Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 1
Art. # 1073, 11 pages, doi: 10.15700/saje.v35n2a1073
What do parents really want? Parents’ perceptions of their children’s schooling
Corinne Meier
Department of Early Childhood Education, College of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
meierc@unisa.ac.za
Eleanor Lemmer
Department Educational Foundations, College of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
International evidence confirms that parental involvement has substantial benefits for families and schools, as well as long-
term economic benefits for developed and developing countries. To implement sound parental involvement two-way
communication between home and school is essential. Schools worldwide tend to focus on communication from the school
to the home, and afford parents fewer opportunities to express their perceptions of the quality of schooling. However,
researcher-based, national and international surveys of parent opinion indicate that school endeavours to improve learner
outcomes depend to a large extent on the data provided by parents. This article examines parents’ perceptions of their child’s
schooling, gathered by means of an annual questionnaire administered in a public primary school in Gauteng, South Africa.
A researcher-designed questionnaire administered annually over two consecutive years (2012 and 2013) was used to gauge
parents’ opinions of school culture, home-school communication, classroom instruction and classroom organisation. The
results indicate that parents were generally satisfied with all four areas. However, parents indicated concerns about reporting
on an individual learner’s progress, academic achievement, and social and emotional wellbeing, as well as academic
enrichment opportunities, and ways for parents to assist learning at home. In terms of classroom instruction and organisation,
variations in parent responses emerged according to grade levels, and over the two-year reporting period. Recommendations
were made, which could benefit other schools wishing to improve two-way communication with families through parent
questionnaires.
Keywords: classroom organisation; classroom teaching; family-school partnership; home-school communication; learner
progress; parent surveys; quality of schooling
Introduction
Schools and families have been described as partners in the education of their children (Epstein, 2011a, 2011b;
Epstein & Associates, 2009; Lemmer, 2013). Both share the common goal of wanting to assist children to
develop their full potential (Bray, 2001). A large body of research in a variety of community and country
settings strongly supports an argument for the benefits of family-school partnerships (Moles & Fege, 2011).
Positive parental involvement in schooling leads to learners’ improved academic achievement and socio-
emotional development (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2011; Redding, Murphy & Sheley, 2011). Parents
and teachers enjoy reciprocal support and satisfaction in achieving positive changes in learners and in the school
(Lemmer, 2013). Furthermore, Nobel Laureate and distinguished economist, James Heckman points out the
broad developmental role played by parental involvement across developed and developing countries. Heckman
and Mosso (2014) propose an economic model of human development, which emphasises the positive impact of
parents in education on a child’s human capital accumulation. This in turn contributes to a country’s long-term
economic growth, through the rate of return on child human capital accumulation and skill development. This
finding makes parental involvement a crucial topic for policy makers in the international arena.
In spite of these well-documented benefits, parental involvement is often weak and limited to the
participation of parents in governance, the payment of school fees and fund-raising (Van Wyk, 2010). In South
African schools, comprehensive parental involvement models are infrequent (Van Wyk & Lemmer, 2007;
Venter, 2013). Although education should be a shared activity, in practice, the bond between parents and
teachers is not always spontaneous. Schools and families do not always share the same ideas on what is needed
in the child’s best interests (Krüger & Michalek, 2011). Establishing an effective link between schools and
homes, regular two-way communication is essential (Lemmer & Van Wyk, 2004). To promote effective
communication with families, schools should design a variety of school-to-home as well as home-to-school
communication strategies with all families each year about school programmes and learners’ progress
(O’Connor, 2008). Furthermore, this communication should be part of a co-equal relationship (Spry & Graham,
2009). Teachers often regard themselves as being somewhat superior to parents, because of their professional
expertise; parents often feel less adequate than teachers, as parenting is seen as something that everyone can do
(Hanhan, 2008). The nature of home-school communication frequently reflects this situation. Although virtually
all schools usually invest time and energy in communicating with parents, most communication between home
and school tends to be one-way: from the school to the home. One-way communication predominates in the use
of written circulars and general parent meetings, which schools use predominantly to communicate their
expectations and requirements to parents. Individual parent-teacher interviews allow for greater two-way
communication, but often end as brief exchanges (Lemmer, 2012). In most schools, little effort is made by
school staff to listen to important information parents have about their children, the home culture, and their
views on education (Gestwicki, 2012). However, researcher-based surveys (Dauber & Epstein, 1989), national
2 Meier, Lemmer
surveys in the United States (Child Trends Data
Bank, 2013) and the United Kingdom (Department
for Children, Schools and Families, 2008) and
international surveys of parent opinion facilitated
by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) indicate that school
endeavours to improve learner outcomes depend to
a large extent on data provided by parents (Kelley-
Laine, 1998). If schools want parents to be
authentic partners in education, they must
consistently and respectfully invite parents to voice
their opinions in a co-equal relationship with
teachers (Griffith, 2001; López, Sánchez & Hamil-
ton, 2000). A useful strategy to gauge parental
feedback about the school and to elicit their views
and recommendations is to conduct a regular parent
survey. The findings can be used to assist parent-
teacher action teams and School Governing Bodies
(SGBs) to set goals for continuous school improve-
ment over the medium and long term (Epstein &
Associates, 2009).
