Content uploaded by Hlamulo Wiseman Mbhiza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hlamulo Wiseman Mbhiza on May 29, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raer20
Africa Education Review
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raer20
Reimagining the Needs of Rural Schools: Teachers’
and Parents’ Experiences of Parental Involvement
in School Activities
Hlamulo Mbhiza & Thabisile Nkambule
To cite this article: Hlamulo Mbhiza & Thabisile Nkambule (2023): Reimagining the Needs of
Rural Schools: Teachers’ and Parents’ Experiences of Parental Involvement in School Activities,
Africa Education Review, DOI: 10.1080/18146627.2023.2181727
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2023.2181727
© 2023 The Author(s). Co-published by
Unisa Press and Informa UK Limited, trading
as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 29 May 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Article
Africa Education Review
https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2023.2181727
www.tandfonline.com/RAER
ISSN 1753-5921 (Online), ISSN 1814-6627 (Print)
© The Author(s) 2023
Published by Unisa Press and Taylor and Francis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which
permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited,
and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Reimagining the Needs of Rural Schools:
Teachers’ and Parents’ Experiences of Parental
Involvement in School Activities
Hlamulo Mbhiza
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9530-4493
University of South Africa
mbhizhw@unisa.ac.za
Thabisile Nkambule
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-3170
University of the Witwatersrand,
South Africa
Abstract
The nature of the relationship between parents, teachers, and the school are
continuously important because of teachers’ changing social expectations.
While formal education is traditionally viewed as the job of teachers, they
cannot be expected to address all educational issues that are influenced by
multifaceted social issues. We explore parents’ and teachers’ understanding and
experiences of parental involvement, and the nature of parental involvement in
rural schools. We used the phenomenological approach; semi-structured
interviews were administered to comprehend teachers’ and parents’ experiences
of parental involvement in school activities. Complex parental views of
schooling shaped the manner of involvement in school activities, and the nature
of partnerships that were imbalanced. Teachers’ discourses of parental
involvement were unsurprisingly influenced by associating classroom spaces
with professional qualifications and curriculum pressure, resulting in the
exclusion of parents from classroom activities. The dominant nature of parental
involvement that teachers mentioned was that parents’ participation was limited
to helping outside the classroom to ensure the upkeep of the schools. The
findings also revealed that parents’ dominant experiences relate to viewing
schools as inaccessible spaces without invitation or permission, as they view
themselves as outsiders, and questioned the nature of communication channels.
Keywords: parental involvement; rural; rural education experiences; rural education
research
Mbhiza and Nkambule
2
Introduction
Formal education is traditionally viewed as the job of experts in the education sector;
however, researchers agree that parental involvement in school activities has substantial
benefit for the school and the children (Epstein, Galindo, and Sheldon 2011; Benner,
Boyle, and Sadler 2016). While the importance of parental involvement is undeniable,
Noel et al. (2013) posits that teachers dominate the classroom space and are suspicious
of parental involvement, irrespective of the nature of assistance. Researchers have
observed that parental involvement in school activities is generally complex (Deslandes
et al. 2015; Denner 2014; Powell 2015). Burke (2017) cautioned that some rural schools
fail to connect effectively with families. These observed complications and the scarcity
of research on rural teachers’ and parents’ experiences of parental involvement in rural
South African schools are the rationale for this study. The context of parents’ and
teachers’ experiences of parental involvement in school activities has been used in this
paper to offer insights into a situation in which rural parents are regarded as active
partners in the education of their children. We situate our discussion on the significance
of effective implementation of parental involvement in school activities that rely on
two-way communication between the school, learners, and parents to ensure that parents
do not feel inadequate to make contributions to the school and their children’s
schoolwork.
Research on Parental Involvement
While parental involvement is contested in education, several studies have stated that
parents have a primary role to play in the education of their children and activities in
the school (Calzada et al. 2015). Morrow and Wilson (2014) posit that in developing
countries few studies have explored rural parents’ views of schooling, school quality,
what makes a good school, and factors parents consider when choosing schools for their
children. Existing studies have indicated that rural schools struggle to form sustainable
relationships and connect effectively with families (Jordan 2016; Lin et al. 2014)
because they do not always share the same ideas of what is needed in the child’s best
interests (Deslandes et al. 2015). Although parental involvement has been researched
internationally, regionally, and locally, there is still concern regarding parental
involvement and what constitutes effective parental involvement in the education of
learners. Educators, parents, and community members have different opinions regarding
effective involvement practices and the ways each can contribute to the educational
process (Sapungan and Sapungan 2014). Because of a scarcity of research in rural South
African schools, we decided to conduct a study with rural teachers and parents to
understand their experiences of parental involvement in this context.
