A New Deal between Parents and Professionals Using COVID-19 Learnings as Leverage

Abstract

Recent global research clearly shows that there is a need to rethink the relationship between families and institutionalised services to ensure the rights of the child. Parents International has carried out additional research focusing on especially education provisions and created a global, forward-looking initiative based on secondary and own research. This paper is aiming at showing the research behind this call for a New Deal on Education to establish it as an evidence-based initiative.

Full text

6
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
ISSN 1392-9569 (Print)
ISSN 2351-6011 (Online)
https://doi.org/10.15823/su.2020.53.1
Socialinis ugdymas / Social education
2020, t. 53, Nr. 1, p. 6–25 / Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 6–25, 2020
A New Deal between Parents and
Professionals Using COVID-19 Learnings
as Leverage
Eszter Salamon
Parents International, Otto van der Leckstraat St.4, 5321HZ Hedel, the Netherlands,
director@parentsinternational.org
Abstract. Recent global research clearly shows that there is a need to rethi nk the relationship
between families and institutionalised services to ensure the rights of the child. Parents Inter-
national has carried out additional research focusing on especially education provisions and
created a global, forward-looking initiative based on secondary and own research. is paper
is aiming at showing the research behind this call for a New Deal on Education to establish it
as an evidence-based initiative.
Keywords: parenting, child rights , sustainable developme nt goals, equity, inclusion, parent s’ rights.
Introduction
A period that exposed families to a more in-depth look into their children’s schooling
and teachers to a reality where learning is happening in a very dierent way provides
a great opportunity for the so much necessary rethinking and renewing of education.
UNESCO published their vision of education that can lead to delivering on Sustainable
Development Goal 4 (SDG4): quality, inclusive education for all back in 2015, demand-
ing a shi towards tackling education as a common good with shared responsibility
for educating and learning. In 2018 the World Bank published research data showing
that this is a very timely demand as school systems fail to provide children with basic
skills, knowledge and competences. ese can be used as an overall starting point to
deliver on SDG 4 using the experiences of parents, families and professionals as leverage.

7
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
ese past months have proven that parents, families and schools can share the
responsibility for schooling needs – with some families in need of more external
support – but they do not necessarily wish to do so and they have every right to leave
this with schools. Parents and families have also had the opportunity to experience
what the contents of schooling are, and that clearly leads to an understanding of the
World Bank research results. We are in a blessed moment to start from the very base
and decide on what the necessary basics are and what share of jobs in delivering
education is satisfactory for professionals and those legally responsible for children
to actually learn what they need: their parents and guardians. e evidence-base for
decision making is robust – be it policy or practice decisions. Many of the ndings
are applicable to other parent-professional relations, but the current paper focuses on
education in a holistic way.
Non-formal education providers have made a vast amount of content and tools
available for free and have gone a long way curating content to support emergency
remote schooling, proving to be suitable partners in a new education paradigm. Child
mental health experts have urged governments to prioritise children’s play and social-
ising with friends over formal lessons and academic progress when schools reopen.
ese experiences also made education stakeholders rethink the role and use of digital
technology and to evaluate the benets against potential risks. Maintaining the use
of digital alternatives can also help reduce pressure on the environment by making
choices between necessary and not-so-necessary travel, while keeping a healthy level
of physical interpersonal contacts.
Challenges in education that require parental engagement
e world is facing a global learning crisis (World Bank, 2018) that has a number of
surprising, but shocking characteristics. It is not only about children with no access to
school anymore, but about those who do attend formal education, even receive some
kind of school leaving certication, but do not acquire basic literacy and numeracy
skills, not to mention other skills necessary for the 21st century. School has little to do
with real life which is a multifaceted phenomenon. First of all school curricula are oen
overcrowded with skills and academic content that is outdated and without consensus
on why they are necessary to teach and learn. School is also oen sheltered from the
outside world meaning that it provides little support and skills development in the eld
of everyday life situations – present and future – especially for those whose parents
are less able to provide such necessary education at home struggling with aspects of
everyday life themselves.
At the same time, there is a consensus that there is a need to change as quality, in-
clusive education is one of the keys to sustainable development all over the world. is
is dened in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), and education

8
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
has a highlighted position being given number 4 as an SDG (United Nations, 2015).
ere is also a growing consensus on the changing role of school and education that
necessitates a change of approach from educating obedient workers for the assembly
line to educating creative, critical thinkers for a robotised world.
By now there is a full consensus about the fact that meaningful learning is not
conned to schools (rather real learning oen only happens outside of school), while
nearly all countries are still trying to nd ways to acknowledge, build on, evaluate and
certify learning happening in nonformal and informal settings. In 2015 the UNESCO
published Rethinking Education calling for the world to change its approach to the
organisation and governance of education based on treating it as a common good
rather than a public one. It is a major move towards not only re-thinking, but also
co-thinking about education. Education as a common good implies that the state is still
responsible for oering adequate nancial provisions for education as all countries are
obliged to do so by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but the
organisation and evaluation of education is based on an active citizenship approach,
understanding that quality education is the responsibility of all, but it also makes a
lifelong learning mind set necessary as everybody in this framework is a learner and
an educator at the same time.
In Parents International, we have actively engaged our global network of parents,
parent leaders, organisations working with or for parents, researchers, trainers and
policy makers into discussions about the learning points during school closures in
the Spring and Summer of 2020. Our team has also actively collected personal and
institutional testimonies and followed media articles in English, German, Portuguese,
Norwegian, Hungarian and Dutch. We have also followed the developments of the
School Barometer research (Huber, 2020) on German-speaking countries in Europe.
We have also reviewed various sources on the gender dimension of the corona crisis.
Learning points of the school closure period
School as a place for social learning:
What the overwhelming majority of children had missed during closures, was being
together with their friends. In countries luckier than others, children gather in parks
and playgrounds. Schools that were closed had opened their own grounds for the local
community and oered the possibility of being together. is is the feature of schools
that needs to be preserved in the rst place: learning to live in a community.
To achieve global educational goals in equity and inclusion, schools also play an
important role in learning to live in a diverse community. Most families have regular
relationships with people who are more likely to be similar to themselves than very
dierent – in their cultural background, traditions, level of education, etc., so the
family oers an educational environment that is not very diverse, while children need

