Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools: What Qualities and Strategies Distinguish Effective Principals? (SpringerBriefs in Education) 9811612633, 9789811612633

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Linda-Dianne Willis Jenny Povey Julie Hodges Annemaree Carroll

Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools What Qualities and Strategies Distinguish Effective Principals?

SpringerBriefs in Education

We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as: Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment & Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology, Medical Education and Educational Policy. SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for: • An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the field of educational research • A presentation of core educational concepts • An overview of a testing and evaluation method • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change • An in-depth case study • A literature review • A report/review study of a survey • An elaborated thesis Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to editorial review by editorial advisors. SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that: • an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript • each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author • the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website or that of his/her institution

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Linda-Dianne Willis · Jenny Povey · Julie Hodges · Annemaree Carroll

Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools What Qualities and Strategies Distinguish Effective Principals?

Linda-Dianne Willis School of Education and Professional Studies Griffith University Mt Gravatt, QLD, Australia Julie Hodges Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology The University of Queensland St Lucia, QLD, Australia

Jenny Povey Institute for Social Science Research The University of Queensland Indooroopilly, QLD, Australia Annemaree Carroll School of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia, QLD, Australia

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISBN 978-981-16-1263-3 ISBN 978-981-16-1264-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

School principals play a critical role in engaging parents and their communities to enhance student learning and wellbeing yet, the qualities and strategies of leadership to encourage and sustain engagement are little researched. This book is the culmination of the initial work of four researchers—we, the authors, LindaDianne (Linda) Willis, Jenny Povey, Julie Hodges, and Annemaree Carroll—brought together serendipitously one day in 2015 when we met at a symposium in Brisbane, Australia, which had been convened to hear Dr. Debbie Pushor from Canada speak about her life’s work in parent engagement. The four of us had been variously researching aspects of parent engagement and student wellbeing and, although aware of one another’s work and interests at The University of Queensland where we worked in various departments, had never before been together in the same room. Soon after the symposium, the Queensland (Australian state) government announced a major release of funding for educational researchers—the Education Horizon Research grant scheme—totalling one million dollars. These funds were available for researchers to apply in line with the government’s then education priorities. Early career researchers were particularly encouraged to apply. This sequence of events saw the birth of the Principal Leadership for Parent-School-Community Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools (shortened in this book to Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement) project which was supported throughout 2016–2017 following a successful application to the Education Horizon Research grant scheme (see Department of Education, 2016). An extension of this project was made possible by a second round of funding through the same grant scheme which has seen the initial phase of the project supported until 2020 (see Department of Education, 2017). (The findings of phase two of the project will be reported on in future publications as they are beyond the scope of this book.) In writing about phase one of the project in this our first book, Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools: What Qualities and Strategies Distinguish Effective Principals?, we present design-based research used to select principals of four disadvantaged schools in Queensland who appeared to demonstrate effective parent engagement. Essentially, we sought to respond to the provocation, What gives some principals the edge on parent engagement? To achieve our aim, data were initially gathered from principal interviews and teacher, parent, v

vi

Preface

and student focus groups together with survey data collected at each school. These data were subsequently analysed using a framework drawn from Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum which comprises four coordinated equally important spheres of influence—students, teachers, curriculum (subject matter), and milieus—where milieus consist of schools, classrooms, parents, communities, and an additional milieu arising from our research, digital technologies. Apart from drawing on Schwab’s framework to develop a unique analytic tool, this book extends the literature on principal leadership for parent engagement by combining Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) chordal triad view of agency—which comprises iterational (past), projective (future), and practical-evaluative (present) dimensions— with Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) notion of agency as achievement to examine the findings. This approach to theorising the findings has deepened our understanding about what and how the qualities and strategies of the principals involved enhanced parent engagement. We show how the principals’ agentic orientations to agency shifted from the past to the future to influence their choices and actions for achieving agency in parent engagement in their present environments. Recognising the cultural aspects of their particular contexts and settings appeared to assist principals as parent engagement leaders while material and structural aspects such as available resources and government policies variously hindered the possible agency they could achieve. We close the book by drawing conclusions about principal leadership for parent engagement and exploring implications for practice and research for schools, public policymakers, employers, and higher education stakeholders. Mt Gravatt, Australia Indooroopilly, Australia St Lucia, Australia St Lucia, Australia

Linda-Dianne Willis Jenny Povey Julie Hodges Annemaree Carroll

References Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962– 1023. Schwab, J.J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522.

Acknowledgments

The research included in this book, Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, benefited from funding provided by the Queensland Department of Education 2016 Education Horizon Research grant scheme. The research was conducted by a team from The University of Queensland comprising Dr. LindaDianne (Linda) Willis, Associate Professor Jenny Povey, Dr. Julie Hodges, and Professor Annemaree Carroll. Research assistance and administrative support were provided by Ms. Charley Pedde, Ms. Alice Campbell, and Ms. Alexandra Gramotnev. The research team worked in collaboration with the Parents and Citizens’ Association Queensland (P&Cs Qld) and Kevan Goodworth (P&C Chief Executive Officer [2014–2020]). The team wishes to acknowledge the contribution and offer their sincere thanks to the four principals involved in the project and the teachers, parents, students, and other staff at their schools who gave generously of their time and support to participate in the project. We also gratefully acknowledge the three international reviewers who read an earlier version of this manuscript. We are thankful for their generosity of time and expertise in providing feedback, suggestions and comments which encouraged us to improve our work to benefit future readers and researchers. Finally, we sincerely thank Don Willis for proofreading multiple drafts of this manuscript and for offering ideas and suggestions to improve its clarity and message. Disclaimer This book is not a statement of Queensland Government policy. The findings in this book were based on interviews, focus groups, survey data, and school documents collected in good faith from the individuals and schools involved. No responsibility is accepted by the Queensland Department of Education or the researchers for any errors or omissions contained within this publication. No liability will be accepted for loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information contained herein.

vii

Contents

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining Parent, Wellbeing and Parent Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introducing the Concept of “Agency as Achievement” to Understand Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four Examples of How Successful Principals Achieved Agency for Parent Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining Quality and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Interconnected Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theme 1: Communicating a Strong School Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Communicating a Strong School Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theme 2: Developing Trusting, Respectful Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Developing Trusting, Respectful Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theme 3: Establishing a Positive School Culture for Parent Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Establishing a Positive School Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 6 8 8 13 13 14 14 15 15

15 16

17 18

20 21 21

ix

x

Contents

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods and Introducing the School Sites and Principal Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Provocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design-Based Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Disadvantaged Schools to Participate in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . Using Schwab’s Notion of Commonplaces as an Analytic Framework . . . . Describing Data Collection and Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School and Principal Snapshots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dragonfly Creek State School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warnerville State School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reef Island State School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scenic View State School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement from the School and Principal Snapshots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 26 26 27 28 30 32 36 36 37 38 38 39

40 41 41

4 Presenting Key Player Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of Key Players . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 46 47 49

5 Presenting School Learning Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum (Subject Matter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital Technologies (Virtual Classrooms) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of School Learning . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 55 56 58 59

6 Presenting School Culture Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of School Culture . . . . . . . .

50 51 53

61 62 64 67 68 69 71 73

Contents

xi

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals the Edge on Parent Engagement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 80 84 85 86 87 87

Chapter 1

Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

Abstract This chapter describes the international and Australian contexts for the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement research featured in this book. We shine a light on the imperative of parent engagement and define the key terms: “parent”, “wellbeing”, and “parent engagement”. Next we introduce the idea of “agency” by describing how Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) triadic view of agency as comprising iterational (past), projective (future), and practical-evaluative dimensions in combination with Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) notion of agency as achievement were used to understand the findings of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Keywords Parent · Wellbeing · Parent engagement · Agency as achievement · Principal leadership · Parent involvement · Disadvantaged schools

Introduction Over the last three decades, international recognition of parent engagement as crucial to improving student learning and wellbeing at school and home has gained momentum. Considerable research that highlights the value and importance of parent engagement has been conducted in the United States (US), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Scandinavia (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Pushor, 2001). Recent research from countries in East Asia (e.g., China, South Korea), the Middle East (e.g., Qatar), and South America (e.g., Brazil) as well as Australia and New Zealand has added new knowledge about the benefits of parent engagement in different contexts (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Guo, 2018). Among the benefits for students highlighted by this research are: improved skills academically, socially, and emotionally; increased motivation, achievement, and success at school; more regular school attendance; higher rates of retention, graduation, and uptake of tertiary studies; an elevated sense of self-efficacy; strengthened belief in the importance of education; and heightened aspirations for learning in school and beyond (Emerson et al., 2012; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Mapp, 2013; Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). The combined weight of research evidence has © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_1

1

2

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

driven major government reform initiatives in the United States (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act 2001, 2002 and Every Student Succeeds Act 2015 [United States Department of Education, 2018]) and UK (e.g., The Children’s Plan [Department for Education, 2007] and The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults [Field, 2010]). In Australia, the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs, 2008); Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Department of Education, 2019a); The Family-School Partnerships Framework (Department of Education & Training, 2008); Advancing Partnerships—Parent and Community Engagement Framework (Queensland Department of Education, 2020); and the 2019–2023 National School Reform Agreement (Department of Education, 2019b) among governments at Commonwealth and state and territory levels to lift student outcomes across Australian schools illustrate similar reform initiatives.1 The clear, strong message of these moves is that parent engagement is essential not only for student and school success, but also enhanced social cohesion in the community and national economic prosperity. Since 2004 in Australia, where this research is set, five successive Commonwealth governments of differing political persuasions have responded to the imperative of parent engagement (Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth [ARACY], 2016). Changes in national policies, government objectives, research directions, and program funding (ARACY, 2016) have accompanied sweeping reform agendas such as the Students First Policy in which Australia’s Commonwealth government—after wide consultation with all school sectors (e.g., Catholic, independent, and government), key stakeholders (e.g., state departments of education), and peak principal and parent bodies (e.g., Australian Primary and Secondary Principals’ Associations, Australian Parents Council)—committed to improving schools and education outcomes for students by working with state and territory governments, teachers, and parents (Federal Coalition, 2013). To realise this commitment, Students First was built on four pillars of education, one of which was engaging parents in education (Department of Education & Training, 2015). More recently an Australian Commonwealth government policy review document titled, Through Growth to Achievement: Report of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, underscored the continued importance of engaging parents as partners in their child’s learning throughout their school years (Gonski et al., 2018). Gonski et al. (2018) stated, for example, that: “Lack of involvement represents a lost opportunity, and can be as detrimental to a student’s outcome as taking a more active role in a child’s learning is beneficial” (p. 20). This emphasis on parent engagement by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments of Australia has been felt in schools, classrooms, initial 1 For

more Australian state and territory parent and community engagement initiatives, see: Australian Capital Territory Government (n.d.), Government of New South Wales, Department of Education, (2020), Government of South Australia, Department of Education (2021), Government of Western Australia, Department of Education (n.d.), Northern Territory Government, Department of Education (2020), Tasmanian Government, Department of Education, (n.d.), Victoria State Government, Department of Education and Training (2021).

Introduction

3

teacher education (ITE) programs, and parent associations and organisations across the country. The adoption of the Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles (Australian Institute for Teaching & School Leadership [AITSL], 2014) and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2017); introduction of new accreditation standards for ITE programs (AITSL, 2015); use of the Australian Council for Educational Research’s (ACER) National School Improvement Tool—notably Domains 3 (A Culture that Promotes Learning) and 9 (School and Community Partnerships) (ACER, 2016); instituting high-quality benchmarks for early childhood education and care through the National Quality Standard (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority, 2018); and, the development of a Student Learning and Wellbeing Framework (Queensland Government, 2019)—all include clear evidence of the requirement for principals and teachers to engage parents to promote student learning and wellbeing. At the same time in Queensland (Australian state and location for the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project), some quarters have experienced a groundswell of change led by influential parent bodies such as Catholic School Parents Queensland (CSPQ), formerly the Federation of Parents and Friends Associations of Catholic Schools in Queensland, which released an issues paper on parent engagement in the Queensland Catholic education system. This paper titled, Now’s the Age to Engage, entreats leaders at state, diocese, and school levels to shift their focus from parents playing mostly traditional roles (e.g., as volunteers and fundraisers) to those which position parents, teachers, and students working in a partnership “triangle” to achieve beneficial outcomes for all involved (CSPQ, 2018, pp. 1, 6). This shift accords with much of the work of influential researchers in the field (e.g., Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Goodall, 2017; Harris & Goodall, 2008; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2011, 2018; Mapp, 2013; Pushor, 2001) who have called for schools and parents to work together “in authentic partnership” (Goodall, 2018, p. 1613) to “regenerate” (Groves & Baumer, 2008, p. 65) and “revolutionise education [to] boost results” (Pushor, 2018). Principals play a critical role in forging partnerships with parents to enhance student learning and wellbeing hence, further research into the qualities and strategies of leadership that encourage and sustain this engagement is needed. Against this background, this book reports on the findings of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project (funded by the Queensland Department of Education [2016]) which investigated the qualities and strategies of four Queensland principals selected for their leadership in parent engagement. The primary aim of this book is to describe and explain what helped or hindered their agency. First, in this opening chapter, we (authors) define key terms such as engagement and outline the conceptual framework that combines Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) and Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) views of agency. In Chap. 2, we review the international literature—focusing on research that investigated the effectiveness of principals and school leaders in parent engagement—to find common themes and subsequently conceptualise how these leaders achieved success. In Chap. 3, we detail the research design and methods of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. In Chaps. 4–6, we present three findings and discussion chapters which are prefaced with snapshots

4

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

of the four principals in our project and the settings and contexts in which they worked. These chapters discuss the topics of key players (Chap. 4), school learning (Chap. 5) and school culture (Chap. 6). In the final chapter, based on the findings, we draw conclusions and identify possible implications for stakeholders in schools, public policy, employers, and higher education and suggest possible directions for further research.

Defining Parent, Wellbeing and Parent Engagement In this book, we use the word, parent, to refer to a child’s biological parent or grandparent, family, guardian, caregiver, or other person with primary care and responsibility for a child’s wellbeing (Constantino, 2003). At times we use the term, family, to reflect the way in which parents may be understood and are represented in the literature (e.g., Henderson & Mapp, 2002). We have extended the idea of student learning to include wellbeing. Wellbeing is often described as a multidimensional notion (e.g., Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development [OECD], 2019) hence, it is defined variously in the literature. In writing about child wellbeing, Ben-Arieh and Frønes (2007) noted: “Child wellbeing encompasses quality of life in a broad sense. It refers to a child’s economic conditions, peer relations, political rights, and opportunities for development” (p. 1). Schools and educators increasingly describe student wellbeing by referring to the development of the “whole child”—emphasising the need to adopt a holistic approach that develops not only students’ cognitive, but also social and emotional skills (OECD, 2018, p. 2). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2017) has recognised wellbeing and students’ school experience as interdependent: Schools are not just places where students acquire skills; they also help students become more resilient in the face of adversity, feel more connected with the people around them, and aim higher in their aspirations for their future. Not least, schools are the first place where children experience society in all its facets, and those experiences can have a profound influence on students’ attitudes and behaviours in life. (p. 5)

Accordingly, the OECD (2017) suggested questions of students’ enjoyment of life that include their experiences at school might be: “Are students basically happy? Do they feel they belong to a community at school? Do they enjoy supportive relations with their peers, their teachers and their parents?” (p. 3). Of significance to our research were findings by the OECD that student wellbeing was connected not only to perceptions of positive relationships with teachers, but also to the involvement of parents in their school lives. Examples of parent involvement included: “spending time just talking to [their] child” and “parents discussing how well [their] child is doing at school” (OECD, 2017, p. 6). Further, the OECD found these kinds of parent activities appeared connected to student performance: “students whose parents reported ‘spending time just talking’ were two-thirds of a school year ahead in science learning; and even after accounting for socio-economic status, the advantage remains at one-third of a school year” (p. 6). In addition, the OECD noted:

Defining Parent, Wellbeing and Parent Engagement

5

Students’ perceptions of how interested their parents are in them and in their school life is also related to their own attitudes towards education and their motivation to study. Those relationships are particularly strong among low-performing students—and stronger than the impact of most school resources and other factors measured by PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). (p. 6)

Extending the idea of student learning to include wellbeing in our study thus aligns with research that continues to emerge which positively connects parent involvement with students’ academic, social, and emotional development. Although there is no universally agreed-upon definition of parent engagement in the literature (see Willis, 2018), we take up Goodall and Montgomery’s (2014) model of parent engagement as a cumulative process that is best represented by a continuum from parent involvement—which describes parents playing traditional school roles (e.g., volunteers at the school canteen, spectators at sporting events, fundraisers at school fetes)—at one end, to parent engagement—which describes parents working alongside schools and teachers to achieve shared goals for student learning and wellbeing—at the other. Goodall (2017) iterated that it is important to see both ends of the continuum as “good” since parent involvement may be a first step towards parent engagement (p. 91). By way of example, Willis and Exley (2020) explain that “informal meetings between parents and teachers can lay the foundation of trusting relationships on which future engagement opportunities are built” [p. 4]). Yet, Goodall (2017) insists that parent engagement is “much better and more effective” (p. 91) than parent involvement because it represents “a shift in the relationship (between parents and school) in relation to the object (the learning of the child)” (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014, p. 406). When parents are engaged they are able to directly support the learning and wellbeing of their child as opposed to mostly providing support to their child’s school—which in turn supports students (Goodall, 2017). Goodall (2017) elaborates on Goodall and Montgomery’s (2014) parent engagement model to differentiate between parent involvement with the school, parent involvement with schooling, and parent involvement with learning. She uses the example of reading with children to show three different points on the involvementengagement continuum: • parents helping the teacher (in school, school directed)—(parent involvement with schools); • parents reading with children (in school, some parental discretion)—parent involvement with schooling; • parents reading with children (not in school, parent and child-led)—(parent engagement with children’s learning) (Goodall, 2017, p. 93). With each point, the balance shifts along the continuum towards parent engagement while simultaneously affording parents increased opportunities to directly contribute to their child’s learning and wellbeing. Given the research evidence, Goodall (2017) asserts that “parent engagement offers the best lever” to improve learning outcomes for all students (p. 85). Her view of parent engagement aligns with Pushor and the Parent Engagement Collaborative’s

6

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

(2013) notion of a “curriculum of parents” which reimagines school systems to enable parents and teachers to fit together their different knowledges of children, teaching, and learning to benefit all involved (p. 10) (see also Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005). Parent engagement thus requires a changed view of schooling (Goodall, 2017).

Introducing the Concept of “Agency as Achievement” to Understand Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement To better understand parent engagement in this research, we call on the concept of agency. Agency is widely and variously used in the literature, leading some to describe it as a “slippery”, “contested”, and possibly unnecessary term (Priestley et al., 2015, p. 19). Sewell (1992) described agency as the “efficacy of human action” (p. 2); in other words, an individual’s power or capacity to make things happen. Willis (2013) drew on Sewell’s work, viewing agency as the dialectical partner of structure (i.e., agency|structure) where structures comprise resources (material and human such as someone’s commitment) and schemas (e.g., social rules or attitudes), to describe and explain parent–teacher engagement in a coteaching venture. Emirbayer and Mische (1998) offered a more nuanced view of agency, reconceptualising it dynamically as a “chordal triad” comprising iterational, projective, and practicalevaluative orientations that interpenetrate with multiple different forms of relational and temporal structures (p. 972). Each chord is briefly described below. The iterational orientation refers to past experience which “through habit and repetition, becomes a stabilising influence that shapes the flow of effort and allows us to sustain identities, meanings, and interactions over time” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 975). It is associated with “routines, (settled) dispositions, preconceptions, competences, schemas, patterns, typifications, and traditions” which manifest in how individuals (and institutions) “selectively recognise, locate, and implement” these different aspects in what they say and do (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 975). The projective orientation concerns how individuals “move beyond themselves into the future and construct changing images of where they think they are going, where they want to go, and how they can get there from where they are at present” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 984). It is associated with “dreams, wishes, desires, anxieties, hopes, fears, and aspirations” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 984). The practical-evaluative orientation refers to how agency is enacted on the ground “in the real world”; that is, individuals make common sense judgements and choices in the present based on “common values, interests, and purposes” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 995). This judgement is associated with terms such as “practical wisdom, prudence, art, tact, discretion, application, improvisation, and intelligence” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 994) since such choices “must often be made in the face of considerable ambiguity, uncertainty, and conflict; [when] means and ends sometimes contradict each other, and unintended consequences require changes in strategy and direction” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 994).

