Content uploaded by T. Martijn Willemse
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by T. Martijn Willemse on Apr 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim]
On: 09 May 2014, At: 02:31
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Teacher Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Preparing teacher candidates for
family–school partnerships
Erica J. de Bruïnea, T. Martijn Willemsea, Jeanne D’Haemb, Peter
Griswoldb, Lijne Vloeberghsc & Sofie van Eyndec
a Department of Education, Windesheim University of Applied
Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands
b College of Education, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ,
USA
c Department of Education, Leuven University College, Leuven,
Belgium
Published online: 06 May 2014.
To cite this article: Erica J. de Bruïne, T. Martijn Willemse, Jeanne D’Haem, Peter Griswold, Lijne
Vloeberghs & Sofie van Eynde (2014): Preparing teacher candidates for family–school partnerships,
European Journal of Teacher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2014.912628
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912628
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents,
and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published
Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open
Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party
website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed
or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles are normally published under a Creative
Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. However,
authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial
License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Taylor & Francis and Routledge
Open Select articles are currently published under a license to publish, which is based
upon the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License, but
allows for text and data mining of work. Authors also have the option of publishing
an Open Select article under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open
Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Preparing teacher candidates for family–school partnerships
Erica J. de Bruïne
a
, T. Martijn Willemse
a
*, Jeanne D’Haem
b
, Peter Griswold
b
,
Lijne Vloeberghs
c
and Sofie van Eynde
c
a
Department of Education, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The
Netherlands;
b
College of Education, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA;
c
Department of Education, Leuven University College, Leuven, Belgium
Previous research indicates that, while parent involvement promotes student
achievement, how teacher candidates are prepared to establish family–school
partnerships (FSP) is not well documented and the roles of teacher educators are
often neglected. Explorative studies including curriculum analysis and focus
groups of primary and secondary teacher candidates and teacher educators were
conducted in three universities, one each in the Netherlands, Belgium and the
USA. Data collection was designed to identify opinions towards FSP and per-
ceived preparation for FSP. The programmes showed limited attention to aspects
other than communication and FSP was not assessed. The findings indicate train-
ing is largely dependent upon the proclivities of individual teacher educators.
Although all respondents acknowledged the importance of FSP, respondents of
primary education held a more positive attitude towards parents than others.
Hardly any differences were found between the views of candidates and educa-
tors, regardless of the programme they followed or taught.
Keywords: teacher training; family–school partnerships; teacher candidates;
teacher educators
Introduction
Theory and research demonstrate that effective parent–teacher collaboration is a
critical factor in the academic and social-emotional development of students in pri-
mary and secondary education (Epstein [2001]2011; Henderson and Mapp 2002;
Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Jeynes 2007; Uludag 2008; Hattie 2009; Evans
2013); hence, it is not surprising that national policies increasingly promote parent–
teacher collaboration (e.g. Sanders and Epstein 2005; European Commission 2008;
Evans 2013). In many countries including the USA, the Netherlands and Belgium,
collaborating with parents is a legally required competency. For example, in the
USA, the No Child Left Behind Act (2002)‘requires schools to organise and imple-
ment programmes and practices to involve families in their children’s education’
(Epstein and Sanders 2006, 82; Kroeger and Lash 2011; Evans 2013). More than a
decade ago, scholars argued that developing productive relationships with families is
part of a teacher’s professional role; however, creating family–school partnerships
(FSP) is challenging for teachers (Hargreaves 2000). Nevertheless, teacher education
institutes (TEI’s) seem to pay little attention to the preparation of prospective teach-
ers for FSP (Epstein and Sanders 2006; Denessen et al. 2009; Evans 2013; Miller
*Corresponding author: m.willemse@windesheim.nl
© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Routledge.
This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of
the named author(s) have been asserted.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912628
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
et al. 2013). Little is known about how teacher candidates are prepared to establish
FSP and even less is known about how teacher educators’perceptions
1
of FSP
influence the preparation of candidates. Researchers like Graue and Brown (2003),
Sanders and Epstein (2005), Molina (2013) and Miller et al. (2013) have advocated
for more research on this topic.
This article is an analysis of an explorative study of how candidates in primary
and secondary education programmes are prepared for FSP. The research was con-
ducted by a team of Belgian, Dutch and American researchers who wanted a better
understanding of how their institutions prepared candidates for FSP. Formal curric-
ula and information from focus groups with a total of 65 candidates, all in their
senior year, and 32 educators were analysed.
Theoretical background
Insufficient preparation for FSP
Despite the positive effects of FSP upon student achievement (Epstein [2001]2011;
Henderson and Mapp 2002; Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Jeynes 2007), many
studies show that preparation for it is not sufficient, and even absent in some teacher
education programmes (Shartrand et al. 1997; Epstein and Sanders 2006; Ingvarson,
Beavis, and Kleinhenz 2007; Hornby and Witte 2010; Evans 2013; Miller et al.
2013). According to Ingvarson and colleagues (2007), many novice teachers see
room for improvement in teacher education, especially in preparing them to work
with families (c.f. Hornby and Witte 2010; Evans 2013). Epstein and Sanders
(2006) state that, though faculty attached importance to this topic, TEI’s pay little
attention to it and candidates were not well prepared. Based on a literature review,
Evans (2013) concludes that, despite increased attention to family engagement in
teacher education, teachers continue to feel unprepared and points out that teacher
education does not address FSP in a useful way. In sum, three main reasons can be
distinguished: (1) the mixed messages candidates receive in their field experiences
from administrators and teaching staff, due to the diversity of definitions and atti-
tudes regarding parents’roles these professionals hold; (2) the specific characteristics
of the candidates influencing their views and attitudes and often sowing a disconnec-
tion between parents and candidates; and (3) the limited opportunities for candidates
to interact directly with parents.
