level of interdependency increases, partners have to be trusted not to threaten each other’s interests (Brattström & Bachmann, 2018; Luhmann, 1979). In collaboration, partners seek to transform knowledge and practice. Co-workers need to execute relational agency – the capacity to recognise, examine, and share the resources of others and the capacity to offer and receive help (Edwards, 2009). As for availability, partners need to make a connection and, for example, be available at a more personal level.

Research questions

The Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaboration is used to examine family-school partnership in secondary education from the perspective of co-work. Going into the study we had two suppositions. First, because cooperation is the least demanding level of co-work in terms of commitment, we expected cooperation to be the most often used approach in family-school partnership. Second, we expected parents’ agency to be affected by factors concerning equality.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. Can the three levels of co-work be observed in parents’ accounts of family-school partnership?

2. What factors affect parents’ agency in family school partnership?

Method

Research context

The data for this study consists of parent interviews conducted in an overarching multiple case study concerning collaboration between schools, child support services and parents in mainstream secondary schools in The Netherlands. Three such secondary schools participated in this study. All three were part of a regional consortium that seeks to better understand effective student support methods in inclusive education.

The school selection in the multiple case study was based on similarities within the school context: the participating schools are all public comprehensive schools for mainstream secondary education (age 12−16). The multiple case study focusses on the preparatory vocational education track in each school, where not only the majority of Dutch students is enrolled, but also the highest percentage of the need for additional student support is found, which, as noted before, raises the importance of good family-school partnership (Koopman et al., 2015).

Data collection

Data were collected through focus group interviews and individual semi-structured interviews with parents. All parents of students in the preparatory vocational track were invited to join a focus group interview by email. At school A, approximately 500 parents were invited and 33 parents responded. Of these, 18 parents were divided into two focus group interviews of 9 each. However, not all of them appeared which lead to the creation of two focus group interviews with 6 participants each. At school B, approximately 300 parents were invited and 14 parents responded – 7 of whom later withdrew. This resulted in one focus group interview with 2 parents, and 5 individual interviews; it was not possible to arrange a focus group date that suited all parents. At school C, approximately 200 parents were invited and 6 parents responded. Again, it was not possible to find a focus group date that suited all respondents. Therefore, all responding parents were interviewed individually.

In both interview settings (focus group and individual), standardised opening questions were used to explore three broad themes, based on the analytic framework. The first part of the interview tapped into participants’ personal views on the importance of collaboration – their personal experiences and the factors they considered important in good collaboration. The second part focused on dimensions of boundary crossing. The third part focused on issues of agency and equality. At the end of the interview, we asked participants if they felt that the interview had covered the salient topics and whether they would like to add anything. All participants were thanked and given a box of chocolate. The transcripts of the interviews were emailed to the participants for a member check.

Participants

In total, 25 participants were interviewed. Table 1 shows the breakdown of participation in the individual and the focus group interviews.

Table 1. Number of parents in interviews and focus group interviews.

	Interview	Focus Group Interview
School A		6 & 6
School B	5	2
School C	6

Procedure

The respondents were invited to participate by emails sent by the schools’ back offices. The focus group interviews took place at the schools. In all but three instances, where parents preferred to be interviewed at home, the other interviews were also conducted at school. The first author conducted all interviews. Two university students assisted; one acted as technical assistant and the other as host for the focus group interviews.

Active informed consent was explained in the invitation email, explained once more at the interview location, and signed before the start of the interview.

The individual interviews were recorded using an audio recorder and transcribed. The focus group interviews were videotaped and transcribed. A member check was conducted after transcription. Data were saved at the protected storage drive of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the faculty at the Vrije Universiteit, where the first author works.

Data analysis

The interview data were analysed using Template Analysis (TA). Template Analysis is a flexible approach that allows pre-existing knowledge or theory to be used in conjunction with codes generated form the data (Brooks et al., 2015; King, 2012). TA also permits the use of both interpretive and descriptive codes. The initial categories can be multilevelled and interrelated. TA is therefore a holistic approach that acknowledges the contextual complexity of the phenomenon under investigation (King, 2012). These features make TA analysis a good fit for case study research, and support the dynamic nature of the FIC.