This article presents the findings of an inquiry
undertaken in a public primary school in Gauteng,
South Africa, to gather parent perceptions of
schooling using a questionnaire administered over
two consecutive years. The aim was to engage pa-
rents as full partners, by affording them the
opportunity to appraise the school culture, home-
school communication practices, and classroom
instruction and organisation, with a view towards
the continuous improvement of the school.
Theoretical Perspectives
To inform the inquiry, attention is given to key
theories dealing with the role of two-way home-
school communication in parental involvement:
Epstein’s (1987, 1995) and Epstein and Associates’
(2009) theory and typology of parental
involvement; Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler’s (2007) as well as Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler’s (1995, 1997) five-level model of parent
involvement; and Redding’s (2000, 2006, 2011)
model of schools as communities.
Epstein’s contribution to parental involvement
theory is the building block on which most parental
involvement research rests (Redding, 2000). Ep-
stein’s (1987, 1995, 2011a, 2011b), and Epstein
and Associates’ (2009) theory of overlapping
spheres of influence posits that the work of families
and schools overlaps, and they share goals and
missions. Children learn in three major contexts –
the family, school and the community – and these
contexts can be drawn together or pushed apart.
Based on the theory of overlapping spheres,
Epstein (1987) developed a typology of six major
types of parental involvement: parenting; commu-
nicating; volunteering; learning at home; decision
making; and community involvement. In this paper,
attention is focused on Epstein’s (2011a, 2011b)
second type of parental involvement, namely
communicating. The school is tasked with the
responsibility of developing effective forms of
school-to-home communication and home-to-
school communication regarding school pro-
grammes and students’ progress. Communication
should take place in multiple ways in order to
connect schools, homes and communities. Epstein
emphasises the importance of giving parents ample
opportunity to voice their expectations and con-
cerns about their children and the school.
According to Epstein (1995), effective comm-
unication is never uni-directional, but always
allows for and encourages communication from the
parent to the teacher, from the family to the school.
So important is communication in the Epstein ty-
pology, that Keyes (2002) argues that home-school
communication should be elevated to an over-
arching type of involvement, which penetrates the
other five types of parental involvement, and on
which their effective realisation is dependent.
Building on Epstein’s contribution to the
field, Green et al. (2007) and Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (1995, 1997) developed a five-level pro-
cess model of parental involvement. In place of
Epstein’s six types of parental involvement,
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler identify four forms
of parental involvement: the communication of pa-
rental values, goals, aspirations and expectations to
their children; parent activities at home; parent
activities at school; and home-school comm-
unication. Of pertinence to this paper, is the
authors’ emphasis on the latter. The benefit of
home-school communication is generally the most
powerful when it is consistently characterised by
mutual respect between parent and teacher, listen-
ing to one another, and school responsiveness to
parents’ concerns. Hoover-Dempsey and Walker
(2002) maintain that when schools welcome
parents’ views and input, parents feel more sat-
isfied with the quality of their children’s education.
Parental satisfaction with the child’s progress and
the activities of the school, in turn, creates spinoffs
for teachers. Teachers enjoy a more positive
supportive relationship with parents, and they can
more easily recruit parental support for the curri-
culum, homework supervision, learning at home,
and extra-mural activities. Conversely, where posi-
tive parent-teacher communication is lacking, inter-
actions between teachers and parents may emerge
primarily from situations motivated by problems
around the child and the curriculum. This en-
genders dissatisfaction from one or both parties –
teachers and parents. Interactions under these
circumstances increase the separation between
families and schools, leaving parents and teachers
to struggle independently in their own spheres to
help children learn.
Finally, effective home-school communi-
cation plays a definitive role in Redding’s (2000,
2006, 2011) model of the school as a community,
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 3
which comprises diverse stakeholders, namely pa-
rents, teachers, students, administrative and support
staff and volunteers. All are knit together by a
common goal – the welfare of the child. However,
the school as a community is not automatically
established; for a school to function as a com-
munity, intentional effort is required, whereby
every member is accepted and respected. A school
community is premised on the following assump-
tions: all parents desire their child’s success; all
teachers are motivated by their professional
commitment to the child’s success; the child’s
success is dependent on the cooperation of all
members of the school community; and school
leaders are responsible for driving endeavours to
improve the school. Redding (2011) emphasises the
importance of communication and continuous im-
provement in a school community. If the school is
to adhere to continuous improvement in all areas, it
requires systematic, regular data gathering to
discern areas of excellence which can be strength-
ened as well as areas of weakness. Continuous
improvement of the school is impossible without
relevant, accessible and actionable data (Weiss &
Lopez, 2011). Such data is found in the answers
from parents to the following question: What do
parents think about the activities provided for them
by the school, the instructional activities provided
for students and the organisation of the school? To
obtain this data schools should conduct parent
surveys and focus groups.