Mixed messages
It is not surprising that candidates receive mixed messages, given the ambiguity and
complexity of the concept of FSP. For example, Fan and Chen (2001, 3) use the
term ‘parental involvement’and note: ‘Although parental involvement is often sim-
plistically perceived as unidimensional, in reality it is probably better to conceptual-
ise this construct as being multifaceted in nature, because parental involvement
subsumes a wide variety of parental behavioural patterns and parenting practices’.
More and more researchers are pleading for a way of looking at parent involvement
that justifies its multidimensional character and the fact that it consists of many
activities of parents, teachers and schools (Fan and Chen 2001; Hoover-Dempsey
et al. 2002). In this light Epstein (1995) describes home, school and community as
‘overlapping spheres of influence’, where members should collaborate for students’
2E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
benefit through six types of involvement: parenting at home; communicating; volun-
teering; learning at home; decision-making and advocacy; and collaborating with
community. She emphasises the reciprocity and equality of this relationship.
Although Epstein’s model helps to define the multidimensional concept of FSP,
other researchers have maintained that it is not sufficient for a full understanding of
its complexity. Kroeger and Lash (2011, 270) argue that Epstein’s model contains:
[…] ideologies of dominant power relations paralleling that of the larger society.
Because schooling is a major force in transmitting the dominant culture, the notion of
cultural capital creates wide disparities among parents depending on how school per-
sonnel respond to parent demands when parents attempt to advocate for children.
Generally, in these partnerships parents are ‘placed in a position to ‘listen to the
authority’of teachers […] and teachers in a position to speak’(ibidem, 270). They
argue that within Epstein’s conceptual framework, the roles of parents and teachers
implicitly mirror these existing power relations. Candidates encounter these relations
during their field experiences and therefore educators should make these explicit for
candidates.
Moreover, Hornby and Lafaele (2011) argue parents and teachers might have dif-
ferent goals, agendas and attitudes towards parent involvement, providing candidates
mixed messages too. For example, teachers might consider involvement of parents
as a way to improve student achievement, to reduce costs or to address cultural dis-
advantages. Parents, on the other hand, could consider involvement primarily as a
way to discuss their children’s progress or difficulties and to share their concerns.
Additionally, they state that:
Teachers and parents each bring to the melting pot of parental involvement personal
attitudes that are deeply rooted within their own historical, economic, educational, eth-
nic, class and gendered experiences. There persists amongst many teachers a deficit
model of parents which is manifested through attitudes whereby parents are viewed as
‘problems’,‘vulnerable’,or‘less able’and are therefore best kept out of schools.
(Hornby and Lafaele 2011, 45)
They even emphasise that language can influence attitudes towards FSP and point
out that the words used to define teacher–parent relations affect those relations. For
example, placing teachers in the role of professionals and experts implies that par-
ents’role is that of non-expert. Candidates need to become aware that these differ-
ences in goals, agenda’s and attitudes provide mixed messages and might, according
to Hornby and Lafaele, become a barrier for FSP.
The complexity of the concept and the unacknowledged power relations between
parents and teachers contribute to the challenges TEI’s face to address FSP. Candi-
dates need to be aware of this complexity in order to understand the mixed messages
provided by schools and teachers. In fact educators should encourage and support
candidates to develop their own concepts and views about FSP to manage those
mixed messages.
Specific characteristics of candidates
In facilitating candidates to understand mixed messages and to develop their own
views educators should consider the specific characteristics of the candidates. Their
European Journal of Teacher Education 3
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
status (mostly single, white, middle-class and childless females in their early twen-
ties) is likely to influence these views, as pointed out by Flanigan (2007, 96) when
she underlines that ‘preservice teachers have difficulty transferring their need for
independence from their parents to the need for involvement with the parents of
their students’. Graue and Brown (2003) emphasise that, even before entering their
training programme, candidates have opinions about education and FSP, often based
on their memories of going to school, their concepts of good teachers and them-
selves as prospective teachers. The socialcultural background of candidates influ-
ences those opinions. If candidates expect relationships with parents will be
stressful, ‘characterised by conflicts and criticism’(Baum and Swick 2008, 580) and
if little attention is paid to these already existing views, it is not likely these views
will change during teacher preparation (Graue and Brown 2003; Souto-Manning and
Swick 2006; Baum and Swick 2008). Therefore, candidates should be encouraged to
become aware of their pre-existing opinions.
In addition, Graue and Brown (2003, 721) argue: ‘Without content knowledge
focused on family school relationships, preservice teachers must rely on what they
already know, which is likely to mirror their own experience’. In other words, facili-
tating these young and middle-class candidates to understand the mixed messages
and to develop grounded views, knowledge should be provided. Researchers have
supported inclusion of knowledge regarding various components of FSP in the cur-
riculum: models and factors related to working with families (Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler 1997; Driessen, Smit, and Sleegers 2005; Baum and Swick 2008; Bartels
and Eskow 2010; Hornby and Lafaele 2011), the benefits of FSP (Epstein [2001]
2011; Hattie 2009) and theories supporting communication with parents (Henderson
and Mapp 2002; Graham-Clay 2005; Bartels and Eskow 2010). However, little is
known how this inclusion of knowledge in the curriculum is perceived by these can-
didates and their educators.
