Applying the Epstein Model to Investigate Parent Involvement in Public Primary Schools in Kenya

Abstract

Parent involvement in Kenya has mainly been limited to making financial contributions and serving on mandated school-parent bodies. Given the dire need to improve the quality of education, it is important to understand the role of parents in the provision of education. A qualitative research design explored the implementation of this model in primary schools in the Embu West District in Kenya. The findings revealed that limited parent involvement was a result of free primary education (FPE); the lack of a policy on parent involvement; the illiteracy of parents; parents’ work commitments; lack of confidence in some parents; time constraints; the gendered nature of parent involvement; and the lack of parenting skills.

Keywords

Free primary education Kenya parent involvement parents principals public primary schools teachers pupils

Introduction

There is increasing evidence of the sustained benefits and value of parent involvement (Brannon, 2008: 57; Hornby and Witte, 2010: 771; LaRocque et al., 2011: 115; Niemeyer et al., 2009: 632), which include higher student achievement, pupils’ educational progress, improved quality of education, and improved perceptions of children’s competence in the higher primary grades and in high school (European Commission, 2001: 46). Since effective parent involvement could lead to improved student performance, it is essential to develop strategies to increase the involvement of parents (Hill and Chao, 2009; LaRocque et al., 2011: 115). Moreover, these benefits may occur irrespective of the socio-economic group to which the family belongs. However, although school success is linked to parent involvement, schools do not succeed in establishing strong links between the school and the home (Lemmer, 2007: 218; Symeou, 2007: 473).

Since the teacher–parent relationship is critical to pupils’ success, many countries now have legislation to ensure that parents are involved in their children’s education more than previously (Friedman, 2011: 1). A vast number of studies were done on parent involvement in different countries. For example, the studies of Lemmer (2007) and Lemmer and Van Wyk (2004) focused on parent involvement in South African primary schools, while Ryan et al. (2010) examined cultural orientation and ethnicity as predictors of Latino and White American parents’ views of and involvement in their children’s education. The study of Peterson and colleagues (2011) investigated how teachers, parents and pupils from three different socio-economic communities in New Zealand identified those who were responsible for student success, while Hornby and Witte (2010) surveyed the practice of parent involvement in rural elementary schools in New Zealand. The study of Hayes (2011) examined the predictors of home and parent involvement for high school pupils within two groups of African-American parents from different socio-economic backgrounds. Cheung and Pomerantz (2011) investigated parent involvement in student learning, as well as parents’ psychological control and autonomy support in the United States and China. Finally, Hung (2007) examined the extent to which parents’ involvement in Taiwanese schools is related to primary pupil outcomes.

The need for the effective involvement of parents in the education of their children over and above financial contributions in schools has largely been unrecognized in Kenya. Given the benefits outlined earlier, effective parent involvement would be a particularly suitable means of improving education in a developing country like Kenya. Against this background, the article reports on part of the investigation done for a doctoral thesis (Kimu, 2012). The broad research aim of the study was to design an effective parent involvement programme that focused on the provision of various opportunities for parent involvement and to identify obstacles that affect effective parent involvement. This was considered to be a key strategy in education transformation in Kenya with its inadequate resources.

There is no common model for parent involvement and the needs of schools will differ depending on their strengths and backgrounds. This implies that parent involvement is practised in many different ways (Epstein and Jansorn, 2004: 19–23). According to Feuerstein (2000: 29), the more types of parent involvement schools embrace, the greater are the benefits. While a variety of models exist, the most comprehensive model is that of Epstein (1995: 704). This article explores the existing principles and practices pertaining to parent involvement in Kenyan public primary schools in the light of the framework provided by Epstein’s model.

The initiative of welcoming, supporting and using parents in schools remains with the individual schools. Moreover, each school must implement all educational policies, including those pertaining to parent involvement, which implies that schools have the power to advance or hinder the aims of national policy-makers. The implementation of free education and the challenges associated with them in Kenya are examined in the next section.

Challenges Facing the Kenyan Education System

Since independence in 1963, the Kenyan government has committed itself to the provision of education to all its citizens in order to eradicate illiteracy, poverty, ignorance and diseases (Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MOEST], 2001: 73). The goal of Kenya’s primary education is to provide access to quality education for all children of school-going age on an equitable basis, ensuring education for all (EFA; Republic of Kenya MOEST, 2001: 25).

The free primary education (FPE) initiative has led to a rapid rise in enrolments at primary-school level and there have been many challenges in the implementation of FPE. These challenges include obtaining capital where facilities are not sufficient, maintaining education quality as enrolment increases in schools and ensuring that retention rates are maintained in areas where factors such as famine, nomadism and female genital mutilation counter retention of pupils in school (Ngaroga, 2006: 52; Oketch and Somerset, 2010: 6; Republic of Kenya, 2008: 16).

Kenya has provided for various roles that parents can play in education (Republic of Kenya 1999: 82). The Education Act, 2008, provides for parents to be represented on the school management committee (SMC) (Republic of Kenya, 2008). Institutional governance structures such as school committees, parent–teacher associations and school boards of governors reflect the interests of all stakeholders served by the school. The education system also assigns a role to parents in establishing the infrastructure, particularly in the construction of schools, and ensuring that sound educational programmes take place in schools.

