Parent-Teacher Partnerships:

A Theoretical Approach for Teachers

Carol R. Keyes

Abstract It’s a dance, a dance between teacher and student and parent and
child and parent and teacher and so on. Knowing when to respond
Noting the importance of the parent-
and when to let go and let them find out on their own is a dance, a
teacher relationship to maintaining
good home-school partnerships, this
subtle communication of letting each other know what our needs
paper discusses the research on par- are and how we can help each other. Interview, teacher (Henry,
ent-teacher partnerships, including fac- 1996, p. 182)
tors that affect the development of ef-
fective relationships: (1) the degree of While the value of the home/school partnership is universally accepted, it
match between teachers’ and parents’ is not always easy to promote or maintain.1 As we have moved from
cultures and values, (2) societal forces small communities with intimate connections to a very diverse mobile
at work on family and school, and (3) culture, the increasing complexity of relationships, roles, and functions
how teachers and parents view their has often complicated the collaborations. This paper focuses on teachers’
roles. The paper then presents a theo- responsibilities in the parent-teacher partnership, and although the
retical framework that teachers can use
partnership needs to be a two-way dynamic to work, “teachers are really
to enhance parent-teacher partnerships.
This framework is based on Bronfen- the glue that holds the home/school partnerships together” (Patrikakou &
brenner’s ecological systems perspec- Weissberg, 1999, p. 36).
tive, Getzels’ social systems perspec-
tive, Katz’s and Hoover and Dempsey’s The paper is organized into two parts. In the first part is a review of the
work on the role of parents, and literature related to parent-teacher partnerships. In the second part, I
Epstein’s typology of parental involve- propose a theoretical framework through which teachers can enhance
ment. parent-teacher partnerships.

Parent-Teacher Relationships

Most teachers think about having a good relationship with parents.

However, just as images of teaching and learning environments vary, so
do images of “good” parent-teacher relationships. At one end of the
spectrum, the image of a good relationship is an effective separation of
roles and functions between home and school, an optimal social distance
combined with mutual respect. The family meets the school’s expecta-
tions efficiently, and the school effectively educates the child without
undue demands on the home (Henry, 1996; Epstein, 1995; Powell, 1989;
Lortie, 1975). At the other end of the spectrum is the image of the school
functioning as an extended family, a more open system. Family and
school intersect around the life of the child (Powell, 1989; Galinsky, 1977;
Taylor, 1968).

107
108 Carol R. Keyes

As teachers think about their work with parents and present challenges to developing effective partner-
families, they often have mixed feelings. There are ships (Burke, 1999; Langdon & Novak, 1998; Henry,
good feelings of shared efforts and mutually valued 1996).
achievement with some parents; while with others,
there is a sense of frustration, helplessness, or even Teachers’ own backgrounds are a key factor in how
anger over conflicting perceptions and understand- they relate to parents (Sturm, 1997; Solity, 1995). A
ings. The degree of success that teachers have in classroom teacher’s experience highlights the influ-
developing a partnership with parents depends heavily ence of background and the challenges to re-creating
on the “fit” between parental cares and concerns and a bridge. Participating in a teacher group discussion
those of the teacher. Unlike many other kinds of of intercultural communication, a teacher wrote (as if
relationships in people’s lives, the parent-teacher realizing it for the first time):
pairing occurs by assignment rather than choice. The
common interest is the schooling of a child. What all Culture means more than holidays and food; it
good parent-teacher relationships have in common is includes all of the subtle patterns of communica-
the “absence of conflict.” Optimally this absence of tion, verbal and nonverbal, that people use every
conflict is due to a presence of mutual trust and day. I noticed how easily I valued cultural diver-
respect; less optimally, it is due to the absence of caring. sity in the abstract or in the form of occasional
holidays yet how readily I rejected cultural
differences when they appeared in the form of
Factors That Affect the Development parents’ different approaches to child rearing.
of Effective Relationships (Sturm, 1997, p. 34)

