Forms of Capital and Teachers’ Views of Collaboration and Threat Relations With Parents in Israeli Schools

Abstract

Neo-liberal ideologies have given parents influence over education. This requires teachers to find ways to engage with parents and use resources for dealing with them. Following Bourdieu’s notion of field, in which different groups struggle over resources to maintain their social position, we examine the relations between teachers’ attitudes toward parents and possession of feminine, social, and cultural capital. The sample comprised 605 who worked in 32 randomly selected schools located in two districts in Israel. Analyzing teachers answered to a questionnaire reveled that teachers’ relations with parents are diverse and include threat and collaboration. Different capitals underpin these relations.

Keywords

teachers schools capital

Introduction

Top-down policies based on a neo-liberal ideology, that many educational systems worldwide have adopted, propose that individuals’ well-being can be achieved by allowing entrepreneurial actions within the institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights and a free market (Harvey, 2005). This ideology, that acquires practical expression through the incorporation of market-driven policies and decentralization services (Ball & Youdell, 2008; Burch, 2009; Ross & Gibson, 2007), has redesigned the power relations between the school and its environment, and particularly between school and parents.

Parents are often viewed as consumers who seek to exercise their prerogative to establish individual forms of involvement in schools (Harvey, 2005; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; López, Madrid, & Sisto, 2012). Nowadays, in many countries, parents are perceived as an integral part of the school’s efforts; they have gained influence over various educational issues and participate in school governance (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Dusi, 2012). Studies have shown that relations between parents and schools are diverse and relate to a wide range of patterns (Epstein, 2001; Oostdam & Hooge, 2012). These relations occur in organized and institutional forms at the school level (e.g., the PTA) and, to an increasing extent, sporadically at the individual level, between teachers and parents. This reflects López et al.’s (2012) argument that “[t]he neo-liberal approach allocates responsibility on schools, which in turn deposits responsibility on teachers, parents, and students, thus turning political and collective responsibility into an individual undertaking” (p. 49). Parent–teacher relations are indeed frequently based on individual interactions. While teachers do collaborate with parents, at the same time they must often cope with aggressive minded parents and negotiate with conflicts, as found in the United States and to a greater extent in Israel (Dor & Rucker-Naidu, 2012). As the relations between parents and teachers appear to be diverse, the school can be analyzed as an arena for struggle between different groups over control and influence (Malen & Cochran, 2008; Mawhinney, 1998).

Following Bourdieu’s concept of social field, parents and teachers are likely to struggle for influence and authority in school. In this context, teachers perceive parents’ efforts to exert influence over them as overstepping their boundaries and liable to erode their professional autonomy and discretion (Landeros, 2011, for the United States) and social standing (Blasé, 1987, for the United States; De-Caravalho, 2001, for the United States and Brazil; Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010; Todd & Higgins, 1998, for the Scandinavian educational system).

The increasing involvement of parents hoping to gain power in school encourages teachers to defend their monopoly in school and to keep parents at a distance. There is however, consistent evidence, including meta-analyses, showing that parental involvement contributes to student achievement and personal development and to school effectiveness and improvement (e.g., Epstein, 1995, 2001; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2012; Thijs & Eilbracht, 2012). Teachers may accordingly have an interest in involving parents in school. They may find ways to encourage and engage parents to become involved and participate in various school activities (e.g., Hirsto, 2010; Jeynes, 2012) rather than face conflicts and tense relations. Adopting Bourdieu’s approach, we suggest that teachers’ relations with parents may depend on the amount and type of resources they possess in schools, permitting them to negotiate and consolidate their position vis-à-vis parents (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Malen & Cochran, 2008).

In the present study, we were interested in examining the association between teachers’ resources and their perceived relations with parents. Of particular interest was an examination of the types of capital teachers activates to decrease conflicts and threats, and increase positive and collaborative relations. Furthermore, as relations between parents and teachers depend on the parents’ socioeconomic status (SES), this factor has to be considered when examining teachers’ capital. For that purpose, we first review the literature regarding teacher–parent relations, and then discuss the forms of capital that can assist teachers in enhancing collaboration and reducing conflicts in schools. We then present the case of Israel as the research-setting and our findings, and finally we discuss the implications of the findings.

Teacher–Parent Relations

There is substantial evidence that school–family collaboration contributes to various educational outcomes of students (e.g., Epstein, 1995, 2001; González & Jackson, 2012; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2012; Kalin & Čuk, 2012; Sheldon et al., 2010; Thijs & Eilbracht, 2012). Nevertheless, teacher–parent relations are not necessarily positive. As Waller (1932) indicated many years ago, conflicts between parents and teachers are inherently structured within their reciprocal relations. Today, many years since Waller carried out his work, teachers are still striving to maintain a clear distinction between themselves as professionals and parents as layman. As Baquedano-López, Alexander, and Hernandez (2013) concluded, “While policies and practices of parent involvement may even change in response to educational and community movements that seek a better integration among stakeholders in education, schools and teachers remain largely the uncontested bearers of privileged knowledge” (p. 156). Teachers, who view themselves as experts in education, assume that they deserve more power in school than parents (Todd & Higgins, 1998). Growing parental involvement thus introduces uncertainty into teachers’ work, undermines and threatens their professional discretion, and lowers their social standing (Blasé, 1987; De-Caravalho, 2001; Ogawa, 1998; Todd & Higgins, 1998). Teachers may be unwilling to cooperate with parents (see for review Antonopoulou, Koutrouba, & Babalis, 2011) and even try to avoid meeting or interacting with them (Lewis & Forman, 2002). While teachers are aware of the benefit of having close relations with parents, they nevertheless do not necessarily encourage such relations (Peček, Čuk, & Lesar, 2008). They express their discomfort with parents’ participation in schools, and resist their intervention to maintain their professional position (Addi-Raccah & Elyashiv-Arviv, 2008; De-Caravalho, 2001). This situates teachers in a dual position. On the one hand, it is worthwhile collaborating with parents as it offers benefits for the students, but on the other hand it raises concerns about their professional jurisdiction and boundaries (Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004; Dor & Rucker-Naidu, 2012), thereby leading them to try and exclude parents from involvement in school. Hence, while studies have advocated parental involvement, researchers have also indicated the difficulties that these relations may bring-up (e.g., Todd & Higgins, 1998). Ciabattari (2010) argued for example that “over-involved parents, constantly intervening in their child’s education and feeling entitled to personally manage their child’s educational experience in ways that disrespect teachers’ professional authority . . . ” (p. 120).

