Beyond the Parent-Teacher
Conference:
Diverse Patterns of Home-School Communication
By Heather Weiss,
Holly Kreider, Eliot
Levine, Ellen Mayer,
Jenny Stadler, and Peggy Vaughan
Presented April 1998 at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference in
San Diego, California
Introduction
Parents' involvement in their children's education is widely
considered to have substantial potential for benefiting children's
development and academic performance, for improving schools,
and for empowering parents (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Winters,
1993). Evidence that directly links parent involvement to
increased child achievement remains modest, but these modest
results are likely to be a reflection of the complexity of
the relationship between families and schools. To obtain a
clearer picture of the home-school relationship, it is essential
to understand the mechanisms and processes that make up diverse
parent involvement activities. Qualitative research is well-suited
to identify such processes.
One central aspect of parent involvement which merits such
in-depth scrutiny is home-school communication, a phenomenon
that comprises one category of Epstein's (1996) well-known
typology of parent involvement activities. Discussions about
home-school communication generally focus on formal, scheduled
school activities that are offered to all parents, such as
parent-teacher conferences or back-to-school nights. In contrast,
this paper examines a variety of alternative communication
patterns that emerged in the School
Transition Study as important mechanisms for parents and
teachers to gain information and make decisions about children.
These patterns, in contrast to activities such as parent-teacher
conferences, are often less formal and arise out of situations
specific to a particular child.
This paper examines alternative communication patterns and
their connection to children's successful pathways through
middle childhood by considering their effects on proximal
indicators of success in academic, social, and developmental
domains.
^ Back to top
Method
As mentioned in Dr. Stipek's overview, 23 families were
selected from the larger study sample for in-depth qualitative
case studies. The examples of home-school communication we
present were drawn primarily from semi-structured interviews
with the teachers and primary caregivers of the case study
children when the children were in first grade. Findings from
quantitative parent and teacher measures administered to the
larger study sample also are discussed, but are not central
to our discussion because they mostly measured the formal
and commonly offered forms of home-school communication which
have frequently been examined in prior literature. The alternative
communication patterns discussed here emerged primarily through
the in-depth parent and teacher interviews.
^ Back to top
Findings
Quantitative findings from the larger sample show that many
parents of kindergarten and first grade students are involved
with typical types of formal, school-wide home-school communication.
Eighty-five percent of parents reported that they had taken
part in at least one parent-teacher conference during the
school year, 80% attended an open house, and 67% had visited
the classroom while class was in session. A quantitative measure
also addressed an informal communication pattern. When asked
about their strategies for communicating with study families,
the most frequent type of communication teachers reported
were informal meetings with parents at the beginning or end
of the school day. Teachers engaged in such informal meetings
at least monthly with about half (52%) of the study families,
and at least weekly with about a third (37%) of the families.
Other types of informal communication are detailed in the
case examples below.
Another important communication pattern emerging from the
qualitative interviews is that parents and teachers sometimes
utilize alternative information sources to gather information
about each other and about the children for whom they are
responsible. Examples of such sources are school personnel
other than the teacher, extended family working in the school,
and parent observations made through the classroom window.
Given the prevalence, frequency, and potential effects of
these alternative forms of communication, it is important
to understand the processes associated with them. The following
case examples from the qualitative data introduce alternative
patterns of communication that have emerged.
Tim: Varied Information Sources
Tim is a white student attending a rural school in a small
New England city with a predominantly Caucasian population.
He lives with his mother, her boyfriend, and seven siblings.
His mother works full-time, so Tim is often supervised by
his teenage sister. Home-school communication and information
exchange frequently extend beyond parent and teacher to include
other school personnel, extended family, and even community
sources, such as the local newspaper. This particular communication
pattern appears to be influenced by Tim's rural context, his
family situation, and the extent of his problems. Tim's teacher
reports that he has average reading and math skills compared
to children his age.
Living in a close-knit rural setting may increase the opportunities
for particular types of communication and information gathering.
For instance, Tim's teacher learned from a local newspaper
that Tim's father had been detained by local law enforcement
officials. The teacher pieced together an understanding of
Tim's home life by using such indirectly obtained information
to supplement the information she gathered by more conventional
means.
Family members other than parents also provided information
to Tim's teacher. For example, Tim's sister often supervises
him at home and has spoken by phone with his teacher. Tim
and his younger siblings also attend the same school, and
Tim's teacher has noted the closeness among these siblings
as indicative of a “caring” family.
Tim's case also reflects a home-school communication pattern
that involves multiple school personnel, not just the teacher.
These personnel include the principal, guidance counselor,
and reading specialist. The extent and type of Tim's academic
and behavioral struggles appear to contribute to this pattern.