Because the number of participants and the means of data collection differed across schools, a cross case analysis was not feasible. Therefore, the complete data set was treated as an integral case – the case of collaboration between parents and teachers. In an ongoing within-case analysis, the framework was refined and extended. The preliminary template consisted of the initial framework, the broad themes being dimensions of co-work, knowledge exchange, trust, identity, agency, and proximity as discussed in the introduction.

Adopting King’s (2012) guidelines, the first step was to code six full interviews. This was done by the first author in conjunction with the second authors. After this step, the coding scheme was refined in conjunction with the second, third and fourth author. Subsequently, the other interviews were coded with the new coding scheme. Again, the coding scheme was discussed and updated, and the complete batch of interviews was coded anew. Throughout the process, the broad themes were refined or extended with codes derived from the data. In order to ensure that coding was rooted in the data and not the result of individual bias, codes and themes were discussed with the entire research team.

The focus group data were analysed at three levels. First, the individual contribution of each participant was coded. Second, the degree of group agreement was taken into account. Finally, the quality of group interaction was used to assess the intention of the contribution (Liamputtong, 2011). For example, one parent indicated that on one specific occasion collaboration went surprisingly well. The group shared his surprise and participants exchanged sarcastic comments on the general poor quality of collaboration, indicating a strong sense of discontent.

Findings

The findings section consists of two parts. In part one, we relate parents’ experiences to the constructs in the Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. In part two, we discuss the emerging agentive roles of parents and the corresponding levels of equality of agency in family-school partnership.

Co-work between parents and school

Cooperation

In cooperation, transfer of knowledge is the core interactive activity. We can distinguish four means of knowledge transfer at this level. They are written information, online student tracking systems, general parent meetings and scheduled parent-teacher conferences.

1. written information

In all the interviews, parents mention receiving information from the school by email. Most parents find the use of email convenient, but, in some cases, the user comfort of electronic mail may mask a lack of reachability. In the following excerpt, a father describes how he experiences school communications through email.

In this line of work, people really love writing, apparently. It’s e-mail after e-mail after e-mail. (…) Maybe the school thinks, the more we send, the more we communicate? It is like these mailings that you get from companies, that I do not read, do not even open. It’s the same with school mailings. (…) And to me, it’s really odd. Because, it is not like, the more you send, the more the parents are informed. The more you send, the less they know. Because you cannot make the connection. Do they even think about what a parent should know, what do we want to communicate?

Although this parent is reachable in a technical sense, he does not receive the information sent by the school; the number of emails restricts this parent’s access and he can no longer see the wood for the trees.

• (b) online information and tracking systems

All participating schools make use of online student tracking systems and online calendars. This provides parents with the operational agency to track their children’s progress.

To me, the system is quite convenient, as to track his achievements, his results.

Another parent elaborates, bringing the characteristics of an adolescent student into the picture.

Yes, you can track it. Because, when I ask, how was school today? All I get is: whatever, don’t bother, long day.

These parents describe how their operational agency to reach information supports their role as a supervising parent. Likewise, the online systems should, theoretically, also assist parents in supporting the student’s learning at home.

In the following excerpt, two mothers in a focus group discuss how they try to support their children with the use of an online tool called Magister.

Mother 1: “My daughter works with Magister, and a paper diary.”

Mother 2: “Yes, mine too. But my child doesn’t take adequate notes in class, because she’s not paying attention. And I told her that for about 500.000 times. It is part of the problem. (…) And then I say to myself, the school should make sure that everything is there, in the system. If she can’t manage on her own, I have to … and I’m not in school of course.”

The one-way traffic nature of this transfer stands out; parents are usually on the receiving end. Moreover, as the transfer of information is processed through different channels, parents sometimes find themselves searching for accurate information. In the following excerpt, a father describes his experiences with the information flow.

(…) At the start of the academic year, their online resources are a mess. So, the children have no idea what’s expected of them. Online, it says so and so. Then, the teacher says something else. And then he [son] receives a leaflet with a third version.

In this instance, the information received through transfer is inconsistent. Parents conclude that, within the schools, which are themselves large organisations consisting of approximately 100 staff members, the internal transfer of knowledge is not accurate. This problem also applies to the transfer of information about students through the online tracking systems. In the following excerpt, a parent recalls a conversation with a teacher about the support needs of his child.