This discussion has grounded this study in key
parental involvement theory which stresses comm-
unication from the parents to the school and the
more conventional communication of school to the
parents, within the broad area of home-school
communication. Based on this framework, we ar-
gue that an annual parent questionnaire is a useful
instrument to realise this aim.
Method
A cross-sectional survey design was used to ad-
minister a researcher-designed questionnaire in
2012 and in 2013, respectively, to parents of a
suburban public primary school in Gauteng Pro-
vince, South Africa which caters for children in
Grades 1 to 7. The school is well-established and
has received a provincial award for excellence
several times. Parents are from a middle-income
group and entertain high expectations for their
children’s education. The SGB, teachers and
parents are committed to continuous improvement
in all areas of school life and the survey formed
part of the school’s ongoing endeavour to improve
parental involvement and the instructional pro-
gramme in the school with the long-term goal of
increasing learner outcomes. The elected SGB as
representative of the parent community and the
school management team requested an independent
researcher to design and implement the parent
questionnaires to gauge parent perceptions of the
quality of schooling. The questionnaire content was
approved by the school principal and SGB. Parents
were informed and invited to participate in the
survey. Participation was voluntary, and comple-
tion of the questionnaire indicated parental en-
dorsement of the aims of the endeavour.
A non-probabilistic convenience sampling
procedure was used (McMillan & Schumacher,
2010), and all families were invited to participate in
the survey. One questionnaire was distributed to
each family (in many cases, a family had more than
one learner enrolled in the school). A separate
questionnaire per child per grade was not con-
sidered feasible, due to the time that parents would
require to complete multiple questionnaires and the
possible negative effect on return rates. In 2012,
950 questionnaires were distributed, and in 2013,
1,072 questionnaires were distributed, in both
cases, at the beginning of the third quarter. The
response rates for the two years were 39% and 43%
respectively. A covering letter stipulated the pur-
pose of the study, the protection afforded the
respondents by keeping their identities confidential,
instructions for completion, and thanks. The res-
ponding parent, however, was asked to indicate the
grade(s) of the child(ren) without disclosure of
identity.
The questionnaire comprised 49 closed items
in 2012, and 63 closed items in 2013, intended to
obtain descriptive data arranged according to four
sections: Section One (school culture); Section
Two (home-school communication); Section Three
(classroom instruction); and Section Four (class-
room organisation). A separate section allowed for
open-ended comments. Perceptions were measured
using a five-point Likert scale, where: 1 = strongly
agree; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly dis-
agree; 5 = not applicable. Each section concluded
with an open-ended item. Parents with children in
Grades 1 to 3 only completed Sections One and
Two; Sections Three and Four pertained to class-
room instruction and classroom organisation in
Grades 4 to 7. However, parents with children in
Grades 4 to 7 were able to indicate responses to the
items according to the respective Grade, thus
providing nuanced results. Data was analysed with
the assistance of statistical experts. Composite fre-
quency tables (Tables 1–4) on the questionnaire
items that described each of the four sections listed
provided detailed information on the response
pattern of individual items, and gave an overall
view of parent perceptions on the designated topics
for 2012 and 2013. Scores for ‘strongly agree’ and
‘agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ have
been combined and rounded off. The open-ended
comments were manually coded, and organised
according to Sections One to Four, and selected
comments have been incorporated into the dis-
cussion to enrich the findings. A full exposition of
4 Meier, Lemmer
open-ended comments was not deemed possible in
this paper, due to journal constraints on length. The
results of both applications of the questionnaire
(2012 and 2013) were disseminated to all parents in
general school meetings by the school management
team and SGB. The results of the surveys were also
reviewed by the school management team, the SGB
and teaching staff with a view to school improve-
ment strategies. As a consequence of the 2012
feedback session, 14 new items were added to the
questionnaire distributed in 2013. Improvement
strategies were implemented in 2013, as a result of
the 2012 findings, and in 2014 as a result of the
2013 data. Finally, the limitations of the study are
acknowledged. The results present the perceptions
of parents in a single school embedded in a par-
ticular context, and are not more widely applicable.
In particular, certain items in the sections dealing
with the quality of classroom instruction and organ-
isation depend on feedback from the child to the
parent, and not on direct observation.
Results
School Culture
Section one (four items) dealt with parents’
perceptions of school culture for the period 2012
and 2013. In designing the questionnaire, the re-
searchers recognised the wide repertoire of com-
ponents making up school culture, such as the
beliefs, perceptions, relationships, attitudes and
written and unwritten rules that influence all facets
of school functioning, as well as concrete appli-
cations, such as student safety, the orderliness of
classrooms, and public spaces or the school’s
approach to diversity (The Glossary of Education
Reform, 2013). However, due to the considerations
about questionnaire length and the time required
for completion, the concept of school culture was
unpacked in only four items, dealing with an in-
vitational approach to parents, orderliness of
facilities and learner access to teacher’s assistance.
Table 1 indicates that parent respondents generally
agreed that the school culture was positive. Parents’
overall satisfaction with school culture was also
confirmed by many positive open-ended comments.