Opportunities for interaction with parents
Gaining knowledge merely from reading textbooks doesn’t automatically lead to
comprehension. Candidates should have opportunities for simulated and real
encounters with parents. Field experiences help them to develop the skills needed to
establish effective partnerships, to give meaning to the knowledge they gained and
to deepen and ground their views (e.g. Shartrand et al. 1997; Epstein and Sanders
2006; Bingham and Abernathy 2007; Flanigan 2007; Uludag 2008; Bartels and
Eskow 2010; Lunenberg, Dengerink, and Korthagen 2013). Field experiences should
include comprehensive and prolonged interactions with parents (Baum and Swick
2008; Pushor 2011). Graue and Brown (2003) maintain that a variety of such
experiences allows candidates to discover the complexity of parenting and gather
knowledge about the diverse cultural backgrounds of parents. According to Miller
et al. (2013), field experiences should not only take place within the school, but in
community and home settings as well. However, most candidates have limited
opportunities for this kind of direct interaction with parents (Evans 2013).
Educators
Next to the content of the curriculum, educators are a defining factor for successful
preparation for FSP, because they bring the curriculum to life. Little is known,
4E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
however, about how educators feel about FSP and knowledge about their concepts
is lacking. If they do not think it is important, it will influence their teaching. Educa-
tors should be aware of mainstream practices of parent–teacher partnerships as a
visible set of ‘discourse practices that reproduce a set of power relations embodied
in technical processes’(Kroeger and Lash 2011, 270). They are considered role
models (e.g. Loughran and Berry 2005; Pushor 2011) and if they hold negative
opinions about FSP, their students may adopt a similar attitude. Willemse,
Lunenberg, and Korthagen (2008) argue that educators express their personal values
and opinions in their teaching. The language used in lectures referring to parents
affects the attitudes and assumptions of their students as much as the content of the
curriculum, or even more (Kroeger and Lash 2011). If educators merely talk about
‘difficult parents’, they implicitly teach that parents are a problem, thus contributing
to a negative attitude towards FSP on the part of candidates.
This study
Teacher preparation is failing to adequately address FSP and more research on this
topic is needed (Evans 2013). Little is known about what according to candidates
will facilitate their development in working with families and how educators per-
ceive their role. In order to gain a better understanding how candidates are prepared
for FSP, an explorative study was conducted in three universities focusing on the
perceptions of candidates and their educators. Formal curricula were examined; can-
didates and educators were asked how they perceived candidates’preparation to
work with parents and their level of preparedness. The central question in this study
concerns: ‘How are teacher candidates in these three universities prepared for FSP?
(1) What can be found in the formal curriculum regarding FSP?
(2) What are the views and opinions of both candidates and educators concern-
ing FSP?
(3) How do candidates and educators perceive the preparation for FSP in their
training programmes?
Methods
Context
In 2012 explorative studies were conducted in the teacher education departments in
three universities, one each in Belgium, the Netherlands and the USA. The Belgian
university is a university of applied sciences in the northern part of Belgium
(Flanders). The Department of Education prepares approximately 2300 candidates
within three-year bachelor programmes for pre-school, primary and secondary
education and one advanced programme in special education. In the Netherlands, a
university of applied sciences in the north-eastern part of the country participated.
Within the Department of Education approximately 7000 candidates are prepared for
different positions within primary, secondary, vocational or special education at
bachelor and masters level in several four-year bachelor and one-year master pro-
grammes. The US university is a comprehensive public institution on the East coast
where 1551 undergraduate and graduate students participate in pre-school, primary,
secondary or special education programmes for teacher training, leading to bachelor
European Journal of Teacher Education 5
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
and master degrees. In contrast to the other two universities, all candidates must take
two years of general education classes and complete an academic major before
entering the two-year teacher education programme.
The choice of this international study was based on several factors. In all three
countries, working with parents is legally required and questions occurred about
how teachers are prepared to meet this mandate. Besides, the universities are linked
by mutual partnerships including regular international exchange of students and edu-
cators. We assumed that based on cultural differences, teacher preparation on FSP
could differ and perhaps adaptations of the curriculum were needed for the exchange
students. Thus, the selection of cases was a result of convenience (Miles and
Huberman 1984).
Data collection
Data were collected by examining the required teacher education courses at each
university. Focus groups were conducted with both educators and senior teacher can-
didates to obtain information about their opinions concerning FSP, the curriculum
and if they felt their preparation was sufficient.
The formal curriculum
Curricula were examined by reviewing course syllabi in the compulsory courses in
order to determine what topics were covered, what kind of teaching strategies were
used and if competencies in any aspect of FSP were assessed. In addition, electronic
databases were studied to explore programme parts, using search terms like parents,
parent involvement or communication with parents. Two researchers checked the
course overview.
The perceived curriculum and concepts concerning FSP
Because the aim of this study was to examine the perceptions of educators and can-
didates regarding preparation for FSP, focus groups were conducted. A focus group
is, according to Rabiee (2004, 655) citing Lederman, ‘a technique involving the use
of in-depth group interviews in which participants are selected because they are a
purposive, although not necessarily representative, sampling of a specific population,
this group being ‘focused’on a given topic’. In other words, the focus groups are
considered to be what Swanborn (2008, 61; e.g. Miles and Huberman 1984;
Eisenhardt 2002) calls ‘cases of high intensity’, consisting of a rich illustrative vari-
ety of information to understand the phenomenon more in depth. Due to the explor-
ative nature of this study, focus groups were conducted, because interaction between
the group members is encouraged and this interaction could provide deeper and
richer information than could be obtained from individual interviews (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison 2000). Each university conducted four focus groups, a
primary and a secondary group for at least 5 educators and 10 candidates each.