While education should be a shared activity, Meier and Lemmer (2015) argue that in
practice the bond between parents and teachers is not always spontaneous. Henderson
and Berla (1994, 1) state, “When rural schools work together with families to support
learning, children tend to succeed not just in school, but throughout life.” It is therefore
Mbhiza and Nkambule
3
important that parents and teachers work together, although teachers in rural schools
reported that they lack the necessary training to communicate effectively with parents,
especially if they were not from the community in which they teach (Semke and
Sheridan 2012). Irrespective of the context, the school leadership and school governing
body
1
(SGB) are expected to think of creative ways to motivate parents to participate
actively in school activities. The South African Schools Act of 1996 (South Africa 1996)
emphasises the importance of creating worthwhile partnerships between schools and
children’s homes and makes it legally binding for parents to become involved in the
governance of the schools that serve the community. The South African Council for
Educators (South Africa 2000) also urges teachers to recognise parents as partners in
education, and to create opportunities for parental involvement in the educational
activities of their children.
In addition to the above discussion, it has been normalised that parental involvement in
school activities is initiated and organised by the teachers and the school (Armstrong
2020; Lima, Levinthal, and Kuusisto 2019). It is important to note that parents and
teachers can have different experiences of parental involvement, depending on how
parents, teachers, and schools position the role of parents in schooling, which is an area
that has been under-researched within the South African context. According to
O’Connor Bones et al. (2022, 940), the “effectiveness is determined by parents’
perceptions of involvement and the various interactions that can enhance or obstruct it.”
With this in mind, what is left unexplored are the experiences of both teachers and
parents about parental involvement that could limit or enhance the effectiveness of
parental partnership in school activities. Hence, this paper explores the following
questions:
• What does parental involvement mean for rural parents and teachers?
• What are rural teachers’ and parents’ experiences of parental involvement in school
activities?
• What is the nature of activities parents get involved with in schools?
Discourse and Power Relations
Within a poststructuralist paradigm, we used Foucault’s concepts of discourse and
power relations to interrogate and understand parents’ and teachers’ experiences of
parental involvement in school activities. Discourse in this article is described as a way
of mapping a set of signifying practices which is essential to the continuation and
1
The South African Schools Act (SASA) is one of the school reform policies that the first democratic
government in South Africa developed to improve and ensure the democratisation of school
education (Department of Education 1996). This is accomplished through the devolvement of certain
powers and responsibilities in schools by introducing school governing bodies (SGBs). The SGB
consists of parents, teaching staff, non-teaching staff, and learners in secondary school, and its core
role is to promote the best interest of all stakeholders and ensure that all learners are offered the best
education possible.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
4
reinforcement of patterns and practices (Crosby 2017). Thus, “discourses establish a
regime of truth that makes them appear naturalised and universal (this is the way things
‘really’ are, have always been, and will be), resulting in alternative perceptions and
experiences appearing unimaginable” (Sanbonmatsu 2011, 45). We therefore aimed to
gain insight into parents’ and teachers’ regimes of truth about parental involvement in
rural schools, and critically analyse the nature of activities that parents undertake in rural
schools.
Regarding power relations, Foucault states, “We must make allowance for the complex
and unstable powers whereby discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of
power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point
for an opposing strategy” (Foucault 1978, 101). For Foucault, power relations are
multiple, have different forms, are distributed throughout complex social networks, and
can be at play in family relations as well as within an institution and administration.
Thus, the constitution of power, as power relations, depends upon its re-enactment or
reproduction over time as a sustained power relationship (Daldal 2014). In the article,
we interrogate the discourse of parental involvement that has been taken for granted and
practiced, the kind of practices discourse(s) has created and the way it has influenced
teachers’ and parents’ involvement in school activities, and consequently reinforced
specific patterns and practices.