The overwhelming majority of parents (95.7% in
2012 and 97.2 % in 2013) agreed that they were
welcome at the school (Item 1). Most parents
(73.4% in 2012 and 79.3% in 2013) knew who to
contact if a problem arose (Item 2). Similarly, the
majority (77.5% in 2012 and 82.5% in 2013)
agreed that there is a teacher available for the child
to consult regarding non-academic problems. The
majority (78% in 2012 and 79.4% in 2013) also
agreed that the school grounds are clean and tidy
(Item 4). Notwithstanding these positive results, the
questionnaire was aimed at identifying areas for
further continuous improvement, and it should
therefore be noted that 10%+ of parents disagreed
about Item 3, while approximately 20% of parents
disagreed about Items 2 and 4. This implies some
uncertainty about whom the parents or the child
ought to approach in the event of a problem, par-
ticularly non-academic problems; and that the
appearance of the school grounds was not always
satisfactory. Open-ended comments added insight
to the questionnaire results of Items 2 and 4.
Regarding the school-grounds, parents were satis-
fied with renovations (e.g. paving around the
classrooms) but were dissatisfied with littering. A
disturbing issue that emerged from the open-ended
comments was bullying (“my child is often
teased”). Connected to this was Item 4: the availa-
bility of a teacher in the event of social or emo-
tional problems (“teachers do not give attention to
the little ones who are bullied”). The results
suggest that clearer reporting channels should be
established in terms of social and emotional prob-
lems at school: the names of appropriate persons,
contact details and consulting times should be
communicated to all families every quarter, in
order to inform new cohorts of parents. School
management and support staff should ensure that
the grounds remain tidy, especially after intense use
and high traffic. Further, the questionnaire un-
covered the occurrence of bullying, an issue which
should be incorporated into future questionnaires to
track such misconduct.
Home-School Communication
Section two (10 items) dealt with parents’ percep-
tions of opportunities for home-school comm-
unication for the period 2012 and 2013. According
to items 1 to 10 in Table 2, parent respondents
generally agreed that the school succeeded in main-
taining home-school communication through con-
ventional means, such as parent meetings and
school reports. However, the school was less
successful in informing parents about the progress,
achievement and well-being of individual children,
and about academic enrichment opportunities and
parental assistance for learning at home. This was
also borne out by the open-ended data.
Items 1 and 8 dealt with parent perceptions of
parent-teacher meetings. The overwhelming major-
ity of parents (Item 1) (90.5% in 2012 and 89% in
2013) agreed that parent-teacher meetings took
place at convenient times, and over two-thirds of
parents (Item 8) (69% in 2012 and 73% in 2013)
agreed that invitations to the meetings were
adequate. Parent opinion was equally divided on
the issue of print versus electronic newsletters.
More than half the parents (59.2% in 2012 and
58.9% in 2013) preferred to receive printed parent
newsletters (Item 2); virtually the same percentage
of parents (58.2% in 2012 and 57% in 2013)
preferred electronic parent newsletters (Item 3).
This suggests that, for the present, the school
should retain a blended approach in the form of the
option of either print or electronic newsletters.
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 5
Open-ended comments referred to the need for a
more user-friendly school webpage and requests
that the electronic communicator (a computer pro-
gramme which communicates detailed school-
related matters) should not be limited to mainly
administrative matters, but should be updated daily
on cultural and academic events.
Table 1 School culture
Item Strongly agree and agree Strongly disagree and
disagree
Not applicable
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
1. I feel welcome at the
school.
95.7 97.2 3.1 2.6 1.2 0.2
2. I know which person
to contact at school if
I experience a
problem.
73.4 79.3 25.8 20.5 0.8 0.2
3. There is a teacher to
whom my child can
go if he/she
experiences a problem
of a non-academic
nature.
77.5 82.5 16.8 12.9 5.7 4.6
4. The school grounds
always look tidy and
clean.
78 79.4 22 19.7 0.0 0.9
Table 2 Home-school communication
Item Strongly agree and
agree
Strongly disagree and
disagree
Not applicable
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
1. The school schedules parent-teacher
meetings at convenient times.
90.5 89 8.3 10.4 1.2 0.6
2. I prefer print copies of the parent
newsletter as a means of
communication.
59.2 58.9 37.9 38.9 2.9 2.2
3. I prefer electronic copies of the
parent newsletter as a means of
communication.
58.2 57 40.9 39.8 0.9 3.2
4. The school informs me regularly of
my child’s academic progress.
82.3 83.7 16.2 15.9 1.5 0.4
5. The school contacts me if my child
does not progress academically.
44.1 44.2 20.1 26.0 35.8 29.8
6. The school contacts me if my child
achieves academic success.
31 31.5 52.6 52.8 164 15.7
7. The school contacts me if my child
experiences emotional or social
problems.
35.6 38.6 32.1 34.4 32.3 27.0
8. I am invited to parent-teacher
meetings to discuss my child’s
progress.
69 73 21.8 18.8 9.2 8.2
9. The school informs me of extra
classes to strengthen class teaching.