Only a few parents are legally involved in school management activities and their effective role has not been fully recognized. Considering the findings of international studies, this study to investigate parent involvement in Kenyan schools was viewed as timely. The aim of the project was therefore to conduct an exploratory study of parent involvement in primary schools to identify gaps in the provision of parent involvement in the selected schools.

Theoretical Framework

The literature reveals a variety of parent involvement models, such as: Gordon’s 1977 Family Impact; the School Impact and the Community Impact models (Gordon, 1977: 74–7); Swap’s School-to-Home Transmission; the Curriculum Enrichment and the Partnership models (Swap, 1992: 57); Comer’s School Development Programmes (1988: 24); and Epstein’s model (1995: 704).

Epstein’s 1995 model for comprehensive parent involvement is the most widely used and accepted model; it outlines six types of parent involvement in child support and provision of suitable activities for learning. Epstein’s typology, which forms the basis of a framework for understanding Kenya’s parental involvement in children’s education in this study, includes the following types of parent involvement (Epstein et al., 1997):

Type 1 – Parenting: helping families to establish conducive home environments to support their children’s learning and helping schools to understand family cultures and backgrounds to the benefit of their children.

Type 2 – Communicating: focusing on effective two-way communication channels between the school and the home.

Type 3 – Volunteering: improving the recruitment, training and schedules of volunteers to assist teachers and at other events at the school, and enabling teachers to work with volunteers who can support the school and pupils.

Type 4 – Learning at home: involving parents in the academic learning of their children, including goal-setting, homework assignments and other curriculum-related activities.

Type 5 – Decision-making: including parents as participants in governance, making school decisions and advocacy activities through various school committees and parent organizations.

Type 6 – Collaborating with the community: coordinating services and resources for parents, pupils and the school with various community groups, including businesses, agencies, cultural and civic organizations and colleges or universities, and enabling all to render their services to the community.

Epstein’s model was considered to be most suitable for investigating parent involvement in Kenya since is it considered to be the most comprehensive model of partnerships in the literature (Lemmer and Van Wyk, 2004: 260).

Empiprical Investigation

Mode of Investigation

With a view to understanding parent involvement in Kenya, a qualitative research design was adopted, which aimed at gaining an understanding of a social phenomenon, in this case parent involvement in primary schools in Kenya. The study employed an interpretive paradigm which is concerned with participants’ subjective accounts of their experiences and views of parent involvement (Johnson and Christensen, 2011: 265–6). Multi-method strategies were used in collecting data, including semi-structured interviews with principals, focus group interviews with teachers and parents, field notes and official documents.

The sampling population for this study was the Embu West District which was typical of public primary schools in Kenya in terms of staffing and parent involvement. The area had permanent residents from different ethnic groups representing various socio-economic backgrounds. The greater part of the population in Kenya lives below the poverty line (Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, 2005: 122), while slow economic growth and the lack of economic opportunities exacerbate the effects of poverty and feelings of helplessness in the rural and urban areas. The Embu area has high agricultural potential but the people are poor due to the decline in agricultural productivity. Unemployment is rife and there is rampant poverty in the large slum areas such as Dallas, Majengo and Majimbo, which are the feeder areas for the schools. Against this background, the introduction of FPE provided great relief to the people.

Nine schools were purposively selected based on socio-economic classification: three from a marginalized/low-income rural area, three rural schools that were well established, and three urban schools (McMillan and Schumacher, 2006: 319). Accordingly, the study selected a representative sample of public primary schools in the selected zones based on whether they were urban, semi-urban or rural. Individual interviews were conducted with the school principals, while focus group interviews were conducted separately with staff and with parents from each school. The teachers’ focus groups included all the class teachers (eight participants) and subject panel heads (six participants), while the parent focus groups included parents with children in lower primary school classes and the parents of children in upper primary school classes, regardless of their cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The participants in the parent focus groups also involved the chairperson and the treasurer of the school management committee (SMC), together with four randomly selected parents who belonged to the school parents’ body, but who were non-members of the SMC. The majority of parents interviewed was female, had at least primary education and were in their late 20s. A few were in their mid-30s and there was one older parent of about 55 years of age. Some were married, while others were single parents. The mothers were mostly homemakers, while some were working, but fell into a very low-income bracket.

Semi-structured interviews that revolved around some central questions based on a framework adapted from Epstein were used (Leedy and Ormond, 2001: 159). The interviews focused on parents’, teachers’ and the principals’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes about parent involvement (Lemmer, 2000: 67). Ethical measures, such as ensuring that participants were willing to participate in the study and informing them that they were free to leave the interview at any time; respecting their privacy by protecting their anonymity; and treating all of them with respect were adhered to. Two focus group discussions with teachers (the subject panel heads and the class teachers) and parents (those with children in lower classes and those with children in upper classes) were conducted in each school. In addition to participating in the focus group, the participants completed a fact sheet to capture demographic data which was likely to have an effect on the participants’ experiences of parent involvement. Eighteen individual teacher interviews (two per school) were carried out to determine teachers’ views, feelings, perspectives and attitudes towards parent involvement.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed and data analysis began while the interviews were still under way (McMillan and Schumacher, 2006: 373). Since the Epstein model was used as the framework for this investigation, the categories were presented within the six types of parent involvement identified by Epstein. The themes were discussed within this framework as it facilitated cross-referencing to the literature. The analysed data were presented as readable narrative descriptions and their accompanying interpretations. In this study, Lincoln and Guba’s model for ensuring the trustworthiness of qualitative data was used, which includes truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 231–8).