This situation that teachers confront seems prominent in schools serving students from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Studies have indeed indicated that parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds constitute an intervening factor in parent–school relations (Huppatz, 2015; Reay, Croizer, & James, 2011). The extent to which parents are involved in schools, as well as their patterns of involvement, was found to differ in schools serving low-SES compared with high-SES students and families (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987). It was found that parents with high-SES backgrounds tend to be more involved in school and in their children’s education than their counterparts from low-SES backgrounds (review in Stacer & Perrucci, 2012). High-SES parents, who frequently have more formal education and often possess higher educational or status levels than their child’s teacher, tend to keep an eye on teachers, scrutinize their work, and get involved on pedagogical issues (Lewis & Forman, 2002; López et al., 2012). They use their resources (such as education, income, social networks) to intervene in school and enforce their demands and will (Bæck, 2010; Lareau, 1987, 2000; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Weininger & Lareau, 2003).

Although teachers and educated middle-class parents may share similar ideology, norms, knowledge, linguistic skills, and manners (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990), studies show that in high-SES schools, more than in low-SES schools, there are conflicts and struggles over influence and control of educational matters (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Some high-SES parents tend to be more vocal in expressing dissatisfaction with school policies and decisions (Sheldon et al., 2010). Furthermore, though teachers may have positive relations with most parents, a few “entitled-minded mothers” who criticize teachers’ work and professional judgment can have a significantly negative impact on school (Landeros, 2011). There is no doubt that this puts teachers in a different position from the traditional situation, where there was a clear distinction between the role of parents and the school, and teachers were in a position of authority (Ball, 1994, in Bæck, 2010). Thus, teachers in high-SES schools are found to be strongly concerned about the pressure parents exert on them (Brantlinger, 2003), and are potentially exposed to more conflicts and disagreement with parents (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011).

In contrast, in low-SES schools, teachers constitute a very powerful group that frequently has an educational and professional advantage over their students’ parents (Bæck, 2005). Due to their academic superiority over low-SES parents, teachers were found to be less vulnerable than their counterparts in high-SES schools (Bæck, 2010), and more concerned about the parents’ indifference and lack of interest in school. Indeed, in the United States, low-SES parents were more reluctant to contact the school or to establish social networks for collective action (Wanat, 2012). Teachers and school principals may therefore seek ways to bring parents into the school. In view of the differences in teachers’ relations with parents from low-SES schools, as compared with high ones, teachers are required to engage differently with parents from the two different SES backgrounds (González & Jackson, 2012; Park & Holloway, 2013).

Forms of Capital and Teacher–Parent Relations

Following Bourdieu, we can refer to education as a social field that is described as “a structured space of positions in which the positions and their interrelations are determined by the distribution of different kinds of resources or ‘capital’” (Thompson, 1991, p. 14). As Kingston (2001) indicates, Bourdieu discussed the ways in which social groups, for example, teachers, employ their capital to advance their positions within “social space.” Thus, the more individuals possess relevant capital, the greater their power for maintaining and enhancing their position in the field and determining the type of relations they cultivate with others (Schneidhofer, Latzke, & Mayrhofer, 2015). Scholars have addressed the different types of capital that can determine individuals’ or groups’ positions in the educational field (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Ciabattari, 2010; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 2003; Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). According to Bourdieu (1986), there are several elementary forms of capital that include economic, social, and cultural capital. In the present study, we address social and cultural capital that appears relevant to school settings (Bæck, 2010; Bourdieu, 1986; Lareau, 2000) and can help teachers to act in the field, interact, and negotiate with parents. We present these forms of capital below.

Social capital, according to Bourdieu, is based on social obligations or “connections” that are constructed in the form of the social networks and relations inherent between individuals, groups, or organizations. The functional approach of social capital emphasizes shared values and norms such as trust, cooperation, and a sense of commitment (Coleman, 1988)—assets enabling the achievement of common goals and effective results (Siisiainen, 2000). Social capital, as reflected in trust relations, can facilitate teamwork and enhance the collective solving of problems (Tschannen-Moran, 2001, 2009) like the ones arising due to parental involvement. Furthermore, through cultivating social capital at school, teachers are likely to gain support, backup, assistance, and knowledge from other teachers in dealing with parents, as reported in Israel (Addi-Raccah, 2012). A more critical approach to social capital views social connections as providing individuals with additional resources and advancing their own interests by gaining support, due to the cultivation of valuable social connections (Bourdieu, 1986). While social capital may be a source for establishing social cohesiveness and integration, it is thus also likely to be a source of social exclusion. By building social relations, and particularly through cultivating relations of trust, teachers can advance their interests (Siisiainen, 2000), maintain their professional judgment (Groundwater-Smith & Sachs, 2002), and increase their influence in schools (Forsyth & Adams, 2008). In this context, teachers may maintain their professional position and legitimacy, as found in the United Kingdom (Bottery, 2003). Furthermore, by solidifying social relations with parents, particularly those possessing political and social power, teachers appear to buttress their professional status and mobilize additional resources (Addi-Raccah, 2012; Addi-Raccah & Elyashiv-Arviv, 2008).