9
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
to live ina diverse and multicultural society. Schools are key in oering this learning
experience. But this is only possible if “academic achievement”– whatever is meant by
this notion – is made secondary to social learning and learning to learn.
School is still a ‘service’ parents would like to use:
e overwhelming majority of parents have proven to be schooling champions.
Parents have invested time and energy to provide the necessary schooling to their
children regardless of technical diculties, having to cater for 2, 3 or more children
all at dierent stages of schooling with dierent support needs. At the same time it is
also clear from parents’ accounts that this will not result in a boom of home-schooling.
Home-schooling is a decision only a few parents are ready to make, the majority will
still want to make a deal with schools to support them in educating their children.
is deal is about schools doing schooling and parents educating their children in
other domains.
At the same time, a huge number of parents had to go deep into the vaults of their
own memory to recall notions they had learnt at school and have never used again in
order to help their children to learn the same things today. What we need to revisit
on the basis of this is what we mean by necessary schooling, what is to be learnt by all
and what can be oered to those interested, what the basic skills, competences and
knowledge for the future of our children are (Parents International is addressing this
in a major own initiative project). is is an area where we can all learn from home
schooling parents in order to strike this necessar y new deal. ey are generally conscious
about their decision to not follow current and overly academic national curricula, and
they are aware that for real, deep learning, less content is more.
Prioritise well-being, arts and the joy of learning:
Based on recent experiences there is a clear need to rethink what is benecial for our
children’s well-being and what is not. One learning point is the importance of bring
arts back to their rightful place in our priority list. People sang, danced, drew, sculpt-
ed, wrote tales and diaries with a little or much more time at hand, and this helped
them to stay mentally healthy under pressure. Sports and time spent out in the open
has proven to be similarly important. People – wherever not prevented by government
regulations – had found the form of physical activity that brought them pleasure, be
it running, walking the dog, playing basketball or using the numerous hopscotches
springing up in their neighbourhood. With pressure easing or changing, children and
parents alike still need these activities supported for a higher level of overall well-being.
A huge number of people were using extra time available for learning new things. Some
started a new language, some have taken up hobby classes, some even a new degree course
oered online. What the unifying characteristic is that they enjoy doing it. Parents also
reported globally that it required an enormous eort to teach children things required
by school, but not interesting or engaging, while there are reports of extremely quick and
successful learning about other things. It oers an opportunity to emphasise the need to

10
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
bring (back) the joy of learning to schools. Research shows that children starting school
oen lose their curiosity even in a matter of weeks (Engel, 2011). Content is not engaging,
their creativity is not rewarded, they are under- or overchallenged. We can use current
experiences to redesign learning at school to make it joyful, to challenge our children to
an extent that brings them into the right state to learn (and not overchallenge to discour-
age them), but also brings them rewards that motivate them to continue. At the same
time, there is also a need for school to recognise and support non-formal and informal
learning that generally have these elements. In the case of informal education at home,
professionals have a responsibility to support families that lack skills.
ere is also a need to rethink school schedules. In countries where it is made possible
and in families where work schedules allow it, people seem to start the day later. Chil-
dren populate playgrounds when the weather is nice, but not before 10 in the morning.
People with exible schedules go shopping and do sports from about the same time.
When schools reopen, it could be the right opportunity to abolish early start. School
can still open to cater for care needs and oer breakfast clubs, but child well-being
levels would certainly increase bystarting later. Similarly, families all experience that
children learn better and more willingly if they have time to be immersed in solving
a problem or overcoming a challenge. Children of dierent ages help each other and
learn an incredible amount by revisiting earlier studies. is can be a good starting
point to rethink 45-minute lessons and class organisation by age.
Testing and trusting:
It was interesting to see how ready some school systems where to abolish standard-
ised tests, and how ready many teachers are to do so for the health and well-being of
children. Since schools have already collected ideas on replacing these tests, it is a great
opportunity to use the replacements – mostly based on evaluating student eort over
a longer period of time – instead, if there is an agreement that summative assessment
is necessary at all. e best deal would be to only have formative assessment in a new
education deal aiming at real learning. is is also a great opportunity to introduce
inclusive ways to reduce competition stress. We all know that some students are very
competitive but in a formative assessment regime they can still compete– against
themselves. For the overwhelming majority of students, this would be the opportunity
to experience real and deep learning instead of learning for the test.
is makes it necessary to bring the issue of trust into the equation. We have parent
reports from all over Europe and beyond that they are spending a huge amount of time
creating evidence that their children are doing their school assignments. e evidence
they provide is not about learning, it is to put teachers at ease that they are teaching. In
a new education deal we must learn to trust the learner, and challenge them enough
for real learning, but teachers also need to trust the family. e best time to start is
now, having enough proof that children do learn and parents do educate – and at the
moment even school – them. At the same time there is a need to rebuild trust in the