Introducing the Concept of “Agency as Achievement” …

7

According to Emirbayer and Mische (1998), using the metaphor of a chordal triad makes it possible to conceptualise agency as three separate “tones”—past, future, present—that chime together, but which may not always be in harmony, for example, because one may be stronger than the others (p. 972). Applied to the four principals in this research, this tri-fold conceptualisation allows us to explain where each of their personal and/or professional histories of interacting with parents may have influenced their actions either as routines or conscious reflections on the past (i.e., an iterational orientation). This conceptualisation also allows us to recognise how their actions were affected by their vision for student learning and the school as they make shortor long-term plans for the future (i.e., a projective orientation). Ultimately Emirbayer and Mische’s notion of agency allows us to convey our understanding of how each principal acted in the present based on judgements which involved weighing up a range of possible alternative actions in the context of past and present issues and situations (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation). Emirbayer and Mische’s conceptualisation thus provides useful analytic tools (and language) to examine parent–school relationships in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement research reported on in this book. Goodall and Montgomery (2014) also take up Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) view of agency in the context of parent engagement, describing it as “a process of social engagement informed by the past and oriented toward the future and the present and encompassing the possibility of choice and action” (p. 401). Accordingly, parent involvement describes typical (past) lopsided parent-school relationships that distribute agency in favour of schools who assume most responsibility for a child’s learning (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Parent engagement however, shifts the relationship between parents and schools to enable “a more equitable distribution of agency” (future) in which responsibility for a child’s learning becomes shared between parents and schools (present) (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014, p. 402). Looking at parent–school relationships provides a way to understand what and how the qualities and strategies of the principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project enabled them to redistribute agency for positive movement of their school along the parent involvement-engagement continuum. Biesta and Tedder (2007) and later Priestley, Biesta, and Robinson (2015) in their work on teacher agency—furthered Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) understanding of agency in ways that are equally valuable in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. First, Biesta and Tedder challenged the oft-held idea of agency as an individual’s innate capacity to act, contending that agency is less something an individual possesses and more something an individual achieves. Second, they contended that agency as achievement does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, agency “always depends on the interplay of agentic orientations [i.e., iterational, projective, practical-evaluative], resources, and wider contextual and structural factors” (Biesta & Tedder, 2007, p. 145). Where Emirbayer and Mische focused on disaggregating agency into its constituent elements, Biesta and Tedder, taking their ideas, provided a more detailed conceptualisation of how an individual’s ecology (i.e., their environment, or settings and contexts) influence the extent of control and direction they have over their lives. Priestley et al. described this “ecological view of agency… as

8

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

an emergent phenomenon of the ecological conditions through which it is enacted” (p. 22). Speaking about the advantages of their approach, Priestley et al. wrote: …this approach can allow us to determine when past patterns of behaviour are more significant in shaping agency than the lived conditions of the present or whether practical constraints are more facilitating or inhibiting in the present domain than evaluative considerations (for example, judgements about likely levels of risk). (p. 29)

This view of agency is thus more nuanced and sophisticated as it can take account of specific situations or factors (e.g., changes in staffing, availability of resources, curriculum reforms) as they unfold in the contexts in which the principals worked. Together with Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) theorisation, Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) expanded view of agency offers unique vantage points to understand what helped or hindered principal leadership for parent engagement in the four disadvantaged schools in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement research featured in this book.

Conclusions This chapter has laid the foundation for our book, Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, which seeks to understand what helped or hindered principal effectiveness in parent engagement in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. To this end, we introduced agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) as a useful concept because it shifts the idea of agency from something thought to be innate to a person to focus more on what a person actually accomplishes. This makes it more possible to point to the qualities principals exhibit and the strategies they use to achieve effective principal leadership for parent engagement. Before introducing the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project, the next chapter looks to the literature for examples of effective principal leadership for parent engagement. Given our interest in agency as achievement, we explore how this concept may provide fresh learnings and insights to the findings contained in these examples to inform our own work in subsequent chapters.

References Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government. (n.d.). Progressing parent engagement project. https://www.education.act.gov.au/public-school-life/resources-for-parents/parent-engagement. Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. (2018). National quality standard. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2016). National school improvement tool. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=tll_misc.

References

9

Australian Institute for Teaching & School Leadership (AITSL). (2014). Australian professional standard for principals and the leadership profiles. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/australian-professional-standard-for-principals-and-the-leader ship-profiles652c8891b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf?sfvrsn=11c4ec3c_0. Australian Institute for Teaching & School Leadership (AITSL). (2015). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/initial-tea cher-education-resources/accreditation-of-ite-programs-in-australia.pdf. Australian Institute for Teaching & School Leadership (AITSL). (2017). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth (ARACY). (2016). Researching parent engagement: A qualitative field study. Canberra, Australia: ARACY. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frønes, I. (2007). Indicators of children’s wellbeing: What should be measured and why? Social Indicators Research, 84(3), 249–250. https://doi.org/10:1007/s11205-007-9183-6. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Borgonovi, F., & Montt, G. (2012). Parental involvement in selected PISA countries and economies (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 73). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ 5k990rk0jsjj-en. Catholic School Parents Queensland (CSPQ). (2018). Issues paper: Now’s the age to engage. https://www.pandf.org.au/_file/media/14/180830062749689/the-age-to-engage-doc ument-may-2018.pdf. Constantino, S. M. (2003). Engaging all families: Creating a positive school culture by putting research into practice. Lanham, ML: Scarecrow Education. Department for Education. (2007). The children’s plan: Building brighter futures. https://www. gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-children-schools-andfamilies. Department of Education. (2019a). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. https://docs. education.gov.au/documents/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration. Department of Education. (2019b). The national school reform agreement. https://www.education. gov.au/national-school-reform-agreement-0. Department of Education & Training. (2008). The family-school partnerships framework. http:// www.familyschool.org.au/files/3013/8451/8364/Family-school_partnerships_framework.pdf. Department of Education & Training. (2015). Departmental report: Review of the Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education and Training. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievements and adjustment: A literature review. London, UK: Department of Education and Skills. Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. A report by the Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth (ARACY) for the Family-School & Community Partnerships Bureau: Canberra. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Federal Coalition. (2013). The coalition’s policy for schools: Students first. Canberra, ACT: Federal Coalition. https://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/13-08-29%20The%20Coalition%27s%20P olicy%20for%20Schools%20-%20policy%20document.pdf. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults. https:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110120090141/http://povertyreview.independent.gov.uk/ media/20254/poverty-report.pdf. Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brian, L., Perry, L.-A., & Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.

10

1 Parent Engagement—The Imperative!

Goodall, J. (2017). Narrowing the achievement gap: Parental engagement with children’s learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Goodall, J. (2018). Parental engagement in children’s learning: Moving on from mass superstition. Creative Education, 9, 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.911116. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Government of New South Wales, Department of Education. (2020). Engaging communities. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/multicultural-education/cul ture-and-diversity/engaging-communities. Government of South Australia, Department of Education. (2021). Parent engagement framework. https://www.education.sa.gov.au/parenting-and-child-care/engaging-your-childs-education/res ources-staff/parent-engagement-framework-building-parent-school-partnerships. Government of Western Australia, Department of Education. (n.d.). Engaging and working with your community framework: A resource for principals to use with their school community. https:// www.education.wa.edu.au/dl/pnknvo. Groves, M., & Baumer, J. (2008). Regenerating schools: Leading transformation of standards and services through community engagement. Bancyfelin, Carmarthen: Network Continuum Education. Guo, Y. (2018). Home-school relations: International perspectives. Singapore: Springer Nature. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. New York, NY: Routledge. Jeynes, W. H. (2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13632434.2018.1434767. Mapp, K. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. Washington, DC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on education goals for young Australians. http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_res ources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf. Northern Territory Government, Department of Education. (2020). Family engagement charter. https://education.nt.gov.au/statistics-research-and-strategies/family-engagement-charter. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume III): Students’ wellbeing. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/edu cation/pisa-2015-results-volume-iii_9789264273856-en. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). (2018). Trends shaping education spotlight 14. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/ Spotlight-14-Good-Vibrations-Students’-Well-being.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). (2019). PISA assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2001). A storied photo album of parents’ positioning and the landscape of schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada. Pushor, D. (2018). How parents can revolutionise education and boost results. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/how-parents-could-revolutionize-education-and-boostresults-99502.

References

11

Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership teaching and learning research exchange. Saskatoon, SK: Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Pushor, D., & the Parent Engagement Collaborative. (2013). Portals of promise: Transforming beliefs and practices through a curriculum of parents. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Queensland Department of Education. (2016). Education horizon research grant scheme: Approved proposals 2016. https://education.qld.gov.au/about/Documents/eh-approved-2016.pdf. Queensland Department of Education. (2020). Advancing partnerships—Parent and community engagement framework. https://education.qld.gov.au/parents/community-engagement/Docume nts/pace-framework.pdf. Queensland Government. (2019). Student learning and wellbeing framework. https://education.qld. gov.au/student/Documents/student-learning-wellbeing-framework.pdf. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School and Community Journal, 4(2), 39–56. Tasmanian Government, Department of Education. (n.d.). Parent fact sheets. https://www.educat ion.tas.gov.au/parents-carers/parent-fact-sheets/. United States Department of Education. (2018). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www. ed.gov/essa. Victoria State Government: Department of Education and Training. (2021). Dimensions: Parents and carers as partners. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/management/improv ement/Pages/dimension4parents.aspx. Willis, L.-D. (2013). Parent-teacher engagement: A coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Willis, L.-D. (2018). Creating new spaces for pre-service teachers to engage with parents: An Australian coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing project. In Y. Guo (Ed.), Home-school relations (pp. 207–225). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-130324-1_12. Willis, L.-D., & Exley, B. (2020). Engaging parents in their child’s learning and wellbeing— Change, continuity and COVID-19. Our schools—Our Future Issues Paper. Published by Independent Schools Queensland. https://rms.isq.qld.edu.au/files/Weblive_OSOF/Engaging_Parents_I ssues_Paper.pdf.

Chapter 2

Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement

Abstract In this chapter, we identify four different studies from the international literature which provide examples of principal leadership for parent engagement. Our analysis of these investigations provides a basis for the findings and discussion of our research in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project featured in the rest of this book. This analysis reveals three interconnected themes related to the qualities and strategies of principals and school leaders considered successful in parent engagement. These are: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive school culture for parent engagement. For each theme, we take the opportunity to apply our understanding of the concept of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) to illuminate the qualities and strategies of successful principals. At the end of the chapter, we draw conclusions that increase our understanding about what may help or hinder principal leadership for parent engagement and the value of agency as achievement as a conceptual tool in this field. Keywords School vision · Positive relationships · School culture · Qualities and strategies

Introduction Research by Griffith (2001) confirmed the multiplicity of ways principals influence parent engagement. Yet, despite widespread acknowledgement of parent engagement as a potential education “game-changer” (CSPQ, 2018, p. 6) and global government reforms and policy shifts that suggest the time is ripe for “a gentle revolution” (Pushor, 2018a), “systematic engagement of parents [has] not become integral to all schools” (Pushor & Amendt, 2018, p. 202). Indeed, Pushor and Amendt (2018, p. 202) lamented that most schools have not gone beyond what Weiss et al. (2010) described as “random acts” of parent engagement (p. 1). It is unsurprising that Griffith observed of the literature: “specific principal behaviours associated with high levels of parent engagement [were] conspicuously absent” (p. 165). Auerbach (2009) noted

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_2

13

14

2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership …

that sparse research on leadership and families suggested that though many administrators may “‘talk the talk’ of engaging parents as partners in education, they typically manage parent involvement in conventional ways that support the school agenda” (p. 10). Similarly, Goodall (2018) iterated that “parents are still routinely held at a distance from the learning processes fostered by the school system” (p. 1611). According to Pushor and Amendt, more emphasis in research on critical elements of school leadership for parent engagement (e.g., parent voice) was therefore needed. Specifically, they called for: “research that details how a leader [principal] is to do this work [i.e., parent engagement], what the critical elements of the work are, and what theory and pedagogy underpins those elements” (Pushor & Amendt, 2018, p. 208).

Four Examples of How Successful Principals Achieved Agency for Parent Engagement Despite a dearth of literature on principal leadership for parent engagement, we identified four studies from different parts of the world with the potential to speak to the research gaps that Pushor and Amendt (2018) identified above. The first by Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) is an Australian study titled: “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. The second by Heinrichs (2018) features a self-study by a Canadian principal who together with her teachers explored: School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. The third by Mleczko and Kington (2013) in the UK investigated: The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. The fourth by Pushor (2018b) reveals how a research team worked alongside one Canadian school’s leaders to engage parents and the community in a study titled: Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. An analysis of this literature revealed three interconnected themes which underscored the apparent success in parent engagement of the principals and school leaders involved. These themes were: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive school culture for parent engagement. At the same time, our analysis uses the concept of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) to shine light on the qualities and strategies of these principals to further understand what helped or hindered their parent engagement success.

Defining Quality and Strategy In using the terms, quality and strategy, we view quality as an attribute, characteristic, or feature of a principal, and strategy as the art (pedagogy) and science (knowledge) of planning and assembling resources to improve relationships between parents and

Defining Quality and Strategy

15

their child’s learning at school and home (see Dictionary, 2018). We acknowledge, however, that these two terms cannot always be distinctly separated and may include elements that overlap.

Three Interconnected Themes Theme 1: Communicating a Strong School Vision Our analysis of the four studies which highlight examples of effective principal leadership for parent engagement showed communicating a strong school vision was strong in three. Mleczko and Kington’s (2013) four-year mixed methods study in the UK, for example, described how two principals working across an Infant and Junior School garnered ideas from teachers and parents to develop a vision that responded to the many different dimensions of their school context. The principals were subsequently able to communicate a clear, strong school vision and Mleczko and Kington found the process meant the teachers and parents were more likely to participate positively in the direction of school change. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014), whose qualitative research examined Australian parents’ perspectives of principal leadership, similarly found that effective leaders personally communicated a shared school vision among staff and the community. Parents reported this enhanced school cohesion and increased parent–teacher collaboration. Heinrichs’ (2018) narrative inquiry approach, in her self-study as principal of a disadvantaged school in Canada, also stressed the need for a clear understanding of parent engagement. Adopting a reflective stance, which included challenging her assumptions about parents developed throughout her career, allowed her to better match her philosophy and pedagogy. Heinrichs subsequently recognised the need to demonstrate care and humility in listening and learning from parents so she could walk alongside them without judgement or prejudice. These different principals hence embodied what Fullen (2002) described as a sense of the “big picture” while daily working to transform their schools alongside teachers and parents (in Mleczko & Kington, 2013, p. 132).

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Communicating a Strong School Vision Based on Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) triadic view of agency, each of the principals (as discussed above) enacted “new strategies for collective actions” (i.e., developing a shared school vision)—demonstrating a predominantly projective orientation to agency (p. 990). Referring to the principals in their research, Mleczko and Kington (2013) observed, “they seemed to have the ability to look to the

16

2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership …

future so that their vision for change was one that amply prepared the school to respond to future challenges or opportunities” (p. 143). Heinrich’s (2018) research showed how reflecting on past school experiences (i.e., an iterative orientation) while simultaneously adopting a more projective orientation, allowed her to challenge preconceptions about parents and make practical manoeuvres “to assure the appropriateness of [her] response to the situation at hand” (practical-evaluative orientation) (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 980). This conceptual analysis provides insights into the qualities (e.g., optimism, reflexivity, care) and strategies (e.g., adopting a distributed [shared] leadership approach; implementing methods of two-way communication; modelling dialogic listening) of principals who appeared to achieve success in parent engagement. These qualities and strategies saw them focus on improving relationships between parents and their child’s learning rather than only between the school and parents (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Thus, they can be described as having redistributed agency in ways which positively moved their schools along the parent involvement-engagement continuum.

Theme 2: Developing Trusting, Respectful Relationships The second theme of developing trusting, respectful relationships with parents and teachers was also common across the four studies. Speaking of parents, Mleczko and Kington (2013) found the two principals in their research drove initiatives to involve them in the learning environment in formal and informal ways. This approach seemed to strike the best balance to ensure all parents felt included. A key aspect of their leadership was celebrating cultural diversity among parents and the community. In describing participatory action research in one disadvantaged Canadian school, Pushor (2018b)—working with school leaders and teachers as part of a research team to transform parent–school relationships—similarly advocated the need to “begin with the strengths and knowledge that parents possess” (p. 19). She highlighted the importance for schools to initiate contact with parents through early, frequent contact and personal invitations to connect them with their child’s learning and the school community. Heinrichs (2018) also used a strengths-based approach, finding that parent engagement increased when activities were directly relevant to their child and their learning. Through conversations with parents, she invited them to share particular knowledges (e.g., of communities and cultures) and skills (e.g., beading and drumming) with teachers and students in classrooms. These opportunities visibly positioned them as co-educators of their child alongside teachers. Parents consequently reported feeling “valued and needed” (Heinrichs, 2018, p. 197). Mapp (2013) noted that when parent contributions are honoured and connect them to the school community through an emphasis on their child’s learning, trusting parent– school relationships ensue. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) found, however, when parents perceive “they were not being heard, had difficulty gaining access to teachers and principals, or even in going through the front gates of their child’s school” that trust was lost (p. 500). They reported this rang true especially for traditionally marginalised

Three Interconnected Themes

17

parents (e.g., Indigenous Australians) who lacked confidence and felt powerless and vulnerable in their dealings with schools (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014). Speaking of teachers, Mleczko and Kington (2013) described how the two principals in their study developed their school vision using “two-way communication with staff to gather all ideas and to support the implementation of changes” (p. 137). The teachers indicated they did not feel the vision was imposed on them, but enjoyed ownership of the process, outcome, and anticipated future success. Mleczko and Kington suggested this built trust by positioning them as co-leaders alongside their principal and one another. Heinrichs (2018) extended her process of self-reflection to include teachers. Together they examined preconceived ideas about parents. They also discussed existing practices (e.g., parent–teacher interviews) and whether these served the best interests of all parties. Parent conferences run by students not teachers were subsequently adopted. Heinrichs developed personal relationships with teachers by talking with them individually. She also supported teachers’ professional learning in parent engagement, organising workshops, supplying professional reading materials, and arranging guest speaker visits on specific topics in response to emerging needs. This purposeful professional learning addressed a significant challenge to parent engagement which Goodall (2018) identified as the failure of research findings “filtering through to school staff” (p. 1616). Goodall maintained the gap between what is known from the literature and what happens in practice in schools perpetuates traditional parent involvement approaches and promulgates familiar discourses which “have been roundly challenged in the literature”, for example, the discourse of “hard to reach parents” (p. 1616).

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Developing Trusting, Respectful Relationships The successful principals and school leaders in the four studies (as discussed above) achieved increased levels of agency to engage parents in their different contexts by developing trusting, respectful relationships. They recognised how past school experiences and practices (iterative orientation) affected possibilities for parent engagement (projective orientation) and the range of choices and actions available in the environment in which they operated (practical-evaluative orientation) (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). To mobilise parents and teachers to work together towards the same goal (i.e., enhanced student learning and wellbeing), they relied on qualities such as openness, honesty, and empathy for students and families. At the same time, they employed strategies that were: respectful (e.g., adopting a strengths-based approach, celebrating diversity); relational (e.g., extending personal invitations); and intentional (e.g., providing explicit research information to support teachers’ professional learning). These qualities and strategies created cultural, material, and structural (social) resources that contributed to the leaders’ achievement of

18

2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership …

agency (Priestley et al., 2015). Relationships founded on trust and respect appeared to act like a catalyst in shifting responsibility from the school and teachers to enable parents to engage more in their child’s learning. Effectively, the principals and school leaders in each of the four studies positively repositioned their schools on the parent involvement-engagement continuum.

Theme 3: Establishing a Positive School Culture for Parent Engagement Establishing a positive school culture was the third theme that was common among the four studies. A positive school culture may be defined as shared principles, norms and attitudes among school members that may be observed as practices that are inclusive and foster a sense of belonging in the school community. A positive parent engagement school culture focuses specifically on practices that encourage parents to engage in their child’s learning and wellbeing and feel welcome in the school and classroom (Karadag & Oztekin-Bayir, 2018; McDowall & Schaughency, 2017; Spence, 2018). Barr and Saltmarsh (2014), for example, found that parents associated the principal’s work with “the notion of a ‘welcoming’ school as being inclusive and fostering a ‘familiar’ place of ‘community’” (p. 497). Primary school parents reported they “enjoyed an active presence” in their child’s school learning through regular communication with the principal and teachers, which they perceived lessened the distance between them and those in positions of school authority (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014, p. 497). In his meta-analyses of parent engagement research, Jeynes (2018) recommended the value of communication, calling it “the lifeblood” of effective parent–school relationships (p. 153). The parents in Barr and Saltmarsh’s research also considered the principal’s availability (e.g., visibility in the playground) as a sign of their positive attitude towards parent involvement; in contrast, unavailability “was attributed to limitations in motivation and personality” (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014, p. 497). Heinrichs (2018) similarly embraced notions of inclusivity and familiarity in creating a culture of parent engagement, describing how she created a welcoming, hospitable, comfortable, and relaxed atmosphere to connect positively with parents. She emphasised the import of school leaders “taking the time to sit and visit with families without an agenda” (p. 195). As previously noted, she worked with teachers to create a student-centred approach to traditional activities such as parent-teacher interviews. These times became whole-school events, beginning with a communal meal— to facilitate “a fuller exchange of views and experiences”—followed by sharing and celebration of each child’s school work and projects with their parents (Heinrichs, 2018, p. 193). Pushor (2018b) also described how creating parent spaces (e.g., a family gathering place) and activities (e.g., whole-group sharing evenings) fostered a positive parent engagement culture by encouraging teacher–parent conversations and increasing parent attendance and participation.