41.5 40.1 45.5 47 13 12.9
10. The school provides information on
how I can assist my child
academically.
40 41.3 48.9 50 11.1 8.7
Importantly, parents are satisfied with the
regularity with which their child’s academic pro-
gress is reported (Item 4) (82.3% in 2012 and
83.7% in 2013). Additional information provided
by the principal in an informal interview indicated
that parents receive a detailed progress report every
quarter. Items 5, 6 and 7 dealt with personal contact
with parents about the academic achievement and
the social and emotional wellbeing of individual
learners. The results for these three items indicated
areas for improvement in home-school commu-
nication. Less than half of the parents (44.1% in
2012 and 44.2% in 2013) agreed that the school
contacted them personally if their child was not
progressing satisfactorily (Item 5). Roughly a
quarter of parents disagreed on this issue and a
large proportion of not applicable responses (35.8%
for 2012 and 29.8% for 2013) were reported. This
indicates some uncertainty among parents about
communication from the school regarding academ-
6 Meier, Lemmer
ic problems, unsatisfactory grades or other indi-
cators of poor performance. Less than a third of
parents (31% in both 2012 and 2013) agreed that
the school contacted them if their child achieved
academic success (Item 6). Roughly half the pa-
rents (52.6% in 2012 and 52.8% in 2013) disagreed
on this issue, and a substantial percentage of not
applicable responses (16.4% in 2012 and 15.7% in
2013) indicated uncertainty. This finding is corrob-
orated by the literature, which indicates that
schools communicate primarily on problem issues
and neglect to inform parents of a child’s successes
(Gonzalez-Mena, 2010; Lemmer, 2012). In similar
vein, 35.6% of parents (2012) and 38.6% (2013) of
parents agreed that the school contacted them when
the child experienced social or emotional problems
(Item 7). A third of the parents (32.1% in 2012 and
34.4% in 2013) disagreed on this issue, and an
almost equal proportion of non-applicable re-
sponses were reported, which indicated uncertainty.
Open-ended comments endorsed these results for
items 5, 6 and 7. Parents requested more frequent
and well-timed feedback on all their children’s
school activities, not merely the quarterly report
card, where one noted, for example: “I would like
more regular reporting on the results of tests, the
Annual National Assessment and other assess-
ment[s], not only on report day, so that we can
motivate or work on a problem”. Parents were
divided on the issue of extra classes to strengthen
classroom teaching (Item 9) and ways that they can
support their children academically at home (Item
10). Nearly half of the parents felt that the school
did not provide information about extra classes to
strengthen class teaching (Item 9) (41.5% in 2012
and 40% in 2013) and that the school did not
provide information on how they could assist their
children academically at home (item 10) (40% in
2012 and 41.3% in 2013). Moreover, a proportion
of non-applicable responses indicate uncertainty on
the issue.
Classroom Instruction
Section three dealt with parents’ perceptions of
classroom instruction for 2012 and 2013. This
paper reports on the results for classroom in-
struction in only the core subjects: Afrikaans,
English, Mathematics and Science/Technology,
Grades 4 to 7, according to the responses for six
items (see Table 3). The results for parental per-
ceptions of elective subjects are not included in this
paper.
Most parents (+90%) agreed that subject
teachers know their subject matter (Item 1). More
than 80% of parents in Grade 4 to 7 agreed that
lessons were well presented (Item 2). However,
Table 3 indicates a difference in the percentage of
parents who disagreed on the quality of lesson pre-
sentation in 2012 and in 2013, respectively. In
2012, the results indicated disagreement as follows:
Grade 4, 9.6%; Grade 5, 13.7%; Grade 6, 14.4%;
Grade 7, 13.5 percent. In contrast to this, in 2013,
the percentage of parents who disagreed on the
quality of lesson presentation was substantially
reduced (Grade 4, 6.3%; Grade 5, 6.8%; Grade 6,
7.1%; Grade 7, 5%). This may be ascribed to the
effect of the 2012 questionnaire on school
improvement: teachers may have addressed the
quality of lesson presentation in 2013 as a
consequence of parental dissatisfaction.
The results indicated variation according to
grade in parent responses to Item 3: “my child has
the confidence to ask that content be explained
again if he/she does not understand”. Regarding
Grade 4, 80% (2012) and 85.2% (2013) of parents
agreed on this issue. However, in Grade 5, there
was a less positive response: 73.2% of parents
(2012) and 79.3% of parents (2013) agreed. This
suggests that Grade 5 learners are less likely to
obtain additional explanations of content when
needed. Regarding Grade 6, 78.8% of parents
agreed in 2012; however, this improved in 2013
(90.5% of parents agreed). Regarding Grade 7,
82.6% of parents agreed in 2012, but in 2013, this
percentage of parents who agreed declined to 66
percent. A considerable proportion of non-
applicable responses (22%) suggest uncertainty on
this issue. Open-ended comments put forward a
possible explanation: children were afraid to ask
for additional assistance once a topic had been dealt
with (“my child is afraid to ask questions in the
class”).