There are a number of factors that affect a teacher’s She went on to write about the group’s reflection:
ability to develop a smooth parent-teacher partner-
ship. Some of these factors pose problems, and the We realized that unexamined values, beliefs, and
challenge is how to develop an effective working patterns of interaction learned when we were
relationship in spite of the problems that may be children exert a powerful influence on our
present. The factors include (1) the degree of match communication and care giving routines. Our
between teachers’ and parents’ cultures and values, sincere intentions didn’t prevent us from
(2) societal forces at work on family and school, and rejecting parents’ diverse values when they
(3) how teachers and parents view their roles. challenged our own cherished beliefs. We were
often unable to set aside our own cultural values
long enough to listen to parents. (Sturm, 1997, p.
The Degree of Match between Teachers’ and 35)
Parents’ Cultures and Values
From the parents’ perspective, some of the factors
In today’s mobile world, it is less likely that parents that influence a degree of openness include (1)
and teachers will hold beliefs and values that are cultural beliefs related to the authoritative position of
closely matched compared to previous generations. In teachers that prevent parents from expressing their
earlier times, teachers lived in the communities with concerns, (2) a lack of education that may cause
families, and there was a “natural bridge” between parents to be intimidated in interactions with teachers,
family and school (Hymes, 1974). Now parents and (3) language differences that may result in parents
teachers share the community less frequently; feeling uncomfortable if no one speaks their language,
teachers do not have the same sense of belonging to and (4) different socioeconomic levels that may result
the community that they did when they lived in the in child-rearing practices and values that conflict with
same town. Teachers often come from a socioeco- those of the teachers (Keyes, 1995; Greenberg, 1989).
nomic class, race, or ethnic group that is different
from the children they teach. Differences in these If there is a consistent match between teacher and
realms are associated with different interactional family cultures and values, the probabilities are
styles and language systems, as well as values, and greater for developing effective professional skills in
Parent-Teacher Partnerships 109

working with parents over time. In contrast, the floors to scrub, hair that must be washed, and
greater the discontinuities, the more effort that is often have tired feet and aching backs…. You
needed to promote a partnership (Lightfoot, 1978). have to avoid the error of seeing life only from
the school’s side as if homes simply flowed along
smoothly with no problems of their own. The
Societal Forces at Work on Families closer you move to parents the more realistic
and Schools your expectations become…. Each family has
their private story of how it lives its present days.
The breadth of changes in society is well docu- (Hymes, 1974, pp. 5, 17)
mented. Among these changes are the increasing
reliance on technology, the changing nature of work, a Twenty-nine years later, the responsibilities and time
more diverse population, and a more service-oriented demands are still present:
society. For the purpose of this paper, the concern is
how such forces affect schools and families. As we But whether parents can perform effectively in
their child-rearing roles within the family depends
think about building bridges to support parent-teacher
on role demand, stresses, and supports emanat-
partnerships, it is critical to keep these forces in mind.
ing from other settings. As we shall see, parents’
evaluations of their own capacity to function, as
In addition to what was at one time the “traditional”
well as their view of their child, are related to
two-parent family, we now have two-parent working such external factors as flexibility of job sched-
families, single-parent families, adoptive families, and ules, adequacy of child care arrangements, the
remarried or blended families, to cite just a few of the presence of friends or neighbors who can help
new family constellations. Family roles have also out in large and small emergencies, the quality of
become more flexible and fluid. Mothers may func- health, social services, and neighborhood safety.
tion in what was once the traditional role of fathers, (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 7)
fathers may function as homemakers, and children
may perform some parental functions for siblings. Both parents and teachers experience job stress. For
Thus, the school does not necessarily have access to parents, the number of hours they work, the amount
a consistent adult to speak for the family. Sometimes of job autonomy and job demands, and relationships
it’s one parent; other times it’s a different parent from with supervisors affect their other relationships. For
a blended family; and at still other times, it may be a teachers, the job stress also is affected by the number
sister, brother, or aunt—making effective communica- of hours worked, schedules, amount of autonomy, role
tion a real challenge. ambiguity, physical demands of the job, and clarity of
the program (Galinsky, 1988). Teaching is physically
As far back as 1950, it was understood that parents and emotionally exhausting, and reaching out to
and teachers had multiple responsibilities and pressing parents is sometimes viewed as one more burden-
time demands: some task. So, in fact, both parties to the relationship
are buffeted by strains and tensions in their worlds.
As we work with parents, it is especially impor-
tant that we not forget the complexities of family
life. When we see a tired youngster coming to How Teachers and Parents View Their Roles
school, we may want to shake the parents and
make them read a good article about children’s More than half a century ago, Willard Waller
need for sleep. It is easy to forget—or maybe we (1932) observed that parents and teachers are
never knew—that at home three children sleep in “natural enemies.” The basis of his argument was
one bed while mother and father sleep in the that parents and teachers maintain qualitatively
same room with them. We put pressure on different relationships with the same child,
parents to come to school meetings as if these especially in regard to affective bonds and
were the only true important events of the day. spheres of responsibility and as a consequence
But parents, even very good parents who care want different things for the child. (Powell, 1989,
deeply for their children, have shopping to do, p. 20)
110 Carol R. Keyes