Educators who were engaged in the topic of FSP were invited to participate, on
the assumption that these educators in particular could provide information about
educators’views and opinions. Senior teacher candidates were invited by email and
because it was difficult to find 10 participants, a second invitation was sent. All
focus group meetings were held in 2012 and took from one to two hours. All
6E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
questions were grouped around three topics: views and opinions, the perceived
curriculum and opportunities to learn about FSP in real-life experiences within k-12
schools.
To elicit respondents’views and opinions they were asked what came to mind
when thinking about collaborating with parents, if they considered it important and,
if so, why it was important. To gather information about the perceived curriculum,
respondents were asked what topics related to FSP were covered by the curriculum.
In addition, topics as proposed by Epstein, Sanders, and Clark (1999) were pre-
sented, because according to them these topics are necessary to address in teacher
preparation. The aim of presenting these topics was to verify whether they were
actually recognised as part of the curriculum. Respondents were asked if candidates
were encouraged to develop a view of FSP and if their programmes provided possi-
bilities for contacts with parents. Finally, both educators and candidates were asked
if they thought the programme prepared candidates sufficiently for FSP and what
changes on this topic were needed. The meetings were recorded and answers were
written on flip charts during the meetings. A total of 65 candidates and 32 educators
participated in the focus groups held at the three universities (Table 1).
Of the candidates 84% were female; 95% were between 20 and 25 years old.
Thirteen educators mentioned being parents themselves. Most had been primary or
secondary teachers and taught general subjects in educational and pedagogical
sciences.
Data analysis
Data were analysed in two stages. First, two researchers at each university analysed
and ordered data obtained by the focus groups. An inductive analysis (Patton 2002)
was followed to find out if the data would provide categories (Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison 2000). Building on individual coding of the texts, categories were devel-
oped in relation to the research questions. Within each university one researcher
took the lead in the analysis. A second researcher checked the analysis at random
points. If the two researchers agreed on the analysis, the first researcher continued
analysing; if they did not agree on the analysis of this random points, the second
researcher analysed the other parts as well.
In the second stage, all researchers came together. Results and categories
obtained were compared and differences were discussed and resolved. Categories
were adjusted, results were ordered by research questions, conclusions were drawn
by pairs of researchers and then checked by other pairs. In summary, triangulation
of data sources, data analysis and researchers was used (Patton 2002;Yin2002).
Table 1. Respondents focus groups.
Belgium the Netherlands USA Total
Primary candidates 16 8 18 42
Secondary candidates 11 9 3 23
Total 27 17 21 65
Primary educators 4 4 10 18
Secondary educators 4 5 5 14
Total 8 9 15 32
European Journal of Teacher Education 7
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Findings
FSP in the formal curriculum
Though there were no specific courses on this topic, all three universities had a few
required courses containing subjects linked to FSP (Table 2). Apart from these com-
pulsory courses, elements of FSP occurred in a few non-compulsory courses.
A close examination of courses (Tables 3and 4) reveals that attention is limited
to elements of FSP, particularly to communication. For example, in courses about
general competencies these elements concerned teachers’ability to communicate
with parents in order to inform them about their child or the school programme.
There were no references made to partnerships with parents (Epstein [2001]2011)
or to the power relations Kroeger and Lash (2011) describe.
In terms of teaching strategies, the US and Belgium put an emphasis on lectures
and discussion, whereas the Netherlands uses mainly role-playing and non-compul-
sory assignments in field experiences. There was no assessment of a student’s ability
to work with families in any of the universities.
In summary, there was an amazing similarity in the curricula of the universities
in the United States and Europe. Developing reciprocal partnerships with families
was not mentioned, one way communication from teacher to parent was the norm
and there were no graded assignments on this topic. This is remarkable, since in all
three countries, collaborating with parents is one of the teacher competencies
required by law.
Focus groups
Opinions and views
During the focus groups, respondents were asked for their opinions and views con-
cerning FSP and if they considered it important. When asked ‘what comes to
mind?’, candidates as well as educators primarily mentioned communication and
giving information to parents. At the primary level, candidates and educators empha-
sised the mutual character of this communication, using words like ‘consulting par-
ents’or ‘using the expertise of parents’. In contrast, secondary respondents used
more phrases like ‘parents should support the school’(Table 5).
Both educators and candidates expressed myriad concerns about difficulties with
parents. They felt that parents might be scary and intimidating, partly because they
are older than candidates and of the same age as their own parents. ‘Teachers are
fearful about working with parents. Schools are scapegoated and blame is put on
teachers for students who fail to learn or have behaviour problems’, an educator in
Table 2. Courses (overview).
Primary Secondary
Length programme in
years (primary and sec-
ondary
Total
amount of
courses
FSP linked to
other courses
Total
amount of
courses
FSP linked to
other courses
BE 3 40 6 37 1
NL 4 56 5 60 2
US 2 10 4 7 4
8E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Table 3. compulsory courses (primary), connecting subject with FSP.
Amount
of
courses
Content in the context of a course concerning Teaching strategy
General profess-
sional competen-
cies
Communi-
cation
Subject-
based
courses
Early
child-
hood
Consulting parents
of at risk students SEN Inclusion
Field
expe-
rience
Role
playing
Lectures;
discussion Other
BE 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1
NL 5 2 1 1 1 4 1
US 5 1 3 1 1 4
Table 4. Compulsory courses (secondary), connecting subject with FSP.