11
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
professionalism of teachers. Many have passed the exam with ying colours, but about
as many have failed. is clearly shows a need for more focus on continuous professional
development as well as coaching and mentoring for teachers.
Teachers’ interaction with families:
What we have experienced was teachers complaining about children not submitting
assignments or having no contact with them, parents demanding much more from
teachers or complaining about too much pressure on children, and children being in
the middle not really understanding what is happening to them and why. But, at the
same time, parents have also complained about teachers not being aware of the fact
they are away working and thus not being able to school their children during usual
school hours, having assignments that made it necessary for 2–3 children to use the
family’s only computer at the same time that parents also needed it for work, but also
having to extensively search and study to help children do their school assignments.
What appears to be missing is a thorough knowledge of families’ circumstances on the
teachers’ side and an honest discussion on what is important and what is not.
In many countries there used to be schemes that made it compulsory for teachers to
gain an in-depth knowledge about the families of children they teach. In most countries
these schemes have been abandoned and even banned. If a family trusts a school with
letting their treasure of a child to be taught there, teachers must have the professional
expertise to build the necessary trust for them to be allowed into the family and learn
about it to an extent that is necessary for their work as teachers. A good teacher does
not teach grammar or chemistry, but teaches children, and for that you need to know
the whole child, including backpacks they carry due to outside-of-school circumstances.
is must be acknowledged as part of a teacher’s working time and duties.
Digital tools and their use:
Recent experiences also made people and education stakeholders rethink the role
and use of digital technology. Most of those people who had been digital luddites earlier,
have started to appreciate the advantages. People dancing or playing music together
can now clearly understand the dierence between passive screen time and using the
screen for being active. Being connected digitally is the only link to others for many
at the moment, and we can only hope this connection will be kept as an auxiliary one
when everybody can restart face-to-face interactions. Digital alternatives can help
us to reduce pressure on the environment by making choices between necessary and
not-so-necessary travel, while keeping a healthy level of physical interpersonal contacts.
At the same time, it is clear that the school system is still learning. ere is a need
for teachers to become more procient using digital platforms and tools, to explore
how digital technology can bring more playfulness into learning and to nd a healthy
balance between digital and traditional. ere is a need for school leadership to limit
the number of platforms used and to limit them to ones that oer the necessary means
for data protection. Teachers and families also need to learn more about data protec-

12
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
tion and privacy rights. e huge number of shared photos and teachers’ demands for
photo/video proof of studying clearly shows this.
Gender roles:
While in the majority of countries there is a much higher burden on women when it
comes to frontier professions such as nursing, care professions, cleaning personnel, it is
also clear from research that there is a considerably higher burden of unpaid household
jobs on women than on man (World Bank, 2020). We also know from research done
for forming Parents International’s early childhood approach that the decision to take
a bigger role in household chores and especially parenting is a free decision of mothers.
For this, there is a need to rethink European and global policies that push against this
free choice and to allow mothers to make free choices without existential threat. But
this also requires policy to recognise the value of care for society and economy and
remunerate people for this contribution.
Role of schools in engaging parents and children in nding the
solutions
e above global demands make it necessary for the teaching profession to change
and for teachers to see themselves as facilitators of learning and not as sources of knowl-
edge anymore. is change also means that teachers should understand and prepare
for their role in supporting parenting and supporting parents in general to become
better educators of their children as well as more active citizens, starting from school
contexts. is also requires a lifelong learning mindset on the teachers’ side, an urge
to constantly develop their professional knowledge and skills.
It is of crucial importance that school should open up on the one hand allowing
education provisions to be linked with real life challenges – not restricting it to im-
mediate labour market needs, but the necessity to educate responsible 21st century
citizens who understand how to navigate in current and future realities – that means
inviting external players into the classroom and the school in general. On the other
hand, ‘school’ needs to leave the building and provide guided learning opportunities
for their students as well as the community in venues like parks, community centres,
businesses or even homes. A high number of inspiring practices have been collected
on open school practices in the Open Schools for Open Societies Horizon2020 project
that Israel participates in. Its little sister is Open School Doors that provides teacher
training and methodology support for teachers in engaging parents, especially disad-
vantaged ones. An open school approach looks at parents as resource, a key to nd the
right solution to the above-mentioned challenges. Considering parents as a resource
must not be limited to highly educated parents, this is why teachers need training in
working with parents below their own socio-economic status level. Research done in
the Open School Doors project (Kendall et al., 2018) clearly shows that teachers lack

13
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
skills and knowledge in this eld. At the same time teacher training provisions in the
eld – be it initial teacher education or continuous professional development (CPD) –
are scarce in nearly all school systems. School systems with Anglo-Saxon traditions,
such as the UK and Ireland, are clearly in the lead in this eld.
ere is a need to mention two factors beyond teachers in establishing parental
engagement practices and nding solutions for the need to change schools. Legislative
frameworks should be in place that makes it necessary for schools to engage parents
and also the students themselves in all procedures. ere are countries that regulate
student and parent representation in main decision-making bodies, soch as school
boards. Other systems oblige the school to seek the opinion of parents (and students) and
in certain topics (eg. choice of school books, time of holidays, election of school head)
the school’s decision is not valid without such an opinion. Some countries give parents
(and students) veto rights in certain areas... is in itself will not ensure meaningful
participation. An extensive research done in 23 European countries on participation
(Salamon-Haider, 2015) clearly uncovered a pattern that it only provides for structures
and thus participation is oen restricted to formalities. is is a dangerous trend as
schools that only wish to tick the boxes will nd ways to involve ‘tame’ parents, resulting
in representation of white middle class only in decision-making structures.
is is the reason why the other important factor is the school leader/principal
in implementing inclusive participatory structures at school level. Research (Salam-
on-Haider, 2015) shows that there is no school system in Europe that forbids school
leaders to engage parents and students, so inclusive participatory practices can be im-
plemented even in systems where there is no legislative requirement for that. An equally
important task for school leaders is to change existing practices in school boards, parent
committees and similar structures to provide engagement opportunities for all students
and teachers. It depends on the school leader most of all if existing formal structures
become meaningful or not. For a short period of time the driving force behind such
changes can be a small group of committed parents, but for lasting changes the school
leader needs to take a lead in this eld, too. According to very recent research (Kelly,
2019; Salamon, 2019) school heads understand the importance of collaborating with
parents and engaging students, but they have little professional help in doing so. Ken
Robinson in his 2018 book You, Your Child and School provides inspiring practices,
mostly from the United States, but he also makes it clear that there are no recipes, local
solutions must be found understanding the context of that given school, and thus it is
the task of the school leader.
Parental engagement and student participation are practical examples of active
citizenship, and a perfect training eld for present and future active national or global
citizens, where they can experience and experiment at a low risk environment. Teach-
ers also need to look at engagement as active citizenship practice and support their
students and their parents in it. Oen, teachers need to approach their own active