Prior studies that relate to parent/family-school relations also emphasize the importance of cultural capital in understanding teachers’ relations with parents, particularly those from the middle class. Cultural capital, a term that Bourdieu coined (Lareau & Weininger, 2003), reflects the way of doing and being that is acquired through an ongoing process of socialization (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Cultural capital may be expressed through academic certificates and qualifications; ownership of cultural goods and material objects such as art, books, paintings, or instruments; or in individual social interaction style (such as manners, speech, and communication), knowledge, values, and cultural tastes (clothing, food, hobbies). Cultural capital, which Bourdieu (1984) believed that teachers possess, gained considerable attention in examining parent–school relations. Lareau (2003) and her colleagues (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003; Lareau & Weininger, 2003) noted the significance of cultural capital for parent–teacher collaboration and pointed out that middle-class parents cultivate beneficial relations because they possess similar cultural capital that prevails and is transmitted in school.

As well as social and cultural capital, we focus on feminine capital, that is frequently considered an extension of cultural capital (McCall, 1992). Bourdieu emphasized the great importance in expanding meanings of different types of capital because of a certain conviction that “capital has a variety of aspects that exceed the baseline of its meaning and is essential to explaining the structure and dynamic of different societies and sectors” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 116). Feminine capital may be such a case. According to Huppatz (2012), feminine capital is defined as “the gender advantage that is derived from a disposition or skill set learnt via socialization, or from simply being hailed as feminine” (p. 27). Feminine capital includes caring, empathy, sharing feelings, and being expressive. Huppatz (2009, 2012) argues that feminine capital stands on its own because it is as “natural” and universal as other types of capital. In this regard, contemporary feminists have argued for a possible link between feminine capital and social status or social mobility (Adkins, 2004; Lawler, 2004; Lovell, 2004; Skeggs, 2004). According to Bourdieu (1984) in Distinction, “Certain women derive occupational profit from their charm(s) and that beauty has acquired a value on the labor market” (pp. 152-153). Although he did not elaborate on this idea, one can nevertheless see in this statement the possibility that women, like men, will activate a particular gender capital and use it to their advantage (Huppatz, 2012).

So far, this type of capital has not been studied extensively. However, there are a few studies that explored men and women in feminized occupations which may be defined as “paid caring,” like nursing and social work (Huppatz, 2009, 2012; Huppatz & Goodwin, 2013). In a study conducted in Australia, women in female-dominated occupations emphasize their feminine capital in their workplace, but cannot use it to gain power and reach senior management positions, as well as dominance in their workplace (Ross-Smith & Huppatz, 2010). Feminine capital may thus be perceived as tactical rather than strategic (Skeggs, 1997), especially in the absence of other sources of power, such as possessing social or cultural capital. Therefore, although we suggest examining feminine capital, it is noteworthy that the social legitimacy and significance of feminine capital as a resource participating in the process of social reproduction or change remains in question. There is moreover some criticism, such as that of Bennett et al. (2009), regarding this concept and the attempt to elaborate on Bourdieu’s term cultural capital. Yet working in a particular field defines the relevant and significant capital to be used for social interactions, and feminine workplaces can produce and legitimize feminine dispositions (Atkinson, 2009) for both women and men. We therefore assume that teachers who work in a female-dominated workplace, like schools, may ascribe importance to feminine capital in that context.

While many empirical studies have focused on the link between capital, parents, and schools, their focus was mainly the influence of parents’ capital on students’ educational outcomes, or parental involvement in school (e.g., Vincent, Rollock, Ball, & Gillborn, 2012). Only a very few studies have focused on educators’ and more particularly teachers’ capital (Caldwell, 2010; De-Caravalho, 2001; Forbes, 2006; Spillane et al., 2003; Tamir, 2010). Even fewer studies addressed how teachers interacted with parents in an era when the balance of power between parents and teachers is being redesigned. While Lareau and Calarco (2012) explored the repertoires of parents’ cultural resources that they use when interacting with their children’s school, in the present study we looked at teachers and extended our discussion to other forms of capital.

The aim of our study, therefore, was to examine the link between teachers’ view of the relations with parents, and the type of capital they require for collaborating and reducing tension and conflicts with parents. Our hypotheses predicted that

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Teachers’ attitudes regarding their relations with parents would be positive as well as negative. Furthermore, in high-SES schools, teachers would report about more conflicts as well as collaboration with parents than teachers in low SES.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Teachers’ view of their relations with parents would be dependent on the capital they possess. Teachers who activate different forms of capital would better situate their position in schools and thus have more positive rather than negative views toward parents.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): As parental involvement tends to be more intense in high-SES schools, teachers would need to activate more resources to interact with parents than in low-SES schools.

The Research Setting

The present study examined teachers employed in the Israeli educational system. Until 30 years ago, the Israeli educational system was highly centralized. It was a heavily bureaucratic, uniform system that functioned with only marginal, insubstantial parental involvement (Friedman, 2011; Nir, 2003; Noy, 2014). Parents’ role in school was officially defined in the National Education Act of 1953 that allowed parents to decide on about 25% of the school curricula, though this was rarely implemented. Since the 1980s, parents have sought greater input in education. Several interrelated factors were involved, such as an ideological shift from national unity to a more pluralistic society, coupled with the adoption of a consumer approach in educational services that enabled parents to be more active participants in determining their children’s education (Goldring, 1992). Furthermore, when parents were dissatisfied with their children’s schooling and felt it did not meet their specific needs and values, the Ministry of Education met them half-way by opening up schools to local initiatives, such as parental school-choice. Parents from high socioeconomic backgrounds seeking better education for their children, that would match their social, political, and cultural preferences, became especially vocal following this development. In addition, extensive cuts in the national education budget required greater financial outlays by parents for special learning and enrichment school programs. As parents began paying more for education, they also demanded more influence in decision-making (Noy, 2014). Another significant shift occurred in 1995, when parental involvement in school intensified as a result of the school-based management policy (Nir & Bogler, 2012). The empowerment of schools also promoted parents’ motivation to initiate militant acts against schools, presuming they could now enforce their demands on the school (Addi-Raccah & Einhorn, 2009; Nir & Ben-Ami, 2005). These policies transformed the role of local authorities and school staff in educational decision-making (Goldring, 1992; Goldring & Rallis, 1993) and allowed the introduction of new curricula, and educational innovations and initiatives such as open enrollment zones, and school of choice (Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Volansky, 2003). Yet parent–school interactions remain sporadic and unsystematic. This is partly due to the fact that there is no legislation that defines parental involvement in school and regulates their relations with teachers. While parents seek greater involvement in school, teachers strive to maintain control and power within the system (Addi-Raccah & Elyashiv-Arviv, 2008; Nir & Bogler, 2012). The educators considered professional issues and policies to be out of bounds for parents and tried to involve them mainly in funding, equipment, and other routine needs of school, thus regulating their involvement to serving school needs (Katz, 1997). Parents’ demands are frequently in opposition to the school and teachers’ approach—aimed at maintaining their control over issues considered highly professional (Nir & Bogler, 2012).