Research Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative phenomenological research design to understand
participants’ experiences within a specific context. According to Sloan and Bowe (2014,
3), epistemologically “phenomenological approaches are based in a paradigm of
personal knowledge and subjectivity and emphasise the importance of personal
perspective and interpretation.” We used phenomenology to unearth unknown meanings
of parental involvement from rural teachers and parents by analysing the discourses and
identifying any power relations that emerged from the discussion (Gill 2014; Van
Manen 2016). To generate data, we used individual semi-structured interviews
characterised by the constructive dialogue approach. According to Sohn et al. (2017),
engaging in dialogue with participants requires researchers to approach participants
with humility, sensitivity, respect, and a sincere desire to hear what their “collaborators”
say. This was important because we wanted to listen respectfully to rural teachers’ and
parents’ narrations.
All the interviews took place in the schools, using the principals’ or deputy-principals’
offices and classrooms where necessary, to ensure non-disturbance and quietness.
Interviews took approximately 40 to 60 minutes, depending on the explanations and
experiences recounted by the participants. We audio recorded all the interviews with the
participants’ consent, to ensure that all information was captured authentically. The
parents also used siSwati, one of the local languages, during interviews to express
themselves. This did not affect the credibility of the data, because one of the authors
Mbhiza and Nkambule
5
speaks and understand the local language, which facilitated transcription and
interpretation.
We used purposive sampling to select appropriate participants. Walliman (2011)
states that the selection of participants needs to be done with sound judgment,
because no amount of analysis can make up for improperly generated data. Six
teachers and six parents were selected for the study, and the principals assisted with
the identification of parents because of their positions and experiences in the schools.
Although gender was not part of the selection criteria, there were seven males and five
females that voluntarily availed themselves. The parents did not have to spend money
for transport to attend the interviews at the schools, because they all stayed within
walking distance.
Data Analysis
To analyse the data, we used latent thematic analysis, which involves identifying
meaningful codes, categories, and concepts that adequately reflect the textual data
(Clarke and Braun 2014). For the first step, after transcribing and translating the siSwati
interviews, we allocated three parents’ and three teachers’ transcripts to each other to
read several times and commence with coding. We were aware that all parts of the data
were important rather than selecting specific parts, to get the general ideas of what
participants said. We wrote notes of each transcript separately rather than on the margins
of the transcripts, to make sure they did not influence the reading and coding of another
researcher when we exchanged the transcripts.
In the second step we exchanged the transcripts for re-engagement, to ensure that we
analysed the data in depth. We used the notes as our initial coding process of the entire
data set, which was followed by identification of emerging patterns. The third step
involved discovering themes from the whole data set, which were also cross-checked to
ensure trustworthiness and internal coherence. We noted the relationship between the
themes and sub-themes, which linked to the research questions (see Figure 1 below).
Mbhiza and Nkambule
6
Figure 1. Representation of data analysis process
Teachers’ and parents’ responses revealed the complexity of understanding parental
involvement in rural schools, and we were careful during the coding process to pay
attention to the nuances of their utterances and choice of words as they described their
experiences of parental involvement. Three themes emerged from their accounts: “The
significance of partnership for the schools’ and learners’ success,” “Inaccessibility of
the school without permission,” and “We can only do small things … fix small things.”
Findings
The Significance of Partnership for the Schools’ and Learners’ Success
Parents’ responses highlighted the need to help the school by participating in different
activities.
For me parental involvement is about providing certain services in the school … helping
even your children at home, with homework. It is participating in all activities of the
school, paying school fees, raising funds, attend meetings, share some knowledge …
although it’s not always easy because school has its own ways of doing things. (Parent
C, Female)
Mbhiza and Nkambule
7
Helping the school and also help your children with schoolwork … but if they ask you,
… maybe cleaning classes, maybe cleaning the school. I don’t know what else ma’am,
I don’t think I can help in the classroom, what can I do there [laughing out loud] they
don’t want, ehh teachers will not want me there, ma’am. We can’t do teachers’ work,
they studied for their job. (Parent F, Female)
Parent involvement in school, it’s very important, we must help the school look clean,
fix broken things, cut grass … teachers cannot do everything, bafundisa izingane zethu
2
(they teach our children). (Parent B, Male)
The concept of help for parents was linked with maintaining the infrastructure and
keeping the school presentable, because classrooms were spaces for teachers. Parents
associated a school with the teaching of specific knowledge, something they did not
have, which highlights the existing discourse of a school as “mapping a set of signifying
practices” (Jansen 2008, 34). It is unsurprising that parents perceive parental
involvement as outside activities because school has “its ways of doing things” that is
unfamiliar to parents. It is important to note the continuation and reinforcement of
teaching practices as designated for qualified teachers, thus excluding the non-qualified
from the classroom. While the parents perceived parental involvement as doing manual
work that did not need specific qualifications, which is the established regime of truth
for parents within the context (“this is the way things ‘really’ are, have always been,
and will be,” Sanbonmatsu 2011, 45), they are aware that it is important work because
teachers cannot do it. These findings differ from Matshe (2014) who suggests that in
rural areas parents are largely illiterate and therefore do not understand their school
governance roles, because although these parents acknowledge their limited academic
literacy, they are aware of other roles they can play in schools.