14
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
citizenship as a eld where they need more conscious approaches and even training.
In short, teachers also need to be active citizens of their school. Parent-teacher-student
collaboration is also a good opportunity to experience the impact of non-participation,
opting out, but also to learn that active citizenship includes active bystandership. us,
parent engagement and student participation are very closely linked with citizenship
education – and this link needs to be made clearly for all.
Active, participatory citizenship at the forefront of change
Citizenship education is one of the areas identied as important by all critiques of
current education systems. However, there is no consensus on how provisions are to be
organised and how to identify learners and educators in this domain. Recent develop-
ments in the world clearly show that even in countries with a long-standing democratic
tradition have serious knowledge and competence benets in this eld in the general
population (Harari, 2018; Snyder, 2018) So far, the prevalent approach to citizenship
education has been the inclusion of the domain in the curriculum, and thus creating
the framework for learning ABOUT citizenship and democracy.
Parents organisations in Europe have demanded a learning by doing approach
(EPA, 2015), to make it part of school culture. In an ideal case citizenship education
starts at a very early age, at home, but given the general levels of democratic practices
schools need to play an important role here. As it is not only students who need to
embrace this culture of democracy, school has a responsibility to educate parents and
teachers in this eld (Robinson, 2018). Meaningful engagement in decision making
is an important tool for this. Becoming responsible citizens can be a natural process
that can be systemised and structured as a knowledge and skills set later in school life
for all students. Israel has a well-established tradition of democratic schools, but in
most cases these schools only engage students themselves in school decision-making.
While it is a major achievement, the engagement of parents is also an imperative.
Global experiences with the COVID-19 school closures clearly show how important
this participatory approach is.
For denition’s sake, let us identify the most important features of democracy. Con-
trary to general belief and colloquial discussions about it, democracy is primarily not
about freedom, but trust and responsibility (Harari, 2018) e general discourse usually
focuses on active citizenship, and when it comes to day-to-day practices it discourages
many that they do not wish to become candidates in elections, they don’t generally
take action in most situation. In citizenship education we have two major tasks that
need to be highlighted as oen neglected areas, but ones that schools can easily oer
experience in for students, but also for teachers and parents. One is that school is a
safe environment to experience citizenship, including experiencing the consequences
of opting out of decision-making. Another eld is the education towards and appreci-

15
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
ation of active bystander ship. Active bystanders are aware of news, trends, event, their
active citizenship may not exceed exercising the right to vote, but they are conscious
that there might be instances when they need to become active, eg. by participating in
a demonstration or boycotting a product.
In an ideal case both parents and teachers act as trainers, counsel for students in
becoming active citizens. e key is to trust in children from an early age, but not
overburdening them with decisions and helping them making informed choices the
consequences of which they have to live with. My personal favourite example of early
citizenship education is when your 2-year-old insists on having lemon ice cream. You
know he does not like it, you advise him to opt for chocolate, his favourite, but if he
insists on lemon, you buy it and – this is the key for citizenship education – make him
eat it regardless the tantrum thrown.
In the past decade or so citizenship education started to focus on citizenship in
the digital age or active digital citizenship. It is the Council of Europe that has done
substantial work in the eld with recommendation for promoting the development of
digital citizenship education being developed by a working group I am a member of. It
is expected to be adopted by the Council of Ministers at the beginning of 2020 latest.
It builds on the work of academic experts such as Janice Richardson, Sonia Living-
stone and Brian O’Neill and tackles the need for education un 10 digital citizenship
domains. e 10 domains are grouped into 3 areas: Being online (related domains: access
and inclusion, learning and creativity, and media and information literacy), Well-being
online (related domains: ethics and empathy, health and well-being, and e-presence
and communication) and Rights online (related domains: active participation, rights
and responsibilities, privacy and security, and consumer awareness) Our Council of
Europe expert group also dened the necessary competences for democratic culture
in order to safely navigate the 10 domains. is is represented in the buttery below.
It should be obvious for the reader that on the one hand these competences need to be
developed in and outside of school, but also that the overwhelming majority of both
parents and teachers need competence development for becoming active digital citizens
of the 21st cent ur y.
e benets and types of parental engagement with schooling
e role parents in developed countries are expected to play in their children’s
schooling has changed signicantly over the past 20-30 years expecting parents to be
engaged acting as “…quasi-consumer and chooser in educational ‘marketplaces’” and
“monitor and guarantor of their children’s engagement with schooling” (Selwyn, 2011).
Research evidence (Harris& Goodall, 2008; Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003) also shows
it clearly that parental involvement results in better learning outcomes and school