Three Interconnected Themes

19

In addition, the successful principals and school leaders saw their school as operating as part of the community. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) showed it was especially important for members of disadvantaged communities to be able to identify with what they saw and with what happened in schools. They found effective principals embedded symbolic representations and practices of parents’ communities and cultures in their schools in ways parents recognised as authentic and sincere. Pushor (2018b) similarly stressed the need to create more seamless connections between schools and their various communities. She highlighted community walks for staff, home visits, and the creation of specific roles (e.g., Parent Pathfinder) as ways the principal and teachers in her research deepened their knowledge and connections with families, neighbourhoods, communities, services, and organisations. At the same time, these strategies revealed complex challenges to establishing a culture of parent engagement that included: “language, work schedules, past experiences with school, a lack of knowledge of Canadian schooling, trust and relationships” (Pushor, 2018b, p. 26). Identification of these context-specific issues better positioned the principal and researchers in Pushor’s study to address potential barriers to their parent engagement agenda as they moved forward. The successful principals and school leaders not only drove change, but also encouraged and sustained a positive parent engagement school culture. Mleczko and Kington (2013), for example, highlighted how the two principals in their study viewed policy initiatives to increase parent engagement as opportunities to constructively examine what was happening in their school and what could be improved. In developing their school vision, they set the parameters and tone for the work to follow. This included allowing teachers “to innovate and be part of a team [to] achieve the goal of continuing to foster improved parental engagement” (Mleczko & Kington, 2013, p. 143) and “treat[ing] parents not only as partners engaged in the education of their children, but also as community members and parents who should be provided with certain skills to empower them” (Mleczko & Kington, 2013, p. 144). On the latter point, Mleczko and Kington described a number of successful initiatives (e.g., family literacy sessions, government-run projects) which the principals facilitated to connect parents with learning opportunities through their school or community. Warren et al. (2009) previously showed that workshops and courses of interest to parents (e.g., how to help children with autism) heightened engagement in their child’s learning. These opportunities—especially effective for parents in disadvantaged communities—expanded parents’ learning, improved their self-efficacy, and built networks of positive connections through talking and learning from others in a safe, supportive environment (Warren et al., 2009). Watt (2016) noted in her research of five successful disadvantaged schools that educational opportunities for parents seemed to increase their aspirations for what they could achieve in life while simultaneously positively impacted their aspirations for their child. One school in Watt’s research, for example, enjoyed a close relationship with a local college, and parents who experienced difficulties with literacy and numeracy were able to study courses to improve their knowledge and skills. One parent who took advantage of this opportunity relayed that it enabled her to gain employment in a care home. As a result, she

20

2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership …

no longer relied on welfare benefits and for the first time was able to support herself and her family. Other recent research (e.g., Dempster et al., 2017) has not only confirmed the value of parent–-community connections, but also signalled these may have a more potent influence on parent engagement than previously thought. Pushor (2018b), following Mapp et al. (2017) suggestion, also created conditions conducive to parent engagement through active learning opportunities (e.g., language classes) for parents to build their knowledge and skills. Mleczko and Kington (2013) observed about the value of parent skill-building: “Often official policies neglect the actual skills of parents and, in turn, many of the initiatives result in a perceived increase in the existing gap between less and more affluent parents” (p. 144). To sustain their parent engagement agenda, however, Mleczko and Kington reported the two principals involved in their study sometimes needed to find innovative solutions to emerging challenges (e.g., budget constraints). Although uncertain and uncharted, Pushor used Bateson’s (2000) words to liken this process of continuing to find ways to sustain a culture of parent engagement to “repeatable stories of composing and improvisation” (p. 31).

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Through the Theme of Establishing a Positive School Culture The principals and school leaders described in the above section achieved agency for parent engagement by encouraging and sustaining a positive school culture. Their degree of manoeuvrability for change and action in their different settings and contexts underscored a strong projective orientation (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). They showed qualities of commitment, effective interpersonal communication, and concerted effort. They used strategies such as modelling effective parent engagement practices; being available and visible; taking time to talk with parents; creating interactive social spaces for meaningful dialogue; partnering with communities and organisations; embedding parents’ knowledge and community practices in their schools; creating designated parent engagement roles for school personnel; and building parents’ knowledge and skills. Their projective orientation to agency motivated them to reimagine traditional school practices (e.g., parent–teacher interviews) and also the usual roles of schools which have positioned them as separate from the community—practices and roles inherently oriented to the iterational element of agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). At the same time, the leaders evidenced a strong practical-evaluative orientation to agency as they continually connected people, ideas, places, and communities within and beyond the school, and were adept and agile in negotiating different aspects of education that were often competing and sometimes “tricky” (see Blackmore & Hutchison, 2010, p. 509) (e.g., because of new policy requirements or budgetary priorities and constraints).

Conclusions

21

Conclusions It is possible to draw three main conclusions from our analysis of the four studies featured in this chapter. First, each principal and school leader appeared to exercise their agency relative to “temporal-relational contexts-for-action” (Priestley et al., 2015, p. 22). In other words, they achieved agency insofar as they were able to draw on their existing resources—cultural, material, structural—and generate new ones (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015). Only some of the studies (e.g., Heinrichs, 2018) however, provided detailed information about the environments in which the principals worked. This detail seems crucial for better understanding what can help or hinder school leaders’ achievement of agency for parent engagement in different contexts such as those featured in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project in this book. Second, our analysis begins to show what and how qualities and strategies of principals and school leaders helped them achieve agency for parent engagement. These school leaders appeared to recognise—along with Priestley et al. (2015)—that “if agency today is shaped by experiences from the past, then we can conclude that today’s contexts will impact upon future agency” (p. 25). We showed how this recognition helped the principals achieve agency as revealed in each of the themes which emerged in our literature review: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive school culture for parent engagement. Hence, the principals and school leaders featured in this chapter continually looked for ways to situate parents, teachers, school leaders, and community members/organisations more centrally to student learning. This projective orientation (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998) or futures-focused approach allowed them to continually distribute and re-distribute their agency more equitably to enable positive movement on the parent involvement-engagement continuum (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Third, it follows that agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) offers a promising conceptual tool for not only expanding and deepening understanding about principal leadership for parent engagement, but also for illuminating particular qualities and strategies of successful principals.

References Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–32. Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Bateson, M. C. (2000). Full circles, overlapping lives. New York, NY: Random House. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Blackmore, J., & Hutchison, K. (2010). Ambivalent relations: The ‘tricky footwork’ of parental involvement in school communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 499– 515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802657685.

22

2 Reviewing the Literature on Principal Leadership …

Catholic School Parents Queensland (CSPQ). (2018). Issues paper: Now’s the age to engage. https://www.pandf.org.au/_file/media/14/180830062749689/the-age-to-engage-doc ument-may-2018.pdf. Dempster, N., Townsend, T., Johnson, G., Bayetto, A., Lovett, S., & Stevens, E. (2017). Leadership and literacy: Principals, partnerships and pathways to improvement. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-54298-0. Dictionary. (2018). Meanings and definitions of words. https://www.dictionary.com/. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Fullen, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–21. Goodall, J. (2018). Parental engagement in children’s learning: Moving on from mass superstition. Creative Education, 9, 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.911116. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership for parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 162–186. Heinrichs, J. (2018). School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017. 1406905. Jeynes, W. H. (2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13632434.2018.1434767. Karadag, E., & Oztekin-Bayir, O. (2018). The effect of authentic leadership on school culture: A structural equation model. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(1), 40–75. Mapp, K. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. Washington, DC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Mapp, K., Carver, I., & Lander, J. (2017). Powerful partnerships: A teacher’s guide to engaging families for student success. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. McDowall, P. S., & Schaughency, E. (2017). Elementary school parent engagement efforts: Relations with educator perceptions and school characteristics. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1103687. Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2018a). How parents can revolutionise education and boost results. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/how-parents-could-revolutionize-education-and-boostresults-99502. Pushor, D. (2018b). Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 17–37. http://familydiversityeducation.org/index. php/fdez. Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018. 1439466. Spence, J. (2018). How factors of school leadership, school culture, and teachers’ perceptions influence parental engagement in two Title I urban middle schools: Implications for educational leaders. Electronic Theses & Dissertations Collection for Atlanta University & Clark Atlanta University. http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cauetds/112/ (112). Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. L., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A communitybased relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.

References

23

Watt, L. (2016). Engaging hard to reach families: Learning from five ‘outstanding’ schools. Education, 44(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1122321. Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. L., & Rosenberg, H. (2010). Beyond random acts: Family, school, and community engagement as an integral part of education reform. Boston, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Chapter 3

Describing the Research Design and Methods and Introducing the School Sites and Principal Participants

Abstract In this chapter, we describe the research design and methods used in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. We initially set the scene for our research by providing contextual information about the state of Queensland in Australia where the project took place. This is followed by a brief history of the project, our design-based research approach, and research rationale—all of which contributed to our selection of the project’s four school sites. We subsequently introduce Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum as the basis for our analytic framework. Schwab’s commonplaces comprise four coordinated equally important spheres of influence (dimensions)—students, teachers, curriculum, and milieus—where milieus consist of schools, classrooms, parents, and communities. In the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project, we added digital technologies as a further milieu. The chapter describes data collection, analysis methods, and the research questions before briefly introducing each of the four schools and their principals in a section called, School and Principal Snapshots. The chapter concludes by discussing how the different dimensions of Schwab’s notion of commonplaces which we used were grouped under broad headings and the perceived advantage of these groupings for improving communication of our research findings in subsequent chapters. Our preliminary analysis of data in the snapshot section lends more weight to our argument about the potential value and utility of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) as a conceptual tool in principal leadership for parent engagement research. Keywords Design-based research · Disadvantaged schools · Index of community social-educational advantage (ICSEA) · Schwab · Commonplaces · Planning of curriculum · Dimensions and milieus · Mixed methods approach · School and principal snapshots

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_3

25

26

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Introduction Chapter 2 highlighted the value and utility of examples of school leadership for parent engagement for increasing understanding about what helped or hindered the principals involved to achieve agency. Detailed examples, however, are few and even more scant in Australia and its state of Queensland where the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project occurred. Queensland is the second-largest and third-most populous of Australia’s six states and two mainland territories. When we began this phase of our research in 2016, Queensland’s population was 4.7 million people (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2018a) of which Indigenous Australians made up 4.6 percent, the second-highest of the states and territories (ABS, 2018b). According to the 2016 ABS census results, most Queenslanders were born in Australia followed by New Zealand, England, China, India, and South Africa (ABS, 2018c). Languages spoken at home other than English were Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Cantonese (ABS, 2018c). Demographically, these characteristics broadly reflected other states and territories, except more people in New South Wales were born in China than Australia; Greek and Italian languages were spoken more in New South Wales and Victoria; and more Indigenous Australian languages were spoken in the Northern Territory (ABS, 2019). Educationally, Queensland’s 2016 student test results for the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) generally reflected the Australian mean (Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2017). The 2017 National Report on NAPLAN however, showed gains nation-wide appeared higher for Indigenous than non-Indigenous students (ACARA, 2017). This picture of Queensland shows its geographically dispersed population and demographic composition in which a wide range of linguistic and cultural student backgrounds were reflected underscored the need for research on effective parent engagement strategies to support school leaders to improve student learning and wellbeing outcomes. Similarities between Queensland and other jurisdictions in Australia and internationally signalled the potential significance and wider application of our research.

Research Provocation We began the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project with the provocation: What gives some principals the edge on parent–school–community engagement? This provocation arose from initial 2014 survey research (the Parent Engagement in Schools [PES] project) of principals and presidents of Parents and Citizens’ (P&Cs) Associations of 729 Queensland government schools (see Povey et al., 2016) which showed some schools considered educationally disadvantaged appeared to be doing better at parent engagement than others. The results of the PES project signalled the need for more research that included the perspectives of the various

Research Provocation

27

school community members (e.g., teachers, parents, students) from the schools where principals were identified in the surveys as successful in parent engagement.

Design-Based Research Approach To gain these perspectives required us to visit the schools in which the principals worked to investigate the theory and practice of principal leadership for parent engagement intensively. This prompted the use of a design-based research (DBR) approach (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Bell, 2004; Brown, 1992). The use of DBR is not novel; indeed, it has been used widely in educational research (see Papavlasopoulou, Giannakos, & Jaccheri, 2019; The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Papavlasopoulou et al. (2019) delineate five general characteristics of DBR, stating that it: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

refines theory and practice; happens in real-world settings and is grounded in relevant contexts; is interactive, iterative, and flexible; uses mixed methods in accordance with potential new needs and emerging issues; is contextual, meaning that the research findings are connected with the design process (p. 417).

DBR allowed us to take our originally large data set and narrow it down with the aim of “increas[ing] the impact, transfer and translation of [our] education research into improved practice” (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 16). To achieve our aim we worked collaboratively with the principals, teachers, parents, one another, and other researchers to enact the project in iterative cycles—continually refining and improving the research design in response to needs that arose and unfolding issues. Simultaneously, our approach enabled “a coordination of different theoretical views on learning and education” (Bell, 2004, p. 252). DBR afforded us considerable scope yet sufficient methodological and conceptual structure to: first, examine principal leadership for parent engagement in authentic settings and contexts (i.e., in schools where the phenomenon of principal leadership for parent engagement occurred); second, combine different frameworks for analysis and conceptualisation (i.e., Schwab’s notion of commonplaces and the concept of agency as achievement); and third, diffuse and sustain the research and innovation (i.e., learning about research design relevant to the phenomenon and learning about effective parent engagement strategies) for subsequent broad scale use. Referring to the approach, Bell (2004) wrote that, “design-based research efforts focus on promoting innovation across different educational phenomena—at individual, social, cultural, organisational, community, and societal levels—and thereby employ corresponding research approaches, practices, and traditions based on these varying units of analysis” (p. 246). Calling on Wang and Hannafin (2005), Papavlasopoulou et al. (2019)

28

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

wrote that “DBR is a hybrid method, as it is not a replacement of other methodologies but builds on the use of procedures and methods from both design and research methodologies” (p. 417). Consistent with DBR we thus employed a mixed methods approach that involved collecting multiple data for analysis using qualitative and quantitative techniques to suit our different and/or changing purposes (Brown, 1992). Our approach allowed us to describe each principal participant’s approach to parent engagement, advance theory to explain our understandings of the qualities and strategies that distinguish effective principal leadership for parent engagement, and develop principles to inform the design and practice of future similar research.

Selecting Disadvantaged Schools to Participate in the Project The Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project was funded by a Queensland Education Horizon grant in 2016–2017 (see Department of Education, 2016). The indicators used to assess how principals engaged parents were created using data sources from the 2014 PES project (see Povey et al., 2016) and the School Opinion Survey (SOS) (Queensland Government, 2018). The SOS comprises five individual surveys given annually to parents, students, students in Special schools, staff, and principals to seek their views on aspects of their school that are working well and areas that can be improved (Queensland Government, 2018). Potential school sites were identified based on: a number of indicators (e.g., communication with parents, school management style) which attributed high levels of parent engagement to the principal; and a low Index of Community Social-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) value. ICSEA is a composite score used in Australia to measure a school’s level of advantage based on indicators such as the education levels of parents, school location, and the socio-economic backgrounds of enrolled students (ACARA, 2014). The notion of disadvantaged schools is generally linked to socio-economic disadvantage which can also include financial stress (see Cooper & Crosnoe, 2007; Edwards et al., 2009; Gorard & See, 2013; Gordon, 2016; Rorris et al., 2011; Scanlon, 2015; Thomson, 2000). In drawing on a range of research to study the engagement of economically disadvantaged parents and children in schooling, Cooper and Crosnoe (2007) pointed out that: Growing up in a context of economic disadvantage, especially persistent disadvantage, is not without adverse and often severe developmental consequences. The link among economic disadvantage and poor physical, cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes is well established… [and] this link extends to academic outcomes. Specifically, economic disadvantage is a significant predictor of lower achievement test scores, course failure, grade retention, lower track placement, assignment to special education, and dropping out. (p. 374)

In also drawing on the literature, Edwards et al. (2009) highlighted links between financial stress and poverty for parents and children’s learning and wellbeing, concluding that:

Selecting Disadvantaged Schools to Participate in the Project

29

…financial disadvantage influences children’s behavioural outcomes (and to a lesser extent their cognitive and learning capacities) by draining parents’ psychological and emotional resources, which in turn can disrupt parent-child interactions and parenting styles…. children from low-income families have fewer opportunities to develop their skills because financial strain limits their parents’ ability to invest in a cognitively stimulating home environment, nutritious food, high-quality child care and safe living conditions. Longer work hours can also limit the time parents can spend with children. Higher income levels have been found to be associated with higher levels of parental involvement and increased availability of stimulating materials. (p. 24)

In Australia, the notion of disadvantaged schools strongly reflects the economiceducation connection also evident in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Scanlon (2015) highlighted the myriad global influences in Australia of “economically inspired discourses which closely link education with the economy… [and ultimately] funding practices of organisations such as the World Bank and the OECD” (p. 38). These discourses (e.g., such as those drawn from the No Child Left Behind Act 2001, 2002 [United States Department of Education, 2018]) have permeated Australian policies most notably the 2008 education revolution. Scanlon recalls Rudd and Gillard’s (2008) (then Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister) text in releasing the policy, Quality Education: The Case for An Education Revolution in our Schools, which stated that “Education not only drives productivity but also empowers individuals to reach their full potential, and helps overcome disadvantage” (p. 45). According to Rudd and Gillard, “identifying schools as key players in the revolution” would help overcome “a tail of underperformance linked to disadvantage because of persistent deep-seated issues like “intergenerational poverty and poor social inclusion” (in Scanlon, 2015, p. 46). Successive Commonwealth governments have variously continued with initiatives in education which emanated from Australia’s education revolution (e.g., the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs [MCEECDYA], My School website, National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN], and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]) (see Scanlon, 2015). Not surprisingly Rorris et al. (2011)—who reported on assessing processes for targeted funding of schools to support disadvantaged students—observed that “measuring educational disadvantage is a complex issue” (p. 109). They added that given the interlinked issues involved any definition needs to account for levels of disadvantage. From reviewing the international experience on equity and resourcing they found three sets of indicators were useful in measuring disadvantage: “characteristics of the community or area in which a school is located; socio-demographic characteristics of the students enrolled at a school; and attainment or other measures of student outcomes” (pp. 109-110). Experiences internationally (e.g., in Canada) and in Australia showed that schools marked as disadvantaged shared commonalities with education approaches aimed at supporting: Indigenous students, students with English as a second language (ESL), and students in rural and remote schools (Rorris et al. 2011). The alignment of ICSEA’s indicators with those in the literature associated with determinants of education disadvantage gave the research team confidence in school

30

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

selection that those considered disadvantaged—that is, schools with an ICSEA score below the Australian average of 1,000—would be suitable for the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. We privileged disadvantaged schools in this research for two main reasons. First, the findings from the 2014 PES research signalled the need for further research in specific contexts: …those schools in which the children stand to gain the most from increasing levels of parent engagement, are the same schools finding their efforts to engage parents the least effective. [This finding] highlights the need to identify what does work in disadvantaged schools and to ensure that interventions are tailored to the specific needs of these schools, as applying uniform strategies across all schools may only compound the advantage of those already doing well. (Povey et al., 2016, p. 139)

Second, the imperative, yet challenge and complexity, of achieving parent engagement in disadvantaged schools was hypothesised to generate possible new and innovative initiatives and strategies with the potential for broader application (McAllister in Willis et al., 2018).

Using Schwab’s Notion of Commonplaces as an Analytic Framework Drawing on Pushor and the Parent Engagement Collaborative’s (2013) work, the research called on Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum to inform data collection, analysis, and early descriptive findings (see Willis et al., 2018). Schwab conceptualised curriculum as a lifelong education enterprise—as opposed to mandated curricula received by individuals during their school years. In the context of planning curricular activities Schwab advanced that: Defensible educational thought must account for four commonplaces of equal rank: the learner, the teacher, the milieu, and the subject matter. None of these can be omitted without omitting a vital factor in educational thought and practice. No one of them may be allowed to dominate the deliberation (about curriculum) unless that domination is conscious and capable of defense in terms of circumstances. (p. 509)

Schwab stressed that: “Coordination, not super-ordination-subordination is the proper relation in these four commonplaces” (p. 509). His view of planning the curriculum advanced four coordinated spheres of influence or dimensions considered non-hierarchical and therefore equally important: students (learners), teachers, curriculum (subject knowledge), and milieus (contexts). Schwab observed that curriculum designers generally do not advocate on behalf of students and teachers. He maintained this design fault “guarantees that commonplaces other than that of the subject matter will be effectively silenced unless representatives of all four commonplaces are included from the start” (p. 512). In speaking about the traditionally

Using Schwab’s Notion of Commonplaces as an Analytic Framework

31

Schools

Teachers

Students

Parents Digital Technologies

Classrooms

Curriculum

CommuniƟes

Fig. 3.1 A representation of our analytic framework in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project which drew on Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum and was expanded by the research team to include a further milieu of digital technologies

overlooked dimension of milieus, Schwab listed knowledge of schools, classrooms, parents, and communities as examples. Other examples might include knowledge of churches or religious/faith groups. In the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project we adapted Schwab’s notion of commonplaces by using his suggested milieus alongside the traditional dimensions of students, teachers, and curriculum (subject matter). We then added the milieu of digital technologies (virtual classrooms) which emerged as a result of our data collection (see Fig. 3.1). Pushor and the Parent Engagement Collaborative observed that the power of Schwab’s (1973) commonplaces “is his understanding of how children’s learning is situated in the context of family and community” (p. 10). They added: When Schwab spoke of milieus, he moved beyond attention to the milieus of classroom and school to recognise that where and with whom children live, and their social, cultural, religious and economic contexts are all significant to teaching and learning. He helped us to see curriculum as a dynamic interplay between particular people—children, teachers, parents, family and community members—teaching and learning about particular things in a rich range of particular places. (Pushor & The Parent Engagement Collaborative, 2013, p. 10)

Using Schwab’s commonplaces opened up areas of investigation where children learn which previously may have been overlooked in parent engagement research. This meant perspectives of participants from school leadership teams (e.g., principals, deputy principals, master teachers), teachers, parents, students, school volunteers, and community members, and parent engagement strategies pertaining to schools, classrooms, homes, and communities could be included during data collection.

32

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Describing Data Collection and Analysis Methods Having gained appropriate institutional ethics approval and permissions from The University of Queensland and Queensland Department of Education, the principals of four schools that met the selection criteria were approached by email to invite their participation in the research and subsequently provide consent for their school’s involvement. They each supported the research by encouraging teachers, students, and parents to participate, and making available suitable venues for interviews and focus groups. In addition, P&Cs’ Associations Queensland (P&C Qld)—Queensland’s peak parent body—facilitated access to each of the P&C presidents at the schools and encouraged them to support the research through formal and informal contact with parents. As part of our mixed methods approach we conducted twoto four-day site visits at each school. During this time, the research team collected qualitative data by conducting: separate semi-structured interviews with the principal, P&C president, key members of the school’s leadership team, or other relevant personnel (e.g., community volunteers); focus groups with teachers, parents (P&C and non-P&C groups), and students; and documented and photographed evidence of parent and community engagement strategies. Data collection was supplemented by researcher observations, information obtained from school websites, and formal school documents such as school annual reports. Each interview and focus group took approximately one hour. In total, 12 interviews and 16 focus groups were conducted and involved 123 participants. Interview and focus group data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised, and analysed with NVivo computer software. Informed by our adaption of Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces, the research team thematically analysed the data to produce initial descriptive findings (see Willis et al., 2018). Quantitative data were also collected from teachers and parents using an online or hard-copy survey based on the dimensions and milieus of Schwab’s framework (note: digital technologies were not included in the survey as this milieu emerged as a result of our data collection). Across the four schools, the surveys were answered by 72 parents and 45 teachers (n = 117). Descriptive analyses, such as cross tabulations and frequencies, were applied using the statistical software Stata. The findings include analyses of qualitative and quantitative data where the latter comprised both individual school surveys and aggregated survey data across all schools (see Table 3.1 for aggregated survey results). Checking for consistency and discrepancies across the qualitative and quantitative data sets increased our confidence in the accuracy of the findings.