In the past 50 years, however, there have been public some of the parameters of the role enactment
changes in how schools and families have viewed patterns. The second challenge is to figure out how to
each other. Because of a developing awareness of use those parameters as a bridge to effective parent-
the importance of the bridge between home and teacher partnerships. Therefore, it is essential to look
school, schools have reached out to families and at some of the forces that influence how the roles are
families have pressed to be heard in schools. enacted.

Educators have described and defined the differences

in the roles and spheres of responsibility of teachers Parents’ Role Construction
and parents (Katz, 1984; Getzels, 1974). Figure 1
depicts the framework developed by Katz (1984). How parents view their role in relation to school also
affects parent-teacher relationships. Parents’ role
Figure 1 describes the distinctions in parent and construction may be described as parent focused,
teacher roles. In Katz’s model, the teacher’s role is school focused, and/or partnership focused. In the
specific to schooling, while the parent’s is universal in parent-focused construct, parents consider that they
all aspects of the child’s life. Teachers are responsible have primary responsibility for their children’s
for all the children for a specific period confined to educational outcome. In the school-focused construct,
the school setting, and therefore the teacher’s role is parents feel the school is primarily responsible for the
more objective, detached, and rational, using insights, children’s educational outcome, and in the partner-
techniques, and abilities to support each child. The ship-focused construct, parents believe that teacher
teacher’s role is shaped by professional knowledge and parent working together are responsible (Reed,
about “all children.” Parental relationships, on the Jones, Walker, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2000). It seems
other hand, are shaped by their own child for whom apparent that how parents interact will vary based
they are responsible 24 hours a day and are likely to upon the construct the parent holds.
demonstrate intense partiality, attachment, and even
irrationality in their interactions about their own child
Teachers’ Role Construction
(Katz, 1984). Given the difference in roles, it is critical
to look for the meeting points as partnerships are Teachers’ role construction has developed primarily
developed. outside the formal education arena and is less clearly
documented in the literature but is evident in the field.
Influences on How the Parent and Teachers may view their role as parent focused,
Teacher Roles Are Enacted school focused, and/or partnership focused. The
parent-focused view evolved out of the parent-
Confusion results when teacher and parent roles cooperative movement. In that movement, teachers
become ambiguous. The first challenge is to make and parents worked side by side, empowering parents

Role Dimension Parenting Teaching

1. Scope of function Diffuse and limitless Specific and limited
2. Intensity of affect High Low
3. Attachment Optimum attachment Optimum detachment
4. Rationality Optimum irrationality Optimum rationality
5. Spontaneity Optimum spontaneity Optimum intentionality
6. Partiality Partial Impartial
7. Scope of responsibility Individual Whole group

Figure 1. Distinctions between parenting and teaching in their central tendencies on seven role dimensions (Katz,
1984).
Parent-Teacher Partnerships 111