Sample and Research Method

The research was conducted in the quantitative method. The sample of the study includes 32 schools and 605 teachers. The schools were selected based on a random stratified sampling of schools—15% of all the 234 Jewish state¹ elementary and secondary schools located in two districts in northern Israel that complied with two criteria: they were large (500 students or more) and located in urban localities. In selecting the schools, we used a list containing the names of all elementary and secondary schools in the two school districts, and randomly selected the schools proportionally to the districts’ size and the school level.

A questionnaire was administered to all teachers who attended school the day the questionnaires were distributed; 605 teachers answered the questionnaire (a response rate of 38%). Although the response rate was low, the teachers in the sample were similar in their gender composition, education level, and seniority, to those of the entire population. The questionnaire referred to teachers’ evaluation of the extent to which different types of capital contributed to their work at school and to their relations with parents. Several scales referring to forms of capital were developed for the research purpose. Their construction was based on the literature and from semi-structured interviews conducted with 25 teachers. Content validity by five experts and an exploratory factor analysis based on 181 teachers were conducted at a pilot stage (not included in the present study). In the pilot stage, the teachers were asked to answer the questionnaire with special attention to the content items’ clarity and wording. The factor analysis made it possible to find common factors across items, so as to create various forms of capital scales.

Dependent Variables

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Parental Involvement

Collaboration with parents: Computed as an average of six items, that is, parents contribute to teachers’ work, parents assist in handling discipline problems at school, parents assist in handling social problems at school, it is important that parents are involved in what happens in the classroom, parents draw attention to the students’ difficulties; Cronbach’s α = .69.

Parents are viewed as a threat to teachers’ professional position: Computed as an average of six items, that is, parents doubt teachers’ professional work; parents intervene in teachers’ work despite lacking relevant knowledge; parental intervention makes teachers doubt their professional ability; parents introduce uncertainty into teachers’ work; as a result of parental intervention, teachers do not know what is expected of them as teachers; as a result of parental intervention, teachers feel a loss of control over their work in the classroom; Cronbach’s α = .84.

The scales ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Independent Variables

Three Types of Capital and school SES

Feminine capital: Computed as an average of eight items (e.g., empathy, intuition, caring, showing emotions, being sensitive); Cronbach’s α = .87.

Social capital: An average of seven items (e.g., consultation with other teachers or the principal, cooperation with other teachers, trust, cooperation assisted teacher’s work); Cronbach’s α = .85.

Cultural capital: Computed as an average of 14 items that describe three aspects of cultural capital: institutionalized (e.g., type of academic diploma, the institution from which the teacher graduated), objectified (e.g., language, appearance, hobbies), and embodied (e.g., values, manners, knowledge, and effort); Cronbach’s α = .82. The three capital scales ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much.

School SES: Computed by the Ministry of Education as an aggregated variable based on four elements: parents’ education, family income, percentage of immigrants, and distance from central cities. Each school got a score based on the combination of these four variables, ranging from 1 = defined as schools with a socially advantaged population to 10 = defined as low-SES schools composed of disadvantaged students. This variable is divided by the Ministry of Education into three equal levels: high-, mid-, and low-SES schools. In conducting the analyses, we referred to 0 = low-SES schools and to 1 = mid-high-SES schools (hereafter high SES).

Control Variables

Gender: 1 = female; 0 = male. We controlled for gender as prior studies indicated that gender may be associated with different types of relations with parents.

Seniority in teaching: In years. In prior studies (Addi-Raccah & Elyashiv-Arviv, 2008). This variable was found to be of significant importance regarding the teachers’ ability to cope with parents.

Full-time work: 1 = work full-time; 0 = work part-time. We control for this variable based on the notion that teachers who are more present in school may also have more extensive relations with parents.

Estimation of parents’ involvement at school: Teachers were asked to estimate the involvement of parents in five areas: teaching methods, evaluation, fundraising, homework, and grading (Cronbach’s α = .86). The scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). It is important to control for this variable as it reflects the extent to which teachers estimate parents involvement in school, and thus may explain their exposure to parents and attitudes toward them.

Homeroom teachers: 0 = no; 1 = yes. Homeroom teachers are the major factor in school that has close interactions with parents, and they frequently serve as mediators between parents and other teachers.

School level: Computed as 0 = secondary school; 1 = elementary school. We controlled for this variable as studies show that parental involvement in elementary school is more prominent than in secondary school (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1996).

Data Analyses

For data analyses and examining the first research hypothesis, description analyses, i.e. means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlations, were conducted. In addition, as teachers are nested within schools, several multilevel regression analyses were conducted, based on MIXED analysis as computed by SPSS software. Several models were applied for examining the second and third research hypotheses. The first one is a null model to learn whether schools differed in their teachers’ view regarding collaboration and threat. In the second model, we were interested to learn if school SES has a differential impact on teachers’ attitudes (e.g., related with the variance of the intercept). In the third model, we examined whether the effect of the three forms of capital on threat or collaboration varies across schools (e.g., related with the variance of the slopes). In the second and third models, we included the independent variables at the teacher (Level 1) and school level (Level 2) to learn about the effect of the forms of capital on teachers’ view, once controlling for relevant variables. While performing the statistical analyses, sample weighing at the individual level (Level 1) was taken into consideration.