For the teachers, parental involvement meant forming partnerships and participating in
different school activities.
I think parental involvement means attend to your children’s schoolwork … it’s also
about more than schoolwork … involvement in school activities, ehhh, is it clean, do
you attend school cultural activities … the participation of parents in the learner
education is very key. (Teacher A, Male)
It means helping each other to make sure that children succeed, ma’am, partnership with
school, parents are still role models for their children, just showing their face in the
school should be enough for their kids, but we struggle. (Teacher B, Male)
It’s a challenge everywhere to encourage parents to get involved in school activities …
it means how can parents help the school to make sure that everything goes well,
teaching and learning, and hygiene in school. It’s not about paying school fees, but doing
2
Parents used isiZulu, one of the 12 official languages in South Africa, to talk about their experiences.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
8
more than that, making sure the child learns, ehh read at home, because, mhh, these kids
they don’t read at home because no one is monitoring them. (Teacher C, Female)
Although the nature of partnership that teachers mentioned is about helping outside the
classroom, they also identified the importance of being role models for children at home,
which does not necessarily need an educational background. Even though teachers
perceived that parents should do more in schools, their ways of thinking about parental
involvement as ensuring “hygiene” and “showing face” constituted the expectations of
the position of parents in schools. McGannon and Busanich (2010) posit that discourses
are resources people use to define reality, including who they are and their experiences,
and are bound by socio-historical practices that socialise people. Thus, parents’ and
teachers’ ways of talking about parental involvement represent the way they think about
the reality and roles, which are influenced by the socio-historical discourses and
practices in the society. Furthermore, of interest regarding teachers’ and parents’
experiences of parental involvement are the normalised expectations and understanding
of the nature of engagements.
Inaccessibility of the School without Permission
Some parents experienced difficulties in accessing the school to help willingly, while
others did not wait to be invited and offered their time to the principals and teachers.
The challenge of approaching the school was because some parents were not sure where
they could assist, so they preferred to be called to the school and told what to do. The
responses below illustrate this:
I can help when they call me. Kodzwa-ke (but then) ma’am I cannot just go to school
unless a teacher calls me, uma bengangibiti (if they don’t call me), I think ehh it means
everything is fine, ma’am. (Parent A, Female)
The principal does not tell us, we will not know, ehh ngisite kuphi nje, ngani, angati
kanjani (where can I help basically?, with what?, I’m not sure how), ma’am I can’t just
wake up and say let me go to school and help, kanjani, ngani (how? with what?), so the
principal should tell us … they never ask ma’am, [smiling] they must ask, they know
what they want. (Parent F, Female)
It’s not easy to just go to school and help ma’am … sometimes we don’t have a voice,
they do what they want or come to us having made decisions already, the principal make
all the decisions. (Parent C, Female)
Parents preferred to be approached and informed of the activities the schools wanted
them to do. If the principals and teachers did not ask for help, parents assumed that
everything was fine, because they could not conceive the nature of support the schools
needed. The responses also address the strategic nature of power that acts and manifests
itself (Pitsoe and Letseka 2015) within a discourse of who can speak, when, and with
what authority (Ochsner and Genishi 2001) between parents and principals. Some
parents felt that they did not have authority to initiate and approach the principal to offer
Mbhiza and Nkambule
9
their services; there was no sense of ownership for the school. As mentioned by
Bagarette (2011), there are still many principals who undermine the status, roles, and
functions of parents in their schools, a situation that leads to power struggles and
ultimately conflict. Of interest with parents’ responses was the continuing impression
of the school as not easily approachable on the one hand, while on the other hand some
parents took the initiative to provide their services, rather than waiting to be approached.