Most parents (over 86%) commenting on all
grades and in both years (2012 and 2013) agreed
that clear instructions were given on how to
complete assignments and tasks (Item 4). Similarly,
most parents (over 80%) commenting on all grades
and in both years (2012 and 2013) agreed that
deadlines for tasks were given well in advance
(Item 5). A substantial proportion of parents (±
20%) commenting on all grades in 2012 disagreed
that feedback on assignments and tasks was given
within an appropriate response time (Item 6),
although this percentage decreased in 2013,
possibly due to the impact of the questionnaire on
school improvement.
Other matters arising from the open-ended
section were: the disadvantages of generic grading
for group work, the need to instil enthusiasm for a
subject, more appropriate homework and tuition in
basic language skills.
A final item in this section required parents to
indicate satisfaction with the overall quality of
instruction. The results indicated that 90.3% of
parents were satisfied.
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 7
Table 3 Classroom instruction
Item Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
1. The teachers
know the
subject
matter.
94.4 93.3 1.5 2.5 4.1 4.2 91.9 95.2 3.3 3.2 4.8 1.6 83.7 97.6 6.6 1.8 9.7 0.6 94.3 72.0 4.3 3 1.4 25.0
2. Lessons are
thoroughly
presented.
86.5 87.8 9.6 6.3 3.9 5.9 85.3 85.3 13.7 6.8 1 7.9 85.2 91.1 14.4 7.1 0.4 1.8 83.7 70.0 13.5 5 2.8 25.0
3. My child
has the
confidence
to ask that
content be
explained
again if
he/she does
not
understand.
80 85.2 12.0 13.1 8 1.7 73.2 79.3 25.2 19.6 1.6 1.1 78.8 90.5 12.5 8.3 8.7 1.2 82.6 66 10.3 12.0 7.1 22
4. Clear
instructions
are given on
how to
complete
assignments
and tasks.
92 91 6.2 7 1.8 2 86.7 91.1 10.1 6.5 3.2 2.4 87.3 90.5 8.5 9.5 4.2 0 88.5 72 8.9 4 2.6 24
5. Dates for the
completion
of tasks are
given well
in advance.
91.7 87.3 2.5 4.6 5.8 8.1 81.5 93.4 8.4 3.3 10.1 3.3 85 85.8 9.6 8.9 5.4 5.3 83.6 71 6.8 4 9.6 25
6. Feedback on
assignments
and tasks are
given in an
appropriate
time.
75.5 87 20.9 11 3.6 2 76.6 91.1 19.4 5.9 4 3 74.1 82.7 22.1 16.7 3.8 0.6 63 67 32.5 8 4.5 25
8 Meier, Lemmer
Table 4 Classroom organisation
Item Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
Strongly
agree and
agree
Strongly
disagree and
disagree
Not
applicable
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
1. The teacher
maintains
discipline.
82.9 94.3 8.1 3.1 9.0 2.6 82.6 85.3 14.3 7.2 3.1 7.5 86.5 83.2 8.5 0.6 5 16.2 82.5 71.5 14.3 4.0 3.2 24.5
2. The teacher
is respected.
76.6 88.5 12.7 6.5 10.7 5.0 84.5 92.2 15.5 3.3 0 4.5 78.3 77.5 14.9 4.4 6.8 18.1 84.5 70.8 15.5 4.5 0 24.7
3. The teacher
treats
learners
fairly.
82.7 91.5 7.9 4.8 9.4 3.7 83.5 85 13.3 10.4 3.2 4.6 87.6 77.5 7.8 4.4 4.6 18.1 83.5 66.1 13.3 10.2 3.2 23.7
4. Classroom
displays
create a
subject-
related
environment.
89.5 95.1 2.5 1.5 8.0 3.4 74.5 87 18.9 5.3 6.6 7.7 74.4 70.1 15.9 6.3 9.7 23.6 74.5 70 18.9 5.7 6.6 24.3
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 9
Classroom Organisation
Section three (four items) dealt with parents’
perceptions of classroom organisation for 2012 and
2013 (see Table 4). Most parents (80%) agreed that
teachers maintain discipline in the classroom (item
1). A higher proportion of Grade 5 and 7 parents
(14.3% for both grades in 2012) than Grade 4 and 6
parents disagreed on this issue. However, this
percentage was reduced in 2013 to less than 10%
for both Grade 5 and 7. Open-ended comments
identified the problem of teachers who absent
themselves from the classroom to deal with admini-
stration or sport. Most parents (75%) agreed that
the teacher was respected in the classroom (item 2).