and giving parents teaching roles. This view is most challenge for the relationship (Keyes, 1979; Lortie,
prevalent in early childhood programs. The school- 1975). For many apparently uninvolved parents, their
focused role reflects teachers who believe in an school experience was not positive, and they may
effective separation of roles and functions between now feel inadequate in the school setting (Brown,
home and school. This view is more typical in el- 1989).
ementary schools and intensifies the older the child
gets. The partnership-focus perspective, where family From the teachers’ perspectives, some feel unappre-
and school work cooperatively, is a more recent ciated by parents. They say that parents don’t come
construct, evolving as the literature began to point to to conferences or meetings, don’t read the material
the significant benefits that accrue to children, they send home, and won’t volunteer for school
parents, and teachers as a result of the partnership. activities. Some teachers feel that parents seem to
As with parents, how the teachers interact will vary lack interest in what’s going on with their children.
based upon the beliefs the teachers hold. Others describe parents as adversarial or apathetic,
always a challenge (Galinsky, 1990; Hulsebosch &
Logan, 1998; Langdon & Novak, 1998; Greenberg,
Teachers’ and Parents’ Efficacy Beliefs 1989). In both teachers’ and parents’ cases, we do
not know whether their lack of a sense of efficacy
In addition to how they construct their own under- occurs because they have an adversarial point of
standing of role, teachers’ and parents’ sense of view or they lack skills, or because there is a cultural
efficacy also influences what type of interactions they division.
are likely to have (Reed, Jones, Walker, & Hoover-
Dempsey, 2000). Research has shown us that
teachers and parents with high efficacy levels are Teachers’ and Parents’ Expectations
more likely to succeed in parent-teacher relationships
(Garcia, 2000; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). On the Different expectations on the part of both teachers
one hand, teachers and parents who have had and parents may also affect the parent-teacher
successful interactions with each other, observed or partnership. Often teachers and parents place
heard about others’ successes, and/or felt that efforts different emphases on factors central to developing
were worthwhile are more likely to have that personal confidence in their relationship. For example, parents
sense of efficacy (Garcia, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey & may emphasize teachers’ knowledge and skills. They
Sandler, 1995, 1997). On the other hand, teachers and want teachers to know and care about teaching,
parents may have “leftover anxieties” (Taylor, 1968, about their children, and about communicating with
p. 272) from earlier experiences with schools that them. Teachers have more confidence in parents who
influence how effective they are likely to feel. have similar ideas about teaching issues, and child-
Rebuilding the bridge for effective parent-teacher rearing practices, and who freely share important
relationships may require different supports for those things about their children (Powell, 1998; Rich, 1998).
individuals.
Teachers’ and Parents’ Personal Attributes
From the parents’ perspective, most have little choice
in choosing a school. Many feel powerless to influ- Closely related to roles and efficacy are personal
ence schools and are threatened by the authority of attributes. According to the research, several charac-
the school. Some feel that running the schools should teristics appear to positively influence parent-teacher
be “left up to the experts” (Greenwood & Hickman, partnerships. The relationships are enhanced when
1991; Greenberg, 1989). Some resist or are reluctant teachers’ personal attributes include warmth, open-
to participate because they worry about their family’s ness, sensitivity, flexibility, reliability, and accessibility
privacy. Others find the school climate or school (Swick, 1992; Comer & Haynes, 1991). The partner-
bureaucracy hard to deal with (Henry, 1996; Comer ships are positively influenced when parents’ personal
& Haynes, 1991). The lack of clarity about what to attributes include warmth, sensitivity, nurturance, the
expect at meetings and conferences also poses a ability to listen, consistency, a positive self-image,
112 Carol R. Keyes