16
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
achievements for young people. is makes it imperative to involve parents in schooling
and this approach has gained widespread political traction in many European countries.
However, dening what is meant by parental involvement/engagement in school-
ing, the kind of interactions and methods most likely to benet children, the role and
responsibility of players, especially that of parents, teachers and school leaders, remain
somewhat complicated. Politicians, researchers, schools, teachers and parents’ groups
and children are yet to settle on shared denitions or priorities that sometimes lead
to confusion. Although oen presented as a “unied concept” parental involvement/
engagement “has a range of interpretations, which are variously acceptable or unac-
ceptable by dierent constituents” (Crozier, 1999). Dierent stakeholders oen use this
fact in a way that leads to power struggles and tensions between dierent stakeholders,
and sometimes also lead to some kind of a ‘blame game’. As Harris and Goodall’s 2008
study of parental interaction in schools illustrates, whilst parents were more likely to
understand their involvement as support for their children and children, in turn, saw
their parents as ‘moral support’, teachers viewed it as a “means to ‘improved behaviour
and support for the school’” (Harris & Goodall, 2008). is may lead to a void between
expectations of schools towards parents and vice versa.
Epstein’s (2002) classication (Table 1) has been widely used in establishing a ty-
pography for parental involvement with school. It is important to take note of the fact
that Epstein goes beyond the notion of involvement or engagement in learning of the
individual child, but rather introduces the notion of partnership schools that are gov-
erned based on a mutual, balanced appreciation of home and school that has a major
impact on establishing participatory leadership structures. is denition is the fully
in line with our approach to tackle parental engagement as active citizenship. Epstein’s
Framework denes six types of involvement, parenting, communicating, volunteering,
learning at home, decision making, collaborating with the community. It is important
to state that these types have no hierarchy whatsoever, although they are oen seen
by some schools and teachers as levels of dierent value and formulating unfounded
expectations towards parents whose need for engagement is dierent (Hamilton, 2011)
Table 1.
Types of parental engagement
123
Practices that establish
a positive learning
environment at home.
Parent-school
communication about school
programs students´ progress.
Parent participation and
volunteering opportunities in
school.
456
Parent and school
communication regarding
learning activities at home.
Parent engagement in
school decision making and
governance.
Parents access to community
resources that increase stu-
dent learning opportunities.
Source: “Epstein”, 2002

17
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
Goodall and Montgomery (2013) have argued for an approach that moves interest
away from parents’ interactions with school generally and back to a more specic
focus on children’s learning. ey make a key distinction between involvement and
engagement suggesting that the latter invokes a “feeling of ownership of that activity
which is greater than is present with simple involvement” and propose a continuum
that moves from parental involvement with schooling to parental engagement with
children’s learning. is approach includes the recognition that learning is not con-
ned to school and the importance of supporting the learning of children inside and
outside school. is approach can be particularly important in the case of parents (and
of course children) from ethnic minorities, with low levels of education (and bad ex-
periences with their own schooling) or those facing economic diculty who, research
has shown, are more likely to nd involvement in school dicult but who nevertheless
have strong commitments to their children’s learning.
Goodall (2017) urges for a paradigm shi towards a partnership that is based on the
following principles formulated on the basis of reimagining Freire’s banking model of
education for the 21st century’s reality:
1. School sta and parents participate in supporting the learning of the child.
2. School sta and parents value the knowledge that each brings to the partnership.
3. School sta and parents engage in dialogue around and with the learning of the
child.
4. School sta and parents act in partnership to support the learning of the child
and each other.
5. School sta and parents respect the legitimate authority of each other’s roles and
contributions to supporting learning.
is approach is also in line with the distinction made between involvement and
engagement with regards to school in general, especially with regards to ownership.
In the classication traditionally used by parents’ association (Salamon, 2017), based
on Epstein, parental involvement in school means that the school and teachers initi-
ate that parents join certain activities that are mostly aiming at the better working of
current structures of school, while engagement is based on the partnership principles
and implies that the school leader, teachers, parents, students and, if necessary, other
stakeholders jointly take action for establishing practices and procedures based on the
initiative of any of them. In this framework of denition parental involvement in school
corresponds to the tokenism levels (informing, consultation and maximum placation)
while parental engagement with school corresponds to citizen power levels (partnership,
delegated power or citizen control) on the Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969).
e two approaches, engagement with children’s learni ng and engagement with school
has the common feature of ownership, and with time parents active citizens should become
active bystanders even if only focusing on children’s learning, having enough insight to
act as active citizens if a situation making intervention necessary arises.