Describing Data Collection and Analysis Methods

33

Table 3.1 Aggregated survey results of all schools: Dragonfly Creek State School, Warnerville State School, Reef Island State School, and Scenic View State School Students Students form an important link between parents and their schools. Parents said: the principal...

Teachers said: at this school...

100%

100% 80%

80% 60%

60% 40% 20%

40%

0% Principal has good knowledge of students

Agreement

Teachers are Teachers are Principal has good encouraged to build encouraged to use knowledge of student learning posive relaonships student agency to engage parents with students needs Neither/Unsure

Disagreement

Don't Know/NA

Teachers Teachers are pivotal for building parent/school relaonships. Parents say: when communicang with my child’s teacher…

20%

0% Has made an effort to know my Is oen visible when I come child(ren) into school

Curriculum The curriculum opens opportunies to include parent knowledge and skills in student learning. Teachers say: at this school…

100% 80% 60% Parent engagement goals are used to develop curriculum

40% 20% 0% My knowledge of I feel listened to S/he is S/he is my child is approachable responsive to my valued concerns

Teachers say: the Principal of this school…

Parent engagement goals are used to inform teaching and learning

Distributes the leadership of parent engagement among other staff and teachers The Principal encourages teachers to acvely involve parents in designing curriculum

Encourages teachers to lead parent engagement iniaves Provides teachers with the resources they need to build relaonships with parents Provides professional development for teachers around parent engagement

The Principal encourages teachers to incorporate knowledge of parents into curriculum

Knows each teacher's knowledge and abilies

Has good knowledge of each teacher The Principal has good knowledge of curriculum 0% Agreement

Neither/Unsure

20%

40%

Disagreement

60%

80% 100%

Don't Know/NA 0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

(continued)

34

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Table 3.1 (continued) Parents Building relaonships with parents is integral to parent/school engagement. Teachers say: at this school…

Parents say: my child’s school…

100% Provides parents with addional resources

80% 60%

Reaches out to parents through personal contact

40%

Provides opportunies for parents to meet each other

20%

Provides personal development opportunies

0% The Principal has The Principal has There is a space good knowledge good knowledge for parents to of parent needs of parent goals meet

Parents are spoken about respecully

Classroomss The classroom is an opportunity for parents to parcipate directly in student learning.

Values parents 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Community Schools can engage parents through interacng with the local community. Teachers say: this school…

Parents said... I prefer invitaons to parcipate in the classroom when communicang with teachers

Collaborates with community organisaons to offer parents a range of services

This school makes parents feel welcome in the classroom

There is an open-door policy in my child's classroom Invites parents to parcipate in community programs I am invited to volunteer in the classroom 0% Agreement

Neither/Unsure

20%

40%

60%

Disagreement

80%

100%

Don't Know/NA

Informs parents of the services available in the community

Teachers are encouraged to...

Communicate via invitaons to parcipate in classrooms Invites community organisaons into the school Welcome parents into classrooms

Have an open-door policy

Promotes the acvies of local organisaons

Invite parents to volunteer in classrooms 0% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Agreement

20%

Disagreement

40%

60%

80%

100%

Don't Know/NA

(continued)

Describing Data Collection and Analysis Methods

35

Table 3.1 (continued) School Parent engagement relies on a safe and welcoming school environment. Parents say... 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% School is a friendly environment for students, parents and families

School respects all cultures and diversity

Agreement

School is a safe place to Employees in the school Teachers are welcoming learn office are welcoming

Neither/Unsure

Disagreement

School leaders are welcoming

Don't Know/NA

Teachers say... 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% School is a friendly environment

School respects diversity School is a safe place to Employees in the school Teachers are welcoming learn office are welcoming Agreement

Neither/Unsure

Disagreement

School leaders are welcoming

Don't Know/NA

Digital Technologies Schools use technology in various ways to encourage parent engagement. School encourages teachers to communicate with parents via…

Parents prefer communicang via...

Text messages (SMS)

Text messages (SMS)

Social media

Social Media

Direct emails

Direct emails

0%

Agreement

20%

Neither/Unsure

40%

60%

Disagreement

80%

100%

Don't Know/NA

0% Agreement

20%

Neither/Unsure

40%

60%

Disagreement

80%

100%

Don't Know/NA

(continued)

36

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Table 3.1 (continued) School

Number of parent par cipants

Number of teacher par cipants

Total number of par cipants

Dragonfly Creek State School

5

5

10

Warnerville State School

23

18

41

Reef Island State School

29

15

44

Scenic View State School

15

7

22

Total

72

45

117

Research Questions As previously indicated, based on findings from the 2014 PES project (see Povey et al., 2016) and ongoing review of the literature, the overarching research question of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project was: What gives some principals the edge on parent–school–community engagement? Three sub-questions explored in this book are: a. b. c.

What helped or hindered principal leadership for parent engagement? What qualities and strategies of principals helped them achieve parent engagement success? How does the concept of agency as achievement facilitate understanding of principal leadership for parent engagement?

School and Principal Snapshots Before presenting the project’s major findings and discussion in Chaps. 4–6, we briefly introduce each school and their principal in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project in the snapshots below. We gave the schools and their principals the following pseudonyms: Dragonfly Creek State School—Greg, Warnerville State School—Tom, Reef Island State School—Liz, and Scenic View State School—Rose (see also Willis et al., 2018). All four schools were Queensland government coeducational primary schools (Preparatory Year to Year 6; i.e., students from five to 11 years old). Based on their ICSEA score, each school was under the Australian average of 1,000 and therefore classified as disadvantaged. Three schools—Dragonfly Creek State School, Reef Island State School, and Scenic View State School had an ICSEA score of 900 while Warnerville State School had a score of 990. We note that Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose each boasted a teaching career spanning four decades with most of this time spent in rural Queensland settings.

School and Principal Snapshots

37

Dragonfly Creek State School Dragonfly Creek State School (DCSS) was located southwest of Brisbane (Queensland’s capital city). DCSS had a student population of approximately 200 of whom 60 per cent spoke a language other than English. Greg, DCSS’s principal, had worked at the school in a relieving capacity for two and a half years and previously served as deputy principal or principal in approximately 10 schools of various sizes, complexity, and socio-economic standing. The majority of parents at DCSS were from the same cultural background and held strong beliefs about their child’s education being the exclusive domain of the school where teachers were to be respected and parents were not to interfere. For many of these parents language was a barrier to engaging with the school; those who could, relied on older children who spoke English to communicate with the school/teachers while others relied on teacher aides to interpret for them. The families at the school often worked up to four jobs. Long working days and weeks—which mostly included weekends—meant they seldom came into the school. Greg began his career as a secondary school Humanities and Social Sciences teacher in far north Queensland. When interviewed, he recalled how his views about parent engagement changed when he was taken off class for half a day a week to work with a guidance officer in a position with a community relations focus. As a result, Greg became more aware of the vast differences among families and especially the challenges that face those who experience severe disadvantage. Speaking about growing up in his own family, he explained why, saying, “I’ve never been wanting; we (his family) haven’t done things easily, because my dad was a manual labourer, but we were always fed, we always had a home, we always had transport, a reliable car, that sort of thing” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). According to Greg, working alongside a guidance officer gave him “filters” to use later as a principal working with teachers whom he considered were “passionate about education”, but who insisted that parents should have their child in school every day with all the books they need and all their homework done (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). To clarify he said, …but there are circumstances where that’s not possible and we can’t expect Johnny to have done his homework if we find out that he gets home at 3:00 o’clock, he’s a latchkey kid, or he’s not even given the latchkey, and he needs to spend the afternoon under the house until 8:00 o’clock when mum and dad get home… (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview)

Through this experience, Greg developed an enhanced sense of compassion and empathy for others which he reflected had influenced his career. Coming to DCSS Greg consequently made a concerted effort to get to know the school community. He identified three key barriers to parent engagement at the school: cultural beliefs, language, and time pressures and had undertaken to focus his efforts on improving practices to address these barriers.

38

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Warnerville State School Warnerville State School (WSS) was located near a major metropolitan town south of Brisbane. WSS had a student population of approximately 600 of whom 10 per cent spoke a language other than English. Tom had worked at WSS for eight years. When his principalship began he encountered many student behavioural problems. Some of the students threw rocks at the teachers’ cars and there were serious physical altercations in the school each week. To address these behavioural problems, Tom invited parents to join a committee tasked with developing a behaviour plan for the school. Truancy was another behavioural problem Tom encountered. He supported parents who were affected by their child’s non-attendance, offering to personally collect their children from home and take them to school. Prior to WSS, Tom had been: principal at a northwest Queensland school, deputy principal in a central Queensland rural town, and a teacher in western Queensland. When interviewed, Tom recounted that he started attending P&C meetings as a teacher and took part in a process initiated by his then principal to work with parents to identify the priorities they considered important for the school. As deputy principal in rural Queensland, he led a Human Relationships Education (HRE) program where he regularly liaised with parents and community groups. He was later chosen to be on the ministerial reference group for HRE. Tom obtained a Master of Educational Administration through which he learnt that managing resources as a principal related not only to material or human resources, but also to culture and knowledge. Tom reported that during his career he had sometimes experienced parents as suspicious of teachers and witnessed how a school advisory council could be effective at breaking down these barriers by including staff and parents as committee members. He became increasingly interested in parent and community consultation strategies and was introduced to school and community meetings as a vehicle to strengthen parent and teacher collaboration. He was so impressed by the experience that he started to implement the idea of school and community meetings in his own schools. Tom’s experiences as a school leader and previously as a teacher taught him to value a positive parent engagement school culture through partnering with parents and the community. These experiences encouraged him in his role as WSS principal to discuss the school’s vision for the future with the school’s parents and community rather than mainly focus on what aspects of the school may not be working.

Reef Island State School Reef Island State School (RISS) was located in a metropolitan town in far north Queensland. RISS had a student population of approximately 600 of whom 30 per cent spoke a language other than English. Of this population, 35 percent were Indigenous Australian students and 17 per cent were students with disabilities. Liz, RISS’s principal, had worked at the school for over 10 years. Among the key challenges

School and Principal Snapshots

39

facing the school community were: domestic violence, family breakdown, generational poverty, long-term unemployment, and issues associated with public housing. In cases where families were unable to afford school uniforms for their children, the school assisted them by collecting preowned uniforms which were then distributed to those in need. There were also some parents of children with disabilities who found it difficult to cope with the additional needs of their child. Liz adopted an inclusive approach to these students and their parents. A dedicated school leader was appointed to oversee students with disabilities at the school and maintained daily contact with parents. Parents dropped off their child in a parent-friendly parking zone inside the school grounds where they could easily manage getting their child to the classroom and where teachers met them again in the afternoon at going home time at the close of the school day. Classrooms were also set up so these students could move easily between teaching spaces to receive the support they needed or join in lessons with their classroom teacher. Prior to RISS, Liz enjoyed over 20 years of experience in a number of secondary schools as a deputy principal and teacher. When interviewed, Liz said she was pleasantly surprised to discover increased levels of parent engagement in primary schools compared to secondary schools. Liz recounted that it was not until she moved out of the classroom that she recognised the considerable benefits of parent engagement. She joined a key stakeholder committee established to enable Indigenous Australian parents to become involved in a governance role in schools. Through her participation in this committee, Liz deepened her appreciation of the value of developing positive relationships with parents and the wealth of opportunities available for expanding school resources and realising ideas in practice. This experience of working closely with parents was defining for her career and future parent engagement practices. Liz indicated that her experiences in education allowed her to understand that student learning and parent engagement needed to be considered equally to ensure student and school success.

Scenic View State School Scenic View State School (SVSS) was located in a small rural town in southwestern Queensland. SVSS had a student population of approximately 300. Of this population, less than 10 per cent spoke a language other than English while approximately 20 per cent were Indigenous Australian students. Rose, SVSS’s principal, had worked at this school for almost a decade and described a number of challenges she faced in the school community including parents with drug and alcohol addictions, behavioural problems among the students, community violence during sports events, undiagnosed health problems in the students due to poverty, and perceived diminished parent investment in their child’s learning and wellbeing. Rose described many ways she tried to support parents who were experiencing socially disadvantaged circumstances such as advocating for their child at healthcare appointments, providing uniforms to students who needed them, and making morning activities

40

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

available through a supervised homework club to enable parents who worked to do so without having to pay for out-of-school-hours care. When interviewed, Rose described how she commenced her career as a teacher in a small Western Queensland town where she undertook a school project that involved former teachers and local residents telling their stories about the town’s history. She considered the project improved school–community relationships. In her subsequent roles as a principal in Western Queensland schools, Rose had implemented a program where successful local people were invited to explain to students about opportunities for learning beyond their hometowns. Rose described herself as a community-minded person who believed that community involvement in schools improved student learning and wellbeing outcomes. She reflected that her career journey had highlighted the value and importance of multiculturalism, education, and school attendance. Accordingly, she stressed the importance of investing time in building relationships with parents and the school community while simultaneously seeking to understand the needs of students which, if not met, may prevent them from focusing on learning at school.

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement from the School and Principal Snapshots These school and principal snapshots provide brief descriptions of the different settings and contexts for our research while simultaneously enable early insights about the principal participants and their qualities and strategies for successful parent engagement. Using the conceptual tool of agency as achievement which combines Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) view of agency with Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) ecological perspective deepens these insights. The snapshots revealed changes in the principals’ orientations to agency for facilitating parent engagement that are traceable to the influence of contextual and temporal factors throughout their careers. Common in their journeys was the influence of: early career experiences as teachers in small rural schools (e.g., Rose’s school–-community project) and specific events or episodes (e.g., Greg’s work in community relations alongside a school guidance officer). These different experiences and episodes helped each principal to recognise the value and importance of certain qualities such as compassion, empathy, and selfreflection and strategies focused on: student learning and wellbeing, cultural acceptance, valuing diversity, creating a positive school engagement culture, and building community connections. Distinct from much of the parent engagement literature, shifts in iterational (habitual), projective, and practical-evaluative orientations to agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998) allow us to glimpse how strong past influences together with equally strong orientations towards the future appeared to transform the way Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose each viewed and practised parent engagement in their current school.

Conclusions

41

Conclusions This chapter showed the alignment between our design-based research methodology and concomitant use of mixed methods in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Our use and adaptation of Schwab’s (1973) imperative that there be an equal contribution of all commonplaces in the planning of curriculum was highlighted as unique for informing data collection and analysis in the field of parent engagement. Schwab’s framework comprises four coordinated equally important spheres or dimensions (i.e., students [learners], teachers, curriculum [subject knowledge], and milieus where milieus include knowledge of schools, classrooms, parents, communities, and an additional milieu arising from our research, digital technologies [virtual classrooms]). Although these dimensions and milieus proved useful in sharpening our focus on eight different aspects of parent engagement, we recognised that any separation is arbitrary and each aspect needs to be understood in relation to the others. Indeed, recognition of the overlaps and intersections among the dimensions and milieus has made it possible to group the eight aspects under three overarching headings: key players (students, parents, and teachers), school learning (classrooms, curriculum, and digital technologies), and school culture (schools and communities). These groupings are considered natural while simultaneously increasing the potential ease with which we might represent the research findings—a factor we have concluded is vital if we are going to effectively communicate and disseminate the learnings and insights from our work. We therefore use these groupings to provide a platform for the three findings and discussion chapters that follow. This chapter also introduced the four schools and their principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Our early conceptual analysis of these snapshots further signalled the potential value and utility of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) as a conceptual tool. What is now needed is more knowledge and understanding about how available resources—cultural, material, structural (Priestley et al., 2015)—affected these principals’ different orientations to agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998) in their particular settings and contexts. Using agency as achievement, Chaps. 4–6 thus respond to the research questions by providing detailed information and specific examples to describe and explain what helped or hindered their achievement of parent engagement and the qualities and strategies that underscored their apparent success.

References Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1). 16–25. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018a). 2016 Census quickstats. Retrieved from http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/ 3?opendocument.

42

3 Describing the Research Design and Methods …

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018b). Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2016. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3238.0. 55.001. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018c). 2016 census: Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/ED6AC1443 949FE77CA258148000C1A01?OpenDocument. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2019). 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://search.abs.gov. au/s/search.html?query=census+2016&collection=abs&form=simple&profile=_default. Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014). What does the ICSEA value mean? Retrieved from http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf. Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). National assessment program—literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN): Achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy. National report for 2017. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/ docs/default-source/default-document-library/naplan-national-report-2017_final_04dec2017. pdf?sfvrsn=0. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141– 178. Cooper, C. E., & Crosnoe, R. (2007). The engagement in schooling of economically disadvantaged parents and children. Youth & Society, 38(3), 372–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X0628 9999. Department of Education. (2016). Education horizon research grant scheme. Retrieved from http:// education.qld.gov.au/corporate/research/docs/eh-approved-2016.pdf. Edwards, B., Baxter, J., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Hayes, A. (2009). Financial disadvantage and children’s school readiness. Family Matters, 83, 9. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/sites/def ault/files/fm83c-EdwardsEtAl.pdf. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Gorard, S., & See, B. H. (2013). Overcoming disadvantage in education. London: Routledge. Gordon, M. (2016). Community disadvantage and adolescent’s academic achievement: The Mediating role of father influence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2069–2078. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10826-016-0380-2. McAllister, D. (2018, September). Parent engagement research and evidence. In L.-D. Willis, J. Povey, J. Hodges, C. Dolley, P. Carleton, L. Wilkinson, & D. McAllister (Eds.), Parents as partners in learning, Parents and Citizens Association of Queensland State Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2019). Exploring children’s learning experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 99, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.008. Povey, J., Campbell, A., Willis, L.-D., Haynes, M., Western, M., Bennett, S., et al. (2016). Engaging parents in schools and building parent-school partnerships: The role of school and parent organisation leadership. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 128–141. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.005. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D., & The Parent Engagement Collaborative. (2013). Portals of promise: Transforming beliefs and practices through a curriculum of parents. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Queensland Government. (2018). School opinion survey. Retrieved from https://qed.qld.gov.au/pub lications/reports/statistics/schooling/schools/schoolopinionsurvey.

References

43

Rorris, A., Weldon, P., Beavis, A., McKenzie, P., Bramich, M., & Deery, A. (2011). Assessment of current process for targeting of schools funding to disadvantaged students. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Rudd, K., & Gillard, J. (2008). Quality education: The case for an education revolution in our schools. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2008-08/apo-nid9133.pdf. Scanlon, L. (2015). My School: Listening to parents, teachers and students from a disadvantaged educational setting. New York, NY: Routledge. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522. The Design-Based Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. Thomson, P. (2000). ‘Like schools’, education disadvantage and ‘thisness’. The Australian Educational Researcher, 27, 157–172. United States Department of Education. (2018). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. Willis, L.-D., Povey, J., Hodges, J., Carroll, A., Pedde, C., & Campbell, A. (2018). What gives some Principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement? Principal leadership for engaging parents and community in disadvantaged schools: Four case studies. Brisbane, Qld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://issr.uq.edu.au/files/5273/FINAL%20Case%20Stud ies%20Document.pdf.

Chapter 4

Presenting Key Player Findings

Abstract This chapter presents research findings on key players from the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Key players is an umbrella term that we use to refer to three of Schwab’s (1973) dimensions and/or milieus—students, parents, and teachers—which comprise his notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum. These aspects represent players with whom principals might typically participate in engaging parents. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected from the participating schools is presented under the headings of students, parents, and teachers. Agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) is used to conceptualise what helped or hindered principal effectiveness in parent engagement and the qualities and strategies associated with success. Conclusions are drawn about: student agency as a potentially under-utilised parent engagement strategy; the need to provide parents with additional resources and opportunities for their personal development; and the need for more professional learning and resources for teachers to enable them to build positive relationships with parents. Keywords Key players · Trusting · Respectful relationships · Strengths-based approaches · Student agency · Reimagining traditional roles · Culturally appropriate strategies · Availability of resources

Introduction We previously concluded from our literature review in Chap. 2 that successful principals achieved agency for parent engagement by: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive parent engagement school culture (see Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Heinrichs, 2018; Mleczko & Kington, 2013; Pushor, 2018). However, our review also revealed a lack of detailed information and specific examples to describe and explain what helped or hindered principals’ engagement of parents. At the same time, we highlighted a dearth of research on the qualities and strategies of leadership that underpin successful parent engagement and the need for more research given the multiplicity of ways

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_4

45

46

4 Presenting Key Player Findings

principals can influence parent engagement in their schools (see Auerbach, 2009; Goodall, 2018; Griffith, 2001; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). With these identified needs in mind, this is the first of three findings and discussion chapters based on our analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Our focus here is to shed light on principal leadership for parent engagement by looking at key players which groups Schwab’s (1973) dimensions/milieus of students, parents, and teachers together. In Chap. 3 we introduced the participating schools and their principals: Dragonfly Creek State School (DCSS)—Greg, Warnerville State School (WSS)—Tom, Reef Island State School (RISS)—Liz, and Scenic View State School (SVSS)—Rose (see also Willis et al., 2018). Although the schools were identified as disadvantaged, each principal appeared to be doing parent engagement well. Since parents are generally considered harder to engage in disadvantaged than advantaged schools (see Edwards et al., 2009), this apparent contradiction invited the overarching research question: What gives some principals the edge on parent–school–community engagement? We developed three sub-questions to further elucidate this question while simultaneously guide our investigation: a. b. c.

What helped or hindered principal leadership for parent engagement? What qualities and strategies of principals helped them achieve parent engagement success? How does the concept of agency as achievement facilitate understanding of principal leadership for parent engagement?