A teacher that we know personally, from the sports club, he said, you know, he [son] should ask more questions in class. And I said, well, but that is the problem. He believes that he understands it all, so he doesn’t ask. You should check whether he really did understand. (…) And then I thought to myself, I’m sure you did not read the file. Or not entirely. Or you did not understand what it says. Or the form teacher did not transfer the information.

These examples show that the technical transfer of information is no guarantee of adequate action. Information can be confusing, misunderstood or ignored altogether.

• (c) general parent meetings

It is tempting to blame ineffective transfer of written information on the electronic, impersonal nature of email and tracking systems. However, parents also express mixed feelings about the effectiveness of in-person meetings at this level of co-work. In all three schools, parents are regularly invited to attend meetings at which a class teacher or a member of the management team presents information to parents. In the following excerpt, a mother describes why, from an information transfer perspective, she does not find these types of general meetings particularly informative.

Well, to be honest, you get this mix of parents, this mix of different backgrounds. We were asked to pay 50 Euros for an iPad. Of course, for some people, that’s a lot of money. So, you get these lengthy discussions. On the one hand, maybe you should stop having these meetings. On the other hand, this is my son’s school, his classmates’ parents. I can find the information I need on the website. Here, I get information on the social composition of his group.

In this mother’s opinion, the information transferred at the meeting could just as well be transferred online. She does, however, find the information on the social surroundings of her child useful.

In the following excerpt, a father also questions the usefulness of general meetings.

Well, general parent meetings. Going nowhere, sorry. Nobody contemplates what a parent needs to hear. What they really want to know. And you always get one or two parents, always the same, taking over the discussion. Like, my son needs to go to the toilet every hour and he is not allowed and I disagree and so on …

In general, the parent meetings are not perceived to be very useful by the parents, except when they give information about their child’s day-to-day school life. Sometimes, schools shed additional light on this by inviting students to join or even lead parent meetings, as is described in the following excerpt.

We had one with our son, that was kind of fun. The students were giving a presentation. That was well done, quite an improvement. Because the students were part of it. They were making an effort. It was a learning opportunity for them. And also for us. So, well done.

On this occasion, the students transferred information about what they did in class as part of a school assignment. Meanwhile, the parents received information on how the students performed in class and about their social interaction. This interaction cannot, however, be labelled transfer, because parents interpret, i.e. translate, the unintentionally exchanged information.

• (d) parent-teacher conference

Parent-teacher conferences are scheduled twice a year in all 3 schools. Unlike general meetings, these conferences focus on the individual student and his or her parents. A parent-teacher conference has the potential to exceed the level of knowledge transfer, but, as indicated in the following excerpt, this is not always the case.

The only communication you get is a letter, saying, parent-teacher conferences are being held, visit us. And then you visit, and they look at some figures, and then they say, all’s well, or, it’s not going well. That conversation is useless. (.) And, in my opinion, this system cannot work properly. Maybe it works for other parents, but how can you have something like a performance review, at fixed moments, without any concern or reason?

This parent’s complaint concerns the fact that transfer of knowledge in this secondary school is rarely tailored to the trajectories of learning and development of specific students. In cooperation, generally, students and parents are treated as anonymous groups rather than individuals. Likewise, in terms of identity, most parents perceive the school as a distinct, impersonal entity, and, as a result, have an us-them identity. The one-way traffic nature of information transfer stands out; parents are usually on the receiving end. In terms of trust, parents refer to the level of reliability as they express their need for clear cut communications and the school’s ability to honour agreements.

Coordination

In coordination, translation of knowledge is at the core of interaction. In the following excerpt, a foster parent explains how she translates knowledge to her daughter’s teachers.

I say, in class she prefers to sit on the outside of the room. Not in the back, that’s too far away from the teacher. I try to explain to them what safety means to her. You try to talk it over with each other. (…) It’s complicated. And it’s not an easy task. [It took us 15 years to work it out, and I don’t expect teachers to manage just like that.]

This mother tries to translate her insights about her daughter to the teachers. She also tries to see things from the teachers’ perspective. She recognises that finding a way to effectively work with her daughter is hard work. In translating her knowledge to the teachers, the parent is executing her professional agency.