Findings

The findings presented in Table 1 showed that 41.6% of the teachers work in high-SES schools. Most of the teachers are female (81.7%); have many years of teaching experience (M = 17.07, SD = 11.0); are highly educated, with 37.4% having an advanced academic degree (MA degree); half are homeroom teachers; and the majority work full-time in school (77.5%). That is, the teachers in this study can be defined as a well-established professional group. The findings also showed that teachers estimated that parents are not overly involved in school (M = 1.91, SD = .85 ranging from 1 = low to 5 = high).

Table 1.

Teachers’ Characteristics in Low- and High-SES Schools.

	Low SES	High SES	Total
N	250	356	606
% females	82.8	81.1	81.7
Seniority M	18.21	16.16	17.07*
SD	12.12	10.03	11.00
% MA education	41.2	34.7	37.4
% full-time work	75.2	78.8	77.5*
Parent involvement M	1.75	2.00	1.91*
SD	.76	.89	.85
% homeroom teachers	50.0	50.0	50.0
% elementary school	63.2	55.1	58.4*

P < .05.

Several significant differences were found between high- and low-SES schools. Teachers in low-SES schools had more years of teaching experience than teachers who worked in high-SES schools (M = 18.21, SD = 12.12 vs. M = 16.16, SD = 10.03, t = 2.185, df = 567, p < .01). In low-SES schools, more teachers worked full-time. The study also showed that there were more low-SES elementary schools than high-SES schools. It was also found, as in other studies, that in low-SES schools, teachers reported less parental involvement than in high-SES schools (M = 2.00, SD = .89 vs. M = 1.75, SD = .76,t = 3.50, df = 571, p < .01).

Figure 1 refers to teachers’ view of their relations with parents. The findings revealed that teachers’ relations with parents were diversified, and encompassed collaboration and threat. The correlation between these two variables is positive and significant (r = .236). Teachers also reported collaboration with parents more than threat. Furthermore, it was found that teachers employed in high-SES schools reported viewing parents as a threat more than did teachers from low-SES schools (M = 2.82 and 2.58 respectively, t = 2.848; df = 583; p < .05). No significant difference was found in regard to collaboration. In high- and low-SES schools, teachers reported that they collaborate with parents to a similar extent (M = 2.87 and 2.80 respectively).

Figure 1.

Means of teachers’ view of their interactions with parents in low- and high SES.

As for the capital that teachers possess for performing their work at school, the whole sample indicated that feminine capital (M = 4.21) assists them in their work, thereafter social capital (M = 4.11) and to a lesser extent cultural capital (M = 3.91). These three forms of capital were found to be positively and significantly related (r = .488; .386, and .351). However, according to the data presented in Figure 2, no significant differences were found between teachers in high- and low-SES schools. Teachers were found to activate their capitals to a similar extent.

Figure 2.

Means of teachers’ capital possibly activated in their work in low- and high-SES schools.

Table 2 presents the results of multilevel regression analyses, and shows two models for each dependent variable: threat and collaboration. The first model is the null model. From these analyses, we can learn that in regard to viewing parents as a threat, 8.15% of the variance of this variable is accounted for by differences between schools.² As for teachers’ views regarding collaboration with parents, only 4.2% of the variance is between schools and it is almost significant (p < .052). In this case, most of the variance of this variable is between individual teachers. In the second model, the final model, in columns 3 and 4 in Table 2, we included all the independent variables at the teachers’ and schools’ level. All variables were centered around the grand mean, except for the dummy variables. The findings presented in column 3 show that the three types of capital exert a significant effect of viewing parents as a threat. It was found that social capital and activating female capital decreased teachers’ perception of parents as a threat, whereas activating cultural capital was related with an increase in viewing parents as a threat. In addition, it was found that estimating parents as being involved in school is positively related with viewing parents as a threat. Furthermore, full-time teachers who are much more present in school also reported viewing parents as a threat, more than part-time teachers did. None of the other independent variables exerted any significant effect. The teachers’ variables explained 24% of the variance at the individual level. In regard to school variables, the findings show that teachers in high-SES schools and elementary schools report more about relations of threat with parents than do teachers from low-SES or secondary schools, respectively. These two variables explained 75% of the variance between schools. When included in the analyses, the differences between schools became non-significant.

Table 2.

Results of Multilevel Regression Analyses for Predicting Teachers’ Views of Their Relations With Parents.

	Null model		Final model
	Threat	Collaboration	Threat	Collaboration
Intercept	2.613* (0.071)	2.840* (0.034)	2.155* (0.142)	2.642* (0.096)
Gender (1 = female)			−0.058 (0.097)	−0.045 (0.068)
Seniority			−0.003 (0.004)	−0.012* (0.002)
Education (1 = MA)			0.076 (0.077)	0.053 (0.054)
Full-time work			0.233* (0.097)	0.216* (0.067)
Homeroom teacher			−0.113 (0.076)	0.136* (0.053)
Parental involvement			0.224* (0.043)	0.166* (0.030)
Cultural capital			0.367* (0.087)	0.080 (0.061)
Social capital			−0.271* (0.069)	0.113* (0.048)
Feminine capital			−0.232* (0.077)	−0.126* (0.054)
School SES			0.256* (0.106)	−0.007 (0.069)
School level (1 = elementary)			0.453* (0.11)	−0.012 (0.072)
Residual	1.073651	.424425	.812244	.398245
Intercept variance	.104481*	.017906#	.034799	.012357
−2 restricted log likelihood	2,293.004	1,556.247	1,754.718	1,292.308

p < .05. ^#p = .052.