personal confidence, and effective interpersonal skills technology, workplace characteristics, and changing
(Swick, 1992). While neither teachers nor parents family structures; and (3) influences on teachers’ and
may have all these positive personal attributes, parents’ enactment of their roles including how they
teachers, who are armed with this knowledge, may be construct their roles, their sense of efficacy, their
more effective at bridging. expectations and personal attributes, and their com-
munication styles.
Teacher and Parent Communication
Moving Toward a Theoretical
One of the categories of parent involvement identified Framework
by Epstein (1995) is communication. This communi-
cation includes teacher invitations, first meetings with
In this portion of the paper, I have created a theoreti-
parents, conferences, and adapting communication to
cal model that attempts to unite much of the literature
meet the diverse needs of parents. Two aspects of
reviewed above. I will use two different frameworks
communication, first meetings and teacher invitations,
in presenting this model. The first is the ecological
have significance because they influence how roles
systems perspective, and the second comes from the
will be enacted as partnerships develop. First meet-
social system perspective.
ings with parents, often the first personal connection
that is made, set the tone for the subsequent relation-
ship, making it critical to be aware of issues of Ecological Systems Perspective
cultural styles in conversation, space, and eye con-
tact. Research suggests that the teachers’ invitations “The ecology of human development involves the
to parents are also a critical factor in promoting more scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommo-
extensive parent involvement. dation between an active growing human being and
the changing properties of the immediate settings in
which the developing person lives, as this process is
Literature Review Summary affected by relations between these settings and by
the larger contexts in which the settings are embed-
The research described above tells us that effective ded” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21). The ecological
parent-teacher relations are founded on (1) the environment, according to this theory, consists of a set
understanding of the unique elements of the parents’ of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of
and teachers’ roles and how they complement each Russian dolls. At the innermost level is the immediate
other and (2) subsequent modifications of their roles setting containing the developing person. This
growing out of negotiations that reflect the unique microsystem concerns relations between the person
needs of both parent and teacher. In effective and his or her immediate environment. The next
partnerships, parents and teachers educate each other circle, the mesosystem, represents the relation
during open two-way communication. Each point of between the settings in which the developing person
view enlightens the other. “Mutually responsive participates (e.g., work and home, home and school).
relationships seem more likely to flourish if such The third level, the exosystem, refers to one or more
programs focus more on the interconnectedness of settings that affect the person but do not contain the
parents and teachers through their mutual commit- person (e.g., workplace or church). The final level,
ment to children and on exploring ways to enhance the macrosystem, refers to values, laws, and customs
and celebrate this connectedness” (Sumsion, 1999). of the culture that influence all the lower orders (see
Figure 2). Within this theoretical structure, there is
If these effective partnerships are to develop, the interconnectedness both within and between the
literature also tells us to be cognizant of the factors settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 8).
described earlier and recognize (1) the diversity in
teachers’ and parents’ cultures and values including In Figure 3, I present the first part of my model by
their backgrounds, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic integrating the research on parent-teacher roles into
class, and educational level; (2) forces such as the Bronfenbrenner model. The box to the left
Parent-Teacher Partnerships 113

The second aspect of the model considers the

significance of the child (Figure 4). The parent-
teacher pairing occurs by assignment. Their common
interest is the child. Though the child only appears in
Microsystem this figure within this proposed model, the child is a
Mesosystem variable that is pervasive. How parent and teacher
Exosystem come together over their common interest in that child
Macrosystem
is influenced not only by the mitigating personal and
social factors mentioned in Figure 2 but also by how
they each interact with the child, and their feelings
Figure 2. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model.
with regard to that child. Recall that in the role
description the parent focuses on her child, and the
represents all of the qualities of the teacher that have teacher must view the child as an individual but also
developed in the microsystem. The box to the right part of the class (Sumsion, 1999).
represents all of the qualities of the parent that have
developed in the microsystem. The inner-most circle,
the microsystem, represents the teacher-as-person or Social System Perspective
parent-as-person with all the factors described
earlier—culture, values, role understanding, sense of The third aspect of my model utilizes Getzels’ social
efficacy, personality characteristics, expectations, system perspective (Getzels, 1978). Just as the
communication skills, knowledge of the child or ecological perspective helps remind us of the com-
children—that have developed from their experiences plexity of the individuals, in this case the teacher and

Culture and values Culture and values

Role understanding Role understanding
Sense of efficacy Sense of efficacy
Personality characteristics Personality characteristics
Expectations Expectations
Communication skills Communication skills
Knowledge of children Knowledge of the child
Professional knowledge
and skills

Figure 3. Ecology of the teacher and ecology of the parent.

