3,000
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Increasing parental participation at school level: a ‘citizen to serve’ or a ‘customer to steer’?

ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 144-154 | Received 16 Jan 2017, Accepted 13 Jun 2017, Published online: 03 Jul 2017

References

  • Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service delivery to co-production. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Bæck, U.-D. K. (2005). School as an arena for activating cultural capital: Understanding differences in parental involvement in school. Nordic Educational Research, 25, 217–228.
  • Bæck, U.‐D. K. (2007) Foreldreinvolvering i skolen (Norut Samfunn AS Rapport nr. 06/2007). Tromsø: Norut AS.
  • Bæck, U.‐D. K. (2010). Parental involvement practices in formalized home‐school cooperation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(6), 549–563. doi:10.1080/00313831.2010.522845
  • Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. doi:10.1111/eulj.2007.13.issue-4
  • Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–3. doi:10.1086/604228
  • Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education: Connections with high schools seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177. doi:10.1023/A:1014478001512
  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Democracy and administrative policy: Contrasting elements of New Public Management (NPM) and post-NPM. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 125–146. doi:10.1017/S1755773910000299
  • Cole, B. (2007). Mothers, gender, and inclusion in the context of home-school relations. Support for Learning, 22, 165–173.
  • deLeon, P., & deLeon, L. (2002). Whatever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–492. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003544
  • Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. doi:10.1111/puar.2000.60.issue-6
  • Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. doi:10.1111/puar.12347
  • Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievements and adjustment: A literature review (Research Report RR433). London: Department for Education and Skills.
  • Directorate for Education and Training. (2016). Skoleporten. Retrieved June 29, 2016, from www.skoleporten.udir.no
  • Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting Lipsky: Front-line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59, 978–995. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00886.x
  • Elmore, R. F. (1979–80). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616. doi:10.2307/2149628
  • Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Epstein, J. L. (2002). School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school and community: New directions for social research. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 285–306). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  • Hallgarten, J. (2000). Parents exist, OK!? Issues and visions for parent–school relationships. London: IPPR.
  • Hanafin, J., & Lynch, A. (2002). Peripheral voices: Parental involvement, social class, and educational disadvantage. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 35–49. doi:10.1080/01425690120102845
  • Helgøy, I. & Homme, A. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232–249.
  • Helgøy, I. & Homme, A. (2015). Hjem–skole-samarbeid for et godt læringsmiljø. Evaluering av lokale hjem–skole-prosjekter og gjennomføring av forsterket hjem–skole-samarbeid (Uni Research Rokkansenteret Rapport 2 – 2015). Bergen: Uni Research Rokkansenteret.
  • Helgøy, I. & Homme, A. (2016). Educational reforms and marketization in Norway – A challenge to the tradition of the social democratic, inclusive school? Research in Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 52–68.
  • Hill, H. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrat’s resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug024
  • Homme, A. D. (2008). Den kommunale skolen. Det lokale skolefeltet i historisk perspektiv (Dissertation for the degree Dr.Polit.). Bergen: University of Bergen.
  • Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299. doi:10.1111/padm.2007.85.issue-2
  • Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Lareau, A. (1997). Social-class differences in family–school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. In I. :. A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 703–717). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage Foundations.
  • Meyers, M. K., & Nielsen, V. L. (2012). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy, pp. 305–318. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. New York: Sage Publications.
  • Nordahl, T. (2000). Samarbeid mellom hjem og skole – en kartleggingsundersøkelse (NOVA Rapport 8/2000). Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring (NOVA).
  • Nordahl, T. (2003). Makt og avmakt i samarbeidet mellom hjem og skole (Rapport 13/03). Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring (NOVA).
  • Peters, B. G. (2011). Steering, rowing, drifting, or sinking? Changing patterns of governance. Urban Research & Practice, 4(1), 5–12. doi:10.1080/17535069.2011.550493
  • Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005a). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196–207. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207
  • Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005b). School progams of family and community involvement to support children’s reading and literacy development across the grades. In J. Flood & P. Anders (Eds.), Litercay development of students in urban schools: Research and policy (pp. 107–138). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  • Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209. doi:10.1023/B:SPOE.0000018559.47658.67
  • Smith, S. R. (2012). Street-level bureaucracy and public policy. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 431–446). New York: Sage Publications.
  • Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle school and math groups: Parent’s involvement in children’s placement Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.
  • Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London: Falmer.
  • Vincent, C., & Ball, S. J. (2006). Childcare, choice, and class practices: Middle-class parents and their children. London: Routledge.
  • Vincent, C., & Martin, J. (2000). School-based parents’ groups - a politics of voice and representation? Journal of Education Policy, 15, 459–480. doi:10.1080/026809300750001649