Discussion of Findings

A brief description of the schools is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

The schools that participated in the study.

School	Location	Number of pupils	Feeder area
A	Urban	1,015	Urban slums
B	Rural	810	Rural and urban
C	Semi-urban	1,008	Rural and urban
D	Urban	950	Rural and urban
E	Rural	672	Rural
F	Rural	430	Rural and urban
G	Rural	412	Rural
H	Semi-urban	320	Rural and urban
I	Rural	1,072	Rural

The school details in terms of location, number of pupils and the feeder areas were depicted. Schools in the rural areas had poorer facilities than those in urban areas. Regarding physical facilities, some schools were inadequately resourced, especially in terms of classrooms (schools B and C), school grounds (school G) and security fencing (schools F and G), but some had administration offices (schools A, B, D and F). All the schools visited reported inadequate staff numbers. Several schools had about 1,000 pupils in approximately 20 classrooms with an average of one teacher per class. Out of necessity, schools had to combine classes so that no pupils would be left without a teacher. In addition, teachers taught many lessons and subjects and had difficulty in monitoring and supervising the work of pupils. Nuclear families in the district were the majority, although there were many single parents, especially single mothers, and a few grandparents who cared for the children.

The participants in the study only emphasized what they expected parents to do as part of their involvement. The state of affairs since the implementation of free education changed parents’ involvement in schools; principal E concisely described the state of parent involvement as ‘quite minimal and unlike before the FPE, which has put parents further away … they think that education is for the government and not theirs and the schools’. This was confirmed by a teacher in school G who reported:

They think that once they have brought the child to school that is the end of it all … Parents fail to understand that they must play their part and that education cannot be given wholly free.

The conditions regarding parent involvement were exacerbated by the fact that teachers were not trained to involve parents in schools. None of the teachers interviewed had done a course on parent involvement specifically, and they admitted that they had learned through maturity and experience. As a result, working with parents was one of the challenges faced by new teachers in particular.

The study revealed a diversity of parent involvement practices among the schools; it also showed that certain types of collaboration between parents and schools were in place in some of the schools and missing in others. The data analysis followed Epstein’s six types of parent involvement (Epstein, 1995: 704): parenting, volunteering, communication, learning at home, decision-making and collaboration with the community. Due to limited space not all responses could be presented, and only appropriate examples were selected as examples of responses. The analysis is presented in the following sections.

Parenting: A Home Environment to Support Children’s Learning

Poverty, overcrowding and instability were common in Embu West, placing enormous strain on normal family relations. Teachers observed that poverty led to a lack of parent involvement and cooperation with the school. Parents in this district made a living by farming and usually discontinued their children’s schooling temporarily during peak seasons so that they could work on the farm. Since such parents could not afford hired labour, and perceived that there were few chances of employment after school, they did not see the value of further education beyond completing primary school. The necessity for both parents to be employed in order to earn a living caused further disruption of families, leaving some children under the supervision of their grandparents.

The type of family also influenced the role of parenting. Single and working parents experienced different levels of difficulty in their commitment to their children’s education. A teacher from school A explained that orphaned children’s guardians and the single parents work until late, they work in bars, while others go to other ‘funny’ places, leaving the children alone. These children then start to misbehave. On the other hand, in families with both parents, the mothers were more concerned with their children’s discipline than the fathers were. Parenting also depended on the size of the family, the education level and therefore the parents’ confidence in their ability to help their children. Another reason mentioned by teachers for poor homework performance was that children did not have anywhere to do their home work.

The parents showed an awareness of their basic obligations in terms of ensuring that their children attended school, providing their children’s necessities and establishing conducive home conditions. A parent from school A explained: ‘A parent has to provide for the child, pay school fees, buy everything at the school and help the child at home with his schoolwork and also provide balanced meals’. Parents also acknowledged their role in following the academic progress of their children, establishing positive values and in disciplining their children. However, the mere fact that many parents were at work all day made the follow-up regarding homework and children’s progress difficult. Moreover, according to parents there was a misconception in that some parents believed that schools wanted them to play only a limited role in their children’s education, and they accordingly delegated their responsibilities to the school.

Less importance was attached to parents’ roles in supporting the school as an institution. Parents’ responses indicated that they were not aware of the benefits of more types of involvement such as volunteering at the school and decision-making, and were thus generally satisfied with their involvement. Parents had the perception that the school was doing well without them and therefore saw little need to contribute towards improving schooling for their children. For this reason most parents did not come to the school unless there was a problem. Thus parents placed great trust in the teachers as professionals in most matters regarding their children’s education and, in their opinion, free primary education absolved them from any contributions; they felt that they did not need to play any role themselves.