Parenting a secondary school student means learning to relinquish control. Parents recognise that their child is moving towards autonomy and they want the school to work with them in this regard. In the following excerpt, a mother explains how ineffective alignment hinders her attempts to foster her son’s autonomy.

As a parent you are needed for the support, or, yes, the communication on behalf of your child. Toward the school. Because, when your child raises a concern, and they do not act on it, and they do not notice until you as a parent speak up … That’s not okay. Because we want him, I mean, he’s 16, he needs to learn to speak up when things are not going well.

In this case, the parent needs the school to work with her as an ally, supporting the student’s growth towards independence. She encourages her son to take the lead and she wants the school to acknowledge his effort. As several parents indicate, raising and teaching an adolescent can be challenging and the alignment between parents and school is a tricky one. In general, parents have to rely on the teachers to provide them with information. In the following excerpt, a mother describes how she perceives information given by the school.

When a teacher gives me warning, like, something happened at school and we want to have a chat, we take that very seriously. I always appreciate it when they give me a sign, because then you know about things, things happening that are not discussed at home.

This mother acknowledges the fact that her son is not openly sharing all the information about his school day and she sees the school as her confederate. In terms of identity, parents at this level perceive teachers as allies in child rearing, or they express the need to have them as allies. In terms of trust, at this level, parents expect the teachers to be competent professionals, but they are willing to see things from the teachers’ perspective and are sensitive to the teachers’ position when things go wrong.

Collaboration

In collaboration, transformation is the central activity in interaction. Having a connection is a prerequisite for this level of boundary crossing. In the following excerpt, a mother describes how a student coordinator maintains the connection with parents.

In this department, you get a connection with the coordinator. A good connection, I believe. Yes. If necessary, every day a heads-up. If need be, a WhatsApp. How was today, how are things going? She visits them in the classroom. I know that, because she told me in an e-mail, the other day.

In this case, parent and school interact on a regular basis and the nature of the interaction is quite informal. On multiple occasions, parents stress the importance of making a personal connection with school staff. In the following excerpt, a mother of a student that made a switch from special to mainstream education, elaborates on what “making a connection” means.

Uhm, yes, what does it take, to make a connection? Uhm, the warmth. And the respect they pay you. And the fact that they do not have an answer to all the questions (…) Being honest. Like, we do not know where to start but we are willing to give it a try and we are going to give it our best. (…) And they said, we will call for your help when it doesn’t work. And then I thought, yes, this is it; together.

Here, the school staff is proving to be a trustworthy partner by being honest and showing vulnerability, admitting to being an absolute beginner with respect to this particular student. Moreover, the school staff acknowledges the parent’s expertise and offers shared responsibility. This is also the case in the next excerpt, where a mother describes her interaction with the teachers of her son.

Maybe, our son struggles with something. Then, they inform me. And they asked me, what do you suggest that we do? And I said, I no longer know what to do myself! And they have some options, and I say, well, if you’re willing to try … All in consultation.

In this situation, the parent and the school staff operate in an atmosphere of openness and mutual understanding, trying things out, neither claiming to have the solution. The bond between parent and teachers can become quite strong, as the mother in the following excerpt indicates.

We work things out, we discuss which line of action to take with him. Really, to me, school is like some sort of co-parent.

In terms of identity, the responsibility is shared, and a sense of ingroup membership arises – a we-identity. In terms of trust, the teachers are perceived to be trustworthy because they admit not having all the answers. This creates an opportunity for parents to be vulnerable as well.

Agentive roles & levels of equality

Agentive roles

The FIC was first developed for analysing co-work between distinct professional domains. In analysing parent interviews, three roles of parents in the partnership with school emerge from the data: observer/informer, advocate/broker, and partaker/co-constructor.

1. observer/informer

The first position is the observer/informer position; the parent monitors the school learning trajectory of the student from a distance and informs the school if necessary. This position can be related to the level of cooperation. In the following excerpt, a parent describes the push notifications in the online tracking system from this position.

Oh my God, it drives me crazy. He got a B, he got a C, a D. He forgot his homework. Come on. You know, it is nice to receive some information, but I do not need to be in it like that. I need to be able to trust him. That he does what he has to do.