A proportion of parents (over 12%) disagreed on
this issue in 2012, but this percentage was con-
siderably reduced in 2013 (6.5%) indicating evi-
dence of school improvement. Open-ended com-
ments identified inappropriate enforcement of dis-
cipline: “some teachers yell at the children and
threaten them”. Most parents (over 80%) agreed
that the teacher treated learners fairly (item 3). A
higher proportion of Grade 5 and Grade 7 parents
(13.3% for both grades in 2012) disagreed that
children are treated fairly, with only a small re-
duction in this percentage in 2013. Open-ended
comments related to a lack of criteria for mis-
behaviour and related penalties. More than 70%
agreed that classroom displays created a subject-
related environment (Item 4). A proportion of
Grade 5 and Grade 7 parents (over 18%) disagreed
on this issue, but this proportion was reduced to
less than 10% in 2013. In general, the results indi-
cate a lower proportion of disagreement in 2013
than in 2012 on items 2, 3 and 4, which suggests
the success of improvement strategies implemented
after the 2012 questionnaire. Variations, albeit
small, in the percentages of parents commenting on
the items in terms of different grades, are useful to
school management, who may wish to pinpoint
specific grades where classroom organisation is
weak. Furthermore, open-ended comments brought
to light specific issues, which require school man-
agement’s attention and should be addressed in
future questionnaires.
Discussion and Conclusion
Based on the findings and informed by the lit-
erature review, we argue that an annual parent
questionnaire is an effective means of achieving
two-way communication from home to school. The
latter was identified by Epstein (1987, 1995) and
Epstein and Associates (2009) as an essential
component of effective parental involvement. In
this study, parents were afforded the opportunity to
express their perceptions on a variety of topics, and
where the closed items did not meet their needs,
open-ended items provided a useful channel for
communication. More conventional means of pa-
rent-teacher communication, such as the general
parent meeting and the individual parent-teacher
conference, seldom provide sufficient opportunities
for parents to reflect on all aspects of the school
and give input (Hoover-Dempsey & Walker, 2002).
In this respect, a parent questionnaire allows pa-
rents ample time to consider their own and their
child’s experience of the school, and to provide
anonymous feedback. Frustration and feelings of
distance that parents may experience regarding the
school are reduced (Hoover-Dempsey & Walker,
2002). The cohesiveness of the school community
is thus improved, because parents feel that their
perceptions are heard by school management and
teachers (Redding, 2006).
To further improve practice in this regard, we
recommend that annual parent questionnaires
administered in schools should be complemented
by focus group interviews with selected parents and
teachers, organised according to grade level. A
questionnaire, however well designed, can seldom
exhaust all topics of interest, and focus groups
provide a safe environment in which parents and
teachers can raise issues not included in a
questionnaire. In this study, the number and rich-
ness of open-ended comments confirmed that the
questionnaire did not fully cater for many
important and useful parent perceptions. Effect-
ively, facilitated focus group interviews would
provide a vehicle to address this issue. Moreover,
future questionnaires should be adapted to include
new issues identified by open-ended comments and
focus group interviews. Finally, we recommend
that schools should appoint a parent-teacher action
team under the guidance of the school management
committee, in order to appraise the annual ques-
tionnaire results and to identify areas and strategies
for school improvement (Epstein & Associates,
2009). The inclusion of teachers and parents in
such a team is essential if the school is to achieve
the ideal of authentic partnership in which both
families and school cooperate as equitable partners
(Spry & Graham, 2009).
Finally, engaging parents in schooling by
providing them with a voice through annual sur-
veys can contribute to the improvement of the
quality of teaching and learning. As such it is not
only an educational issue; parental involvement is a
form of investment in educational goods, which
ultimately leads to a high rate of return in national
economies (Heckman & Mosso, 2014).
References
Bray M 2001. Community partnerships in education:
Dimensions, variations and implications. Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Child Trends Data Bank 2013. Parental involvement in
schools: Indicators on children and youth.
Available at
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=parental-
involvement-in-schools. Accessed 7 June 2014.
Dauber SL & Epstein JL 1989. Parent attitudes and
10 Meier, Lemmer
practices of parent involvement in inner-city
elementary and middle schools. Report no.33.
ED314152. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on
Elementary and Middle Schools. Available at
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314152.pdf.
Accessed 11 April 2015.
Department for Children, Schools and Families 2008.
The impact of parental involvement on children’s
schooling. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
Available at
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/2013040
1151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications
/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-
Parental_Involvement.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2014.
Epstein JL 1987. Toward a theory of family-school
connections: Teacher practices and parent
involvement. In K Hurrelmann, FX Kaufmann & F
Lösel (eds). Social intervention: Chances and
constraints. New York: De Gruyter.
Epstein JL 1995. School/family/community partnerships.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9):701–712.
Epstein JL 2011a. Foreword: Ready or not? Preparing
future educators for school, family, and community
partnerships. Teaching Education, 24(2):115–118.
doi: 10.1080/10476210.2013.786887
Epstein JL 2011b. School, family, and community
partnerships: Preparing educators and improving
schools (2nd ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein JL & Associates 2009. School, family and
community partnerships: Your handbook for action
(3
rd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gestwicki C 2012. Home, school, & community
relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Gonzalez-Mena J 2010. 50 strategies for communicating
and working with diverse families (2
nd
ed). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Green CL, Walker JMT, Hoover-Dempsey KV &
Sandler HM 2007. Parents’ motivations for
involvement in children’s education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3):532–544.
http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-
0663.99.3.532
Griffith J 2001. Principal leadership of parent
involvement. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39(2):162–186. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230110386287
Hanhan SF 2008. Parent-Teacher Communication: Who's
Talking? In G Olsen & ML Fuller (eds). Home-
school relations: Working successfully with parents
and families (3rd ed). Boston: Pearson.