Amount
of
courses
Content in the context of a course concerning Teaching strategy
General profess-
sional competen-
cies
General profess-
sional competen-
cies
Subject-
based
courses
Consulting parents
of at risk students SEN Inclusion
Field
experience
Role
playing
Lectures;
discussion Other
BE 1 1 1
NL 2 1 1 11
US 4 2 2 1 3
European Journal of Teacher Education 9
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
the US reported. Many secondary candidates and educators stated FSP is mainly an
issue for primary, not for secondary teachers. They made an exception for students
with problems: ‘Yes, with students with special needs you have to collaborate with
parents, with other students I don’t think it’s that necessary’, a secondary candidate
(the Netherlands) said. Some even argued that parent involvement for teenagers is
not necessary any more. Primary respondents related FSP with volunteering, while
secondary respondents did not. They felt parents hardly ever come to secondary
schools, though they mentioned parents serving on school committees and exerting
influence on school governance. When asked if and why they thought FSP is impor-
tant, all respondents stated that it is important and an essential part of the teachers’
profession, saying, for example, ‘You can achieve a lot more when parents are
involved’(secondary candidate, Belgium), or even: ‘It makes you a better teacher’
(primary educator, the Netherlands).
Only modest differences were found between candidates and their educators, and
between the respondents of three universities. Most differences however were found
between the primary and secondary respondents. All respondents expressed fear
towards parents; however, primary candidates and educators at all three universities
stated that collaborating with parents is needed and can be a positive, valuable con-
tribution to everyday teaching. ‘Parents and teachers have to collaborate as a team’
said an educator (primary level, the Netherlands). Generally, respondents at the sec-
ondary level did not articulate general positive opinions like that.
Curriculum as perceived, perceived preparedness and proposed changes
To explore the perceived preparation of candidates, respondents were asked what top-
ics related to FSP were covered by the curriculum, how these were taught and
assessed and if there were opportunities for field experiences. Moreover, they were
asked if candidates were encouraged to develop a view concerning FSP and their pro-
spective role in these partnerships. Finally, the discussion was brought up if they felt
preparation for FSP was sufficient and if they have suggestions for improvement?
All respondents reported topics related to communication. Only a few respon-
dents mentioned other topics such as diversity. This corresponds with the focus on
communication found in the formal curricula. However, when given some topics
mentioned by Epstein, Sanders, and Clark (1999)
2
most respondents at the primary
level, candidates as well as educators, suddenly recognised nearly all as part of the
Table 5. Opinions; views.
Primary Secondary
Candidates Educators Candidates Educators
Communication xxxx
Two-way communication x x
Using parents’expertise about their child x x
Useful for primary education- and SEN-
students
xx
Volunteering x x
Involved in governance and decision-
making
xx
10 E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
programme. Secondary respondents recognised only a few of them, mainly as a part
of a non-compulsory course. Interestingly, these ‘Epstein topics’were not found in
the formal curricula. This seems to suggest there is a difference between the formal
curriculum and the curriculum as performed and might indicate that preparing for
FSP also depends on the unplanned teaching practices of individual educators. Many
respondents emphasised the influence of individual educators. Generally, educators
saw themselves as role models for their students, realising the impact of their views:
‘We are sometimes negative role models ourselves, because we often refer to parents
as being difficult’(primary level, the Netherlands). Some educators said they were
using, often unintentionally, their own experiences as a parent in their lectures.
Moreover, educators pointed out that they never discuss their vision of parent
involvement with their colleagues. An educator in the Netherlands wondered:
‘What’s actually our shared view of FSP? We never discuss that in our team’.
When asked if the preparation for FSP was adequate, all respondents indicated
that candidates were not sufficiently prepared, saying there is little attention paid to
it in the teacher-training programme, nor at the schools. Many respondents offered
suggestions for improvement (Table 6). They said there should be more and above
all less noncommittal attention to FSP. According to the educators, however, more
attention might be a problem, due to the already heavily loaded programme. They
suggested integrating FSP in other courses.
Educators in all focus groups mentioned candidates should gain more theoretical
knowledge about the benefits of FSP on student achievement, about working with
minority families and the legal position of parents in schools. Moreover, they recom-
mended additional attention to the development of opinions, views and attitudes for
example, seeing parents as experts on their child. They advised that candidates
needed to become more aware of cultural differences and of their susceptibility to
stereotyping. Moreover, educators argued that candidates should develop a vision
about education that connects their future role as a teacher with FSP. This is remark-
able because their own views hardly differed from the views of candidates.
In general, candidates placed less importance on the development of opinions
and knowledge than did their educators. Quite the contrary, they seemed content
with the degree to which they were encouraged to develop a vision and a positive
attitude regarding FSP. What they wanted was more training of their (communica-
tion) skills, like making and maintaining contact, giving positive feedback to parents
and dealing with parents in difficult, problematic situations. A candidate wanted
Table 6. Suggestions for improvement.
Changes needed
Primary Secondary
Candidates Educators Candidates Educators
More compulsory courses xxxx
More time x x
More attention, integrated in existing
courses
xx
More skills (communication) x x
More knowledge x x
More development of views; positive
attitude
xx
Field experiences xxxx
European Journal of Teacher Education 11
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
‘more role playing, because you learn to dare it; then you feel less shy or anxious
when you actual do it’(primary level, the Netherlands).
All respondents wanted more meetings with parents at school. Learning by
doing, they all thought, was the best, most powerful and realistic way to learn about
FSP: ‘It’s less scary when you have trained with parents before you start working as
a teacher’(candidate, secondary level, Belgium). However, respondents said con-
tacts between candidates and parents are rare, not significant, and often unplanned,
depending upon school policy, mentoring teachers at schools or the candidates them-
selves. ‘It is difficult to show this competency, because we hardly ever practiced -
my coach at school just said: ‘I know you didn’t have the opportunity, but I’m sure
you’re able to collaborate with parents, so I′ll give you a good mark for it’’ , said a
candidate (secondary level, the Netherlands).