including the present challenges to building and

bridging the partnership above. The next circle
represents the mesosytem where the adults interact
within the school bringing what they have experi-
enced with them. The two outer circles, exosystem child
The teacher The parent
and macrosystem, represent the societal influences of child
the more distant environments and contexts including
workplaces, laws, and customs. This adaptation of
Bronfenbrenner’s model helps us to see the complex-
ity of the teacher-as-person and the parent-as-person,
and the skill that is required to bridge the differences
that exist. Figure 4. The child in the model.
114 Carol R. Keyes

the parent, a social system perspective helps us to relationship. Looking at Figure 5, the top row of social
understand the dynamic quality of the interaction system sets out the influences of the institution, role,
between the participants and their impact on each and expectations. The teacher’s role is specific,
other. Figure 5 shows Getzels’ social system model. detached, rational, intentional, impartial, and focusing
on the whole group, while the parent’s role is diffuse,
Looking at Figure 5, the elements of the system attached, irrational, spontaneous, partial, and individual
include an institution with its roles and expectations, (Katz, 1984). The bottom row sets out the influences
the normative dimension; and individuals with their of the individual personality and dispositions. Here the
personalities and dispositions, the personal dimension. focus is the teacher’s or parent’s construction of role,
Behavior is a result of the interplay between the role sense of efficacy, expectations, personal attributes,
and expectations and the personalities of the individu- and communication skills. A parent may be parent
als involved.2 Real individuals occupy roles, and each focused, school focused, and/or partnership focused
individual stamps a role with a unique style. (Reed, Jones, Walker, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2000);

Institution role expectations Institution role expectations

Social
observed Social
behavior
of adults System
System

Individual personality dispositions Individual personality dispositions

Figure 5. Getzels’ social system.

The teacher and parent meet together as adults, about and the teacher may be parent focused, school
their common interest the child, each bringing their focused, and/or partnership focused (Garcia, 2000;
life experience and all the forces that affect them to a Swick, 1992; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Institu-
social system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The social tion is not referred to, although the institution and its
system provides the framework for the interaction. In characteristics play a role, particularly in what kinds
the partnership, defined as the social system in this of parent involvement (Epstein, 1995) will be pro-
case, the factors described above influence the moted.3 This interpretation of Getzels’ model high-

Institution role expectations Institution role expectations

Social
observed Social
behavior
of adults System
System

Individual personality dispositions Individual personality dispositions

The Teacher The Parent

Figure 6. The teacher and parent in the social system.

Parent-Teacher Partnerships 115

lights the dynamic and complex nature of the parent- teachers can view events from more than their own
teacher partnership and the importance of considering perspective. Working within the framework may help
the interplay among all the elements. teachers consider their attitudes about the value of
parent-teacher partnership, look at its construct, and
The Role of Communication in the monitor their responses to individual situations.
Theoretical Framework
Incorporating the Theoretical Frame-
Epstein’s typology includes six major aspects of work into Teacher Education
parent involvement. In Figure 7, I have created a
graphic to show the significance of communication in We know that “teachers’ collaborative relations with
relation to the other five categories. As noted earlier, parents and work in a family context do not come
two aspects of communication, first meetings with about naturally or easily” (Powell, 1998, p. 66). From
parents and teachers’ invitations, play a crucial role in the very first teaching assignment, many teachers find
influencing how parent-teacher partnerships will themselves struggling in working with families. Some
develop. As discussed above, communication skills have ethical concerns; others just lack knowledge,
are part of the personal dimension of the social skills, and strategies (Powell, 1989). Professionals
system. However, a separate figure has been created have repeatedly challenged the field to provide both
to accentuate the importance of that communication teacher and administrator training in working with
to bridging, leading to initial effective parent-teacher parents (Powell, 1998; Epstein, 1989). In the past few
partnerships as well as promoting more extensive years, teacher education programs have responded by
parent involvement as characterized by Epstein’s developing a range of activities to accomplish that
typology (Epstein, 1995). preparation (de Acosta, 1996; French, 1996; Koerner
& Hulsebosch, 1996; Morris et al., 1996; Silverman,

&RPPXQLFDWLRQ

&ROODERUDWLQJZLWK
3DUHQWLQJ WKHFRPPXQLW\

9ROXQWHHULQJ 'HFLVLRQPDNLQJ /HDUQLQJDWKRPH

Figure 7. The importance of communication.