As an observer, this parent does not wish to be intensively involved and his primary focus is on the relationship with his son. The school is not an ally, but, rather, a distant entity. The parent is not bothered by the fact that the school communicates through electronic means. He is bothered by the frequency of these communications.

• (b) advocate/broker

The second position consists of the advocate/broker position; the parent strives to defend the best interest of the student. The advocate position can be related to the level of coordination because the main activity is translation of knowledge. In the following excerpt, a mother describes what she thinks is needed.

Look, I am the kind of parent, when things go wrong with my child, or at home, I contact the school. But there must be parents who are less capable of giving words to it. Or translating it. That should be given more attention.

As an advocate, this parent is positioned as a competent ally in the family-school partnership. She is able to translate the needs of the student to the school, translate the demands of the school with respect to the child’s needs and represent his or her best interest.

• (c) partaker/co-constructor

The third position consists of the partaker/co-constructor position; the parent teams up with teaching staff to move the learning process of the student forward. This position can be related to the level of collaboration because the main activity is transformation of knowledge. In the following excerpt, a mother, whose daughter went through a rough period, gives her opinion on collaboration with the teachers.

As I always say, you do not raise a child on your own. We’re in this together. And I sometimes tell them [the teachers], when you try to work it out all on your own, that isn’t going to work. We really have to do it together. And I really appreciate it, having a good relationship and being in contact.

In teaming up and combining expertise, parents and teachers can co-construct support trajectories that are tailored to the student’s needs. The students are not seen as individual disconnected units, but as members of a community that includes their parents and teachers.

Levels of equality

The execution of agentive roles is closely related to equality. Co-work implies a certain level of equality. The analysis shows, however, that, in family-school partnership, an equal base cannot be taken for granted. In the following excerpt, a father expresses how he experiences inequality in his dealings with his son’s school.

It’s not like I have a say in it (…). It’s them who dictate, it is them who decide.

This parent is talking about power imbalances. Yet, not every example of inequality in the data can be categorised as a power imbalance. Adopting the concept of equality of condition and its different levels (Baker et al., 2016) helps to relate aspects of equality to levels of co-work. The levels, in this case, are equal access to resources, equal recognition of expertise and equal acknowledgement of authority.

• (a) access to resources

A key aspect in equality of condition is equal access to resources. As we have pointed out, reachability and accessibility of information can be difficult. Problems arise when parents cannot reach the information they need. In the following excerpt, a mother talks about the frustration of trying to get information on optional courses in order to help her son make an informed choice.

So, you request an answer? And I said, yes, I would like to get an answer. Okay, we’ll let you know. Never heard of it again.

This type of complaint was frequently heard in the interviews. Parents repine that, while the school is reachable at first, because there is often no follow up, access is still denied. Another equality issue arises when strategies are not shared with parents. In the following excerpt, a mother recalls how she felt at a meeting where her son was reprimanded by two staff members in her presence, without her knowing about it beforehand.

Well, that meeting was a bit overwhelming, for me. And only later on I realised … but that’s me. Someone tells me something and then, later on … I always need to think about it for a bit. And then I say, oh, yes, but wait a minute, this, this was not the right decision.

Apparently, this parent was not included in the preparation of the meeting and did not have access, in advance, to information on the meeting’s objectives. Equal opportunity to think things over beforehand was denied.

• (b) recognition of expertise

A second aspect in equality of condition is recognition of expertise; recognising each party’s particular knowledge and experience with the student (Baker et al., 2016). In family-school partnership, recognition of expertise means taking into account a parent’s informed position, as the mother in the following excerpt explains.

I appreciate the fact that it is complicated. But for a school, when you see a kid struggling, feeling sad, not knowing what to do … Then I say, yes, go on, reach out! Start a conversation with the child, and the parents. Because, parents, maybe, they know their child in a different way, Maybe they can explain, in other words, making teachers understand. That must be a guiding principle. If you value children.

Because parents may know their children in a different way, this mother believes that they are able to translate knowledge about the child to the teachers, linking equality of recognition to the level of coordination. Recognition of expertise, however, cannot be taken for granted, as the mother in the following excerpt describes.