Under the three key players headings of students, parents, and teachers, this chapter discusses the following themes which emerged during data collection and analysis: making early contact with students and their families; harnessing student agency; forming positive relationships with parents; using various communication forms; supporting parent learning; cultivating positive relationships with teachers; and supporting teachers to engage parents in student learning. The findings are strengthened by our discussion of variations in these themes against the qualitative and quantitative data collected. The notion of agency espoused by Biesta and Tedder (2007) is used to deepen understanding of the findings by furthering discussion of the qualities the principals showed and the strategies they used to achieve effective principal leadership for parent engagement.

Students Each principal in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project encouraged regular, informal, friendly contact with students and their families from the earliest of opportunities and with the youngest of members. For example, a DCSS parent described how he had taken his preparatory-school child, Gracie (pseudonym), with him to a school orientation day the previous year. He recalled how the next year:

Students

47

The school had a booth at the street fair down at the railway station. I’m walking down there and we don’t know a lot of people in the community and all of a sudden I hear this voice, ‘Gracie’ and I’m like, ‘Who knows my daughter?’ I turned around and there’s Greg (DCSS principal) and he’s had one contact with my child and knows her by her first name and he’s remembered that. (Participant 1, DCSS, English-Speaking Parent Focus Group)

At WSS, one parent observed: “Tom’s (principal) always talks to the children.… If the child has something wrong, ‘How’s that going for you now?’” (Participant 6, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). A second parent noted about Tom’s approach: “That’s what the school does well here. You’re a name, you’re not a number” (Participant 1, WSS, Parent non-P&C Focus Group). Each principal acknowledged the importance of student agency as a parent engagement strategy. For example, Tom noted that: “… anything [e.g., sports days, Christmas concerts] that you run involving their kids, it’s their kids that are a conduit to the parents” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). He elaborated: “Obviously the messages they take home to the parents are important, but also, just as equally as important, is using the kids to get the parents to come in and actually see what’s going on” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). Survey data analysis, however, showed that each of the principals was generally less likely to encourage teachers to use student agency to engage parents (see Table 3.1—Students). Nevertheless, there were some prime examples of student agency in the qualitative data. Tom, for example, instituted three-way (teacher, student, parent/s) goal-setting sessions each year. Informed by teacher–student conversations in the first weeks of school about goals for student learning, these meetings involved each student talking with their parent/s and teacher about their goals, possible strategies to encourage learning at home and school, and possible future actions. Rose (SVSS principal) invited student representatives to attend P&C meetings to report on items of import (e.g., topics raised by the student council or playground groups) and talk with parents about areas of student need (e.g., lack of musical instruments). Parents endorsed the effectiveness of this strategy for the opportunity to ask questions directly of students and respond to identified issues or needs by following up with school staff, other parents, and/or the community (SVSS, Parent P&C Focus Group).

Parents The principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project consistently articulated the importance of partnering with parents to ensure the best possible outcomes for each child’s learning and wellbeing. For example, Liz (RISS principal) stated: “I have recognised the need for an equal pillar to learning that is, parents. Parents are children’s first teachers…” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). She explained this view “changes the relationship” she and teachers have with parents to one of them needing to “work together” and walk “beside” each other (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). Parents from each school upheld the approaches of their respective principals. A parent from WSS noted:

48

4 Presenting Key Player Findings Your opinion’s not overlooked. If they’re [Tom and the teachers] finding it hard to connect with a student they’ll say to the parent, ‘I’m just having a bit of a hard time trying to gauge what’s happening’ and ‘What do you do at home?’ and they listen to what you’re saying and then they introduce it into school as well. (Participant 2, WSS, Parent non-P&C Focus Group)

The principals emphasised the importance of open, frequent communication for building positive relationships with parents. For example, Tom encouraged teachers to adopt an “open door policy” to enable regular contact (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). Although communicating face-to-face was preferred —“the gold” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview)—the principals recognised that parents are “busy and time-poor” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). They therefore advanced the use of multiple different communication forms (e.g., email, newsletters [paper/online], school website, Facebook, bulk short message service [SMS], communication books, information guides, and positive phone calls home about each child’s learning). Direct, quick forms of communication such as emails were particularly encouraged although for the most part parents appeared more comfortable using SMS than teachers (see Table 3.1—Digital Technology). The principals reported they used a range of strategies to support parents to in turn support their child’s learning and wellbeing. These included traditional-style workshops (e.g., reading at home, preparing for school entry, using iPads at school) as well as innovative responses to the unique context of each school. On the latter, Rose observed parent needs at SVSS changed when the number of working families grew. She subsequently placed a teacher aide on duty before school, provided student activities (e.g., books, dominos, and card games), and set up a homework club. These activities supported parents while simultaneously encouraged student learning in ways the parents endorsed (e.g., newspapers were supplied to the school by a local newsagent and community members sat and read them with students before school; the homework club was trialled with parents to establish mutually suitable times and models). Analysis of the survey data showed parents mostly felt valued by their principal/school and enjoyed the opportunities provided for them to meet other parents (see Table 3.1—Parents). However, those surveyed generally reported either uncertainty or a lower likelihood of the school providing them with additional resources (e.g., computers) to support their engagement with their child’s learning. There was also some uncertainty among those surveyed about whether the schools provided opportunities for their personal development. Still, some exemplary strategies emerged in the qualitative data. For example, Liz actively worked with RISS parents to develop their skills, not only as parents, but also as potential future school employees. She noticed that parent volunteers became good role models for their child and families and as their knowledge and skills increased so too did their capacity for contributing positively to the school and community. Students at the school also recognised the value of volunteering for building their parents’ confidence and skills. Speaking about his mother, one student commented, “It’s really good when you volunteer first and then work your way up for a job” (RISS, Student Focus Group).

Teachers

49

Teachers The principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project actively cultivated open, supportive relationships with their teachers. Qualitative and quantitative data analyses showed teachers confirmed the positive staff relationships created by each principal. For example, a teacher at RISS observed: “Liz goes above and beyond. Everything she does is for the benefit of her staff and the children” (Participant 3, RISS, Teacher Focus Group). Other comments from teacher participants at the school included: “she cares”, “she’s real”, and “she treats us like an equal” (RISS, Teacher Focus Group). The principals emphasised the need to know each teacher. Quantitative data analyses also showed teachers agreed strongly or very strongly with statements such as: (1) the principal has good knowledge of each teacher’s knowledge and ability; and (2) the principal has good knowledge of each teacher (see Table 3.1—Teachers). For Tom, knowing each teacher’s teaching style, practices, and programs was essential for him to talk with WSS parents about their child’s learning and wellbeing. Rose described working with SVSS teachers to match their strengths and interests with suitable school positions. She considered having the “right” person for the job not only benefited teachers, but also students, parents, and the community (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview). The principals articulated clear expectations for teachers to engage parents in their child’s learning and spoke with them about strategies to encourage positive connections with parents and students. For example, Greg said that when he shared with DCSS teachers about how to view students and their parents it was about, “…being able to see it [the world] from another person’s point of view and that their point of view is not the right point of view and that, most likely, there isn’t a right point of view” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). He also recognised differences between teacher and parent backgrounds (e.g., cultural, education, language) at the school represented a salient challenge to engagement. He encouraged teachers to find common ground, iterating, “…we can’t let language barriers be a reason for our parents not to be involved” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). Accordingly, he recommended they invite parents into the school, saying: “It was just a matter of finding what your community feels comfortable in engaging with and harnessing that” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). At the same time, he emphasised the value of setting an example and not expecting anything from teachers that he would not be prepared to do himself. This strategy was about, “fighting the fight” and “walking the walk with teachers in the classroom” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). Tom stressed the need for teachers to seek “parent feedback”—something he said he learnt early in his career as a classroom teacher (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). This was one reason initial parent–teacher interviews were scheduled at WSS in the first semester (week seven) each year. According to Tom, these early discussions were important for teachers to learn about the experiences of students and parents so activities such as homework (e.g., how much to set, what to offer, ways to differentiate homework for different students, timing to align with family needs) could be mutually evaluated and adjusted if necessary. Rose also stressed the need to

50

4 Presenting Key Player Findings

lead by example at SVSS. If teachers saw her interacting regularly with parents, she believed they would too. She modelled respectful interactions with students, parents, and staff advocating, “Every day, to everybody say, ‘Good morning, how are you?’ and be positive, even if you’re not” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview). Her approach reflected her philosophy, “You act into being” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview); that is, by choosing to be positive, a person can create the future they imagine. Quantitative data analysis showed variable findings of the kinds of parent engagement strategies used by principals with teachers (see Table 3.1—Teachers). Although there was mostly strong agreement among the surveyed teachers that their principal encouraged them to lead parent engagement initiatives, there were mixed results for the statement: the principal distributes leadership of parent engagement among staff. There was generally less support for statements such as: (1) the principal provides professional development around parent engagement for teachers; and (2) the principal provides resources to build relationships with parents. Nevertheless, analysis of the qualitative data revealed examples of effective strategies used by different principals. Greg, for example, organised sessions on language learning to assist teachers at DCSS to better understand how their non-English speaking students learnt to read. When working with these students, the teachers subsequently recognised the need to focus on phonemic awareness as well as whole texts, and discussed this need (using older students or interpreters if necessary) with parents, so they could use similar strategies at home. At RISS, Liz worked alongside the Parent Liaison Officer (PLO) to assist teachers to embed Indigenous Australian perspectives in their planning. This professional learning occurred at staff meetings and involved teachers sharing their programs with local Elders and subsequently receiving feedback (with the PLO acting as a conduit) on ways these might be improved.

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of Key Players Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) and Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) conceptualisations of agency afford a platform for viewing Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum in relation to key players—students, parents, and teachers—to understand what helped or hindered principal leadership in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. The findings showed the leadership of each principal invoked all three orientations to agency. They drew on past professional experiences (i.e., an iterational orientation to agency) which influenced ideas such as “you act into being” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview) (i.e., a projective orientation) to inform what, how, and when they thought, spoke, and acted “in the here and now” across a range of different times and places (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation) (Priestley et al., 2015, p. 24). Of these three orientations however, the practical-evaluative tone rang strongest. This is unsurprising given the emphasis the principals placed on the

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal …

51

importance of developing positive relationships with students, parents, and teachers where agency might be expected to be achieved in concrete, specific situations. This finding supports previous research by Heinrichs (2018), Mleczko and Kington (2013) and Pushor (2018) (see Chap. 2) which highlighted how trusting, respectful relationships enabled principals and teachers to engage parents more in their child’s learning. Accordingly, the principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project exhibited qualities the key players recognised as friendly, approachable, interested, affirming, and attentive. They evidenced deep knowledge of students and families—knowledge they seemed to build by valuing the knowledge and opinions of the key players. They demonstrated memorable observation during exchanges with students and parents where they watched, listened, and learnt from them about aspects of their lives and histories. Similarly, they showed collegiality, equity, fairness, care, sympathy, and support (professionally and personally) for teachers. They communicated clear expectations to them to engage parents in their child’s learning but equally upheld realistic expectations about what they may/may not be able to do. They advocated for teachers to make early personal contact, speak face-to-face if possible, and use direct forms of communication with parents. They also evidenced proactive strategies with teachers in adopting strengths-based approaches and modelling ways to engage parents. Biesta and Tedder (2007) noted that the way our orientations to agency come into play varies within different contexts and achieving agency rests with an individual’s ability to shape their responsiveness to these contexts. Mostly quick, positive responses by each principal toward the key players (e.g., their opinions, ideas, interests, needs, concerns) at different times and in varied settings and contexts appeared to build trusting, respectful relationships and reciprocally these relationships seemed to influence the principals’ responsiveness. Positive relationships appeared to contribute to the principals’ success in parent engagement by helping their agentic orientations when thinking, speaking, and acting to achieve alignment with the values, beliefs, purposes, aims, hopes, and aspirations of the key players. This ability speaks to the cultural aspect of the practical-evaluative orientation to agency (Priestley et al., 2015). The principals of these disadvantaged schools thus seemed to achieve agency for parent engagement through their choices and actions—resonant in the qualities they displayed and strategies they developed and enacted—which the key players perceived as culturally appropriate and relevant in their different environments.

Conclusions The findings for key players—students, parents, and teachers—in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project presented in this chapter shine light on areas where some of the principals achieved agency for parent engagement which feature little in the literature while simultaneously highlighting possible areas for future continued focus. Student agency, for example, emerged as a possible underutilised

52

4 Presenting Key Player Findings

strategy for parent engagement. We see student agency as encompassing not only the principals’ knowledge of students, but also students’ knowledge of themselves and knowledge of other students, parents, and communities which may be tapped to bring the relationship between parents and their child’s learning closer together. Previous research (e.g., Crozier, 1999) suggested parents’ perceptions of their child’s need for independence, especially older children, can impede the possibility of parent engagement. Vyverman and Vettenburg (2009) in Flanders however, found when parents actively participated in their child’s school learning, their child was more welcoming of their participation. This connection was particularly strong for students in disadvantaged schools (Vyverman & Vettenburg, 2009). Similarly, research by Willis (2013) in a disadvantaged school in Australia found co-teaching with parents increased the learning enjoyment and outcomes of the students involved. Nevertheless, the literature on parent engagement from the perspective of students is limited. Research that does exist mostly signals the potential missed opportunity of student agency. Evans’ (2018) research of school-family compacts in disadvantaged schools in the United States, for example, found policy mandates for schools and districts to engage with parents translated to students continuing to play traditional school roles. Speaking about the compacts, he wrote: “the sole student responsibility relating to family and school relationships was the facilitation of communication, which was basically delivering correspondence from teachers” (p. 47). He added: “There was not a single example in any of the compacts of students being asked to contribute to their own education in a meaningful way” (p. 47). Examples in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project such as three-way goal-setting meetings at WSS and student participation in P&C meetings at SVSS showed how parent engagement strategies utilising student agency have the potential to first, empower students by giving them a voice to speak about their own learning and second, increase possible opportunities for parents to contribute to their child’s learning and wellbeing. These different strategies by Tom and Rose (above) speak to a projective orientation to agency which appeared to help them shift from an iterational (habitual) orientation and informed their orientations during unfolding moments of time and situations with regard to structural aspects. Priestley et al. (2015) associated structural aspects with social structures and relational resources (e.g., relationships, roles, power, trust) that can enable or impede the achievement of agency. Strategies associated with student agency thus open possibilities for principals to consider how traditional roles and relationships might be reimagined to distribute power more equitably among key players in schools. Such strategies have the potential to redistribute agency to improve the relationship between parents and their child’s learning while simultaneously produce a positive change on the parent involvement-engagement continuum (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). The findings of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project presented in this chapter also suggested there were possible areas where the principals’ achievement of agency for parent engagement was diminished. These included providing parents with additional resources and opportunities for their personal development

Conclusions

53

and providing teachers with more professional learning and resources to build relationships with parents. Previous research (e.g., Mleczko & Kington, 2013; Pushor, 2018; Warren et al., 2009; Watt, 2016) signalled the value of principals offering parents and teachers learning opportunities through workshops and courses to enhance parent engagement. As noted earlier, although several examples of where the principals made resources and learning opportunities for parents and teachers available emerged in the qualitative data of our research, findings from the quantitative data highlighted possible inconsistencies across the two data sets. These inconsistencies may implicate structural and/or material aspects that can influence the achievement of agency. Priestley et al. (2015) described material aspects as the availability of resources and the physical environment. In the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project, material aspects could refer to available funding or equipment to support parents’ and/or teachers’ learning opportunities or available space or facilities in schools to conduct parent engagement initiatives (e.g., facilities for parents with young children). Factors pertaining to roles and relationships and/or available resources may have hindered the principals’ achievement of agency in these areas. Further research would allow more opportunities for closer investigation of the possible factors involved.

References Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–32. Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Crozier, G. (1999). Parental involvement: Who wants it? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 9(3), 219–238. http://doi.org/10.1080/09620219900200045. Edwards, B., Baxter, J., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Hayes, A. (2009). Financial disadvantage and children’s school readiness. Family Matters, 83, 9. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/sites/def ault/files/fm83c-EdwardsEtAl.pdf. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Evans, M. P. (2018). The challenge of family engagement policy implementation: A case study of Title 1 School-Family Compacts in the USA. In Y. Guo (Ed.), Home-school relations: International perspectives (pp. 37–54). Springer Nature: Singapore. Goodall, J. (2018). Parental engagement in children’s learning: Moving on from mass superstition. Creative Education, 9, 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.911116. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A Continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership for parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 162–186. Heinrichs, J. (2018). School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017. 1406905.

54

4 Presenting Key Player Findings

Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2018). Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 17–37. Retrieved from http://familydiversityedu cation.org/index.php/fdez. Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018. 1439466. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522. Vyverman, V., & Vettenburg, N. (2009). Parent participation at school: A research study on the perspectives of children. Childhood, 16, 105–123. Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. L., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A communitybased relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254. Watt, L. (2016). Engaging hard to reach families: Learning from five ‘outstanding’ schools. Education, 44(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1122321. Willis, L.-D. (2013). Parent-teacher engagement: A coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Willis, L.-D., Povey, J., Hodges, J., Carroll, A., Pedde, C., & Campbell, A. (2018). What gives some Principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement? Principal leadership for engaging parents and community in disadvantaged schools: Four case studies. Brisbane, Qld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://issr.uq.edu.au/files/5273/FINAL%20Case%20Stud ies%20Document.pdf.

Chapter 5

Presenting School Learning Findings

Abstract This chapter presents research findings on school learning arising from the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. School learning encompasses Schwab’s (1973) dimensions/milieus of classrooms and curriculum (subject matter) as well as the additional commonplace of digital technologies (virtual classrooms). These three aspects are associated with school places and spaces (physical and virtual) where teachers typically work and students typically learn. Accordingly, analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected from the participating schools and principals is presented under three headings: classrooms, curriculum (subject matter), and digital technologies (virtual classrooms). The concept of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) is further employed to conceptualise what helped or hindered the principals’ effectiveness in parent engagement and the qualities and strategies associated with their success. This chapter casts new light on how the principals’ available resources—cultural, material, structural (Priestley et al., 2015)—affected their orientations to agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998) within their different settings and contexts. Based on the findings we draw conclusions about principal leadership for parent engagement that relate to the effect of traditional barriers to parent engagement on principal manoeuvrability for change and action; unexpected barriers to parent engagement as a result of the intensification of teachers’ work and rise of performativity; and the role of principals in championing emerging parent engagement opportunities. Keywords School learning · Classroom invitations · Innovative strategies · Coteaching with parents · Curriculum reform · Contradictory policy agendas · Digital technologies · Virtual classrooms · Barriers to parent engagement

Introduction In Chapter 2 our review of the literature concluded that each of the principals or school leaders in the studies by Barr and Saltmarsh (2014), Heinrichs (2018), Mleczko and Kington (2013), and Pushor (2018) appeared to exercise their agency for parent engagement relative to their particular settings and contexts. In other words, they © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_5

55

56

5 Presenting School Learning Findings

appeared to achieve agency insofar as they were able to draw on their existing resources—cultural, material, structural—and generate new ones (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Priestley et al., 2015). In this second of three findings and discussion chapters we seek to understand more about what helped or hindered the principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project to use their resources to achieve agency for parent engagement. The chapter provides examples to illustrate the local and external environments in which each principal—Greg at Dragonfly Creek State School (DCSS), Tom at Warnerville State School (WSS), Liz at Reef Island State School (RISS), and Rose at Scenic View State School (SVSS) (see also Willis et al., 2018)—operated. These deepen understanding of principal leadership qualities and strategies for effective parent engagement while simultaneously adding to the existing literature where illustrations of practice and research in parent engagement are mostly missing. The chapter further responds to the overarching research question from the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project: What gives some principals the edge on parent–school–community engagement? The findings and discussion are also guided by the project’s three subsidiary questions: a. b. c.

What helped or hindered principal leadership for parent engagement? What qualities and strategies of principals helped them achieve parent engagement success? How does the concept of agency as achievement facilitate understanding of principal leadership for parent engagement?

Under the three school learning headings of classrooms, curriculum (subject matter), and digital technologies (virtual classrooms), the chapter discusses the following themes which emerged during data collection and analysis: principals providing support for teachers to welcome parents into classrooms; varying levels of parent participation in classrooms; using innovative parent engagement strategies; principals as leaders of the school curriculum; creating opportunities for parents to contribute to curriculum planning; navigating Australia’s education reform agenda and the impact on possibilities for parent engagement; and potential benefits and challenges of digital technologies as a new parent engagement mechanism. To bolster the rigour of our findings, we also discuss variations in these themes by considering the qualitative and quantitative data across the data set. The concept of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) is used to deepen possible understanding of the research findings.