In Figure 8, I present the full model. My hope is that Welty, & Lyons, 1996). This theoretical framework, a
teachers will use the model as a way of thinking and systemic model that considers complexity, dynamics,
visualizing (1) their approach to the parent-teacher and interrelationships (Senge, 1990), would also make
partnership and (2) their reflection about interactions an important contribution towards preparing teachers
that have taken place. The process does not dampen to work more effectively with the diverse parents they
spontaneity but rather provides distance, so that now encounter in schools.
116 Carol R. Keyes

Ecology of the teacher and ecology of the parent

Culture and values Culture and values

Role understanding Role understanding
Sense of efficacy Sense of efficacy
Personality characteristics Personality characteristics
Expectations Expectations
Communication skills Communication skills
Knowledge of children Knowledge of the child
Professional knowl-
edge and skills

The child in the model

The teacher The child The parent

The teacher and parent in the social system

Institution role expectations Institution role expectations

Social
observed Social
behavior
of adults System
System

Individual personality dispositions Individual personality dispositions

The Teacher The Parent

The importance of communication

&RPPXQLFDWLRQ

&ROODERUDWLQJZLWK
3DUHQWLQJ WKHFRPPXQLW\

9ROXQWHHULQJ 'HFLVLRQPDNLQJ /HDUQLQJDWKRPH

Figure 8. A theoretical framework for parent-teacher partnerships.

Parent-Teacher Partnerships 117

Notes University of New York Press. (ERIC Document No.

ED395718)
1
Though I don’t discuss the values of family/school Coleman, M. (1997). Families and schools. In search of
relationships in this article, it is important to share the common ground. Young Children, 52(5), 14-21. (ERIC
values that accrue to parents, teachers, and children with Journal No. EJ547953)
both parents and teachers. There are many articles to use
as sources (Coleman, 1997; Kieff & Wellhousen, 2000; Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in
Thorkildsen & Scott Stein, 1998; Epstein, 1995; Hoover- schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School
Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Comer & Haynes, 1991; Becher, Journal, 91(3), 271-277. (ERIC Journal No. EJ429059)
1986; Lightfoot, 1978; Hymes, 1974; Greenberg, 1989).
Epstein, J. L. (1989). Building parent-teacher partnerships in
2
There are the elements of communities and values in inner city schools. Family Resource Coalition Report, 2, 7.
Getzels’ social system, and they affect the institution and Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partner-
the individual as both affect the communities and values. I ships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan,
have omitted discussing them for now because 76 (9), 701-712. (ERIC Journal No. EJ502937)
Bronfenbrenner’s ecology takes care of them and I want to
keep this first framework less complicated for teachers. French, M. K. (1996). Connecting teachers and families:
Using the family as the lab. Journal of Teacher Education,
3
Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft are two sociological terms 47(5), 335-346.
that may be used to describe institutions. Gemeinschaft
refers to local community and Gesselschaft the larger Galinsky, E. (1977). The new extended family: Day care that
society. If the institution, school in this case, is more works. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Gemeinschaft, it is more likely to relate to family/school/ Galinsky, E. (1988). Parents and teacher-caregivers: Sources
community partnerships and collaborations. If the institu- of tension, sources of support. Young Children, 43(3), 4-
tion is more Gesselschaft, it is more likely to be corporate in 12. (ERIC Journal No. EJ367916)
nature and likely to foster family school separation. For a
full discussion of this aspect of the institution, see Cibulka Galinsky, E. (1990). Why are some parent teacher partner-
and Kritek (1996), Henry (1996), and Sergiovanni (1996). ships clouded with difficulties? Young Children, 45(5), 38-
39. (ERIC Journal No. EJ415403)

References Garcia, D. C. (2000). Exploring connections between

teacher efficacy and parent involvement: Implications for
de Acosta, M. (1996). A foundational approach to preparing practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American
teachers for family and community involvement in Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
children’s education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1),
9-15. (ERIC Journal No. EJ536850) Getzels, J. W. (1974). Socialization and education: A note on
discontinuities. Teachers College Record, 76(2), 218-225.
Becher, R. (1986). Parents and schools. ERIC Digest.
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Getzels, J. W. (1978). The communities of education.
Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document No. Teachers College Record, 79(4), 659-682. (ERIC Journal
ED269137) No. EJ189497)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop- Greenberg, P. (1989). Ideas that work with young children.
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parents as partners in young children’s development and
education. A new American fad: Why does it matter? Young
Brown, P. C. (1989). Involving parents in the education of Children, 44(4), 61-75. (ERIC Journal No. EJ391015)
their children. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearing-
house on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and
(ERIC Document No. ED308988) practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher
education. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 280-288.
Burke, R. (1999). Diverse family structures: Implications for (ERIC Journal No. EJ429060)
p-3 teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 20(3), 245-251. Henry, M. E. (1996). Parent-school collaboration. Feminist
organizational structures and school leadership. Albany:
Cibulka, J. G., & Kritek, W. J. (Eds.). (1996). Coordination State University of New York. (ERIC Document No.
among schools, families, and communities. Albany: State ED395388)
118 Carol R. Keyes