Conclusions and discussion
In this explorative study, preparation of pre-service teachers for FSP was examined
within three teacher education institutions. Findings indicate that preparation for
FSP is integrated in other courses. Attention is mainly focused on communication,
there is no attention to models of FSP or to address underlying power relationships
or barriers and there is no assessment on this topic. In primary programmes, more
attention is paid to FSP then in secondary progammes. In addition, secondary
respondents articulated fewer positive opinions than primary respondents. Moreover,
differences were found between the formal curriculum and the curriculum as per-
formed. Preparation for FSP seemed to depend on concepts and (unplanned) teach-
ing practices of individual educators. Educators and candidates considered FSP
important, but difficult to establish, often describing parents as frightening. Remark-
ably, hardly any differences were found between the opinions of candidates and their
educators. Finally, all respondents felt preparation was inadequate. They called for
more and less noncommittal attention to FSP and more actual experience.
In this explorative study, only 65 candidates and 32 educators participated; there-
fore, no generalisations can be made to all candidates and educators at the three uni-
versities, or to all teacher education institutions in the three countries. Nevertheless,
the lack of attention to FSP in the curricula in this study and the insufficient prepara-
tion for FSP as perceived by candidates and educators are consistent with other stud-
ies (Epstein and Sanders 2006; Denessen et al. 2009; Evans 2013) and seem to
confirm that preparing teachers for FSP is a difficult, persistent and widespread
problem.
This study reveals that limited concepts concerning FSP are included in the for-
mal curricula and expressed by candidates and their educators. Two examples might
illustrate this. First FSP is merely regarded as communication with parents. In fact
candidates and educators requested even more training of communication skills, role
playing and field experiences with opportunities to meet parents. Adding only more
communication training and encounters with parents, however, is not sufficient for
adequate preparation (Kroeger and Lash 2011). Secondly, another limited concept is
expressed by secondary respondents emphasising that FSP is above all meant for
primary education. The university curricula mirrored that view, and concomitantly
FSP was hardly a topic in secondary programmes. Evans (2013) has solid reasons to
ask for more research on FSP in relation to secondary education.
12 E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Yet preparation for FSP fails if the concept is not grounded in an understanding
of the needs and aims of establishing valuable partnerships (Epstein [2001] 2011),
the levels of involvement, the complexity of parent–teachers relations and existing
barriers (c.f. Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2002; Hornby and Lafaele 2011; Kroeger and
Lash 2011). In this study, these aspects were hardly ever mentioned in the focus
groups, nor did they show up in the formal curricula. Candidates should be encour-
aged through the curriculum to gain knowledge about these aspects of FSP in order
to develop a more grounded view. Reconsidering the curricula on these points will
improve preparation for FSP.
Moreover, the age of candidates should be taken into account, as shown by
Flanigan (2007) and Graue and Brown (2003). In line with their results, candidates
in this study often saw parents as scary and intimidating. Teacher education institu-
tions should provide opportunities for candidates to meet parents within and outside
the schools (Evans 2013; Miller et al. 2013), coached by educators, who can prepare
them for these encounters and encourage them to reflect on these experiences after-
wards, in order to relate these experiences to their role as (prospective) teacher (e.g.
Kroeger and Lash 2011). Real-life experiences, taking place in authentic situations,
were one of the improvements suggested by nearly all respondents. TEI’s and
schools should collaborate, not only in order to realise these field experiences, but
even to design the FSP-part of the programme. This might lead to a shared sense of
responsibility between TEI’s and schools upon candidates’development of compe-
tencies needed for FSP and impact the views of all involved, of educators, candi-
dates, and of the schools as well.
The call of Kroeger and Lash (2011) for more awareness of educators of main-
stream parent–teacher partnerships including the underlying power relations seems
to apply to this study too. In this study, especially educators who felt engaged in
FSP were invited for the focus groups. However, even their views and opinions did
not really differ from the views of candidates, and even they struggled with the
question of how to prepare candidates for FSP and support them to develop their
views and attitudes. They acknowledged their own, sometimes negative, modelling;
for example, by the language they used in talking about ‘difficult parents’. This
illustrates that even teacher education may contribute to the barriers to FSP distin-
guished by Hornby and Lafaele (2011). If the mixed messages candidates get from
schools are not addressed by educators, if educators do not encourage candidates to
explore their own preconceptions and develop a positive view and if they continue
to refer to parents as being troublesome and difficult, candidates will see their pre-
conceived notions confirmed (Graue and Brown 2003; Hornby and Lafaele 2011;
Kroeger and Lash 2011).
Although educators in this study emphasised the need for more attention to FSP,
they also mentioned a loaded curriculum and suggested integrating FSP in other
subjects. This may however continue the current fragmented and limited attention
paid to it (Epstein and Sanders 2006). Moreover, integration in other courses and
addressing FSP sufficiently needs educators who are convinced of the importance of
FSP and know how to combine and integrate their own subject with FSP. In this
study engaged educators already struggled addressing FSP. In other words, educators
who are not that engaged to this subject might struggle even more or simply omit
FSP in their teaching practises, in particular when, as emphasised by the participat-
ing educators, a shared vision on preparing for FSP is lacking.