Classrooms Our analysis across the qualitative and quantitative data sets showed Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose—the four principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project—supported teachers to welcome parents into classrooms. Teachers

Classrooms

57

similarly reported support from their principals to extend classroom invitations to parents. Analysis of the quantitative data, however, found approximately 40 percent of surveyed parents were either uncertain or disagreed with the statement: I am invited to volunteer in the classroom (see Table 3.1—Parents). The data therefore highlighted a difference for parents between being welcomed and being invited to volunteer in classrooms. Qualitative data analysis revealed multiple factors that influenced the strategy of parent volunteers in classrooms in practice. On the one hand, parents in all four schools reported being invited to help in classrooms with reading groups and rotation activities (e.g., in Maths or Visual Arts). Parents also reported examples of being invited to share their stories and experiences. One parent from SVSS, for example, said he was invited to contribute to learning about History in his child’s Year 2 classroom by recollecting: “What school was like for me as a boy” (Participant 7, SVSS, Parent Focus Group). At the same time, the principals encouraged innovative strategies to engage parents in classrooms. At RISS these included an open-classroom activity early each year. One teacher explained: So we had two options. We had an 8:30am to 9:15am and then a 2:30 pm to 3:00 pm [time]. So both the options were available and parents could come in and they could sit with the kids and see what the kids were doing and engage with the learning and we just kept on teaching. (Participant 3, RISS, Teacher Focus Group)

Coteaching was another strategy used at RISS. One teacher described how she and the other Year 6 teachers learnt about electrical circuits from working alongside a parent with particular Science knowledge and skills. They shared the students’ assessment tasks with him and were open to him taking the lead in coteaching the Science curriculum with them in the classroom. The teacher reported this experience gave them the confidence to host the school’s Science fairs in subsequent years. On the other hand, participants pointed to multiple possible reasons for variations in practice of the strategy of parent volunteers in classrooms. At WSS, for example, the P&C president, parents, and teachers noted how the strategy was taken up differently across the school. The P&C president commented: …I do think it depends on the teacher a lot and there’s only so much, I think, that he (Tom, principal) can do at the teacher level because some teachers would cope very well with help and others would not. (P&C President, WSS, P&C President Interview)

One parent indicated that parent volunteers in classrooms depended on the “personality of teachers” and “their way of teaching style and how they like to run their classroom” (Participant 6, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). Other parents at WSS observed: “Some teachers don’t want it” (Participant 4, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group); “I’d say it’s the teacher, yeah” (Participant 2, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group); and “Yeah, I don’t think they find time to fit it in” (Participant 6, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). For the teachers at SVSS, challenges arose because of the parent cohort. One observed: “While we’ve got a principal that is so engaged with the families, I wouldn’t say that we have the most engaged families” (Participant 4, SVSS, Teacher Focus Group 1). The teacher substantiated her comment by recounting an unsuccessful initiative where she had offered parents afternoon tea

58

5 Presenting School Learning Findings

while they read with their child for the last 15 minutes each school day. Despite asking students to invite their parents to participate, advertising schoolwide, and inviting parents personally, only two parents accepted, leaving her disappointed and perplexed. Another SVSS teacher commented on parents’ perceived willingness or unwillingness to volunteer in classrooms and the school more generally: We have …both ends of the spectrum. …we have some parents who don’t engage with their kid’s education at all. Then we have parents who are really super involved. …out of every classroom there’s probably at least two or three parents that are really involved somehow, whether it be P&C or helping out at different things like the disco or supporting the trivia nights. (Participant 1, SVSS, Teacher Focus Group 2)

Apart from SVSS’s unique context as a small rural town in southwestern Queensland, the teachers implicated other factors that affected parents when asked to volunteer in classrooms including: timing of activities, parents’ education levels, and parents’ past school experiences (SVSS, Teacher Focus Groups 1 & 2). Participants in the four schools also noted the practice of parent volunteers in classrooms decreased as year levels increased. One P&C president suggested this was because, “more help was needed in the younger years and then as the kids got more independent and moved up there was less need for it” (P&C President, WSS, P&C President Interview). He added: So once you get up into the higher levels, I wouldn’t feel super comfortable coming in and helping out in a Year 6 classroom if they were doing Maths because I know the way they do Maths these days is way different to the way I did Maths…. So the curriculum has only gotten bigger, I think, and the expectations on the teachers are more and more. (P&C President, WSS, P&C President Interview)

Further possible factors that influenced the strategy of parent volunteers in classrooms therefore included: different experiences for parents of younger and older children; parents’ lack of confidence for helping their child especially in upper primary classrooms; and increased curriculum demands on teachers.

Curriculum (Subject Matter) The four principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project each recognised their role as their school’s curriculum leader. They regularly shared curriculum news with their school communities and provided updates about program implementation. Quantitative data analysis found teachers generally agreed that their principal had good knowledge of the curriculum and encouraged them to incorporate parents’ knowledge in the curriculum (see Table 3.1—Teachers). Examples of where parents or local Indigenous Elders contributed to curriculum design and planning at school or classroom level (e.g., RISS teachers coteaching Science with a parent above) however, were uncommon in the data sets—indeed examples of parents participating as curriculum planners, pedagogues, and assessors are rare in the literature (Willis, 2013). Although surveyed teachers generally agreed that parent

Curriculum (Subject Matter)

59

engagement goals were used to inform teaching and learning, they agreed less with the statements: (1) parent engagement goals are used to develop curriculum; and (2) the principal encourages teachers to actively involve parents in designing the curriculum (see Table 3.1—Teachers). These findings speak to the possible negative impact of Australia’s education reform agenda on parent engagement in the curriculum and classrooms. Greg, for example, declared that schools and teachers were “increasingly time poor” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). He described: rolling curriculum reforms; the introduction of new curriculum learning areas (e.g., Digital Technologies [Computer Science]); increased curriculum learning area content (e.g., five subject areas in The Arts); and extra-curricular activities (e.g., instrumental Music classes in school time) as among factors that diminished opportunities for parent engagement in school learning. Teachers at WSS similarly linked changes in parent engagement to: the introduction of the new mandatory Australian Curriculum (see Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2018); Queensland’s use since 2012 of Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) materials (see Department of Education, 2018); and standardised testing specifically the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (see ACARA, 2016). One teacher commented: …I think the way we’ve engaged with parents has changed because of the curriculum. You can’t get the parents into do reading groups because it’s so prescriptive of how we do it: what the process is, and what we have to say then, and what kind of questions you have to ask, how long you wait. It’s too hard. (Participant 1, WSS, Teacher Focus Group)

Tom also noted: There’s been a higher imperative put on results, and probably NAPLAN results. So therefore, we can’t afford any more to run our reading groups, such that we’re dependent on parents to come into do the reading group and they don’t turn up. (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview)

In the same way, WSS parents commented on the absence of past positive opportunities such as end-of-term Culmination Days when teachers would open their classrooms for parents to come into celebrate their child’s learning (WSS, P&C & nonP&C Focus Groups). Referring to changes in the curriculum and standardised testing, Tom observed: “It [Culmination Days] just became all too hard in terms of how things changed and were being done” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview).

Digital Technologies (Virtual Classrooms) Each principal in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project supported the use of digital technologies and channels to enhance classroom learning and parent engagement. Greg, for example, purchased a licence to enable parents to access educational software that students used at school so they could learn about areas of the curriculum with which they were unfamiliar while simultaneously and

60

5 Presenting School Learning Findings

actively support, at home, what their child was learning at school. He also encouraged teachers to use “interactive class communication sites” such as ClassDojo to promote positive parent–teacher relationships (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). Similarly, the teachers at WSS used ClassDojo to communicate with parents and share “what they’re doing in class” (Participant 3, WSS, Parent non-P&C Focus Group). One teacher elaborated: It’s [ClassDojo] just an easy way to send photos. It’s a bit like an email thing, but it’s more like just keeping the parents involved with what’s going on… It creates that opportunity for the parent to talk the same language, because instead of just printing out a newsletter and it getting lost in the bag, they’re getting to at least see what has been happening. They feel like they’ve been in the room, but they haven’t been in the room. (Participant 3, WSS, Teacher Focus Group)

Parents at WSS detailed numerous benefits of ClassDojo as a digital channel. One enunciated: “You’re getting information of what they’ve done during the day. So you pick them [child] up and you say, ‘Hey, how was this today that you did at school?’” (Participant 5, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). Another parent described how they: “showed [their] kid the photo and we talked about it” (Participant 6, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). A third parent indicated that the teacher’s use of ClassDojo afforded them insights into aspects of their child and school other than academic work. For example, she not only saw how the teacher talked about her child, but also how the teacher and other classmates “worked as a team” and “the way they helped their teachers” (Participant 4, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). WSS parents confirmed that they valued this form of involvement because it gave them a window into the classroom and school, and helped them have informed conversations at home with their child about what and how they were learning. At the same time, the channel encouraged reciprocal communication between home and school. One parent observed that email might take a teacher “a couple of days to get to because of workload”, whereas ClassDojo allowed them to contact teachers quickly and easily (Participant 6, WSS, Parent P&C Focus Group). The use of digital technologies by teachers however, was somewhat sporadic in each of the schools in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Individual teachers or teachers across a year level rather than whole schools tended to use them. SVSS evidenced the least use, with one teacher using ClassDojo (but more as a rewards system than a student learning platform with parents), and teachers describing limited success with other communication forms such as email. One teacher stated: “I don’t think a lot of our parents either have access to email permanently, or they don’t wish to use that form” (Participant 3, SVSS, Teacher Focus Group 2). The SVSS teachers further indicated that their rural town often experienced unreliable internet access. This was another reason they reported mostly contacting parents by phone or SMS.

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership …

61

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of School Learning Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) triadic view of agency and Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) notion of agency as achievement offer new and different vantage points to examine the findings about principal leadership for parent engagement and school learning in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Similar to the findings for key players, the principals evidenced all three orientations to agency. In supporting teachers’ innovative classroom strategies (e.g., coteaching with parents; use of digital technologies) they showed a projective orientation to agency. Faced with a range of different barriers to parent engagement, they experienced diminished access to possible structures and resources for achieving parent engagement. These included cultural aspects such as different education backgrounds of parents and teachers (e.g., seeming unwillingness of SVSS parents to take up invitations to read in the classroom with their child); material aspects such as logistics of organisation, timing, communication, and resources (e.g., SVSS parents’ apparent limited access to email); and structural aspects such as past school experiences (e.g., variations in teacher practices described by WSS parents) and teacher professionalism (e.g., the effects of national curriculum reform reported on by Tom and Greg). These barriers simultaneously narrowed the degree of manoeuvrability for change and action in the dimensions/milieus of classrooms, curriculum (subject matter), and digital technologies (virtual classrooms) that each principal could achieve in their particular setting and context. An habitual (iterational) orientation to agency thus appeared to resonate most strongly for the principals in the area of school learning. Nevertheless, the findings speak to the qualities and strategies of the principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project who, when faced with what can only be described as an unprecedented and extraordinary change in Australia’s education system over the last several years, were supportive of teachers and their work in the current climate. They emphasised the importance of invitations to parents to visit classrooms and continued to communicate with them and the broader school community about aspects of change in the curriculum and implementation of associated school programs. Importantly, despite changes in resources in their environment which seemed to diminish their agency for parent engagement, they appeared to embrace innovative strategies that aligned with the idea of bringing parents and their child’s learning closer together (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). The principals, for example, were proactive in using different channels to enhance parent engagement (e.g., Greg’s purchase of an educational software licence so students and parents could access information for learning at school and home) and displayed openness to their use by teachers to create virtual classrooms (e.g., Greg and Tom’s encouragement of teachers at their schools to use ClassDojo). These examples take on more meaning when understood against a background in Australia and elsewhere at the time of our research when the use of digital technologies in schools and classrooms was mostly nascent. The findings show that the principals recognised the value and

62

5 Presenting School Learning Findings

importance of parent engagement to student learning and wellbeing and accordingly oriented their agency to the future (i.e., a projective orientation) in response to opportunities to meet student and parent needs and/or enable parent engagement that emerged in their schools.

Conclusions The findings for school learning—classrooms, curriculum (subject matter), and digital technologies (virtual classrooms)—in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project presented in this chapter speak to many previously documented as well as unexpected barriers to parent engagement. At the same time, the findings open up possible new parent engagement frontiers. There were differences, for example, between parents’ perceptions of feeling welcome in classrooms and them receiving and accepting invitations to volunteer to contribute actively to student learning in classrooms. These differences highlight numerous barriers to parents volunteering in classrooms, including perceived different ways teachers prefer to work; parents’ perceived unwillingness to participate; and parents’ sense of selfefficacy for helping their child succeed at school. These barriers appear to have limited the principals’ agency to effect change beyond mostly traditional parent involvement strategies. Goodall (2018) argued the perpetuation of conventional ways of operating in schools lies with “hegemonic belief[s]” where: “In essence, society, or rather, the people who make up a given society, have become convinced that the status quo is just the ‘way things should be’… ‘rather than being seen as elements of a system amenable to change’” (p. 1613). Goodall’s contention is telling of the stabilising influence of past experience (i.e., an iterational orientation to agency) where school staff and parents have internalised parents supporting schools in traditional roles “as simply the way things are” (p. 1613). The findings pertaining to classrooms as well as curriculum (subject matter) highlighted other barriers to parent engagement such as the intensification of teachers’ work impacting their available time and resources; the nature and pace of curriculum reform; mandatory curriculum requirements; use of C2C materials—which encourages prescriptive or “one size fits all” approaches—in Queensland schools (Barton et al., 2014, p. 169); and annual national standardised tests in literacy and numeracy (i.e., NAPLAN). In researching teacher agency in the United Kingdom, Priestley et al. (2015) drew on Apple’s (2001) work to describe how a culture of performance has emerged in which there have been subtle shifts in emphasis in school systems “from student needs to student performance” (p. 107). Driven by an agenda of accountability, this culture has involved, among other things, increased regulation of principals’ and teachers’ work through prescriptive national curricula, performance objectives, standards, and national testing (Apple, 2001; Hargreaves, 2000; Priestley et al., 2015). Apple noted notions of competition, markets, and consumer choice go hand in hand with this culture, reinforcing and “help[ing] cement conservative educational positions into our daily lives” (p. 184). In writing about professionalism, Evetts

Conclusions

63

(2011) distinguished between occupational and organisational professionalism. She described how cultures of performance associated with organisational professionalism tended to diminish professional “empowerment, innovation, autonomy, and discretion” (p. 412). For Evetts, changes from occupational to organisational professionalism were discernible as “a shift from notions of partnership, collegiality, discretion, and trust to increasing levels of managerialism, bureaucracy, standardisation, assessment, and performance review” (p. 407). Drawing on the work of different researchers (see below), Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) noted similar concerns and challenges, writing that: Increasingly, managerialist models of school leadership resembling that of a CEO in the private sector (Cranston, 2007; Gronn, 2003; Thomson, 2001) place demands on principals to manage the complexities and contradictions of reform agendas that may be antithetical to the more collaborative orientations of educators—and of policy prescriptions—in the area of school-family partnerships (Blackmore, 2004; Connell, 2010; Victory, 2011). (p. 492)

The implementation of a new Australian curriculum, meeting national principal and teacher standards, and preparing students for standardised tests, on one hand, and the need for principals and teachers to engage parents in their child’s learning and wellbeing, on the other, represent possibly contradictory mandates which in practice appear to have proved challenging for the schools in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project to reconcile. What is particularly concerning in our findings however, is the unexpected way in which a more performance-driven environment has created changes in structural resources which may threaten even traditional parent involvement practices such as parents volunteering in classrooms. Speaking about a culture of performativity, Priestley et al. (2015) noted of one teacher in their research: “[her] limited achievement of agency is the result of pressure in the here and now—the practical-evaluative dimension—as a result of which she is unable to utilise her considerable experience to manoeuvre between repertoires because of the demands posed by the current social context” (p. 118). Similarly, in our research, despite the demonstrated abilities of the principals to improve relationships between parents and their child’s learning and wellbeing, imposed external requirements of performance appear to have limited their and their teachers’ manoeuvrability in the areas of classrooms and curriculum for creating positive change. This diminished agency seemed further compounded by past experiences of parents and teachers in schools (i.e., an iterational orientation to agency). These findings reveal threats to the work of principals seeking to redistribute agency for enabling positive movement of their schools along the parent involvement-engagement continuum (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). As indicated above, despite the barriers to parent engagement highlighted in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project, the principals continued to adopt a projective orientation to agency for achieving parent engagement whenever possible. This was evident in relation to innovative strategies such as coteaching the curriculum (subject matter) with parents and using digital technologies (virtual classrooms) to enable reciprocal communication and simultaneously bridge the traditional home-school divide. Willis and Exley (2018) noted that “digital technologies have

64

5 Presenting School Learning Findings

increased the number, range, frequency, speed, efficiency, and richness of connections possible” between schools and parents (p. 89). Their findings support those of this research (see also Chap. 4) which showed digital technologies have the potential to improve parent–school relationships through: the timeliness of communication; encouraging reciprocity between parents and teachers when contacting and communicating with one another; increased opportunities for parents to see what is happening in the classroom and school; enhanced parent self-efficacy for assisting their child’s learning and wellbeing; and increased transferability of student work between home and school settings (Willis & Exley, 2018). Willis and Exley’s research further showed how digital technology channels enabled parents to contribute meaningfully to the curriculum in classrooms through teachers’ use of inquiry pedagogical approaches. Still, our findings from the four schools involved in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project revealed the use of digital technologies was somewhat variable. Although promising, factors emerged such as teachers’ and parents’ seeming preferred use of different channels and possible availability of material resources (e.g., access to mobile devices and internet connection in rural and remote communities). These factors will continue to impact the degree of agency for parent engagement that may be possible for principals to achieve in the area of school learning in their different settings and contexts.

References Apple, M. W. (2001). Markets, standards, teaching, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 182–196. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). National assessment program—Literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/ naplan. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018). Australian curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/about-the-australian-curric ulum/. Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Barton, G., Garvis, S., & Ryan, M. (2014). Curriculum to the classroom: Investigating the spatial practices of curriculum implementation in Queensland schools and its implications for teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 166–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ ajte.2014v39n3.9. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Blackmore, J. (2004). Leading as emotional management work in high risk times: The counterintuitive impulses of performativity and passion. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 439–459. Connell, R. W. (2010). Interview: Raewyn Connell. Teacher quality and the problem with markets. Partnerships with parents. Professional Voice, 8(2), 55–63. Cranston, N. C. (2007). Through the eyes of potential aspirants: Another view of the principalship. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 109–128.

References

65

Department of Education. (2018). Curriculum into the classroom (C2C). Retrieved from https:// education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/school-curriculum/C2C. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology Monograph 2, 59(4), 406–422. Goodall, J. (2018). Parental engagement in children’s learning: Moving on from mass superstition. Creative Education, 9, 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.911116. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Sage. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Professionals and parents: A social movement for educational change. In N. Bascia & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading, and the realities of reform (pp. 217–235). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Heinrichs, J. (2018). School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017. 1406905. Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2018). Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 17–37. Retrieved from http://familydiversityedu cation.org/index.php/fdez. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522. Thomson, P. (2001). How principals lose “face”: A disciplinary tale of educational administration and modern managerialism. Discourse, 22(1), 5–22. Victory, M. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Beginning teachers’ communication with parents. Professional Voice, 8(2), 41–48. Retrieved from http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/pv_8_2complete.pdf. Willis, L.-D. (2013). Parent-teacher engagement: A coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Willis, L.-D., & Exley, B. (2018). Using an online social media space to engage parents in student learning in the early-years: Enablers and impediments. Digital Education Review, 33, 87–104. Willis, L.-D., Povey, J., Hodges, J., Carroll, A., Pedde, C., & Campbell, A. (2018). What gives some Principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement? Principal leadership for engaging parents and community in disadvantaged schools: Four case studies. Brisbane, Qld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://issr.uq.edu.au/files/5273/FINAL%20Case%20Stud ies%20Document.pdf.

Chapter 6

Presenting School Culture Findings

Abstract This third and final findings and discussion chapter presents aspects of school culture in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. In Chap. 2 we described a positive school culture for parent engagement as focusing on those practices by schools/principals which encourage parents to engage in their child’s learning and wellbeing and feel welcome in the school and classroom (Karadag & Oztekin-Bayir, 2018; McDowall & Schaughency, 2017; Spence, 2018). In this chapter, the idea of a positive school culture for parent engagement is discussed using two of Schwab’s (1973) commonplaces for the planning of curriculum namely schools and communities. These commonplaces are associated with the broader settings and contexts within which schools, principals, and key players such as students, parents, and teachers operate. The chapter presents the project’s findings under the two headings of schools and communities and includes aspects of these dimensions/milieus not discussed in previous chapters. The concept of agency as achievement (Biesta & Tedder, 2007) is again used to simultaneously conceptualise what helped or hindered each principal’s effectiveness in parent engagement and describe and explain the qualities and strategies associated with their seeming success. The findings point to the strength of the principals’ projectivity for informing the strategies they used to engage parents. Conclusions from these findings relate to: the view of schools as playing a central role in the fabric and future of their communities; the value and importance of schoolwide and whole-school initiatives for enabling shared learning and celebrations and building cultural resources such as pride among those in the school and community; recognition of the connection between parent and community engagement and furthering broader education agendas in Australia such as reconciliation and multiculturalism; and limitations in material and structural resources with the potential to hinder successful parent engagement initiatives. Keywords School culture · Schoolwide strategies · Whole-school strategies · Community engagement · In-reach and outreach · Outward-looking schools · School vision · Visibility · Reciprocity · Advocacy

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_6

67

68

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

Introduction In the previous chapter (Chap. 5) of this book, we highlighted how the four principals—Greg at Dragonfly Creek State School (DCSS), Tom at Warnerville State School (WSS), Liz at Reef Island State School (RISS), and Rose at Scenic View State School (SVSS) (see also Willis et al., 2018)—in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project persisted in adopting a future-focused approach to their work with parents despite the challenges and complexities they encountered in their different settings and contexts. This chapter provides further evidence of their projectivity and its power for helping each principal achieve success in parent engagement. As well, in Chap. 2 we showed how three overarching themes emerged from the literature about school leadership for effective parent engagement: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive school culture for parent engagement (see Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Heinrichs, 2018, Mleczko & Kington, 2013; Pushor, 2018). This chapter shows how these themes were similarly demonstrated in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project. Our research however, probes more deeply into how each principal in their different school setting and context drew on certain qualities together with their available resources—cultural, material, structural—to develop effective parent engagement strategies. Our investigation and subsequently the findings presented in this chapter were guided by the project’s overarching question—What gives some principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement?—and three subsidiary questions: a. b. c.

What helped or hindered principal leadership for parent engagement? What qualities and strategies of principals helped them achieve parent engagement success? How does the concept of agency as achievement facilitate understanding of principal leadership for parent engagement?

Under the two school culture headings of schools and communities, the chapter discusses the following principal leadership for parent engagement themes which emerged during data collection and analysis: using physical and online means and school spaces and places to send clear messages of welcome, inclusivity, and belonging to students, parents and community members; calling on the notion of visibility; instituting schoolwide and whole-school strategies to build positive school culture; adopting reciprocal ways of thinking and working; purposefully connecting with others in and outside the school; playing advocacy roles; broadening student horizons, and focusing on Early Years programs. We consider the corpus of data—qualitative and quantitative—to explore variations in these themes and consequently strengthen our understanding of the dynamic interplay between resources—cultural, material, structural (Priestley et al., 2015)—and dimensions— past, future, and present (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998)—for helping or hindering each principal’s agency to achieve parent engagement in practice.