For example, his guidance counselor communicated with the
family about managing Tim's anger, possible referrals to community
programs, and family struggles. His principal's contact with
the family seemed to occur when Tim's behavior had a disruptive
effect on the larger school, such as in the playground or
on the school bus.
The involvement of additional school personnel in home-school
communication may be linked to its content. In several instances
of reporting problems to Tim's mother, the principal did not
enlist the mother's help in solving them, saying instead,
“The problem is ours ... I don't want you to do anything
at home.” A similar pattern emerged in communication
between Tim's mother and teacher. The teacher excluded the
mother from problem solving because, “[I] felt really
badly for [Tim's mother] ... it's tough to cope with a big
family and be all alone and trying to do it.”
Martin: Intensive Problem-Focused Communication
Martin lives in a large northeastern industrial city with
his mother and her fiancé, who serves as a father figure
to Martin. The family is African American and recently moved
from public housing to a predominantly White neighborhood
where Martin is experiencing overt racism and the loss of
his old friends. He has above average verbal and academic
skills in school.
Home-school communication between Martin's mother and teacher
has been problem-focused, consistent, and collaborative. The
mother did not attend a single parent-teacher conference,
but she spoke frequently with the teacher by telephone, and
her fiancé sometimes visited the classroom during school
hours to check on Martin's progress. Moreover, Martin's great
aunt works in the school and provides his mother with important
information about school activities and resources, such as
which teacher would provide Martin with the best education.
Telephone conversations between Martin's mother and teacher
were an effective form of communication, leading to a collaborative
intervention for addressing what the teacher defined as disruptive
behavior. When Martin acted out, the teacher would call the
mother at work, the mother would speak with Martin on the
phone, and this enabled Martin to “settle down”
and comply with expected classroom behavior. This pattern
of home-school communication was uniquely facilitated by the
mother's initiative and availability during work hours, the
teacher's flexibility and dedication, and the family and school
resources that permitted unscheduled phone communication.
This type of respectful, bi-directional, and consistent communication
pattern appeared to afford an effective collaboration.
While Martin's mother and teacher collaborated to address
his problems, they did not fully communicate with each other
regarding their differing perspectives on the source of these
problems. Martin's mother viewed his anger and defiance as
stemming, at least in part, from his recent experiences of
changing neighborhoods, losing friends, and being the target
of racism. She also had a substantial awareness of his strengths.
In contrast, the teacher seemed to lack this contextualized
understanding of Martin's behavior. Despite the teacher's
high regard for Martin and his family, her communication with
the family focused on Martin's classroom behavior problems
and did not reflect the influences of relocation and racism
on his behavior.
Lorraine: Child as Intermediary in Communication
Lorraine is a Latina girl living with her mother and two siblings
in a large western city with a substantial Latino population.
She performs below children her age in reading and math skills,
and communication between home and school has been almost
nonexistent. Her mother missed two scheduled parent-teacher
conferences and a third rescheduled one. The only contact
between mother and teacher for the entire year was a progress
report sent home and a brief face-to-face chat one morning.
Although direct communication was extremely limited, a pattern
of indirect or third-party communication arose in which Lorraine
served as the conveyor of information from teacher and mother.
The mother described Lorraine as saying things like: “Mom,
the teacher told me that you have to help me [learn] how to
read.” Lorraine also took it upon herself to try to close
the gap between home and school: “Good mothers help their
children with their homework, and good mothers go to school
and meet with their teacher.”
Several factors apparently contributed to this communication
pattern. First, Lorraine's mother had no car and does not
walk her daughter to or from school. Second, she reported
feeling uncomfortable going into the school and considers
the teacher “too serious.” Third, the teacher reported
that she had not made persistent outreach efforts to the mother.
In the midst of these circumstances, which mitigate against
more conventional patterns of communication, Lorraine took
initiative in conveying information from her teacher to her
mother.
Unfortunately, this child-mediated pattern of communication,
at least in the form that emerged in this case, has not resulted
in substantial changes to the mother's home-based or school-based
involvement in Lorraine's learning. Teacher and mother agree
that Lorraine needs more help learning at home, but her mother
feels she lacks skills and confidence to help her daughter
with schoolwork, and the zealous efforts of a seven-year-old
are not enough to replace dialogue between adults.
^ Back to top
Discussion
The findings from these case examples suggest dimensions
of communication between families and schools that have important
implications for research, practice, and professional development
in education. Rather than teachers contacting parents of all
children uniformly in pre-planned circumstances, we see a
multitude of school personnel and family members engaging
in many types of communication under diverse circumstances.