Heckman JJ & Mosso S 2014. The economics of human
development and social mobility. NBER Working
Paper No. 19925. Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research. Available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19925.pdf. Accessed
13 April 2015.
Henderson AT & Mapp KL 2002. A new wave of
evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Hoover-Dempsey KV & Sandler HM 1995. Parental
involvement in children’s education. Teachers
College Record, 97(2):310-331.
Hoover-Dempsey KV & Sandler HM 1997. Why do
parents become involved in their children’s
education? Review of Educational Research,
67(1):3–42. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001003
Hoover-Dempsey KV & Walker JMT 2002. Family-
school communication. Paper prepared for the
Research Committee of the Metropolitan
Nashville/Davidson County Board of Public
Education. Available at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/family-
school/school%20reports/HooverDempsey_Walker
.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2015.
Jeynes WH 2011. Parental involvement and academic
success. New York: Routledge.
Kelley-Laine K 1998. Overview of 9 OCED Nations:
Parents as partners in schooling: The current state
of affairs. Childhood Education, 74(6):342-345.
doi: 10.1080/00094056.1998.10521146
Keyes CR 2002. A way of thinking about parent/teacher
partnerships for teachers. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 10(3):177–191. doi:
10.1080/0966976022000044726
Krüger J & Michalek R 2011. Parents’ and teachers’
cooperation: Mutual expectations and attributions
from a parents’ point of view. International
Journal about Parents in Education, 5(2):1–11.
Available at
http://www.ernape.net/ejournal/index.php/IJPE/arti
cle/viewFile/160/107. Accessed 15 April 2015.
Lemmer E & Van Wyk N 2004. Home-school
communication in South African primary schools.
South African Journal of Education, 24(3):183-
188. Available at
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/24
986. Accessed 17 April 2015.
Lemmer EM 2012. Who is doing the talking? Teacher
and parent experiences of parent-teacher
conferences. South African Journal of Education,
32(1):83–96.
Lemmer EM 2013. The parent-teacher relationship as
partnership: a conceptual analysis. Journal for
Christian Scholarship, 49(1&2):25–54.
López LC, Sánchez VV & Hamilton M 2000. Immigrant
and native-born Mexican-American parents’
involvement in a public school: A preliminary
study. Psychological Reports, 86(2):521–525. doi:
10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.521
McMillan JH & Schumacher S 2010. Research in
education: Evidence-based inquiry (7
th
ed). Boston:
Pearson.
Moles OC Jr. & Fege AF 2011. New directions for Title I
family engagement. In S Redding, M Murphy & P
Sheley (eds). Handbook on family and community
engagement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development
Institute.
O’Connor U 2008. Meeting in the middle? A study of
parent-professional partnerships. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 23(3):253–268. doi:
10.1080/08856250802130434
Redding S 2000. Parents and learning (Educational
Practices Series-2). International Academy of
Education & International Bureau of Education.
Available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001254/125
451e.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2015.
Redding S 2006. The mega system: Deciding, learning,
connecting. A handbook for continuous
South African Journal of Education, Volume 35, Number 2, May 2015 11
improvement within a community of the school.
Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
Available at
http://www.adi.org/mega/chapters/ChapterOne.pdf.
Accessed 15 April 2015.
Redding S 2011. The school community: Working
together for student success. In S Redding, M
Murphy & P Sheley (eds). Handbook on family and
community engagement. Lincoln, IL: Academic
Development Institute. Available at
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/grants/pdf/facehandbook
.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2015.
Redding S, Murphy M & Sheley P (eds.) 2011.
Handbook on family and community engagement.
Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.
Spry G & Graham J 2009. Leading Genuine Parent-
School Partnerships. In NC Cranston & L Ehrich
(eds). Australian School Leadership Today. Bowen
Hills, QLD: Australian Academic Press.
The Glossary of Education Reform 2013. School culture.
Available at http://edglossary.org/school-culture/.
Accessed 11 April 2015.
Van Wyk N 2010. Theories, policies and practices of
parent involvement in education. In E Lemmer &
N van Wyk (eds). Themes in South African
education. Cape Town: Pearson.
Van Wyk N & Lemmer E 2007. Redefining home-
school-community partnerships in South Africa in
the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. South
African Journal of Education, 27(2):301-316.
Available at
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/44
135/27651. Accessed 18 April 2015.
Venter NVL 2013. Parental involvement in learning at
rural multi-grade schools in South Africa: a school,
community and family partnership programme.
Unpublished DEd thesis. Cape Town: Cape
Peninsula University of Technology.
Weiss H & Lopez ME 2011. Making data matter in
family engagement. In S Redding, M Murphy & P
Sheley (eds). Handbook on family and community
engagement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development
Institute.