European Journal of Teacher Education 13
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
In line with Flanigan (2007), focus group discussions appear to be a useful way
to foster educator’s awareness. During the focus groups and the presentation of the
‘Epstein-topics’, some of the educators became more aware of their opinions and
practices and realised they paid more attention to FSP than was prescribed by the cur-
riculum and even more than they thought they did, bringing, for example, their own
experiences as parents into their lectures. These findings show that teaching about
FSP appears partly unplanned and unconscious, depending on the educators’individ-
ual experiences. Repeating focus groups could have provided a deeper understanding
of educators’opinions and perceived practices, but did not fit in the scope of this
explorative study. Nevertheless, if discussing about FSP and exchanging experiences
in a well-structured way leads to a greater sense of awareness, than conducting meet-
ings like these focus groups might be a powerful tool for improving the preparation
for FSP. Exchanging teaching experiences, views and opinions concerning FSP with
colleagues might even support nonengaged educators to develop a (shared) vision.
However, in this study educators emphasised a shortage of time for meetings like this
and exchanging these opinions and experiences. Hence, integration FSP in other
courses without giving teams of educators the opportunity to develop a well-balanced
and shared view on this topic hardly guarantees good preparation for FSP.
The lack of shared views and the important role of individual educators might
indicate an even more extensive issue in teacher education, namely the absence of
improvement of educators’teaching practices by collaborating and exchanging expe-
riences. In this study, educators emphasised there is hardly any time for collabora-
tion and development of shared visions. This may lead to individual unplanned and
unconscious practices of educators as found in this study. These practices are, for
example, also described in relation to moral education and citizenship (Willemse,
Lunenberg, and Korthagen 2008) and to modelling (Lunenberg, Korthagen, and
Swennen 2007). The critical role of individual educators and the lack of collabora-
tive exchange about educators’visions and practices refer to a bigger issue. More
research is needed about how changes can be made in teacher education and how
educators can be supported, through collaboration, to address issues such as FSP in
a more meaningful way.
Notes
1. In this article ‘teachers educators’will be referred to as ‘educators’and ‘teacher candi-
dates’as ‘candidates’.
2. Examples of those topics are: ‘How to conduct parent meetings’;‘Answering parents’
questions about raising children’. These questions correspond with the Epsteins’six types
of involvement.
Notes on contributors
Erica de Bruïne is a senior lecturer at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Depart-
ment of Education, Zwolle, the Netherlands. Her areas of expertise are inclusive education,
positive behaviour support and curriculum design. Her research focuses on parent involve-
ment and family–school partnerships.
Martijn Willemse is a senior research fellow and teacher educator at Windesheim university
of applied sciences, Department of Education, Zwolle, the Netherlands. His areas of expertise
and research are (the professional development of) teacher educators, civic and moral educa-
tion, and family–school partnerships.
14 E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Jeanne D’Haem is an associate professor of Special Education at William Paterson Univer-
sity, Wayne, NJ. Her areas of expertise are behaviour management, positive behaviour sup-
port, disability law and the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education
programmes. Her research focuses on the use of simple interventions that prevent problem
behaviours, working with parents and inclusion of children with developmental disabilities.
Peter Griswold is an associate professor of Special Education at William Paterson University,
Wayne, NJ. His areas of expertise are learning disabilities and teaching strategies for inclu-
sive classrooms. His research focuses on family–school partnerships with a particular interest
in the relationship between parents of children with disabilities and the school.
Lijne Vloeberghs is a lecturer in the Special Needs Education Teacher Education programme
at University College Leuven in Belgium. Her areas of expertise are autism and social-emo-
tional difficulties, inclusive education and preparing teachers to work with children with spe-
cial educational needs. Her research centres around family–school partnerships and inclusive
education.
Sofie Van Eynde is a lecturer in the Special Needs Educational Teacher Education pro-
gramme at University College Leuven in Belgium. Her expertise centres around autism and
social-emotional difficulties, coaching of pre-service teachers in Special Needs Education and
inclusive education. She conducts research on family–school partnerships.
References
Bartels, S., and K. Eskow. 2010. “Training School Professionals to Engage Families: A Pilot.
University/State Department of Education Partnership.”The School Community Journal
20 (2): 45–71.
Baum, A. C., and K. J. Swick. 2008. “Dispositions Toward Families and Family Involve-
ment: Supporting Preservice Teacher Development.”Early Childhood Education 35:
579–584.
Bingham, A., and T. Abernathy. 2007. “Promoting Family-centered Teaching: Can One
Course Make a Difference?”Issues in Teacher Education 16 (1): 37–60.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Denessen, E., J. Bakker, L. Kloppenburg, and M. Kerkhof. 2009. “Teacher-parent Partner-
ships: Preservice Teacher Competences and Attitudes during Teacher Training in the
Netherlands.”International Journal about Parents in Education 3 (1): 29–36.
Desforges, C., and A. Abouchaar. 2003. The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Sup-
port and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review.
Nottingham: DfES.
Driessen, G., F. Smit, and P. Sleegers. 2005. “Parental Involvement and Educational Achieve-
ment.”British Educational Research Journal 31 (4): 508–532.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 2002. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.”In The Qualitative
Researchers’s Companion, edited by A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles, 5–36. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Epstein, J. L. 1995. “School–Family–Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We
Share.”Phi Delta Kappa 76 (9): 701–712.
Epstein, J. L. [2001] 2011. School, Family and Community Partnerships. Boulder, CO: West-
view Press.
Epstein, J. L., and M. G. Sanders. 2006. “Prospects for Change: Preparing Educators for
School, Family, and Community Partnerships.”Peabody Journal of Education 81 (2):
81–120.
Epstein J. L., M. G. Sanders, and L. A. Clark. 1999. Preparing Educators for School–Fam-
ily–Community Partnerships. Results of a National Survey of Colleges and Universities.