This indicated different experiences amongst parents depending on the nature of the
existing relationship with a school. Furthermore, other parents stated that:
I volunteer, I don’t wait to be asked, sita ngalokhu, no, khuluma no-principal (help and
speak with the principal), ngithandza kusita ngalokhu (I like to help with this) … kodzwa
ke (but then) most of the time the principal makes the decisions. (Parent D, Male)
Ngiyatama (I try) ma’am, I listen to the principal what she wants me to do, bese
ngiyasebenta (I then work), I like to work here. I help in school with teachers and
principal, I go to school and say what can I do to the principal. I believe that noma ngabe
umtali ufundzile noma akanamfundzo, kufanele asite esikoleni (whether a parent is
educated or not should help in school). (Parent E, Male)
While these parents also identified lack of involvement in decision making, they
acknowledged the importance of contributing to the schools. It could be argued that
these parents forced relations and formed a system that recognised them as partners of
the school for the community, and it was their responsibility to assist where they could
without being asked. It could be argued that parents were promoting what Foucault
(1978) calls a form of discontinuity that allows for the complex and unstable powers,
whereby discourse can be a point of resistance for centralised power and a starting point
for taking ownership of the school for these parents. We recognised a disjunction and
contradictions which isolated these two parents from those that waited to be called to
the school.
Teachers had different experiences with parental involvement in schools and were
surprised that parents were waiting for a request to help in the school rather than
volunteering their services. The teachers felt that parents did not understand the roles
they needed to play during and after school as partners, without considering that power
is exercised through institutional relations that discipline our ways of thinking and
acting through self-regulation (Foucault, Morris, and Patton 1979). The following
responses illustrate these points:
For me, I think parents have it wrong, I think they don’t understand it, it’s not all about
the teachers. They haven’t been involved much, we struggle, they don’t attend to school
when we request them to come and talk about a child’s schoolwork. I have never seen
parents just come to school … it’s difficult to include them, to make them get involved
in school activities. (Teacher B, Male teacher)
… for them is like you need permission to come, to enter (the school). Don’t wait for us
to call you … surprise us, let’s just see you come and check your child. Parents don’t
Mbhiza and Nkambule
10
come to school unless we call them, which means if you never call them everything is
fine. Parents don’t make time and come to school when we need them. We are running
out of ideas here, what to do. (Teacher B, Male)
It’s tough here, our parents are struggling … since I have been a teacher, it’s always a
struggle to convince parents to be involved in school activities. If we are seriously
concern with a particular kid, we go home to meet the parents, well hope to meet the
parents, because [looks down with sad facial expression] ma’am that’s where the reality
hits you hard, seeing where kids come from is heart breaking. (Teacher D, Female)
The persistent views of the school as inaccessible without permission interrogated the
nature of communication and partnership that exist between the parents and the schools.
While it is a struggle to make parents get involved in school activities, it is also
important for the principals, teachers, and parents to form a different relationship that
promotes an understanding of the family’s socio-economic background that is “heart
breaking.” Considering the expected close relationship between the school, community,
and parents, teachers’ experiences with parental involvement indicated a deeper social
challenge that resulted in this disconnect. Ellis, Lock, and Lummis (2015) mentioned
research that identified barriers which limit parental involvement in schools, such as
socio-economic status (Hughes and Kwok 2007) and culture (Crozier and Davies 2007),
as well as school barriers, such as the teachers’ availability because of time constraints
(Miretzky 2004) and teacher self-efficacy (Hoover-Dempsey et al. 1987). While
parental involvement is perceived as a general challenge in schools, the place-based
rural community dynamics makes it a “dream” and “ambition” to encourage parental
involvement because “they are trying to make ends meet” because of the nature of the
challenges and difficulties they face.
“We Can Only Do Small Things … Fix Small Things”
Parents’ involvement in “small” activities is linked to the belief that teachers do not
have the time and were not expected to clean and fix the school, as they had been trained
to teach the children.