It is clear that the parents interviewed were more involved in their children’s education, and so it was likely that they were also the ones who were most aware of the need for a positive parenting style. They believed that the majority of parents were not coping with parenting and very few teachers were happy about parents’ supervision in their homes. They felt that parents’ low socio-economic status was the cause of the apparent indifference towards education, and therefore parents left it to the school to mind their children. This was confirmed by a teacher (school F), who said that some parents saw teachers as ‘baby-sitters’ for their children.

The teachers emphasized the parents’ role in fulfilling their basic obligations as parents. They noted that parents had to pay school levies, buy supplementary books, be their primary educators, and also provide them with the emotional support, values and discipline which they need to learn. Teachers believed that some parents were coping while others were apathetic due to their low socio-economic status and social problems such as broken homes, single parenthood, unemployment and alcohol abuse. The latter group of parents was also hesitant and embarrassed to approach the school about their financial position.

These findings concur with Epstein (1988), who states that it is the parents’ basic obligation to provide for their children’s basic needs (Monadjem, 2003: 33). Epstein and Sheldon (2005: 4) point out that this is the case irrespective of parents’ socio-economic status or cultural background. The findings, however, show that many parents in the district were poor and that some of them did not value the education of their children. Therefore deducing that parents are uninterested because they are poor (a common stereotype that existed in schools) would be an incorrect assumption (Epstein and Sheldon, 2005: 4). They added that parents may be poorly informed about the school system and how it operates. According to Fan and Chen (2001: 19), a parenting style that includes frequent and systematic discussions with children about schoolwork and supervision, monitoring children when they return home from school and their after-school activities and overseeing time spent on homework are critical for student performance. Moreover, parent expectations and the extent to which parents communicate their academic aspirations to their children were found to be the most critical for pupils’ enhanced achievement (Nokali et al., 2010: 989).

Communication: School-to-Home and Home-to-School Communication

The commonest form of parent–teacher communication in schools in the study was by direct contact and informal discussions which were usually based on the needs of the school, the teachers or the parents. When teachers were asked how often they contacted parents, the general response was that they specifically wanted to meet the parents whose children had problems. These parents, however, were the most difficult to meet. Teachers indicated that the majority of parents seldom visited schools. Only in schools A, D, E, F and G did parents come to see the teachers of their children on their own. Teachers did not see themselves as barriers to parent involvement, but blamed the parents instead. The senior teacher from school B explained:

We actually want them [parents] to come to school, but external factors keep them away. There are those parents who are not educated, who to them, education is not important and they don’t value it. In most cases, some will bring the child to school because the chief is going around to homes to send the children out of homes to school … So, to these parents, education is of no value and they can do without it, yet still eat and live.

School communication occurred through examination reports, where parents were expected to sign reports after examinations to show that they had seen their children’s progress. Annual general meetings with the parents of each class were conducted once each term to inform parents of their children’s progress. Parents were also then informed about school levies while notices were sent to parents through their children requesting money.

Although schools attempted to encourage parent attendance of meetings by providing flexibility to the parents, the low parent turn-out showed that most of them saw little value in these meetings. A teacher (school C) expressed her frustration: ‘During the annual general meetings, only a few attend class meetings. Out of 50, only 10 attend’. However, the findings showed that the parents appreciated the opportunity these meetings gave them to understand their children’s progress and behaviour at school. A parent (school G) explained:

All parents go to their class meetings and follow what the child does … We [the teacher and parent] discuss academics, the previous term’s examination performance by pupils, and the welfare of the school such as water, maintenance of desks, classrooms and other structures within the school.

According to LaRocque et al. (2011: 120), two-way communication between the school and parents is vital for effective parent involvement. Naidoo (2005: 35) adds that parents and teachers are able to mutually understand each other’s motives, attitudes and intentions, and parents are more able to serve as resources for the academic, social and psychological development of their children with the potential for much longer-term influence. The findings, which were in line with the studies of Lemmer and Van Wyk (2004: 183) and LaRocque et al. (2011: 115), show that various forms of communication between parents and schools, including oral and written communication, existed. However, such opportunities provided by schools were often not adequately used by parents. Furthermore, Epstein observes that teachers’ good intentions might not work out well if communication with parents occurred only in connection with problems. For this reason, Nokali et al. (2010: 1002) advise that schools and teachers need to set up a structure of positive communication in order to lay the foundation for good interactions with teachers and the school for the sake of effective teaching.

Volunteering: School Programmes for Parent Support

The schools in this study did not involve parents volunteering to help in the classroom. Moreover, there were no structures in schools to allow parents to volunteer in the classroom or to supervise other activities during the school day. Teachers were enthusiastic about involving educated parents to assist them, although they did not allow them in class. Some of the teachers were concerned that parent volunteers would be disruptive and that not all parents were skilled enough to help in the classroom. A teacher (school C), upon the suggestion that the school could invite parent volunteers to teach a sport or riddles in class, was emphatic: ‘No! No. Maybe in other areas, but in teaching, no!’ Accordingly, parents were not consulted or allowed to give advice on any decisions that involved learning.