Well, the form teacher. I don’t know. I spoke to him the other month on the phone and he said, she’s not doing really well at the moment. And I said, no, I’m aware of that. I said, considering her attachment issues. Oh, does she suffer from attachment difficulties? And then, it’s like, then I’m speechless. No matter how much I like you, I don’t want to hear this, here and now. I do not want to hear that you didn’t read the file. I just don’t want to hear.

If we consider the parent to be a competent ally in coordination then we acknowledge that when teachers fail to read a file they can be perceived as acting disrespectfully towards a partner. In this case, the parent was deprived of equality in terms of recognition.

• (c) acknowledgement of authority

A third aspect in equality of condition is the acknowledgement of authority. In family-school partnership, this means the shared authority to make decisions about the student’s learning trajectory. In general, parents experience the school as the more dominant partner. In the following excerpt, a father describes his lack of power when the school decided to place his son at a lower level.

He was in this level. Doing great in biology. Doing great in science. Terrible at French. So they moved him to a lower level. Nothing you can say, nothing you can do about it.

Parents acknowledge that, while officially, they do have the power to question the schools’ decisions, in practice, this power can usually only be executed by legal means. Taking legal action means fighting with their child’s school. In day-to-day business, it is usually the school staff that has the final say in decision making.

Often, acknowledgement of authority concerns money. In the following excerpt, a mother recalls her reaction when she enrolled her daughter in the school and the school wanted to test for special educational needs. Her child, who had been tested throughout her primary school years, objected. The mother suspected that the real objective of proposed testing was extra funding for the school.

So I said, we have two options. And I could sense it, like: here we have it, the rebellious mum … I said, we have two options. One, I undo the registration of my child and leave this place, or two, you respect my child. So, you have two options. I really did put my foot down. I’m sure he will never forget me.

In this case the mother is in the advocate position defending her child. It is clear to her that the test would not be in her child’s best interest. This mother suggests that she believes “putting your foot down” is an unusually forceful way to deal with schools.

It is characteristic of collaboration that the power of decision making be shared between parent and teacher. In the following excerpt a mother describes how she appreciates the acknowledgement of her authority at her son’s school.

They said, we can say whatever we like, but it is you who knows your child best. We are going to do this together. I think that’s grand. And they are not going to tell me: we know everything and we are going to decide which road to take. Because then, I would dig in my heels. Beg your pardon?

Extended framework for interdisciplinary collaboration

As we expected, including parents in the analytic mix of co-work added new dimensions to the FIC. Figure 2 shows the FIC, extended to include levels of equality and agentive roles.

Figure 2. Extended framework for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Conclusion and discussion

Family-school partnership is beneficial for students’ learning (Epstein, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). The partnership can be perceived as interdisciplinary co-work between experts and the level of collaboration is the most promising level with respect to effective student learning support (Engeström, 2015; Goodall, 2018). In this study, we first explored whether the three levels of co-work could be observed in parents’ accounts of family-school partnership. We expected cooperation to be the most prominent level in family-school partnership, as this level involves the least complex interaction (Carlile, 2004; McNamara, 2012). The findings indicated that all levels of co-work can be observed, and that cooperation, indeed, is the most common level of co-work in family-school partnership. Coordination and collaboration appear to be linked to intensified support needs.

We found that the main characteristic for cooperation in family-school partnership is the transfer of information and knowledge through email, tracking systems, general parent meetings, and scheduled parent-teacher conferences. It must be pointed out that, in most accounts, communication at this level is most often at the school’s initiative. The main tools for transferring information on individual students are the online student tracking systems. In terms of identity and trust, the school is perceived to be a foreign power that needs to be reliable. Reliability requires providing timely and adequate information.

Translation of knowledge in parent-teacher meetings is the main activity in coordination. At these meetings, parents seek to translate their personal expertise to the teacher, and vice versa. In terms of identity and trust, the school is considered to be an ally that needs to be competent.

Transformation of knowledge, the main activity in collaboration, is hardly ever mentioned. Transformation of knowledge, the integration of expertise and/or a change of perspective, occurs when parents and teachers jointly try to work things out. This is particularly true when the student’s learning trajectory is in jeopardy. The interaction is marked by intensified contact through personal meetings, telephone calls, email and WhatsApp. In terms of identity and trust, the teacher is perceived to be an ingroup member, someone who can be trusted with parental doubts and insecurities.