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental tion for the Education of Young Children No. 3). Washing-
involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a ton, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-331. (ERIC Children. (ERIC Document No. ED309872)
Journal No. EJ523879)
Powell, D. R. (1998). Reweaving parents into the fabric of
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do early childhood programs. Young Children, 53(5), 60-67.
parents become involved in their children’s education? (ERIC Journal No. EJ570801)
Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42. (ERIC
Journal No. EJ548327) Reed, R. P., Jones, K., Walker, J. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K.
V. (2000). Parents’ motivation for involvement in children’s
Hulsebosch, P., & Logan, L. (1998). Breaking it up or education: Testing a theoretical model. Paper presented at
breaking it down: Inner-city parents as co-constructors of the symposium “Parent Involvement: The Perspectives of
school improvement. Educational Horizons, 77(1), 30-36. Multiple Stakeholders” at the annual meeting of the
(ERIC Journal No. EJ571436) American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Hymes, J. L. (1974). Effective home school relations.
Whittier, CA: SCAEYC. Rich, D. (1998). What parents want from teachers. Educa-
tional Leadership, 55(8), 37-39. (ERIC Journal No.
Katz, L. G. (1984). Contemporary perspectives on the roles EJ565125)
of mothers and teachers. In More talks with teachers (pp.
1-26). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and
and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document No. practice of the learning organization. New York:
ED250099) Doubleday/Currency.
Keyes, C. (1979). Families and schools: An ecological Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse.
study. Unpublished manuscript. How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. (ERIC Document No. ED390153)
Keyes, C. (1995). Creating transitions that support
children and families: Beginning the conversation in Solity, J. (1995). Psychology, teachers and the early years.
Westchester. White Plains, NY: Westchester Education International Journal of Early Years Education, 3(1), 5-23.
Coalition. (ERIC Journal No. EJ505513)
Kieff, J., & Wellhousen, K. (2000). Planning family involve- Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyons, S. (1996). Case
ment in early childhood programs. Young Children, 55(3), studies for teacher problem solving (2nd ed.). New York:
18-25. McGraw-Hill.
Koerner, J., & Hulsebosch, P. (1996). Preparing teachers to Sturm, C. (1997). Creating parent-teacher dialogue: Intercul-
work with children of gay and lesbian parents. Journal of tural communication in child care. Young Children, 52(5),
Teacher Education, 47(5), 347-354. 34-38. (ERIC Journal No. EJ547956)
Langdon, H. W., & Novak, J. M. (1998). Multicultures. Sumsion, J. (1999). A neophyte early childhood teacher’s
Educational Horizons, 77(1), 15-17. developing relationships with parents: An ecological
perspective. Early Childhood Research & Practice
Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart: Relationships
[Online], 1(1). Available: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n1/
between families and schools. New York: Basic Books.
sumsion.html [2000, November 1].
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher. Chicago: University of
Swick, K. J. (1992). Teacher-parent partnerships. ERIC
Chicago Press.
Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary
Morris, V. G., Taylor, S. I., Knight, J., & Wasson, R. (1996). and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document No.
Preparing teachers to reach out to families and communi- ED351149)
ties. Action in Teacher Education, 18(1), 10-22. (ERIC
Taylor, K. W. (1968). Parents and children learn together.
Journal No. EJ531668)
New York: Teachers College Press.
Patrikakou, E. N., & Weissberg, R. P. (1999). The seven P’s
Thorkildsen, R., & Scott Stein, M. R. (1998). Is parent
of school-family partnership. Education Week, 18(21), 34, 36.
involvement related to student achievements? Exploring
Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood the evidence. Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 22.
programs. (Research monographs of the National Associa-