While addressing teachers’ attitudes regarding collaboration with parents, the findings revealed that activating social capital is associated with having positive and collaborative relations with parents. However, female capital decreases collaboration: that is, teachers who tend to show more caring and understanding toward others reported less collaboration with parents. These findings are discussed later. As for cultural capital, it was not related to reporting about collaboration with parents. Other teachers’ characteristics were found to be relevant to cultivating collaborative relations with parents. They include having many years of experience in teaching that decreases collaboration, and working full-time and being homeroom teachers, both of which increase teachers’ view of having collaborative relations with parents. All these variables were positively related with teachers’ reporting about collaboration with parents. All the individual variables explained only 6% of the variance between individual teachers.

For examining the third research hypothesis—that teachers in high-SES schools will need to activate more resources to interact with parents than teachers in low-SES schools—we examined whether the effect of the three types of capital varies across schools; however, no significant differences were found for any of these variables. Namely, the effect of the three types of capital is similar within each school. More precisely, teachers activate their capital to a similar extent in the different schools, including low- and high-SES schools. This analysis, i.e. the third model, was not reported. It can be summarized that when comparing threat and collaboration, we can state that viewing parents as a threat is related to both individual and school context more than collaborating with parents. At the individual teacher level, different forms of capital were found to be related and activated when viewing parents as a threat rather than when collaborating with parents. Furthermore, threat compared with collaboration is context dependent, as threat is stronger in high-SES elementary schools.

Conclusion

Neo-liberal policies in education have challenged teachers’ relations with parents, who have become significant and powerful interest groups in schools. The present study revealed that teachers perceived parental involvement as associated with diverse relations with parents, that include collaboration and threat. This is the case in low-SES schools, and particularly so in high-SES schools, as expected from the first research hypothesis. Thus, high level relations of threat and collaboration coexisted in regard to teachers in high-SES more than those in low-SES schools. In the latter, parents can be viewed as less involved in school; once involved, however, their relations with teachers are perceived to be as collaborative as with parents in high-SES schools. These findings may indicate that teachers do not necessarily differentiate between parents of low- and high SES. When parents are involved in school, teachers collaborate with them. The extent to which this occurs seems to be dependent on the capital they use. It appears then that in explaining teachers’ views of their interactions with parents, diverse forms of capital can serve as an appropriate conceptual framework. In this study, three forms of capital were examined: feminine, social, and cultural. Teachers possess various forms of capital for performing their work, with feminine capital being the most prominent. The dominance of this form of capital is feasible for at least two reasons: first, teaching is associated with children’s well-being and education, hence having a higher capacity for empathy and caring is beneficial. Second, feminine capital is associated with females more than males, and as females constitute the dominant workforce in schools, this type of capital seems to be more relevant for school as a female occupation. Feminine capital was found to decrease possible threat but also to decrease collaboration. This may reflect the limited power of this type of capital. As Huppatz (2012) indicates, the use of feminine capital is more tactical than strategic. It contributes to moderating and decreasing negative relations, but does not help in creating and developing collaborative relations that can advance, encourage, and involve parents in schools. In this context, feminine capital helps to keep parents at a distance without conflicts. This may raise some criticism regarding feminine capital as a significant asset that can alter power relations, and serve as a positional good.

Teachers were also found to emphasize their social capital. In the present study, this capital addresses the internal relations developed within school with colleagues. Teachers often count on their colleagues to support them, and establish social networks with experts (e.g., school counselors or principals) and with influential co-workers at school who hold formal and authority roles (e.g., school consultant, the head of a department, or the school principal). As such, they draw their own authority over demanding parents from colleagues in high-ranking positions, and gain additional knowledge on ways of coping with parents. Social capital appears to be of significance for decreasing threat. It may help teachers to feel more secure when facing parents from a position of power, rather than being alone. Simultaneously, social capital serves as an asset that reinforces teacher–parent collaboration and thus may be significant in establishing a cohesive and functional community, as Coleman (1988) suggests. As for cultural capital, it was found to be less related to parents’ interaction, and it also appears to differentiate between parents and teachers. We can assume that teachers are concerned about their professional standing, regarding themselves as professionals who know better than parents; any parental intervention could thus be regarded as unwanted and as threatening their position. It is highly likely that they act to exclude parents from over-involvement in school matters. By relying on their cultural assets, these teachers differentiate themselves from parents; they emphasize their professional competencies and, by doing so, are trying to protect their profession. This approach seems to raise conflicts with parents. Apparently, teachers use their individual capitals when dealing with parents. However, they do not activate their capital to a similar degree. Different forms of capital are related to different interactions with parents. Furthermore, although teachers may be exposed to a different intensity of parental involvement in low- compared with high-SES schools, the extent to which they activate their capital is similar across schools. In contrast to the third research hypothesis (H3), teachers appear to be “context-free” in their reactions toward parents. In all schools, teachers do not favor parents and primarily attempt to protect their profession and set boundaries between themselves and parents. That is, teachers as professionals may resist parents’ involvement in school, an approach that is probably internalized at an early stage in their career development (Dor & Rucker-Naidu, 2012).

It seems that although changes in school governance and decentralization had taken place, they were not followed with fundamental changes in teachers’ practice and work, as Cuban (2013) concludes regarding school reforms:

Assuming that structural changes will directly lead to changing traditional teaching practices in complex organizations like districts and schools without making distinctions between quality in teaching and quality of teachers have left a trail of broken dreams, wrecked careers, and “oops!” from policy makers who have departed for different jobs. (p. 119)

This may also be the case for parent–teacher relations. Despite the changes between school and its external environment, these changes had not been internalized by teachers who use their forms of capital to moderate parental intervention or involvement in schools.

This study constitutes only one small step toward understanding teacher–parent relations while taking into account diverse forms of capital, including feminine capital that has not gained much attention so far. The study has several limitations that need to be taken into account. First, it examined teachers’ relations with parents from the perspective of the former. It is also important to obtain insights from parents, school principals, and other stakeholders. Second, some methodological limitations must be taken into consideration when generalizing from the present study. As, in theoretical terms, different forms of capital play different roles in teacher–parent relations, future studies should continue to probe this issue regarding other aspects of teachers’ work. Moreover, the link between teacher–parent relations and forms of capital should be examined in other sociocultural contexts to reach a more general and universal understanding of teachers’ interactions with parents. For example, because the Israeli educational system is segmented along ethnic and religious lines, different patterns of parental involvement may occur in other sectors (e.g., in Arab or Jewish religious state schools).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Audrey Addi-Raccah (PhD) is an associate professor at Tel-Aviv University. Her main interests are in social inequality and stratification and educational administration. Her current studies focus on power relations within school and between school and its environment. Within this scope, parents–teachers relations within different social contexts stand at the center of her research.