I go to school and work in the garden, make sure we have lot of vegetables and help our
orphan kids. I do paint inside classrooms, if the principal asks me, clean the school, fix
small things, yilokho kuphela lengingakwenta (that’s all I can do) ma’am, I am not
educated. (Parent D, Male)
We help in school but do small things, I think we can only do small things the school
want us to do, cleaning the yard outside, cutting grass, fix broken doors, tintfo letincane
(small things) ma’am. (Parent E, Male)
I volunteered to be SGB, I wanted to be closely involved in school for my child,
bengifuna kwati kutsi kwentekani esikoleni (I wanted to know what is happening in the
school) ma’am. Ngihlale ngita mina ma’am esikoleni (I always come to school), I sweep
Mbhiza and Nkambule
11
the verandas early before school starts, I also collect papers after break, I also work in
the garden, our small garden, isipha kudla (it gives us food). (Parent E, Male)
There was an understanding from the parents that they should participate in school
activities in any way they can because the government has decentralised power to
encourage parental involvement. Furthermore, parents’ responses were unsurprising
considering the traditional understanding of the school as the institution of knowledge,
thus helping outside the classrooms was related with being “uneducated.” While parents
perceive their involvement in schools as “doing small things,” we argue that supporting
orphan children and poor families with food from the school garden is not “small” but
contributes to the community’s survival. Such practices cannot be taken for granted
when partnerships are formed between parents and the school community.
Discussion
It is unsurprising that parents and teachers prioritised partnering, although the nature of
partnership was not the same. For the parents, involvement in school activities involved
helping outside the classroom, because of the understanding and association of school
with trained teachers with specific knowledge that parents did not have (Msila 2012).
Teachers acknowledged the importance of parental involvement that takes the holistic
approach in the formation of a partnership that is meaningful to the parents, teachers,
and children. Such activities include parents as role models for their children,
irrespective of their limited education, whose importance could be taken for granted.
This resonates with Ceka and Murati’s (2016, 62) argument that “parents are their
children’s strongest role model and greatest influence.” Such recognition also highlights
the need for a different partnerships between teachers and parents, which focuses on
building parents’ self-esteem in a social context that is dominated by uneducated
parents, especially when parents mentioned schools as unapproachable.
The parents’ dominant perception of the school as inaccessible without permission was
because the felt like outsiders and questioned the nature of communication channels.
This study supports the views of Lin et al. (2014) and Jordan (2016) that rural schools
struggle to form sustainable relationships and connect effectively with families, because
if there is distrust and disrespect between leadership and parents the nature of the
relationship will be suspicious. Although the involvement in school activities is about
participating outside versus inside the classrooms, an expected discourse in a rural
context that is dominated by educationally illiterate parents, of concern is the
perpetuation of the normalised discourse by both groups that signify the traditional
practice in schools and reinforce continuation and preservation of the dichotomy
(Crosby 2017). This discourse resulted in parents and teachers overlooking the
important role that parents play in assisting the school and the community with the
production and distribution of food, which could strengthen the partnership. The
dominant thinking in terms of the dissimilarity of roles results in limited conceptions of
the role parents can play in school activities and addresses the need to reflect on the
Mbhiza and Nkambule
12
conceptualisation of school and re-construct the nature of parental involvement in
school activities that appreciate parents’ diverse roles in the school.
We acknowledge the parents who took initiatives, approaching the principal and
offering their services, thus taking ownership and power to break the boundaries.
Foucault’s (1978) concept of discontinuity addresses a point of resistance and a starting
point for an opposing strategy, which could be linked with the group of parents that
approached the school, despite this being a small group.
Limitations of the Study
In this paper, we have only scratched the surface of rural parents’ and teachers’
experiences of parental involvement, especially considering that we cannot homogenise
and generalise the findings to other rural contexts and schools as we desist from the
deficiency-based approaches to understanding rurality and rural lived experiences.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research on parents’ and teachers’ experiences of parental involvement should
build on the findings presented in this paper, to explore and understand varied
experiences of parents, teachers, and even learners about parental involvement in
schooling. Additional studies should be conducted to investigate the potential effects
that active parental involvement within rural areas and schools might have on children’s
motivation to attend school and participate in learning as well as on children’s academic
achievements. Such studies will broaden the literature on rural parents’ and teachers’
partnerships and the potential effect that increased partnerships between parents and
teachers, parents and children, teachers and teachers, school and community might have
on children’s academic achievements.