Although schools did not have an official parent involvement policy, they acknowledged the importance of parent involvement, although it was ‘unwritten’. One teacher (school E) blamed schools for the lack of a policy on parental involvement: ‘A school is supposed to have a vision, where it outlays its objectives. This includes parent involvement’. This is also in line with the findings of Hornby and Witte (2010: 773), whose study in New Zealand showed that no schools had formal policies on parent involvement. Kenyan schools only expressed their expectations of parents. Thus limited formal opportunities in schools were available for parents to be involved in the education of their children.

The teachers also reported that they did not involve nor encourage parents to be involved in sport and cultural events. They also did not feel parents were competent to contribute to such events in the school. Although teachers recognized that the parents’ presence could encourage their children at these events, they did not regard this as part of a parent’s role. The parents confirmed that they did not attend these events because they felt unwelcome.

Using volunteers was an untried idea in the study. Teachers were unaware of the roles that parents could play at school due to the novelty of the idea. The parents also did not accept ownership of the school, perceiving education as belonging to the teachers. This perpetuated the divide between the roles of schools and parents (Lazar and Slostad, 1999: 207). The findings were also supported by Epstein’s study (1987: 125), which found that only about 4% of the parents she studied were active at the school.

Reaney et al. (2002) indicated that the involvement of parents in curricular and extracurricular activities relates positively to children’s reading, general knowledge and mathematics knowledge and skills. The infrequency of these events at most of the schools suggested that the teachers and schools did not realize the importance of holding social, cultural and sports events for the development of the pupils, nor were they encouraged by schools. Furthermore, the participants did not seem to recognize that such events would give teachers and parents an opportunity to become familiar with each other under such social circumstances. For this reason Naidoo (2005: 36) advocates school programmes that would encourage parent involvement by recruiting and organizing volunteers, matching volunteers with the appropriate opportunities, offering training for the volunteers, and recognizing efforts of the volunteers. With help from volunteers, greater individual attention to pupils would be realized as well as understanding of the teacher’s job, with a concomitant increased ease in school interactions and a carry-over of school activities to the home by parents (Epstein and Sheldon, 2005: 7).

Learning at Home: Learning Activities to Improve Pupils’ Performance, Attitudes and Behaviour

Since large numbers of pupils ‘overwhelmed’ teachers, schools expected parents to help and supervise their children’s work at home. Schools also required parents to provide enough kerosene for lighting and a conducive environment for their children to do homework. Some teachers were very negative about the cooperation they received from parents. They felt that very few parents were helping their children with their homework. Moreover, although the teachers were aware of the benefits of parents signing homework, many of them did not practice this, nor was there a formal policy in schools regarding parents’ support at home or supervision of their children’s homework.

The view of teachers regarding parents’ supervision contradicted the view of parents, who were aware of their role in both supervising and helping with homework. However, they confirmed that work commitments often made home supervision difficult. It was clear from parent responses that teachers should therefore not assume that parents were uncooperative or uninterested in helping their children at home.

The teachers noted that literate parents were more involved in the education of their children at home, and that illiterate parents did not seem to ‘bother’, as mentioned by a teacher (school G). Teachers also mentioned interference by drugs, especially alcohol, work commitments and being tired after work as reasons why parents neglected their role. According to the teachers, it was often the mothers who were more involved in their children’s lives. A principal (school F) who noted that fathers left the care of children to the mothers had a strategy for involving all parents:

We have a penalty for parents who do not attend. We agreed together with all parents that anyone who would not come to class meetings must pay a fine of 50 shillings. Since we all were together in agreement, all parents always do come. This has also made them willing to visit the school any time there are individual issues to do with their children.

A father from the same school explained: ‘Should you [the parent] not come, we fear you must pay a fine and nobody wants to lose that kind of money to the school’.

The principal (school E) reported that there were parents who did not have the necessary skills required to help their children and felt that it was the teacher’s role to supervise homework. Other participants reported that parents lacked the necessary confidence to support their children’s education at home. Only a few schools, recognizing that parents required help, guided parents to support their children in doing their homework.

Teachers blamed poor parenting for the behavioural and academic problems of pupils in the school. Teachers were also concerned that some parents did not give their children the discipline required for successful learning. Consequently, some of the schools provided parental education on parenting styles and supervision in an effort to educate parents in these respects.

Research suggests that parent involvement in well-designed interactive home learning activities improves pupils’ performance, attitudes and behaviour (Epstein, 1995: 706–7; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001: 187–9), which was also acknowledged in this study. The findings point out that parents who have had limited schooling themselves generally have difficulty in helping their children with their homework. However, a general lack of school policy on the parents’ role in getting homework done suggested that teachers were unaware of the benefits of parent involvement in interactive homework (Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001: 187–9). Epstein therefore advocates a formal policy on parent involvement together with the school and teacher practice, which according to her are the strongest predictors of parent involvement in the school and at home.