18
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
According to Kendall et al. (2018) these frameworks acknowledge the complex,
dynamic nature of relationships between parents, school and children and oer open
meaningful opportunities for dialogue and re-negotiation of roles and responsibilities,
but they may not go beyond questioning traditional paradigm of home-school relations.
Re-imagining home-school relations need to be based on reection on the purpose of
learning, of school and going beyond the immediate and oen narrow priorities based
on testing and other policy accountabilities (Grant, 2009). Grant goes on to suggest,
many parents may choose, quite reasonably, to invest in insulating the boundaries
between school and home life seeing “part of their role as protecting children from
school’s incursions into the home and ensuring that children socialise, play and relax as
well as learn”, and this is the underlying thinking in home-schooling and unschooling
movements gaining momentum (Robinson, 2018). is also gives us reasons to explore
reasons of non-involvement or low levels of involvement with schooling when designing
any intervention on parental empowerment and reimagining parental engagement as
active citizenship. is is a result of the above-mentioned phenomena in the global
learning crisis (World Bank, 2018) that requires a paradigm shi engaging parents in the
rethinking process. e only way to ensure equity and inclusion in school is to co-create
an oer that answer correspond to and reect on the needs of each individual child.
Research on parental participation in Europe
e research carried out in 23 European countries (22 EU members and Norway)
by my colleague, Brigitte Haider and myself in 2015 was originally aiming at nding
correlations between the direct costs of education (costs not covered from taxpayer
sources, but burdening family budgets directly) and the legislative provisions related
to the participation of parents in decision making related to school activities and pro-
cesses with some focus on decisions that have a direct impact on family budgets. e
same questions were then asked in 2019, in this case in 25 countries (23 EU members,
Norway and Serbia) for comparison. While the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union reinforces the UNCRC regulations by obliging EU member states
to oer education free, there is no country among those we worked in that has these
provisions in place.
e rst part of our research focused on school practices and school cost realities,
so they do not reect on legislative provisions. In the second part of the research we
also examined legislative frameworks and their implementation on decision-making
levels. is may mean the level of government or the level of a region or municipality,
respondents were asked to refer to the level where decisions are made in their countries.
As this greatly varies in countries in Europe, this was the most meaningful way of ask-
ing our research questions. Respondents were experienced parent representatives and
policy makers with a solid understanding if the situation in their school and country.

19
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
e research was done using two separate questionnaires, one on school costs and
one on parental engagement/involvement in decision making. ese were sent to na-
tional parent organisations in the target countries, and they were invited to provide
answer based on their national realities. All questionnaires were followed up, thus we
managed to receive answers for all countries we wanted to include. e subjects were
asked to detail their answer so that we could dierentiate between school levels and
types. We also collected as much legislation text translated to languages we speak
(English, German, Hungarian) as possible, and during the analysis phrase we also
double-checked answers whenever it was possible with legislative texts.
For the school costs research, we worked together with the European School Stu-
dent Union, OBESSU and some experienced parent leaders to cover all costs that are
school-related. By this we meant such costs that do not normally occur if a child does
not go to school but compulsory/absolutely necessary if they do. is includes school
material (books, stationery, etc.), special clothing (for sport, for hands-on activities,
uniforms), parental nancial contribution to school activities (eg. entrance tickets, room
rent), costs of school activities that fall on parents (eg. photocopying), necessary extra
tuition and getting to the school. Putting together this questionnaire happened with
the participation of parents with experience at dierent school levels and countries.
For parental involvement, we were interested in the rst place in how the voice of
parents is delivered in all aspects of school life given that parents are the ones schools
are accountable to and whose needs should be taken into consideration. At the same
time, we were also exploring how parents are involved in decisions about schooling and
schools, at legislative and budgetary levels. As parental engagement and involvement
are manifests of active citizenship, and school plays and important role in fostering it,
these can be considered good indicators of how much education systems are excelling
in this role. While most of the questions were objective, and were veried through
analysing legislation, we were also interested to have the opinion of parents whether a
legally regulated involvement form is a meaningful one (meaning that decision makers
actively seek and rely on parent opinions) or if it is a formality (meaning representa-
tives, oen chosen by the school leader from among the “tamest” parents tick the box
by having a representative present, but do not actively encourage meaningful input)
In the analysis phase, we cross-referenced the two questionnaires, making separate
analyses for dierent school levels and types (pre-primary/primary/lower and upper
secondary; state/church/private). We also took it into consideration if schooling at the
given level is compulsory in the country or a choice of parents how they educate their
children. We were also interested to see cultural patterns, similarities and dierences
depending on schooling traditions, and our assumption that this is a factor was veried
by the research. Research done at the same time in Israel (Schaedel et al., 2015) shows
similar patterns in Israel.
It is interesting to note that while 58% consider school to be free in their countries,
and in-depth analysis has shown that in reality the case is very far from it. While it

20
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
is school budget that parents have the highest percentage of say in with 56% having
consultative and 16% decisive role, when it comes to the choice of teaching material
(books, tools, etc.) only 32% is consulted and 8% has an impact on decisions (Figure1).
At the same time 75% of parents pay directly for compulsory stationery, 42% pay for
workbooks and 17% for coursebooks. 29% of parents have to pay directly for materi-
al for practical activities such as special paper, wood, metal, 67% are obliged to buy
necessary IT equipment from family budgets that also needs investment in 63% of the
cases on soware. ere is no country where compulsory sport equipment is not paid
from family budgets and 2/3 of parents also pay directly for other kinds of working and
protective clothes. ese percentages show the total of parents that surely pay them-
selves, for others there are local provisions to a certain extent, so school costs largely
depend in many countries on where you live. ese high numbers should indicate that
parents are involved in decision making, but practice does not prove this requirement.
When it comes to active participation in decision-making, the other area where
parents are mostly involved is creating school rules with 28% having decision-mak-
ing powers and another 52% are consulted. It seems that parents are considered to
be competent with regards to school meals in most countries, so 60% are consulted
and another 8% also has decision-making powers. However, while parents are mostly
involved in this eld, only 50% pf parents pay for meals.
3
1 0
10 9
6
12
14
19
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Curriculum Teaching content Methods
decisive consultative no role
Fig. 1. Parents in schooling
e picture is less bright when it comes to professional matters in education. Only
8% of parents have decisive power over curriculum and 4% over teaching programme
contents with 40% and 36% respectively are consulted. In only 20% of the cases parents
are even consulted in the recruitment, evaluation and dismissal of teachers, while 8%
have decision-making powers and 32% are consulted when recruiting or dismissing