Yael Grinshtain (PhD) is a member at the Academic Department of Education and Psychology at the Open University of Israel. Her main interests are gender and ethnicity in the teaching occupation and educational leadership. Her current studies focus on teachers’ resources in different contexts—Arab and Jewish; Periphery and Center spatial.

References

Addi-Raccah

(2012). Teachers’ trust in role partners, intention to continue in teaching, and schools’ social composition in Israel. Urban Education, 47, 835-864.

Addi-Raccah

Einhorn

(2009). School governance and teachers’ attitudes to parents’ involvement in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 805-813.

Addi-Raccah

Elyashiv-Arviv

(2008). Parent empowerment and teachers professionalism: Teachers’ perspective. Urban Education, 43, 394-415.

Adkins

(2004). Freedom or habit of gender? In Adkins

Skeggs

(Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 191-211). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Antonopoulou

Koutrouba

Babalis

(2011). Parental involvement in secondary education schools: The views of parents in Greece. Educational Studies, 37, 333-344. doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.506332

Atkinson

(2009). Rethinking the work-class nexus: Theoretical foundations for recent trends. Sociology, 43, 896-912.

Bæck

U.-D. K.

(2005). School as an arena for activating cultural capital. Understanding differences in parental involvement in school. Nordisk Pedagogik, 25, 217-228.

Bæck

U.-D. K.

(2010). “We are the professionals”: A study of teachers’ views on parental involvement in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 323-335.

Ball

Youdell

(2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Brussels, Belgium: Education International.

10.

Baquedano-López

Alexander

R. A.

Hernandez

S. J.

(2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149-182.

11.

Baum

A. C.

McMurray-Schwarz

(2004). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about family involvement: Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 57-61.

12.

Bennett

Savage

Silva

E. B.

Warde

Gayo-Cal.

Wright

(2009). Culture, class, distinction. London, England: Routledge.

13.

Blasé

(1987). The politics of teaching: The teacher-parent relationship and the dynamics of diplomacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 53-60.

14.

Borgonovi

Montt

(2012). Parental involvement in selected PISA countries and economies (OECD Working Papers, No. 73). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/5k990rk0jsjj-en

15.

Bottery

(2003). The management and mismanagement of trust. Educational Management & Administration, 31, 245-261.

16.

Bourdieu

(1984). Distinction—A social critique of the judgment of taste. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

17.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.

18.

Bourdieu

Passeron

J. C.

(1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: SAGE.

19.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Brantlinger

(2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes school advantage. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.

21.

Burch

(2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Caldwell

B. J.

(2010). Developing leadership capital. In Davies

Brundett

(Eds.), Developing successful leadership (pp. 155-175). London, England: Springer.

23.

Ciabattari

(2010). Cultural capital, social capital, and educational inequality. Childhood Education, 87, 119-121.

24.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95-S120.

25.

Cuban

(2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 109-125.

26.

De-Caravalho

M. E. P.

(2001). Rethinking family–school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Dor

Rucker-Naidu

(2012). Teachers’ attitudes toward parents’ involvement in school: Comparing teachers in the USA and Israel. Issues in Educational Research, 22, 246-262.

28.

Dusi

(2012). The family-school relationships in Europe: A research review. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2, 13-34.

29.

Eccles

J. S.

Harold

R. D.

(1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In Booth

Dunn

J. F.

(Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Epstein

J. L.

(1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

31.

Epstein

J. L.

(2001). School, family and community partnership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

32.

Forbes

(2006). Types of social capital: Tools to explore service integration? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 565-580.

33.

Forsyth

P. B.

Adams

C. M.

(2008, April). Control or trust: Parents and teachers cooperating. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

34.

Friedman

(2011). School-parents relationship in Israel. Studies in Educational Administration and Organization, 32, 237-267. [in Hebrew]

35.

Goldring

E. B.

(1992). System-wide diversity in Israel: Principals as transformational and environmental leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 63-76.

36.

Goldring

E. B.

Rallis

S. F.

(1993). Principals of dynamic schools: Taking charge of change. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

37.

Goldring

E. B.

Shapira

(1993). Choice, empowerment, and involvement: What satisfies parents? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 369-409.

38.

González

R. L.

Jackson

C. L.

(2012). Engaging with parents: The relationship between school engagement efforts, social class, and learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24, 316-335.

39.

Groundwater-Smith

Sachs

(2002). The activist professional and the reinstatement of trust. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 341-358.

40.

Harvey

(2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

41.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740-763.

42.

Hirsto

(2010). Strategies in home and school collaboration among early education teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 99-108.

43.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Bassler

O. C.

Brissie

J. S.

(1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 417-435.

44.

Hornby

Lafaele

(2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63, 37-52.

45.

Horvat

E. M.

Weininger

E. B.

Lareau

(2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 319-351.

46.

Huppatz

(2009). Reworking Bourdieu’s “capital”: Feminine and female capitals in the field of paid caring work. Sociology, 43, 45-66.

47.

Huppatz

(2012). Gender capital at work: Intersections of femininity, masculinity, class and occupation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

Huppatz

(2015). Social class and the classroom: A reflection on the role of schooling and mothering in the production and reproduction of disadvantage and privilege. In Ferfolja

Diaz

C. J.

Uiiman

(Eds.), Understanding sociological theory for educational practices (pp. 163-179). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Huppatz

Goodwin

(2013). Masculinized jobs, feminized jobs and men’s “gender capital” experiences: Understanding occupational segregation in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 49, 291-308.