Decision-Making: School Structures for Parent Involvement

In the study the schools had SMCs that comprised the principal and a small group of parents. The parents had been elected by the parent body to represent them and this enabled the decentralization of parent involvement to the class level. Every class appointed a parent as its representative on the SMC to represent parents of that class in school management. The SMC decided how government funds should be used, monitored the curriculum and played a role in long-term development. Some of the teachers and parents recognized the importance of SMCs in giving parents a role in decision-making. However, the relationship between schools and the SMC was strained; although parent members of the SMC had greater representation in terms of numbers, they had little say in decision-making.

Teachers and principals reported that parents on the SMC were dedicated, although they often required training and guidance to function effectively. However, a few teachers were wary of parents serving on the SMC and regarded them as possible ‘troublemakers’ at the school. One teacher from school E explained:

Some members are very negative, when informed about finances they keep talking about how money is being squandered. This leads to poor relationships with the teachers.

On the other hand, parents expressed the view that the matters discussed at SMC meetings rarely concerned them, and they were only called to attend when there were problems or when money was needed. Most parents were therefore not concerned about the SMC and its decisions, but were concerned with their children’s performance. There was a lack of interest in attending class meetings and only a few parents attended these meetings. Parents offered various excuses for not attending school meetings or even visiting the school individually. One parent explained:

If there is any problem, the class representative comes to see the class teacher. We report our problems to him and when there is a meeting for parents, he speaks to them.

As in the case of the SMC, the composition and role of the school instructional materials selection committee was the same in all schools. The principal chaired the committee which included the deputy principal, the eight class teachers (one per class) and the senior teacher and parents. This committee selected reading materials for instruction, although parents serving on this committee were not consulted on the procurement or choice of instructional materials since they were deemed ineffective by the schools. The principal of school B explained:

Parents have no know-how unless they are teachers themselves. But we inform them on behalf of the rest of the parents’ body about the funds sent by the government to buy the reading materials and where we shall get these materials purchased from.

There was therefore a need for both parties to understand that they were in partnership and not in competition. The committee should have served as the link between parents and teachers, uniting them over issues in the school as well as educating all parents regarding their responsibilities, since they communicated better than teachers with the other parents.

The findings revealed that parents played a very limited role in decision-making in schools. This is also in line with the view of Mestry and Grobler (2007: 177) that many countries are still grappling with how to involve parents as active stakeholders in education and that non-recognition and non-involvement of parents serve as barriers to quality in education. The findings were corroborated by the study of Epstein (1995: 708), who reported that parents on governing bodies rarely communicate with the parents that they represent to solicit ideas from them, nor do they pass on committee plans or actions to them. This might be because parents recognize that the SMC is primarily a fundraising body and not essential for their children’s academic success. Most parents, in addition, did not attend the general meetings of the parent body because they preferred to be directly involved in their children’s learning (Epstein, 1995: 708) and did not find these meetings useful. Including parents in decision-making implies that schools should have active parent–teacher organizations, school governing bodies or other parent organizations, advisory councils or committees for parent leadership and participation (Epstein et al., 1997: 9).

Collaboration with Community: Resources and Services to Strengthen School Programmes, Family Practices and Student Learning and Development

From the responses it was clear that community involvement was hindered by factors such as a narrow definition of ‘community’, which resulted in little attention being paid to involving the community resources that were available. A further problem was negative attitudes towards community involvement. Most schools only had opportunities for involving the community such as pupils’ award ceremonies, concerts, cultural and sports days. These schools had an activity committee, made up of teachers from different schools, which determined the amount to be levied from the parents to cater for sports, drama, cultural activities, gymnastics and concerts during the year. Asked if parents were included in the activity committee, the principal answered: ‘No parent was included in the committee. It is for the teachers only, but the parents contribute by paying for their children. This year, each child must pay 70 shillings for the year’s activities’. Some schools involved non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for assistance. The principal of school B explained:

Some [NGOs] gave water tanks and doctors from the International Centre for Insect Pest and Ecology (ICIPE) treat the children and gave treated mosquito bed nets. The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) dewormed the children.

A few schools used the community resources to enhance learning. For instance, school A received some help from the local community library which supported them. This principal reported that the school paid ‘20 bob [shillings] for each child to register as members at the local library’. Church-sponsored schools involved members of the church to talk to the pupils every Friday. Only rarely were members of the community called to provide guidance and counselling to the pupils during the occasional meetings. The majority of schools did not attempt to involve the local community, not even to raise funds for the school, and relied mainly on government and parent support. Neither did schools offer services to their communities apart from teaching their children, since it appeared that participants did not think that they could offer services to their communities. There was also a perception that community leaders could play a more influential role in education.

It is clear from the findings that community involvement in schools and schools’ involvement in the community were very limited because schools relied predominantly on the support of government and parents. Such a lack of collaboration between schools and the community can be to the detriment of the quality of schooling. Community leaders should have educated parents on the importance of education (Republic of Kenya MOEST, 2001: 114). They should have taught parents what FPE was all about and they should have enlightened the community on what the government could do by holding forums to educate the community about FPE (Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, 2005: 67).

According to Epstein (1995: 702), communities have powerful effects on children’s development by raising funds, serving as advocates for children’s rights, providing learning opportunities outside the school, providing general social support and social, health and recreational services. Avvisati et al. (2010: 14) also advise integration of the community in terms of health, cultural, recreation, counselling and civic agencies with the school, in which schools – in addition to teaching the community’s children – could provide services to the community such as canvassing on behalf of community organizations and organizing neighbourhood clean-ups.