21
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
the school leader. Our research was conducted in 2015 in 23 countries, but the same
trends were reported in the research on careers of teachers and school leaders in the
European Education Policy Network (Kelly, 2019; Salamon, 2019).
e above gures show the 2019 situation and the level of engagement has not in-
creased over the board. Out of the 25 countries analysed, none oer any decisive role
to parents (including veto rights) on teaching methods and only 24% consult them an
all. Curriculum and content does not show a much brighter picture. When it comes to
curricula and related content, about half of the countries do not even consult parents.
Aer the school closures of the Spring 2020 we can only hope the landscape will change.
When it comes to school student representation, it is present to a certain extent in
19 of the 23 countries and only in secondary schools in the other 4 (Netherland, Spain,
Liechtenstein, Slovenia), but our research did not go into detail about their extent and
form. Student representation is only present in 3 countries up to national level and
a total of 7 countries up to municipality level. In only 28% of respondents reported
proportionate representation of key stakeholders (parents, teachers and students) in
decision making related to school in general (Hungary, Austria, Germany, Norway,
Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia).
No Yes, for all Depends on school type
Fig. 2. Parental representation available for all parents at government level
No Yes
Fig. 3. Proportionate parental representation

22
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
On the level of government in 60% of the cases there is no parental representation on
government level, and even if there is, it is not equal and proportionate (Figure 2). is
was reported in only 32% of cases in 2015 and the situation was the same in 2019. In 56%
percent of the cases the government is not obliged to involve pa rents and other stakeholders
in decision-making, and in 52% of the cases parents are not consulted about the nancing
of education. Only 8% of countries oer decision-making powers to parents in relation
to national curricula and another 50% is consulted in some form. When it comes to the
organisation of the school year and dening school holiday times, 52% of countries do
not even consult parents, while 12% of countries oer parents decisive power in this with
4% of them giving parents the right to veto (Figure3). Overall, 48% of governments are
obliged to involve parents in decision making in some areas, but only 24% of respondents
reported meaningful participation, the other 24% is just a formality (Figure 4).
It is also interesting to see that there is no way to group a county’s approach to
parental engagement and involvement into any traditional, geographical or cultural
categories. While traditionally the Nordic countries are considered to be a “block” in
education, their situation in this eld is dierent. e country that involves parents most
is Norway. eir level of engagement can only be compared to that of the Netherlands.
We were also looking into the situation of countries where teacher trade unions are
traditionally strong as there traditionally is a certain level of tension between parents’
organisations and teacher trade unions. Comparing 3 such countries, France, Malta
and Slovenia, we can say that there is no correlation or similarity. In France parents’
organisations have relative wide competences, in Malta much less so, and in Slovenia
while there is a legislative framework on national level, on school level, as a trade union
leader has put it in a feedback workshop in 2020, they have an open doors policy for
everybody, but parents. Another comparison made was that of countries that has a
schooling tradition rooted in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. While the organisation
of school and to a large extent also their operation still carries the so-called “K und K”
tradition, their parental involvement and engagement practices vary greatly.
We were also looking into the practices of former socialist countries as compared to
ones with a longer history of liberal democracy. is was an important comparison if we
believe schools have a role in fostering active citizenship of all of their key stakeholders,
not only children, but that of parents and teachers. As the overwhelming majority of
teachers active today were brought up and trained in the socialist period, and it is also
true for a decreasing percentage of parents, comparing practices in Central and Eastern
Europe was a relevant one. Our research shows that these countries approach parents
in very dierent ways and the extent to which they foster parent representation– as a
form of active citizenship – also varies greatly. While the Baltic countries and former
East Germany show a certain level of similarity (please note that in Germany educa-
tion is regulated on the level of the countries and not the federal state), there are major
dierences even among Baltic countries with Estonia being the most open to parental
involvement and Lithuania the least. If you compare Slovakia to the Czech Republic,

23
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
two countries having developed together for decades, there is practically no parental
voice present in the later and a relatively good representation in the former.
It is probably also important to mention that in countries with a high level of dem-
ocratic decit, policy makers seem to be aware of parental involvement being a form
of active citizenship. ere is a general shrinking of civic space in Europe that both
EU bodies and NGOs have highlighted. Parental engagement seems to be one of the
victims in some countries. In Poland and Hungary, the two countries being most at
risk with regards to liberal democracy, and Hungary being evaluated to become the
rst non-democratic country in the European Union - school system changes in the
last decade included a sharp decrease in parental involvement.
In my home country, Hungary parents had a decisive role, together with teachers
and school students, in all aspects of education between 1995 and 1998. Aer the ap-
pointment of a minister of education coming with a teacher trade union background,
most competences were changed from decisive to consultation, but there were still some
areas, especially ones that had a nancial impact on families where decisive power
was maintained. With the introduction of the current system in 2012 all remaining
decisive powers were taken away from parent organisations with a gradual shrinking
of the areas where parents are to be consulted.
Looking at the full picture it is not only clear that schools and governments don’t
nd it important to consult parents in issues that directly concern them, but it is also
clear they do not understand the importance of parental involvement and engagement
as a form of active citizenship.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (July 1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216–224.
Campbell, C. (2011). How to involve hard-to-reach parents: encouraging meaningful parental
involvement with schools National College for School Leadership. London. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340369/
how-to-involve-hard-to-reach-parents-full-report.pdf.
Crozier, G., & Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion
of home-school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents.
British Education Research Journal, 33(3), 295–313.
Cummins, J. (2003). Challenging the construction of difference as deficit: Where are identity,
intellect, imagination, and power in the new regime of truth (pp.41–60). In Pedagogies of
Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change.
Desforges, C., & Abouchaa r, A. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and
Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review. Department
of Education and Skills.
EPA Manifesto 2015. Available at: https://euparents.eu/manifesto-2015/.
Epstein, J. (1992). School and Family Partnerships. In Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
ed. by M. Alkin. New York: MacMillan.