Conclusion
The article explored rural teachers’ and parents’ experiences of parental involvement in
school activities in South Africa, prompted by the lack of research that recognises the
silent voices of teachers and parents in a rural context. The partnership between parents,
teachers, and leadership in a rural context is complex because of the discourse of
viewing parents as uneducated, thereby reinforcing the conception of teaching practices
as designated for qualified teachers. In addition, parents’ conception of school has
contributed to relegating themselves to maintaining the school infrastructure and
cleaning the classroom, which is linked to the discourse of being uneducated. Rather
than focusing on the challenges of the context, it is important to make parents aware of
the important contributions they make to the school and community, which they
perceive as “small things” while they strengthen the relationship. It is therefore
important that teachers, parents, and school leadership constantly communicate their
expectations of each other’s roles and ensure parents of the distinctive roles they can
play in the school, irrespective of their educational background.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
13
References
Armstrong, D. 2020. Power and Partnership in Education: Parents, Children and Special
Educational Needs. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003073031
Bagarette, N. 2011. “Power Relation in School Governing Bodies: Implications for Effective
School Governance.” Journal of Social Science 29 (3): 223–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2011.11892973
Benner, A. D., A. E. Boyle, and S. Sadler. 2016. “Parental Involvement and Adolescents’
Educational Success: The Roles of Prior Achievement and Socioeconomic
Status.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45: 1053–64.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0431-4
Burke, M. M. 2017. “Examining Empowerment, Family-School Partnerships, and Advocacy
Among Rural and Urban Latino Families of Children with Disabilities.” Rural Special
Education Quarterly 36 (2): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517707218
Calzada, E. J., K. Y. Huang, M. Hernandez, E. Soriano, C. F. Acra, S. Dawson-McClure et al.
2015. “Family and Teacher Characteristics as Predictors of Parent Involvement in
Education during Early Childhood among Afro-Caribbean and Latino Immigrant
Families.” Urban Education 50 (7): 870–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914534862
Ceka, A., and R. Murati, R. 2016. “The Role of Parents in the Education of Children.” Journal
of Education and Practice 7 (5): 61–64.
Clarke, V., and V. Braun. 2014. “Thematic Analysis.” In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology,
edited by Thomas Teo, 1947–52. New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_311
Crosby, R. J. 2017. “A Rethinking of Difference: Doing Inclusivity, Intersectionality and
Reflexivity in Discourse and Practice in the International Development NGO Sector.”
MA thesis, Utrecht University.
Crozier, G., and J. Davies. 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 Educational Research Journal 33 (3): 295–313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701243578
Daldal, A. 2014. “Power and Ideology in Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci:
A Comparative Analysis.” Review of History and Political Science 2 (2): 149–67.
Deslandes, R., S. Barma, and L. Morin. 2015. “Understanding Complex Relationships between
Teachers and Parents.” International Journal about Parents in Education 9 (1): 131–44.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
14
Ellis, M., G. Lock, and G. Lummis. 2015. “Parent-Teacher Interactions: Engaging with Parents
and Carers.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40 (5): 9.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.9
Epstein, J. L., C. L. Galindo, and S. B. Sheldon. 2011. “Levels of Leadership: Effects of
District and School Leaders on the Quality of School Programs of Family and
Community Involvement.” Educational Administration Quarterly 47 (3): 462–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10396929
Foucault, M. 1978. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, edited by D. F. Bouchard, 140–64. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Foucault, M., M. Morris, and P. Patton. 1979. Michel Foucault Power, Truth, Strategy.
Sydney: Feral Publications.
Gill, M. J. 2014. “The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational
Research.” Organizational Research Methods 17 (2): 118–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113518348
Henderson, A. T., and N. Berla, (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical
to Student Achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., O. C. Bassler, and J. S. Brissie. 1987. “Parent Involvement:
Contributions of Teacher Efficacy, School Socioeconomic Status, and other School
Characteristics.” American Educational Research Journal 24 (3): 417–35.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024003417
Hughes, J., and O. Kwok. 2007. “Influence of Student-Teacher and Parent-Teacher
Relationships on Lower Achieving Readers' Engagement and Achievement in the
Primary Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (1): 39.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39
Jansen, I. 2008. “Discourse Analysis and Foucault’s ‘Archaeology of
Knowledge’.” International Journal of Caring Sciences 1 (3): 107.