Conclusion

Employing the Epstein model to describe parent involvement in Kenya revealed that schools and parents did not fully understand what parent involvement entailed and that they were unaware of the full benefits of parent involvement beyond activities such as fundraising for the schools, solving pupils’ discipline problems and attending the occasional annual general meetings. In particular, Epstein’s model showed the following:

Type 1: Parenting: creating a conducive home environment for children’s learning. Poverty influenced parents in the district and some parents did not value the education of their children sufficiently.

Type 2 – Communicating: focusing on effective two-way communication channels between the school and the home. Although various forms of communication between parents and schools existed, such opportunities were often not adequately used by parents.

Type 3 – Volunteering: improving the recruitment, training and schedules of volunteers to assist teachers and the school. The study showed that using volunteers was an untried initiative. As such teachers were unaware of the prominent roles that parents could play at school and parents did not accept ownership of the school, regarding education as belonging to the teachers.

Type 4 – Learning at home: involving parents in the academic learning of their children. The views of teachers and parents contradicted each other. Teachers were aware of the benefits of parents signing homework, but many of them did not practice this. Schools also lacked a formal policy regarding parents’ support at home or supervision of their children’s homework. Parents, however, were aware of their role in both supervising and helping with homework and some of them also practiced this.

Type 5 – Decision-making: including parents as participants in the governance of schools. Parents played a very limited role in decision-making in schools in the study which showed that schools were grappling to involve parents as active stakeholders in their schools.

Type 6 – Collaborating with the community: coordinating services and resources for parents, pupils and the school with various community groups. It was clear that little attention was paid to involve the community resources that were available. Moreover, there was a negative attitude towards community involvement.

Lack of a functional policy on parent involvement in schools, the illiteracy of many parents in the community, parent work commitments, time constraints, means of transport to school, the gendered nature of parent involvement and the lack of parenting skills among the parents were identified as the causes of limited involvement of parents. On the other hand, teachers were not trained to promote parent involvement or to work with adults, such as their pupils’ parents; thus they were not in the position to suggest a variety of ways in which parents could be involved in the school. Moreover, they offered little assistance to parents to improve their parenting skills. As a result, they did not view involving parents as either their responsibility or part of their role.

The lack of teacher training on parent involvement is attributable to the Ministry of Education itself, which is unaware of the benefits of comprehensive parent involvement. This implies that the education policy only allows for a limited role to be played by parents in Kenyan schools. Moreover, the inclusion of many educational decisions in the mandate of the Ministry of Education effectively prevents most parents from being partners in their children’s education by excluding them from most decision-making.

Although little parent involvement occurred at public primary schools, a number of factors favoured the implementation of a programme of parent involvement. The positive factors that would promote parent involvement included good relationships between teachers and parents, having similar values and exhibiting positive attitudes towards each other.

For effective parent involvement, policy-makers in Kenya require a comprehensive policy on parent involvement. The first step would be making a school-wide commitment to build stronger home and school ties. Each school should formulate its own policy on involving and assisting parents. The school policy must give explicit guidelines for the practice of each of Epstein’s six types of involvement, and an appropriate action plan to implement the policy. Moreover, parent involvement programmes should consider various parent backgrounds in adapting strategies for parent involvement to the needs of all parents. Furthermore, since the involvement of the wider community in schools is limited, it is recommended that partnerships should be established between the community and the school for the benefit of both parties.

The study also shows that teacher education programmes must strive to help prospective teachers learn about the families and backgrounds of their pupils. In the Kenyan context, by showing the particularly important association between the Kenyan school and family background with parent involvement, the present study supports the educational reform movement encouraging schools to engage parents more intimately in shared responsibilities.

We agree with LaRocque et al. (2011: 121) who claim:

To enable parents to grow in their ability to help their children get the best education possible, encouraging parent involvement has to be viewed as a process rather than a one-time event … The structure within which schools operate may need to change as opposed to doing more of the same. Trying to change within the same structure may not lead to the desired results of greater parent involvement.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

AM KIMU has been teaching science subjects in secondary school. Currently he is head of agriculture at St Mark’s Teachers College, Kigari, Embu, Kenya.

GM Steyn is professor of education of long years’ standing. She works in the department of Further Teacher Education at the University of South Africa.

References

Avvisati

Besbas

Guyon

(2010) Parent Involvement: A Literature Review. Paris: Paris School of Economics.

Brannon

(2008) Character education: It’s a joint responsibility. Kappa Delta Pi Record 44(2): 62–65.

Cheung

Pomerantz

(2011) Parents’ involvement in children’s learning in the United States and China: Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child Development, May/Jun 82(3): 932–950.

Comer

(1988) Educating poor minority children. Scientific American 259(5): 24–28.

Epstein

(1987) Parent involvement: State education agencies should lead the way. Community Education Journal 14(4): 4–10.

Epstein

(1988) How do we improve programs for parent involvement? Educational Horizons 66: 58–59.

Epstein

(1995) School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan 76(9): 701–712.