The second research question concerned factors affecting parents’ agency. Because equality is a key ingredient in effective family-school partnership (Goodall, 2018; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011), we expected agency issues to be related, in large measure, to issues of equality. The findings show that factors affecting parents’ agency are related to equality of condition: equality in terms of access to resources, recognition of expertise, and acknowledgement of authority. In cooperation, the corresponding agentive role of parents that emerged from the data was the role of observer and informer. Parents observe, from a distance, the formal schooling trajectory of their child, and inform the school when needed. In order to execute this agentive role, parents need equal access to resources and information. Problems arise when, for example, parents do not receive information, receive confusing information or when information is inaccessible. An important issue for secondary education at this level is the fact that parents find it difficult to understand and navigate school organisations. Concomitantly, adolescence sometimes makes students less eager to share information and less willing to help their parents navigate school systems. In coordination, the agentive role is that of an advocate or broker, defending the best interest of the student. In order to execute this agentive role, schools need to recognise that parents have equal expertise. Problems arise when parents’ contributions are not valued or when parents are ignored altogether. Distinct issues for secondary education at this level can be related to the complex and fractured nature of the system. Parents suspect that teachers find it hard to find sufficient time for parent-teacher conferences and to adequately disseminate parent knowledge to the student’s teaching team. In collaboration, the agentive role is that of partaker or co-constructor. The parent teams up with the teacher in order to promote the student’s growth. To effectively execute this agentive role, parents need equal power in decision making. Problems arise when the power imbalance is skewed towards the school; this can lead to personal or legal power struggles. A distinct issue for secondary education at this level is the discrepancy between legislation and day-to-day business. Parents make known that the power granted to them by law is not reflected in their dealings with the school when it comes to disagreements. Yet, parents acknowledge that going to court could destroy the relationship with the school and harm the interests of the child. In terms of the Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaboration, going to court leaves collaborators at a co-work level far below that of cooperation.

Because this is an explorative study, we can only tentatively suggest that collaboration is rare in family-school partnership in Dutch secondary education. Further research with larger samples is needed to effectively explore this claim. The findings do, however, lead to the extension of FIC with respect to the agentive roles of parents, and levels of equality. It would be interesting to examine in what way these aspects apply to co-work between professional domains in future research. Towards this end, we intend to carry out this analysis in a closely-related study on the effectiveness of co-work between teachers and child support workers in secondary education.

However, we should be cautious and realistic when claiming that collaboration with parents as equal agents is the holy grail in family-school partnership. As for equality, Goodall and Montgomery (2014) urge us to maintain a realistic outlook and to strive for an equitable distribution of agency among parents and teachers – one that allows each partner to execute their role ‒ rather than strictly adhere to equality. Although collaboration may create a more detailed and realistic picture of the student and yield better ideas about how learning can be supported, it also takes time and energy. Solid cooperation can be a good starting point for schools and parents to build more effective routines of co-work (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014).

The present study contributes by breaking down an unclear concept like family-school partnership into smaller, more tangible, components. For science, defining levels of co-work and isolating different agentive roles and different levels of equality helps to deepen our understanding of the interrelated aspects in family-school partnership. In practice, defining components that are observable may help us to ask better questions. The framework provides a tool or lens to discuss co-work between teachers and parents. It can help to make both teacher and parent aware of the role they play and the level of co-work they engage in. The components and their levels help to detect reasons for unsuccessful partnership and room for improvement. For example, teachers and parents can discover that their expectations regarding the level of co-work do not match, causing tensions that may be reduced by working with the framework to explicate and bridge their expectancies; schools could look into the number of scheduled face to face meetings with parents, and decide they need to invest more time into such meetings to make full use of parents’ expertise; or schools may become aware that the voice of parents is ignored in decision making, whereas equal authority is prerequisite for partaking and co-constructing parents. Such a contextual exploration can lead to actionable insights concerning the enhancement of family-school partnership. These enhancements can, in turn, benefit students’ learning support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest to be reported.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, J.G. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [grant number 737200011].