Jordan, P.A. 2016. “An Evaluation of Educator Perceptions Regarding the Level of Family
Engagement in Appalachian Kentucky Schools with Middle Grade Students.” DEd
diss., Eastern Kentucky University. https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/384.
Lin, S., J. Isernhagen, S. Scherz, and P. R. Denner. 2014. “Rural Educator Perceptions of
Parent Involvement in Public Schools: Perspectives from Three States.” Rural
Educator 36 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v36i1.575
Matshe, P. F. A. 2014. “Challenges of Parental Involvement in Rural Public Schools in Ngaka
Modiri Moleme District of North West Province.” International Journal of Humanities
Social Sciences and Education 1 (6): 93–103.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
15
McGannon, K. R., and R. Busanich. 2010. “Rethinking Subjectivity in Sport and Exercise
Psychology: A Feminist Post-Structuralist Perspective on Women’s Embodied Physical
Activity.” In The Cultural Turn in Sport Psychology, edited by Tatiana V. Ryba, Robert
J. Schinke, Gershon Tenenbaum, 203–29. Morgantown: Fitness Information
Technology.
Meier, C., and E. Lemmer. 2015. “What do Parents Really Want? Parents’ Perceptions of Their
Children’s Schooling.” South African Journal of Education 35 (2): 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n2a1073
Miretzky, D. 2004. “The Communication Requirements of Democratic Schools: Parent-
Teacher Perspectives on Their Relationships.” Teachers College Record 106 (4): 814–
51. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810410600407
Morrow, V., and E. Wilson. 2014. Parents’ Perspectives on Quality of Schooling in Andhra
Pradesh, India. Young Lives Working Paper. Young Lives, Department of International
Development, University of Oxford.
Msila, V. 2012. “Black Parental Involvement in South African Rural Schools: Will Parents
Ever Help in Enhancing Effective School Management.” Journal of Educational and
Social Research 2 (2): 303–13.
Ochsner, R. S. M., and C. Genishi. 2001. Miss Nelson is Missing! Teacher Sightings in
Research on Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
O’Connor Bones, U., J. Bates, J. Finlay, and A. Campbell. 2022. “Parental Involvement During
COVID-19: Experiences from the Special School.” European Journal of Special Needs
Education 37 (6): 936–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1967297
Pitsoe, V. J., and M. M. Letseka. 2015. “Re-Engineering Teaching Practice Through Reflexive
Practice and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Framework.” e-Bangi 10 (1): 154.
Powell, S. E. 2015. “Exploring Parental Involvement Levels at the Middle-Level: A Case
Study.” DEd diss., Northcentral University.
Sanbonmatsu, J. 2011. “The Animal of Bad Faith: Speciesism as an Existential Project.”
In Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, edited by John Sorenson, 29–45. Toronto:
Canadian Scholars Press.
Sapungan, G. M., and R. M. Sapungan. 2014. “Parental Involvement in Child’s Education:
Importance, Barriers and Benefits.” Asian Journal of Management Sciences &
Education 3 (2): 42–48.
Semke, C. A., and S. M. Sheridan. 2012. “Family-School Connections in Rural Educational
Settings: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature.” School Community
Journal 22 (1): 21.
Mbhiza and Nkambule
16
Sloan, Art, and B. Bowe. 2014. “Phenomenology and Hermeneutic Phenomenology:
The Philosophy, the Methodologies, and Using Hermeneutic Phenomenology to
Investigate Lecturers’ Experiences of Curriculum Design.” Quality & Quantity 48 (3):
1291–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3
Sohn, B. K., S. P. Thomas, K. H. Greenberg, and H. T. Pollio. 2017. “Hearing the Voices of
Students and Teachers: A Phenomenological Approach to Educational
Research.” Qualitative Research in Education 6 (2): 121–48.
https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.2017.2374
South Africa. 1996. South African Schools Act. Pretoria: Government Printers.
South Africa. 2000. The South African Council for Educators Act. Act No. 31. Cape Town:
Government Printer.
Van Manen, M. 2016. Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in
Phenomenological Research and Writing. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315422657
Walliman, N. 2011. Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work. London:
SAGE Publications.