Epstein

Coates

Salinas

Sanders

Simon

(1997) School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Epstein

Jansorn

(2004) School, family, and community partnerships link the plan. Education Digest 69(6): 19–23.

10.

Epstein

Sheldon

(2005) Parent involvement in schools. Journal of Educational Research 98(4): 196–206.

11.

Epstein

Van Voorhis

(2001) More than minutes: Teacher’s roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist 36(3): 181–193.

12.

European Commission (2001) European Report on Quality of School Education: Sixteen Quality Indicators May 2000. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

13.

Fan

Chen

(2001) Parent involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review (13): 1–22.

14.

Friedman

(2011) We need better parents. New York Times, Sunday Review, 21 November. Available from: www.nytimes.com/2011/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-howabout-better-parents (accessed 14 February 2012).

15.

Feuerstein

(2000) School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation in children’s schools. Journal of Educational Research 94(1): 29–40.

16.

Gordon

(1977) Parent education and parent involvement: Retrospect and prospect. Childhood Education Nov/Dec: 71–79.

17.

Hayes

(2011) Predicting parent home and school involvement in high school African American adolescents. High School Journal 94(4): 154–166.

18.

Hill

Chao

(2009) Families, Schools, and the Adolescent: Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

19.

Hornby

Witte

(2010) Parent involvement in rural elementary schools in New Zealand: A survey. Journal of Child and Family Studies 19(6): 771–777.

20.

Hung

C-L

(2007) Family, schools and Taiwanese children’s outcomes. Educational Research 49(2): 115–125.

21.

Johnson

Christensen

(2011) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

22.

Kenya National Commission for UNESCO (2005) Free Primary Education Implementation: Reports from the Regions. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Kenya.

23.

Kimu

(2012). Parent involvement in public primary schools in Kenya. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Africa: Pretoria.

24.

LaRocque

Kleiman

Darling

(2011) Parent involvement: The missing link in school achievemenT. Preventing School Failure 55(3): 115–122.

25.

Lazar

Slostad

(1999) How to overcome obstacles to parent–teacher partnerships. Clearing House 72(4): 206–209.

26.

Leedy

Ormrod

(2001) Practical Research and Design, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merryll Prentice Hall.

27.

Lemmer

(2000) The Epstein model of family-school partnerships: Teachers’ experiences in South African schools. Educare 29(1–2): 60–75.

28.

Lemmer

(2007) Parent involvement in teacher education in South Africa. International Journal about Parents in Education 1(1): 218–229.

29.

Lemmer

Van Wyk

(2004) Schools reaching out: Comprehensive parent involvement in South African primary schools. African Educational Review 1(2): 259–267.

30.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

31.

McMillan

Schumacher

(2006) Research in Education. Evidence-based Inquiry, 6th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

32.

Mestry

Grobler

(2007) Collaboration and communication as effective strategies for parent involvement in public schools. Educational Research and Review 2(7): 176–185.

33.

Monadjem

(2003) The development of a parent involvement program for urban high schools in Swaziland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

34.

Naidoo

(2005) Educational Decentralization and School Governance: From Policy to Practice. International Institute for Educational Planning 7–9 rue Eugene Delacroix, 75116. Paris: UNESCO.

35.

Ngaroga

(2006) Primary Teachers Education Revision Series: Education for Primary Teacher Education. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers.

36.

Niemeyer

Wong

Westerhaus

(2009) Parent involvement, familisimo, and academic performance in Hispanic and Caucasian adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology 11(3): 613–632.

37.

Nokali

Bachman

Votruba-Drzal

(2010) Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development May/Jun 81(3): 988–1005.

38.

Oketch

Somerset

(2007) Free primary education and after in Kenya: Enrolment impact, quality effects, and the transition to secondary school. Create Pathways to Access, Research Monographs 37. Available at: http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA37.pdf (accessed 25 July 2012).

39.

Peterson

Rubie-Davies

Elley-Brown

Widdowson

Dixon

Irving

(2011) Who is to blame? Pupils’, teachers’ and parents’ views on who is responsible for student achievement. Research in Education 86: 1–12.

40.

Reaney

Denton

West

(2002) Enriching environments: The relationship of home educational activities, extracurricular activities and community resources to kindergartners’ cognitive performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

41.

Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (MOEHRD) (1999) Primary School Textbook Management Handbook. Nairobi: Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development.

42.

Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST) (2001) Education for All (EFA) In Kenya: A National Handbook For 2000 and Beyond. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Kenya.

43.

Republic of Kenya (2008) Laws of Kenya. The Education Act, Chapter 21. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer.

44.

Ryan

Casas

Kelly-Vance

Ryalls

(2010) Parent involvement and views of school success: The role of parents’ Latino and white American cultural orientations. Psychology in the Schools 47(4): 391–405.

45.

Swap

(1992) Parent involvement and success for all children: What we know. In: Christenson

Conoley

(eds) Home-School Collaboration: Enhancing Children’s Academic and Social Competence. Baltimore, MD: The National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 53–80.

46.

Symeou

(2003) Fostering children’s learning: An investigation of the role of teacher-parent briefings. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference Research Student Symposium, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11 September.