24
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
Epstein, J. (2009). School, Family and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action.
California: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S. Salinas, K.C., et al. (2009). School,
Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Essomba, M. et al. (2017). Migrant Education: Monitoring and Assessment. EPRS, Brussels.
Engel, S. (December 2011). Children’s Need to Know: Curiosity in Schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 81(4), 625–645.
Fundamental Rights EU Charter. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-
cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/eu-charter-fundamental-rights_lt.
Goodall, J. (1 September 2017). Learning-centred parental engagement: Freire reimagined.
Educational Review.
Goodall, J. (2017). Narrowing the Achievement Gap: Parental Engagement With Children’s
Learning. Routledge, London and New York
Goodall, J. S. (2016). Technology and school-home communication. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 11(2), 118–131.
Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: a
continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410.
Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement: Practitioners
summary. London: DfE.
Goodall, J., & Weston, K. (2018). 100 Ideas for primary teachers: Engaging parents. London,
Bloomsbury Education.
Goodall, J. (2020). Engaging Parents During School Closures. Impact, London.
Harari, Y.N. (2018). 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Spiegel & Grau, New York.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement. Do Parents Know
They Matter? University of Warwick. Available at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/
uploadfiles/DCSF-RW004.pdf.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2007). Beyond the Bake Sale – The Essential Guide to Family/School
Partnerships. New York, The New Press.
Huber, S. et al. (2020). Covid-19 and Current Challenges in School and Education– First Findings
of the School Barometer in Germany. Austria and Switzerland. Waxmann, Münster.
Kelly, P. (2019). Teacher Recruitment, Retention and Motivation in Europe. EEPN, Utrecht.
Kendall, A. et al. (2018). Engaging Migrant Parents Using Social Media and Technology, Technical
University of Dresden.
National Counci l for Special Education, Ireland. (2011). Inclusive Education Framework. A guide
for schools on the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. Available at: https://
ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/InclusiveEducationFramework_InteractiveVersion.pdf
OECD. (2010). Education at a Glance 2010.
Open School Doors website. Available at: http://opendoors.daveharte.com/.
Open Schools for Open Societies website. Available at: https://www.openschools.eu/.
Pena, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of
Educational Research, 94(1), 42–54.
Price-Mitchell, M. (2015). Tomorrow’s Change Makers: Reclaiming the Power of Citizenship for
a New Generation. Eagle Harbour Publishing.
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2018). You, Your child and School. Vintage, New York.
Salamon, E., & Haider, B. (2015). Parental Involvement in School and Education Governance,
EPA. Brussels.

25
Socialinis ugdymas / 2020, t. 53, Nr. 1
Salamon, E., & Haider, B. (2015). School Costs Burdening Families in Europe. EPA, Brussels.
Salamon, E. (2017). European Schoolnet Teacher Academy.
Salamon, E. (2019). Good Practices in Teacher and School Leader Career Pathways in Europe
from a Practitioner and Parent Perspective, EEPN, Utrecht.
Schaedel, B., Eshet, Y., & Deslandes, R. (2013). Educational Legislation and Parental Motivation
for becoming Involved in Education: A Comparative Analysis between Israel and Quebec-
Canada. International Journal about Parents in Education, 7(2), 107–122.
Schaedel, B., Freund, A., Ataiza, F., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Boem, A., & Eshet,Y. (2015). School
Climate and Teachers’ Perceptions of Parental Involvement in Jewish and Arab Primary
Schools in Israel. International Journal about Parents in Education, 9(1), 77–92.
Snyder, T. (2018). The Road to Unfreedom. Tim Duggan Books, New York.
Tulowitzki, P. (2019). School Leader Recruitment, Retention and Motivation in Europe. EEPN,
Utrecht
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking Education– Towards a Global Common Good? UNESCO, Paris.
United Nations. (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. United Nat ions, NewYork.
World Bank. (2018). World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise.
Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
World Bank. (2020). Gender Dimensions of the COVID-19 Pandemic. World Bank, Washington
D.C.
„Naujas švietimo susitarimas“ tarp tėvų ir švietimo
specialistų, atsižvelgiant į mokymą(si) COVID-19
pandemijos metu
Eszter Salamon
Parents International, Otto van der Leckstraat 4, 5321HZ Hedel, Nyderlandai, director@parentsinternational.org
Santrauka
Naujausi pasauliniai tyrimai rodo, kad, norint užtikrinti vaiko teises, reikia permąstyti
santykius tarp šeimų ir institucinių švietimo paslaugų teikėjų. „Parents International“ atliko
tyrimus, kuriuose daugiausia dėmesio buvo skiriama švietimo nuostatoms išsiaiškinti. Tai
padėjo sukurti į ateitį nukreiptą pasaulinę švietimo iniciatyvą, pagrįstą tyrimais.
Šiame straipsnyje pristatomas t yrimas, kuriuo yra grindžiamas raginimas sudaryt i „Naują
švietimo susitarimą“. Siekiama, kad susitarimas taptų įrodymais paremta iniciatyva.
Esminiai žodžiai: tėvystė, vaiko teisės, darnaus vystymosi tikslai, teisingumas, įtrauktis,
tėvų teisės.
Gauta 2020 05 16 / Received 16 05 2020
Priimta 2020 07 31 / Accepted 31 07 2020