Schools

69

Schools Our analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project showed each principal—Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose— espoused the philosophy of, Ubuntu (see Williams, 2018), describing parent engagement using the well-known phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child” (Greg [DCSS], Tom [WSS], Liz [RISS], Rose [SVSS], Principal Interviews). In fact, Rose wrote how she and her staff “live and breathe [this] old adage” as part of creating “the big family atmosphere which permeates Scenic View State School” (Annual Report, SVSS, 2016). A sense of inclusivity, belonging, and welcome was evident throughout the four schools. This was reflected in each of the school’s vision and values statements (e.g., “To make a positive difference for each and every child, each and every day” [Annual Report, WSS, 2016]). These statements were frequently represented as user-friendly, popular phrases co-developed with staff, parents, students, and community members such as: “Be Safe, Be Proud, Be Respectful, Be a Learner” (WSS) and “RULES: Respect, Understanding, Learning, Effort, Safety” (SVSS). These phrases were visually displayed throughout each school including classrooms and play areas. The principals used multiple different physical (e.g., school-community billboards) and online (e.g., social media sites) modes and modalities (e.g., linguistic, visual, spatial) to further communicate positive values and messages. For example, Liz wrote on RISS’s school website: I am very proud to be the principal of this school… I love my job and I am lucky to work with talented and wonderful staff who aim to help every student succeed no matter what. …. I extend an invitation to you to visit our school in person… Please come to the main office and introduce yourself. We hope you take up this offer and look forward to meeting you when you do. (School Website, RISS, 2017)

Entrances to RISS boasted large WELCOME or, Welcome to our school, signs and the local Indigenous Australian words for welcome, Wadda Mooli, were displayed in the school’s administration foyer and on classroom doors. Participants across all four schools indicated that office staff played a key role in perpetuating their school’s welcoming culture. Analysis of the qualitative data showed each school made thoughtful use of space to encourage inclusivity. This included dedicated friendship spots and/or buddy benches for students during playtimes and undercover spaces with seating near classrooms for parents to encourage friendly, informal conversations before and after school. Each school’s physical environment also featured colourful murals created by students, staff, parents, and/or community members which included representations or symbols of the school, community, or Country (e.g., Indigenous Australian art). These not only guided the viewer to places throughout the school but also held significance for students and parents. Analysis of the aggregated quantitative data mostly supported these findings however, less than half of the teachers surveyed indicated there was a dedicated space for parents to meet (see Table 3.1—Parents). Individually, three of the four schools recorded a similar result.

70

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose further encouraged a positive culture in their schools by embracing the strategy of visibility. When interviewed, Greg explained that “being visible” referred not only to “what you do being visible to the school community”, but also being physically present (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). To explain what he meant by, “what you do”, he referred to decisions he made to keep student numbers in classrooms low which he expected parents to recognise as increasing the potential time teachers spent with each child. Speaking about physical presence, he and each of the other principals daily enacted the notion of visibility through: being in the school grounds at predictable times (e.g., doing playground duty [Greg and Rose], greeting students and parents at drop-off and pick-up times [Tom and Rose], and refereeing lunch-time sports activities [Liz]). For these disadvantaged schools, the principal’s physical presence was particularly important. Greg explained that a parent might not be able to write a note or email given their limited English, but instead could tap him on the shoulder to say what they wanted. He added: “But if I didn’t follow what was [being said], I could go up and get a teacher or teacher aide who did speak Vietnamese and say, ‘Look, I’m having trouble. Can you interpret for me?’” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). Greg’s approach reflected his view that “People identify better with a person than a piece of paper” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). Each principal in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project also used different and often creative schoolwide (across all classes) and whole-school (all classes at once) strategies to create a favourable culture for parent engagement. For example, Greg included, Principal Ponderings, in the school’s weekly newsletter where he not only wrote about “what’s happening this week”, but also experiences he “had with [his] own kids growing up” (Greg, DCSS, Principal Interview). He reported this initiative personalised the newsletter, increasing knowledge of school happenings while simultaneously affording readers further discussion opportunities about different topics. Rose instituted, Principal’s Prattle, which involved activities such as parents visiting classrooms with her to talk with teachers and students about aspects of teaching and learning in real-time or discussing topics about which parents had expressed interest (e.g., assessment and reporting). Tom and Rose reported favourably on schoolwide student behaviour initiatives for engaging parents. When Tom first arrived at WSS, he convened a school and community meeting to collaboratively develop with teachers and parents the school’s vision and values statement. From the initial meeting, student behaviour was also identified as a key concern. He subsequently worked with parents to develop a behaviour plan known as “the smooth and bumpy road” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). Tom explained that the plan relied on an analogy of two roads which everyone understood: “One’s a straight, smooth road. The other one’s windy” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). He elaborated that when students were on the smooth road, they could partake in all school activities and received awards such as Student of the Week and Gotchyas. On the bumpy side were signs to indicate levels of behaviour which progressed from a warning to timeout to making contact with parents. Tom reported that parents also used the smooth and bumpy road at home, which he found “really interesting because that was an unexpected consequence… of the

Schools

71

process” (Tom, WSS, Principal Interview). Parents indicated that their children enjoyed being recognised for their positive behaviour choices. One stated: “Our son loves it…. He’s begging to be rewarded for good behaviour, rather than always being penalised for bad” (Participant 1, WSS, Parent non-P&C Focus Group). Rose also used Gotchyas at SVSS as part of a schoolwide positive behaviour program. Parents explained that these awards were useful “for opening dialogue [with their child] at home about how their behaviour was at school” (Participant 1, SVSS, Parent non-P&C Focus Group). Our analysis of the data in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project also showed that each principal held regular weekly or daily school events such as whole-school assemblies to which parents and community members were invited. A high level of student involvement and/or leadership and multiple opportunities for interactivity (e.g., humorous exchanges) among participants (including parents) characterised these times. These events recognised student achievements across a broad range of academic, sporting, behavioural, social, cultural, environmental, and community aspects. They also enabled shared common experiences such as teaching students a, Word of the Week, which included the Indigenous Australian language equivalent (RISS) and singing a specially-written school song and Happy Birthday to parents (SVSS).

Communities The four principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project each used a variety of strategies to engage their communities. When interviewed, Liz said her approach at RISS involved “in-reach and outreach” which was about asking, “What can we do for the community and what can the community do for us?” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). She thus advanced the need to develop positive relationships with community members and/or organisations for the mutual benefit of all parties. She elaborated: “The way I work is I’m a dot joiner and I like there to be interconnectedness in as many authentic ways as possible, for the benefit of the school and student learning” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). When deciding whether or not to take up projects by different community organisations (e.g., various reading intervention initiatives), she further stated: “I’m at the table with them all the time going, ‘What’s in it for the school? What’s in it for the school?’” (Liz, RISS, Principal Interview). Rose demonstrated a similar approach at SVSS in developing a partnership with the town’s medical centres to improve student health. This partnership involved SVSS teachers identifying students in possible need of assistance. Parents were contacted and either gave their consent for Rose to take their child to a doctor or, if they preferred, Rose would accompany them and their child. One SVSS teacher commented, “kids can’t learn because of medical difficulties” (Participant 3, SVSS, Teacher Focus Group 2). She iterated that Rose “follows the whole process through” and, speaking about Indigenous Australian parents, noted: “But sometimes

72

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

the parents, I think, want back-up…. They don’t feel that they’re taken seriously…. Where the doctor might go, ‘Get lost’ to the Indigenous person, they won’t do it in front of the principal” (Participant 3, SVSS, Teacher Focus Group 2). Teacher participants at SVSS indicated that parents benefited from the medical treatment their child received, but also from Rose’s guidance and mentoring in navigating the medical system. Community members such as the doctors and specialists at the medical centre benefited from the coordinated efforts of health and education professionals working together to improve the health and wellbeing of the school’s families. Rose’s approach to community engagement at SVSS was particularly wellarticulated and executed. According to parents, she was able to harness areas of strength in the local community to improve student learning outcomes. For example, she organised for local personalities (e.g., rugby league football players, past school principals, and defence force personnel) to speak with teachers and students and share their success stories. One parent noted, “[Rose] seeks these people out to get them to come to our school” (Participant 4, SVSS, P&C Parent Focus Group). Another parent described this strategy as particularly valuable in a disadvantaged school since the opportunities she created “opened the kids’ eyes to so much outside of SVSS” (Participant 1, SVSS, P&C Parent Focus Group). Rose also drew on her personal connections with community organisations such as Rotary International. One parent noted these opportunities not only broadened student horizons, but also demonstrated, “that she’s [Rose’s] interested in the community in which they live” (Participant 5, SVSS, P&C Parent Focus Group). Rose commented that “having the whole community involved with the school… gives more opportunities for kids to understand where their family comes from” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview). She elaborated that “tapping into those things… had a dual benefit. It’s great for the school, but it’s also great for the community” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview). Implementation of parent engagement initiatives in the Early Years was common to each of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project principals. Designed for parents and children (birth to five years), these ventures mostly involved partnerships with community organisations (e.g., libraries) and included a focus on language and literacy learning. Some operated throughout the year (e.g., playgroups) while others ran for six to eight weeks at the end of each year (e.g., programs for prepreparatory children and their parents) or were annual events (e.g., information days). Parents across the four schools in the project indicated these groups and activities afforded them: information and support; contact with other parents of similarly-aged children; and regular meeting times and places. Simultaneously, they helped them prepare their child to transition to school. One parent observed of the Early Years initiatives at WSS that her daughters were less anxious about starting school than they might have been because of the “familiarity” created by “the community between kindy to school…. So they know the principal, teachers, and it’s the communication and the relationship between both. I found it really good too” (Participant 3, WSS, Non-P&C Parent Focus Group). One program at WSS, cotaught each week by an Early Years teacher (released from class time) and the Head of Curriculum (HoC), promoted parent–child interactivity using songs, nursery rhymes, children’s literature, and games. The teacher gained

Communities

73

knowledge and insights from working with each parent and their child which she subsequently used in her classroom. She and the HoC also benefited from having known those families in the program who ultimately enrolled their child in the school. Parents and their child benefited from learning in a non-threatening, enjoyable setting which supported parents in their role as their child’s first teacher. Greg, Tom, Liz, and Rose each endorsed the value of Early Years initiatives as strategies that strengthened connections for parents and their child with one another and the school, as well as with different community organisations and the broader community. They variously signalled however, that sustainability was a possible threat to the ongoing success of these ventures given fluctuating numbers of parent participants from year to year. Communicating with potential parent participants and finding mutually suitable times and venues for parents, teachers, and community organisations to run these ventures were also singled out as challenges.

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement Based on the Findings of School Culture Using Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) and Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) conceptualisations of agency deepens understanding of what may have helped or hindered the principals achieve successful parent engagement in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project as well as the qualities and strategies they demonstrated. As seen previously for key players and school learning in Chaps. 4 and 5, each principal evidenced all three agentic orientations. Apart from calling on past school experiences, they also called on their personal experiences as parents (e.g., Greg’s newsletter items) and roles in community organisations (e.g., Rose’s connections with Rotary International). These past personal experiences extend the findings presented in this book about the influence of the principals’ iterational orientations to agency for parent engagement. Simultaneously, each principal evidenced a projective orientation to agency as they worked with parents and their communities to seek future opportunities to improve student learning and wellbeing (e.g., Liz’s in-reach and outreach approach). Their iterational and projective orientations influenced their everyday choices and actions as they called upon their cultural, material, and structural resources to achieve agency for parent engagement in their diverse environments (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation). All three orientations to agency were clearly implicated in the findings on school culture however, the projective orientation rang strongest—continually shaping the way the principals related to their iterational (habitual) and practical-evaluative orientations to agency. The literature on outward-facing schools appears to support this proposition about the importance of projectivity for underscoring the work of successful principals in parent and community engagement. Otero (2011) and others (e.g., West-Burnham et al., 2007) speak of outward facing schools and leaders who understand that:

74

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

“Effective schools have always been reflections of effective families and communities not the other way around” (p. 1). Although writing in another context (entrepreneurship in Europe), Mueller and Toutain (2015) also described how school environments have become more complex and dynamic. They highlighted the increasing interconnectedness of schools, communities, and businesses and the need for schools “to look from the inside out and see the embeddedness of education in the surrounding environment” (Mueller & Toutain, 2015, p. 6). They argued that an outward-looking school, “is located in a real life context and education needs to understand the systemic nature of interactions and connections beyond the physical borders of the classroom” (Mueller & Toutain, 2015, p. 6). These ideas assist to describe and explain the principals’ apparent agentic orientation toward the future. The influence of a projective orientation on agency is revealed in the various strategies demonstrated by the principals in the findings on school culture. These findings are reinforced by previous research from among the international literature (e.g., Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Heinrichs, 2018; Mleczko & Kington, 2013) in stressing the importance for principals to communicate a clear, strong school vision for parent engagement (see Chap. 2). Each school’s vision and values statements focused on creating a positive culture for student learning and wellbeing—a strategy that speaks to a projective orientation to agency. A projective orientation to the agency was also evident in the strategy of visibility. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) noted visibility was “indicative of the principal’s attitude toward parent involvement” (p. 497). The examples in this chapter showed the principals practised visibility to convey to parents they were accessible, approachable, and supportive. The qualities of the principals associated with this strategy were highlighted in Chap. 4 (e.g., friendly, approachable, interested, affirming, attentive, observant, responsive) as encouraging equitable, trusting, respectful relationships. Within the context of these relationships each principal showed they were able to orientate their agency at the moment (i.e., practical-evaluative orientation) to effectively engage parents. According to Poulton (2020)—whose educational research also drew on Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) notion of agency—within these temporalrelational spaces individuals (e.g., principals) achieve agency through how they “react to existing patterns of thought, find new ways of expressing ideas, and generate future trajectories of action” (p. 38). At a school level, visibility can also be seen as an outward-looking strategy which helped the principals achieve agency for parent engagement by making connections with others in and beyond their schools (i.e., a projective orientation to agency). Examples from Liz and Rose in particular, showed how their knowledge (explicit and implicit) of commonplaces where students learn (i.e., an iterational orientation to agency) helped their choices and actions for purposefully connecting these different dimensions/milieus (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation) to bring mutual benefits for all involved (i.e., a projective orientation to agency). For this reason visibility ties closely with the notion of reciprocity which was further evidenced when the principals asked questions such as what the school could do for the community and conversely, what the community could do for the school. Mueller and Toutain (2015) noted how outward-looking organisations, “distinguish themselves through

Using Agency as Achievement to Conceptualise …

75

their capacity to connect to their environment… and successfully negotiate their position in established or forming networks” (p. 8). The principals in this research similarly showed they kept their vision for improved student learning and wellbeing in view (i.e., a projective orientation to agency) while simultaneously demonstrating their capacity for effective networking and collaboration with school and community stakeholders (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation to agency). At the same time, they actively sought out and created opportunities to lift student aspirations for learning in and beyond school. Examples from participants at SVSS of visits and testimonials from successful past students and community members illustrated these kinds of opportunities. These experiences dually impacted possibilities for elevating parents’ aspirations for their child’s future learning and success. This discussion speaks to the strength of the projective orientation to agency for shaping each principal’s responses, choices, and actions for parent engagement in their different settings and contexts. The idea of advocacy also permeated the findings on school culture and furthers our proposition of the principals’ predominantly projective orientation to agency for parent engagement. Pushor (2018) wrote about staff members in her participatory action research who increasingly became “strong advocates for the place and voice of parents” and who, by their influence and actions, countered deficit discourses about parents and their right to be involved in their child’s school learning (p. 31). Similarly, the example of Rose and her work with the town’s medical centres was included in this chapter to demonstrate the lengths to which all of the principals in this research went to represent and/or speak up for students and/or their parents who seemingly were unable to advocate for themselves. In these instances, it is possible to see how cultural resources built through past positive connections with others and community organisations helped the principals achieve agency for parent engagement by overcoming material (e.g., disadvantaged parents’ limited access to resources) and structural (e.g., traditional roles and relationships between disadvantaged groups and professional organisations) challenges. These opportunities and initiatives conveyed to parents the principals’ genuineness in wanting to engage with them and share responsibility for improving their child’s learning and wellbeing (i.e., they adopted a projective orientation to agency for parent engagement). Throughout the above discussion of the project’s findings in which we use agency as achievement to conceptualise principal leadership for parent engagement, we demonstrate the strength of the principals’ projectivity in aspects of school culture (i.e., schools and communities). A projective or future-focused orientation to agency was evident in strategies such as the school’s stated vision and values, the notion of visibility, practising reciprocity, and student and parent advocacy. The qualities the principals evidenced associated with these strategies appeared to be a capacity for self-knowledge through critical self-reflection on personal and professional experiences, building breadth and depth of knowledge of families, schools, communities, organisations, and businesses, and making purposeful connections, yet simultaneously being innovative and even entrepreneurial. These qualities and strategies provide insight into ways the principals redistributed agency to shift the relationship between parents and their child’s learning and wellbeing further towards engagement on the parent involvement-engagement continuum (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014).

76

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

Conclusions The findings on school culture presented in this chapter endorsed previous research (e.g., Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Pushor, 2018) which highlighted that principals successful in parent engagement recognised the centrality of schools in and to the life and future of their communities. The principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project conveyed this sentiment by acknowledging and celebrating the historical, cultural, and linguistic significance of their communities in messages, signs, displays, spaces, symbols, ceremonies, rituals, practices, and behaviours throughout their schools. These messages not only tapped into the sense of pride students experienced as members of their families and communities (i.e., an iterational orientation), but also generated pride in their histories, cultures, and languages (i.e., a projective orientation). These messages were reinforced through schoolwide programs some of which were collaboratively developed with parents and the community (e.g., WSS’s behaviour plan). Whole-school initiatives also appeared to represent high-impact parent engagement strategies. The principals used these times such as school assemblies when students, parents, school staff, and community members were together as opportunities to publicly acknowledge student learning and achievement across a broad range of academic, behavioural, and social aspects. The number and kind of recognitions reflected a holistic view of students (i.e., a projective orientation to agency). Activities at these assemblies went beyond imparting information to including teaching the audience new knowledge (e.g., RISS’s Word of the Week which built knowledge of local Indigenous Australian language). These kinds of activities spoke to broader education agendas in Australia such as reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and multiculturalism (i.e., a projective orientation) (see Willis & Exley, 2016). These activities appeared to engender a sense of belonging and pride in all of the students but especially Indigenous Australian students, strengthening their connections to language, Country, culture, identity, family, and community. Learning and celebrating success together thus seemed to encourage positive home-school-community relations while simultaneously generated positive energy and solidarity among all involved (see Willis, 2013). These outcomes signal a projective orientation toward agency for parent engagement. The principals showed they looked outward to the broader community and environment without losing sight of knowing that the journey to achieving parent engagement would take time and need careful managing. Despite the ways each principal engendered a positive school culture for parent engagement by creating familial, non-threatening spaces, the lack of a dedicated parent space in three of the four schools (see also Table 3.1—Parents) represented a possible missed opportunity to strengthen engagement. Pushor (2018) wrote about the value of providing a space in the school where parents can meet to talk and share food together. Similarly, Otero (2016) noted these spaces reinforce schools as welcoming and can dually serve as a community hub. The principals in this research were limited by material aspects such as the physical environment—some of which

Conclusions

77

were out of their control. In designing Queensland government schools, for example, including a space for parents has not been general practice. This may have encouraged an iterational (habitual or backward-looking) orientation which limited the principals’ agency for parent engagement. In addition, the implementation of Early Years programs pointed to innovative strategies with the potential to make strong early connections between each of the schools and their families and communities. Their focus on transitioning children smoothly into school highlighted a projective orientation to agency. However, limited material resources (e.g., staff to advertise and teach into these programs and suitable physical spaces) and structural aspects (e.g., traditional roles and relationships) may have contributed to the principals’ alignment to agency that was grounded in the past. These aspects appeared to limit their ability to manoeuvre between agentic orientations thus hindering the possible level of success in parent engagement they achieved.

References Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Heinrichs, J. (2018). School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017. 1406905. Karadag, E., & Oztekin-Bayir, O. (2018). The effect of authentic leadership on school culture: A structural equation model. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(1), 40–75. McDowall, P. S., & Schaughency, E. (2017). Elementary school parent engagement efforts: Relations with educator perceptions and school characteristics. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1103687. Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Mueller, S., & Toutain, O. (2015). The outward looking school and its ecosystem. Dijon, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (LEED Programme) and the European Commission (DG Education and Culture). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/cfe/ leed/Outward-Looking-School-and-Ecosystem.pdf. Otero, G. (2011). Schools and communities working together: Best practice and international trends. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Center for RelationaLearning. Otero, G. (2016). Connecting school, family, and community: The power of positive relationships. Melbourne, Vic: Centre for Strategic Education. Poulton, P. (2020). Teacher agency in curriculum reform: The role of assessment in enabling and constraining primary teachers’ agency. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s41297-020-00100-w.

78

6 Presenting School Culture Findings

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2018). Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 17–37. Retrieved from http://familydiversityedu cation.org/index.php/fdez. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522. Spence, J. (2018). How factors of school leadership, school culture, and teachers’ perceptions influence parental engagement in two Title I urban middle schools: Implications for educational leaders. Electronic Theses & Dissertations Collection for Atlanta University & Clark Atlanta University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cauetds/112/(112). West-Burnham, J., Farrar, M., & Otero, G. (2007). Schools and communities: Working together to transform children’s lives. London: Continuum Press. Williams, H. S. (2018). What is the spirit of Ubuntu—And how can we have it in our lives? Retrieved from https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ubuntu-south-africa-together-nelson-mandela/. Willis, L.-D. (2013). Parent-teacher engagement: A coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Willis, L.-D., & Exley, B. (2016). Language variation and change in the Australian Curriculum English: Integrating sub-strands through a pedagogy of metalogue. English in Australia, 51(2), 74–84. Willis, L.-D., Povey, J., Hodges, J., Carroll, A., Pedde, C., & Campbell, A. (2018). What gives some Principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement? Principal leadership for engaging parents and community in disadvantaged schools: Four case studies. Brisbane, Qld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://issr.uq.edu.au/files/5273/FINAL%20Case%20Stud ies%20Document.pdf.