Report No. 34. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Centre on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships.
European Journal of Teacher Education 15
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
European Commission. 2008. “Improve Parents –Improve Schools.”Comenius Project.
Accessed August 30, 2012. http://www.involve-migrants-improve-school.eu/index.php?
id=19
Evans, M. P. 2013. “Educating Pre-service Teachers for Family, School, and Community
Engagement.”Teaching Education 24 (2): 123–133.
Fan, X., and M. Chen. 2001. “Parental Involvement and Students’Academic Achievement:
A Meta-analysis.”Educational Psychology Review 13 (1): 1–22.
Flanigan, C. B. 2007. “Preparing Pre-service Teachers to Partner with Parents and Communi-
ties: An Analysis of College of Education Faculty Focus Groups.”School Community
Journal 17 (2): 89–109.
Graham-Clay, S. 2005. “Communicating with Parents: Strategies for Teachers.”The School
Community Journal 16 (1): 117–130.
Graue, E., and C. P. Brown. 2003. “Pre-service Teachers’Notions of Families and School-
ing.”Teaching and Teacher Education 19: 719–735.
Hargreaves, A. 2000. “Professionals and Parents: Personal Adversaries or Public Allies?”
Prospects XXX 2: 202–213.
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning. London: Routledge.
Henderson, A. T., and K. L. Mapp. 2002. A New Wave of Evidence. The Impact of School,
Family and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Austin: Southwest Educa-
tional Development Laboratory.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and H. M. Sandler. 1997. “Why Do Parents Become Involved in
Their Children’s Education?”Review of Educational Research 67 (1): 3–42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., J. Walker, K. Jones, and R. Reed. 2002. “Teachers Involving Parents
TIP: Results of an In-service Teacher Education Program for Enhancing Parental Involve-
ment.”Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 843–867.
Hornby, G., and R. Lafaele. 2011. “Barriers to Parental Involvement in Education: An
Explanatory Model.”Educational Review 63 (1): 37–52.
Hornby, G., and C. Witte. 2010. “Parental Involvement in Secondary Schools in New
Zealand: Implications for School Psychologists.”School Psychology International 31 (5):
495–508.
Ingvarson, L., A. Beavis, and E. Kleinhenz. 2007. “Factors Affecting the Impact of Teacher
Education Programmes on Teacher Preparedness: Implications for Accreditation Policy.”
European Journal of Teacher Education 30 (4): 351–381.
Jeynes, W. H. 2007. “The Relationship between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary
School Student Academic Achievement. A Meta-analysis.”Urban Education 42 (1):
82–110.
Kroeger, J., and M. Lash. 2011. “Asking, Listening, and Learning: Toward a More Thorough
Method of Inquiry in Home–school Relations.”Teaching and Teacher Education 27:
268–277.
Loughran, J., and A. Berry. 2005. “Modelling by Teacher Educators.”Teaching and Teacher
Education 21: 193–203.
Lunenberg, M., J. Dengerink, and F. Korthagen. 2013. Het Beroep van de Lerarenopleider:
Professionele Rollen, Professioneel Handelen en Professionele Ontwikkeling van Lerare-
nopleiders. Een Reviewstudie in Opdracht van NWO/PROO [The Profession of Teacher
Educator. Professional Roles, Professional Behaviour and Professional Development of
Teacher Educators. A Review Study Granted by the Netherlands Organization for Scien-
tific Research (NWO/PROO)]. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Lunenberg M., F. Korthagen, and A. Swennen. 2007. “The Teacher Educator as a Role
Model.”Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 586–601.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, G. E., C. Lines, E. Sullivan, and K. Hermanutz. 2013. “Preparing Educators to Partner
with Families.”Teaching Education 24 (2): 150–163.
Molina, S. C. 2013. “Family, School, Community Engagement, and Partnerships: An Area of
Continued Inquiry and Growth.”Teaching Education 24 (2): 235–238.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2002. Pub L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. Accessed
April 2013. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
16 E.J. de Bruïne et al.
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pushor, D. 2011. “Attending to Milieu: Living a Curriculum of Parents Alongside Teacher
Candidates.”Narrative Inquiries into Curriculum Making in Teacher Education Advances
in Research on Teaching 13: 217–237.
Rabiee, F. 2004. “Focus Group Interview and Data Analysis.”Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society 63 (4): 655–660.
Sanders, M. G., and J. L. Epstein. 2005. “School–Family–Community Partnerships and
Educational Change: International Perspective.”In Extending Educational Change, edited
by A. Hargreaves, 202–224. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shartrand, A., H. Weiss, H. Kreider, and M. Lopez. 1997. New Skills for New Schools:
Preparing Teachers in Family Involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Project.
Souto-Manning, M., and K. Swick. 2006. “Teachers’Beliefs about Parent and Family
Involvement: Rethinking our Family Involvement Paradigm.”Early Childhood Education
Journal 34 (2): 187–193.
Swanborn, P. G. 2008. Case-study’s. Wat, Wanneer en Hoe? [Case Study. What, How and
When?]. Wassenaar: Boom Onderwijs.
Uludag, A. 2008. “Elementary Preservice Teachers’Opinions about Parental Involvement in
Elementary Children’s Education.”Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 807–817.
Willemse, T. M., M. Lunenberg, and F. Korthagen. 2008. “The Moral Aspects of Teacher
Educators’Practices.”Journal of Moral Education 374: 445–466.
Yin, R. 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
European Journal of Teacher Education 17
Downloaded by [CHR Hogeschool Windesheim] at 02:31 09 May 2014