At this point in our research, this diversity cannot be neatly
characterized with a single conceptual label, but an emerging
category of “informal” or “targeted” communications
is taking shape that contrasts with the more formal and universally
disseminated contacts that often characterize discourse about
home-school communication. The case examples suggest contexts
in which these types of communication can arise, the content
of the communication they may engender, and the roles they
can play in children's pathways through middle childhood.
What is the context of communication?
The contexts in which informal and targeted communication
patterns arise are diverse. Based on our examples, three contextual
factors that may influence these patterns include family structure,
school accessibility, and the parent's level of trust in the
school.
In Tim's case, communication patterns are influenced by having
multiple caregivers, siblings in the school, and complex issues
calling for the involvement of the guidance counselor, principal,
and reading specialist. Accessibility is a major factor for
Martin's mother, whose work schedule prevents her from visiting
the school, but allows her the flexibility to receive frequent
phone calls from the teacher. For Lorraine's mother, communication
is apparently limited by several factors including lack of
transportation and feelings of discomfort in the school. [Consistent
with this finding, the main study sample showed a modest but
significant relationship between parents' comfort level in
the school and their involvement in school activities (r=.22,
p<.05).]
What is the content of communication?
The content of communication also apparently relates to different
communication patterns. In Tim's case, the content is problem-focused
and largely excludes the family from discussion of potential
solutions. The involvement of so many school personnel in
Tim's education may leave Tim's mother out of the problem-solving
loop.
In Martin's case, informal communication is also problem-focused,
but centers mainly on behavioral issues. It also involves
timely and collaborative problem solving between his teacher
and mother and agreement on some of the sources of Martin's
behavior. However, important aspects of understanding Martin's
behavior, such as the racism he is experiencing in his new
neighborhood, are noticeably missing from these conversations,
an omission that could relate to a difference in race and
ethnicity between teacher and parent, the brief and informal
nature of their phone calls, or other contextual factors.
Lorraine's wish to increase her mother's engagement and close
the gap between home and school may influence the fact that
she conveys messages to her mother that seem meant to encourage
her mother's involvement in her learning. Also, the complexity
of communication which can be conveyed verbally by a young
child is limited, and being the sole link between parent and
teacher is a weighty responsibility for a seven-year-old child
to carry. The teacher might have been able to capitalize more
effectively on Lorraine's initiative by sending home materials
with Lorraine and instructing the mother about how to help
her daughter with homework.
What is the role of communication?
The case examples also shed light on the role of informal
and targeted communication in children's development. School
personnel that tend to report problems to Tim's family are
probably sympathetic, well-intentioned, and successful in
the short-term, but may prevent the family from building strategies
to address future academic and social challenges that will
surpass the school's capacity for support.
Martin's teacher and mother have both initiated informal
communication in response to his problems, which suggests
that both of them perceive the role of communication as problem-driven.
Both also view this communication as a strategy for collaboration
and mutual problem-solving, which has been successful for
addressing Martin's behavioral issues in the classroom. However,
discussion does not seem to permit sharing of Martin's strengths
and potential.
Lorraine's case introduces the function of the child in home-school
communication, specifically in supporting parents to become
involved in their children's education. Her case also demonstrates
how a lack of direct communication between family and school
might help shape a child's school experience and academic
progress. It should be noted that for Lorraine and the other
case study children, many factors beyond home-school communication
affect their success.
Questions for Future Research and Practice
Given the widespread and frequent nature of these alternate
home-school communication patterns, it is important for them
to be more explicitly examined in educational research and
practice. Further consideration should be given to questions
such as: who is communicating, what circumstances are required
for the communication to occur, and how can different patterns
of communication influence child outcomes. By answering such
questions, we can work toward constructing our communications
more effectively and capitalizing on a variety of communication
events.
^ Back to top
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by a grant from the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Successful Pathways Through Middle Childhood. We would also
like to thank School Transition Study ethnographers, Kim Friedman,
Carol McAllister, Jane Wellenkamp, Jane Dirks, and Gisella
Hanley, for the case study data collection and their analytic
insights, Hannah Kim for additional analyses and review, and
the Steering Committee for the School Transition Study, Deborah
Stipek, Walter Secada, Penny Hauser-Cram, Jennifer Greene,
and Jacque Eccles, for their feedback throughout our data
collection and analysis. We would especially like to thank
Jennifer Greene for her guidance on our mixed method analysis.
Lastly, we thank our project families and school personnel
who gave so generously of their time to share their stories
with us. Their names and identifying information have been
changed in this paper.
^ Back to top
References
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Advances in family, community, and
school partnerships. New Schools, New Communities, 12(3),
5-13.
Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (Eds.) (1994). A new generation
of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement.
National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Winters, W. G. (1993). African American mothers and urban
schools: The power of participation. New York: Lexington
Books.
|