Chapter 7

Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals the Edge on Parent Engagement?

Abstract In this final chapter, we speak back to the original provocation for the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project—What gives some principals the edge on parent engagement? Our response draws final conclusions, describes contributions, and explores possible implications for practice and research arising from our investigation. We frame our response under three headings: conceptual understanding, knowledge and practice, and methodology. We also highlight what we see as the significance of our findings and suggest possible future research directions. Limitations to our research are included before we offer some final thoughts and hopes for the future. Keywords Conceptual framework · Principal leadership · Parent engagement · Contributions · Implications · Qualities and strategies · Research limitations · Significance

Introduction Throughout this book, we have presented findings of design-based research from the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement (shortened title from Principal Leadership for Parent-School-Community Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools) project which featured four principals of disadvantaged schools in Queensland, Australia, who appeared successful in parent engagement. Data were gathered at each school from interviews with the principal and P&C president, focus groups with students, parents, and teachers, and surveys of parents and teachers. These data were analysed using our adaption of Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum which comprises four coordinated equally-important spheres of influence—students, teachers, curriculum, and milieus—where milieus consist of schools, classrooms, parents, communities, and the additional milieu of digital technologies (see Chap. 3). For ease of analysis, these different commonplaces were discussed under three overarching headings: Key players (students, parents, and teachers); School learning (classrooms, curriculum, and digital technologies); and School culture (schools and communities). These headings were used to present © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 L.-D. Willis et al., Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement in Disadvantaged Schools, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1264-0_7

79

80

7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals …

and discuss the project’s findings in three corresponding chapters (i.e., Chaps. 4–6). Apart from calling on Schwab’s framework as a unique analytic tool, this book also combined Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) chordal triad view of agency—which comprises iterational (past/habitual), projective (future), and practical-evaluative (present) dimensions—and Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) notion of agency as achievement to conceptualise findings from the project described elsewhere (e.g., Willis et al., 2018). This approach to analysis and conceptualisation allowed us to respond deeply to the project’s overarching question—What gives some principals the edge on parent–school–community engagement?—improving our understanding of the qualities and strategies of principals successful in parent engagement and possible limitations in resources—cultural, material, structural (Priestley et al., 2015)—in their environments which hindered their effectiveness. In this chapter, we draw final conclusions about the contributions of the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project to practice and research as well as explore implications for principals, teachers, public policymakers, employers, and higher education stakeholders. Under the headings of conceptual understanding, knowledge and practice, and methodology we discuss: a new framework to describe and explain principal leadership for parent engagement; the value of using the concept of agency as achievement; implications for different stakeholders; the challenge of contradictory mandates; the power of projectivity; qualities and strategies of principals effective in parent engagement; the utility of drawing on Schwab’s (1973) commonplaces as an analytic framework for parent engagement; and using designbased research. We also delineate possible research limitations, describe possible future research directions, and share our final thoughts and hopes.

Conceptual Understanding From a conceptual perspective, the research presented in this book builds on the work of Goodall and Montgomery (2014) who called on Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) triadic view of agency to describe the parent involvement-engagement continuum (see Chap. 2). The inclusion of Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) notion of agency as achievement showed why principals, school leaders, and teachers—seemingly endowed with the capacity to be agential in parent engagement—may fail to realise this capacity in practice. As indicated in the introduction above, Emirbayer and Mische’s triadic conceptualisation of agency together with Biesta and Tedder’s notion of agency as achievement yielded new learnings and insights about principal qualities and strategies for successfully engaging parents. At the same time, these conceptualisations of agency combined with Goodall and Montgomery’s involvement-engagement continuum deepened understanding about what helped or hindered each principal successfully achieve parent engagement (i.e., they appeared to close the gap in the relationship between parents and their child’s learning) in the particular context of their disadvantaged school. This conceptual contribution of our research is significant for offering a new framework to describe and explain the

Conceptual Understanding

81

leadership of principals (and others such as teachers) for parent engagement in future similar studies. At the same time, the framework affords increased possibilities for recognising and addressing possible barriers to parent engagement across different schools—educationally advantaged and disadvantaged—in a range of sectors and jurisdictions. Each of the four principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project and the disadvantaged communities they served was unique. Yet, their leadership approaches to parent engagement highlighted commonalities that implicate the importance of early and ongoing professional learning in parent engagement. Each principal drew on their knowledge and understanding of parent engagement from their different professional experiences as teachers and school leaders during their careers as well as their personal experiences as parents and active citizens in their communities. In orienting their agency toward wanting the best possible outcomes for students and their families (i.e., a projective orientation), their range of past different experiences afforded them considerable manoeuvrability between repertoires as they made decisions to benefit student learning and wellbeing (i.e., a practical-evaluative orientation). An implication arising from this finding is that teachers—who ultimately go on to become principals—would benefit from learning about parent engagement from the earliest possible opportunity namely, when they commence their initial teacher education (ITE) preparation. Moreover, we suggest this knowledge and understanding should be continually developed throughout their ITE program and ultimately form a professional learning career focus. To achieve this continual development we advocate embedding parent engagement in ITE programs (see Willis [2018] for an example). This would ensure preservice teachers were afforded opportunities to: first, understand what parent engagement is and why it is important; and second, gain knowledge and experience of the kinds of qualities needed and strategies considered effective for parent engagement. Strengthening parent engagement in ITE programs would benefit from a systematic—not add-on—approach (Pushor & Amendt, 2018). This could include dedicated courses in parent engagement or at least coordinating how the topic of parent engagement is taught within and across subjects (to not only avoid repetition, but also build knowledge of parent engagement in a cumulative fashion that deepens and expands preservice teacher understanding and practice). This could also include ensuring preservice teachers experience a range of different professional experience placements—including in rural and remote schools—and opportunities in other courses to visit schools noted for high levels of parent engagement. Planned opportunities such as these which are scheduled early and supported throughout ITE programs would increase the potential manoeuvrability of preservice teachers in terms of their choices and actions for parent engagement throughout their careers. The research findings in this book also described various critical past experiences and events or episodes which shaped each principal’s understanding of parent engagement. The principals appeared to benefit particularly from opportunities where they were immersed in small-town communities. These findings can inform education sector employers seeking to improve parent engagement in schools—especially those serving disadvantaged communities with high proportions of at-risk families—about the potential

82

7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals …

suitability of prospective principals for leading change, innovation, and renewal in parent–school–community engagement in different settings and contexts. Biesta and Tedder (2007) found the achievement of agency was linked to the extent to which individuals are in control of their responses. Throughout the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project, we observed that when the principals were freer to exert control over their choices and actions for parent engagement they seemed most agential. When their choices and actions were mediated by external and internal factors however, their ability to achieve agency weakened. These factors included mechanisms of accountability which have contributed to a culture of performance in education internationally and in Australia (see Chap. 5). Among the issues Biesta (2015) described for the development of a performance culture worldwide (e.g., in European countries) was the tendency of policymakers and researchers to claim that teachers were the most important “factor” in the educational process on the one hand, yet only see them as a “factor” for increasing the “performance” of educational systems on the other (p. 75). According to Biesta, this view stresses the necessity of this “factor” (i.e., the teacher) working in the most effective and efficient ways possible (p. 75). Biesta declared the problem with this so-called what works agenda is “the fact” that teachers are not “factors” but human beings who, as educational professionals, “should have scope for judgement and discretion”— another fact he insisted was “all too often forgotten” (p. 75). Similarly in Australia, an education environment associated with standardised curriculum delivery and national testing has impacted principals who are expected to lead such mandated reforms and concomitantly classroom teachers who are expected to implement these reforms. The principals in our project perceived these consequences of education reform limited their ability to exercise their agency for parent engagement. Moreover, performativity associated with this educational environment emerged as a possible threat not only to parent engagement, but also to traditional parent involvement strategies such as volunteering to help with literacy and numeracy activities in classrooms. These findings are particularly concerning given the significantly greater challenges associated with access to cultural, material, and structural resources for supporting parent engagement in disadvantaged schools. As noted above, the strength of our contribution to the field of parent engagement is to offer a new conceptual framework. This framework facilitates thinking beyond current mandates for accountability and navigating the contradictions and tensions these may have created for principals and teachers. Using the Schwabian (1973) notion of commonplaces to focus on the dimensions/milieus integral to parent engagement (especially the category of key players which includes the dimensions/milieus of students, teachers, and parents), school leaders and educators are invited to use their own knowledge and understanding of their specific context and setting (e.g., knowledge of parents and communities, school location, students’ socioeconomic backgrounds) to decide on and prioritise what will work for their parents. Rather than just providing specific parent-school-community engagement strategies (i.e., a what works approach), our contribution provides multiple lenses for thinking about and enabling parent engagement combined with an integrated view of

Conceptual Understanding

83

agency which affords a means for examining the effectiveness of parent engagement initiatives and accomplishments. In speaking about teacher agency, Priestley et al. (2015) highlighted the importance for teachers not to acquiesce in favour of performativity. Similarly, the immense value to student learning and wellbeing of engaged parents (see Chap. 1) means principals and teachers should neither give into agendas of performativity nor give up on quests to improve parent engagement. Instead, the situation calls for principals to build their capacity, resources, and opportunities and those of teachers to learn about parent engagement. Heck et al. (2019) wrote about the value of educators working together in dialogic spaces to reflect on their professional identities and how their orientations—past, future, present—to agency impact their practice. Used in conjunction with our conceptual framework, this relational approach offers a possible pedagogical vehicle for principals to encourage professional collaboration among their staff to successfully navigate the challenges and complexities of current education reforms and the nuances and particularities of their individual settings and contexts (see also Willis et al., 2018). Simultaneously, this professional learning approach offers principals a way to lead positive change in order to reap the promised benefits of parent engagement. What is perhaps most striking about the principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project was the strength of their projective orientation to agency in helping them achieve parent engagement success. This finding is insightful since it counters discourses that frequently represent disadvantaged schools “as populated by teachers and students with little investment in learning and teaching” (Scanlon, 2015, p. 1). Far from being divested of interest, each principal exhibited a deep knowledge of educational thinking and critical engagement with educational purposes. Simply put, students and their learning and wellbeing were at the heart of their work. A projective orientation to agency appeared to drive them forward and sustained their momentum over time when engaging with parents and communities. This orientation explained their commitment to the key players (students, parents, and teachers) in parent engagement, and capacity to build cultural, material, and structural resources to meaningfully connect with them. It also explained their propensity for innovative thinking and for imagining and reimagining strategies to enhance engagement. Each principal appeared to internalise the idea of, “You act into being” (Rose, SVSS, Principal Interview). Implicit in this idea is the recognition that, “the agency of today is the something of the future” (Priestley et al., 2015, p. 25). A projective orientation to agency expanded each principal’s manoeuvrability between repertoires to influence their choices and actions for leading parent engagement while simultaneously helping them mitigate the impact of traditional barriers which can stymie outward-looking dispositions and approaches (i.e., an iterational orientation). These findings were significant for highlighting the qualities the principals exhibited which appeared to help them effectively engage parents. These included the capacity for self-reflection, self-knowledge, empathy, intentionality, sustained commitment, optimism, and innovation of each principal for improving educational outcomes for students and society more broadly. Identifying these and similar capacities highlighted in this book can

84

7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals …

inform other principals and school leaders, public policymakers, employers in education, and higher education providers about qualities of leadership likely to be effective for parent engagement.

Knowledge and Practice From the perspective of knowledge and practice, the findings from the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project begin to fill an identified need in the international literature for more studies in this field of education (Griffith, 2001; Pushor, 2018b). Concrete examples of principals successful in parent engagement are rare. Even rarer are examples of what successful principals actually say and do. In addition, this research showed there is no one parent engagement strategy, but rather effective parent engagement requires principals to develop a suite of strategies that they use in concert to achieve positive outcomes for all involved. Such strategies include those previously revealed in the literature namely: communicating a strong school vision; developing trusting, respectful relationships; and establishing a positive parent engagement school culture (see Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Heinrichs, 2018; Mleczko & Kington, 2013; Pushor, 2018b) (see Chap. 2). In this project, we found the principals also used strategies that included building agency among key players in schools (e.g., students, parents, and teachers) and communities (e.g., Indigenous Elders). They did this by adopting strengths-based approaches; emphasising new roles which minimise traditional power relations; and providing resources to support knowledge, understanding, and practice of parent engagement. At the same time, they used strategies that: encouraged cultural acceptance, valued and celebrated diversity, and engendered hope and pride. Importantly, they modelled ways to engage parents. These different strategies invite principals and teachers to consider what might be possible to implement in their particular schools and contexts. Whatever strategies are used, the clear, consistent message needs to be: parent engagement is integral and essential for a child’s learning and wellbeing at school and lifelong success. Given the number and range of possible effective strategies, principals would benefit from opportunities such as professional learning days, forums, and/or mini-conferences organised by education departments and online learning sites and communities (e.g., blogs, closed social media channels) to share and learn about what others are doing in their schools and communities. Opportunities that enable ongoing dialogic exchange (see Heck et al., 2019; Willis et al., 2018) among principals and other school leaders would seem particularly worthwhile given the different contexts in which they operate and the pace of change in schools. The four principals in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project faced new challenges and old barriers to parent engagement which highlighted issues related to cultural, material, and structural resources. These hindered the possible agency they achieved. Building positive relationships helped the principals mediate many cultural and social aspects associated with differences in values and beliefs between schools/teachers and parents. However, structural aspects such

Knowledge and Practice

85

as power differentials associated with traditional roles and responsibilities between schools/teachers and parents posed continued threats to engagement. The unavailability of material resources also impeded effective engagement. For teachers, more professional learning opportunities, and for parents, the provision of explicit information, increased access to resources such as digital devices, and a dedicated space to meet on campus to support their engagement were revealed as areas for possible improvement. Principals and schools could address these aspects by, for example, regularly making findings from research available to teachers and parents, allowing parents to borrow digital equipment (e.g., laptops), and using school space creatively to provide appropriate areas for parents to meet, socialise, and learn together. Our use of Goodall and Montgomery’s (2014) idea of a continuum from involvement to engagement proved valuable in the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project because this idea reflected the reality of the principals’ work. Each could be described as being at different points along the continuum depending on the activity or strategy in focus. The idea of seeing parent involvement on a continuum with engagement is useful since one can lead to the other (see Sect. “Introduction”). The notion of a continuum was therefore helpful for seeing parent engagement as a non-linear, cumulative process that describes many possible journeys rather than a lock-step approach. This understanding is encouraging for principals who may be able to achieve agency for parent engagement in one area and not others. Such an understanding may also be useful to those providing professional learning in parent engagement to principals and teachers in determining where to start or how best to encourage closer relationships between parents and their child’s learning and wellbeing. Principals would benefit from more examples from their colleagues of how they transformed traditional parent involvement activities into engagement activities.

Methodology From a methodological perspective, drawing on Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces in the planning of curriculum as an analytic framework throughout the project invited investigation of principal leadership for parent engagement across traditional dimensions (e.g., students [learners], teachers, curriculum [subject matter]) and often overlooked or emerging milieus (contexts) (e.g., schools, classrooms, parents, communities, digital technologies [virtual classrooms]) where children learn. Hence, our research included a range of participant perspectives (e.g., students, parents, teachers, community members) and considered multiple different settings and contexts (e.g., schools, homes, classrooms, communities). The use of Schwab’s commonplaces illuminated aspects of principal leadership for parent engagement that otherwise might be overlooked. These included areas that feature minimally in the current international literature such as the notion of student agency; schools increasing parent agency by offering avenues to support their personal development; and parents playing different roles such as co-planners of curriculum. These areas

86

7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals …

represent possible missed opportunities to encourage parent engagement and hence, invite further research to provide practical examples. Our Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement project highlighted the value of using design-based research (DBR) (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Bell, 2004; Brown, 1992) in selecting the schools and principals. DBR was also useful in the selection of appropriate research methods. The use of a mixed methods approach in this particular phase of the project, for example, proved valuable as information that may have been concealed in one data set was revealed in the other. This approach ensured a richer view of the nature and complexity of factors involved in the principals’ leadership of parent engagement. A DBR approach has also directed the next phase (phase two) of the project in which principal leadership for parent engagement is being investigated in eight more schools (i.e., n = 12) (see Department of Education, 2017). These include advantaged as well as disadvantaged schools. The findings will be used to develop an online Parent Engagement Toolkit (PET) to house ideas in written, audio, video, and other forms for trial by Queensland state schools not previously involved in our research. Following the trial, the PET will be adjusted if necessary before its release for use by all schools.

Limitations There were some limitations to the Principal Leadership for Parent Engagement study. The project was conducted in Queensland, Australia, consequently, the schools and communities described (e.g., locations, number of students, ICSEA scores) are unique. Each school was government-run and catered for primary-aged students (approximately five to 11 years) hence, data were not collected for other school sectors or secondary schools. Generalisability of the findings of principal leadership for parent engagement will thus depend on the extent to which readers recognise possibilities for transfer to their particular contexts and jurisdictions. Although our research generated considerable data, data collection was limited to four schools. The findings also relied on data from a sample of participants at each school and hence, there was the possibility for data bias in favour of each principal’s approach to parent engagement. Possible bias however, was mitigated as much as possible by the: research team’s immersion during data gathering at each site over two to four days; extensive collection of observational data; inclusion of a range of different participants; use of numerous different qualitative data collection methods; collection of quantitative data through parent and teacher surveys; random selection of parent participants to complete the surveys; and development of richly-detailed, contextualised findings. Despite a small response rate on some aspects of data collection (e.g., number of participants at DCSS who completed the surveys), the range and extent of data collection made it possible for information to be corroborated across the data sets and gained importance in the patterns that emerged during data analysis. Some omissions in data collection also represented possible limitations. These included the unavailability of quantitative data on virtual classrooms as the need to include

Limitations

87

this topic as a commonplace emerged during the research. Hence, the topic did not comprise part of the original survey instruments. This affected our full exploration of the topic of digital technologies including the impact of the so-called digital divide which has created new forms of inequalities for students and families through lack of access to physical and material resources (see van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). These inequalities are likely to be exacerbated in disadvantaged schools. Although beyond the scope of this project, the findings of this research signal that the use of digital technologies to engage parents in their child’s learning and wellbeing is ripe for future investigation. The research team also focused on the principal rather than school leadership teams. This may have limited data analysis by not affording a more nuanced view of the school structures and collaborative strategies from which each principal benefited and the networks of support they each enjoyed.

Final Thoughts Our research to investigate principal leadership for parent engagement continues in various forms. We expect our development in knowledge and appreciation of how Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) chordal triad view of agency, Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) ecological perspective, and drawing on Schwab’s (1973) notion of commonplaces can inform practice and research will similarly continue. Our hope with this book is that we may have deepened understanding and strengthened commitment among principals, school leaders, teachers, and others who shape educational practice and research for achieving agency to realise the manifold benefits parent engagement promises. In opening up possibilities for concrete positive change, our further hope is that we may have brought Pushor’s (2018a) so-called “gentle revolution” a little closer. Gentle, because, as we have shown, parent engagement does not necessarily require a radical overthrow of traditional parent involvement approaches and practices (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Rather, the revolution needed calls upon principals and teachers to look to the commonplaces to imagine and reimagine ways to improve the relationship between parents and their child’s learning and wellbeing as central to the success of students at school and beyond.

References Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). “It all comes down to the leadership”: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.

88

7 Responding to the Provocation: What Gives Some Principals …

Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ejed.12109. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/026 60830.2007.11661545. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. Department of Education. (2017). Education horizon research grant scheme: Approved proposals 2017. Retrieved from https://education.qld.gov.au/about/Documents/eh-approved-2017.pdf. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership for parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 162–186. Heck, D., Grimmett, H., & Willis, L.-D. (2019). Teacher educators using cogenerative dialogue to reclaim professionalism. In A. Gutierrez, J. Fox, & C. Alexander (Eds.), Professionalism and teacher education: Voices from policy and practice (pp. 137–156). Springer Nature: Singapore. Heinrichs, J. (2018). School leadership based in a philosophy and pedagogy of parent engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017. 1406905. Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Pushor, D. (2018a). How parents can revolutionise education and boost results. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/how-parents-could-revolutionize-education-and-boostresults-99502. Pushor, D. (2018b). Using participatory action research to create systematic parent engagement. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 17–37. Retrieved from http://familydiversityedu cation.org/index.php/fdez. Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018. 1439466. Scanlon, L. (2015). My School: Listening to parents, teachers and students from a disadvantaged educational setting. New York, NY: Routledge. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501– 522. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media and Society, 21(2), 354–375. Willis, L.-D. (2018). Creating new spaces for preservice teacher engagement: A parent-teacher coteaching project in Australia. In Y. Guo (Ed.), Home-school relations: International perspectives (pp. 207–225). Singapore: Springer. Willis, L.-D., Grimmett, H., & Heck, D. (2018). Exploring cogenerativity in initial teacher education school-university partnerships using the methodology of metalogue. In J. Kriewaldt, A. Ambrosetti, D. Rorrison, & R. Capeness (Eds.), Educating teachers: Innovative perspectives in professional experience (pp. 49–69). Singapore: Springer Nature. https://link.springer.com/book/ 10.1007/978-981-10-5484-6. Willis, L.-D., Povey, J., Hodges, J., Carroll, A., Pedde, C., & Campbell, A. (2018). What gives some Principals the edge on parent-school-community engagement? Principal leadership for engaging parents and community in disadvantaged schools: Four case studies. Brisbane, Qld: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://issr.uq.edu.au/files/5273/FINAL%20Case%20Stud ies%20Document.pdf.