50.

Jeynes

(2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706-742.

51.

Kalin

Čuk

M, P.

(2012). Editorial. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2, 5-11.

52.

Katz

(1997). Effective collaboration between teachers and parents in Israel: A strategy for improvement in the educational process. Pastoral Care, 15(4), 14-18.

53.

Kingston

P. W.

(2001). The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory. Sociology of Education, 74, 88-99.

54.

Landeros

(2011). Defining the “good mother” and the “professional teacher”: Parent–teacher relationships in an affluent school district. Gender and Education, 23, 247-262.

55.

Lareau

(1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

56.

Lareau

(2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

57.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

58.

Lareau

Calarco

J. M. C.

(2012). Class, cultural capital, and institutions: The case of families and schools. In Fiske

S. T.

Markus

H. R.

(Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 61-86). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

59.

Lareau

Horvat

E. M.

(1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37-53.

60.

Lareau

Weininger

E. B.

(2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32, 567-606.

61.

Lawler

(2004). Rules of engagement: Habitus, power and resistance. In Adkins

Skeggs

(Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 110-128). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

62.

Lewis

A. E.

Forman

T. A.

(2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study of home–school relations. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33, 60-89.

63.

López

Madrid

Sisto

(2012). “Red light” in Chile: Parents participating as consumers of education under global neoliberal policies. In Cuadra-Montiel

(Ed.), Globalization—Education and management agendas (pp. 45-74). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. Retrieved from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/38274/InTech-red_light_in_chile_parents_participating_as_consumers_of_education_under_global_neoliberal_policies.pdf

64.

Lovell

(2004). Bourdieu, class and gender: “The return of the living dead?” In Adkins

Skeggs

(Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 37-54). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

65.

Malen

Cochran

M. V.

(2008). Beyond pluralistic patterns of power: Research on the micropolitics of schools. In Cooper

Cibulka

Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 148-178). New York, NY: Routledge.

66.

Mawhinney

H. B.

(1998). School wars or school transformation: Professionalizing teaching and involving communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 36-55.

67.

McCall

(1992). Does gender fit? Bourdieu, feminism and conceptions of social order. Theory and Society, 21, 837-867.

68.

Nir

A. E.

(2003). The impact of school-based management on public schools in Israel. Curriculum and Teaching, 18, 65-80.

69.

Nir

A. E.

Ben-Ami

(2005). School-parents relationship in the era of school-based management: Harmony or conflict? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 55-72.

70.

Nir

A. E.

Bogler

(2012). Parental involvement in school governance and decision making in Israel. Journal of School Public Relations, 33, 216-236.

71.

Noy

(2014). Whose child is this? The relationship between parents and school. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Mofet. (in Hebrew)

72.

Ogawa

R. T.

(1998). Organizing parent-teacher relations around the work of teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 6-14.

73.

Oostdam

Hooge

(2012). Making the difference with active parenting; forming educational partnerships between parents and schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 337-351.

74.

Park

Holloway

S. D.

(2013). No parent left behind: Predicting parental involvement in adolescents’ education within a socio demographically diverse population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 105-119.

75.

Peček

Čuk

Lesar

(2008). Teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of marginalized groups. Educational Studies, 34, 225-239.

76.

Reay

Croizer

James

(2011). White middle-class identities and urban schooling. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

77.

Ross

W. E.

Gibson

(2007). Neo-liberalism and the education reform. New York, NY: Hampton Press.

78.

Ross-Smith

Huppatz

(2010). Management, women and gender capital. Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 547-566.

79.

Schneidhofer

T. M.

Latzke

Mayrhofer

(2015). Careers as sites of power: A relational understanding of careers based on Bourdieu’s cornerstones. In Tatli

Ozbilgin

Karatas-Ozkan

(Eds.), Pierre Bourdieu, organization, and management (pp. 19-36). New York, NY: Routledge.

80.

Sheldon

S. B.

Epstein

J. L.

Galindo

C. L.

(2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership climate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 27-48.

81.

Siisiainen

(2000, July 5-8). Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam—The Third Sector: For what and for whom? Paper presented at ISTR Fourth International Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

82.

Skeggs

(1997). Formations of class and gender: Becoming respectable. London, England: SAGE.

83.

Skeggs

(2004). Context and background: Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of class, gender and sexuality. In Adkins

Skeggs

(Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 19-35). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

84.

Spillane

Hallett

Diamond

(2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76, 1-17.

85.

Stacer

M. J.

Perrucci

(2012). Parental involvement with children at school, home, and community. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34, 340-354. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10834-012-9335-y

86.

Tamir

(2010). Capital, power and the struggle over teacher certification. Educational Policy, 24, 465-499.

87.

Thijs

Eilbracht

(2012). Teachers’ perceptions of parent–teacher alliance and student–teacher relational conflict: Examining the role of ethnic differences and “disruptive” behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 794-808.

88.

Thompson

J. B.

(1991). Editor’s introduction. In Thompson

J. B.

(Ed.), Language, and symbolic power (pp. 1-31). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

89.

Todd

E. S.

Higgins

(1998). Powerless in professional and parent partnerships. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 227-236.

90.

Tschannen-Moran

(2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308-331.

91.

Tschannen-Moran

(2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 217-247.

92.

Vincent

Rollock

Ball

Gillborn

(2012). Being strategic, being watchful, being determined: Black middle-class parents and schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33, 337-354.

93.

Volansky

(2003). From experiment to educational policy: The transition to school-based management in Israeli schools. In Volansky

Friedman

I. A.

(Eds.), School-based management: An international perspective (pp. 93-116). Jerusalem: State of Israel, Ministry of Education.

94.

Waller

(1932). The sociology of teaching. New York, NY: Russell and Russell.

95.

Wanat

C. L.

(2012). Home-school relationships: Networking in one district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 275-295.

96.

Weininger

E. B.

Lareau

(2003). Translating Bourdieu into the American context: The question of social class and family-school relations. Poetics, 31, 375-402.