Community development in schools—building connections with and for families

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Community development in schools—building connections with and for families

MARK

⁎

Elizabeth Rousea, , Vicki-Ann Wareb a b

School of Education, Deakin University, Australia School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Australia

AR TI CLE I NF O Keywords: Refugee families Aspirations Unfreedoms Parent-teacher partnerships Community development

1. Introduction Engaging parents in their children’s schooling has long been recognised as a key determinant of school success and creating positive outcomes for children. However for many families deep poverty coupled with unfamiliarity with regulations and social norms surrounding the Australian education system works against school engagement. This is particularly pertinent for newly-arrived migrant and refugee families, who in many instances lack the social and cultural capital necessary to draw upon resources for supporting their children’s schooling. Migrant and refugee parents are particularly aspirational regarding their children’s futures, especially when coming from desperate circumstances. However, these educational aspirations can be stifled due to ‘unfreedoms’ (Sen, 1999) associated with poor material circumstances, low parental literacy, and limited ability/confidence to engage with the school community. This can lead to irregular school attendance and non-receptivity to learning opportunities. Likewise, parental unfamiliarity with (cultural) processes for engaging with school, or supporting children’s learning at home, can hamper children’s learning success. When exploring issues surrounding parental engagement by families experiencing vulnerabilities, Sen (1999) provides a lens through which to view the social capital of communities, through his focus on ‘development’, which he argued should be viewed not in terms of economic measures alone but in terms of the real “freedoms” that people can enjoy such as economic facilities and social opportunities (Terjesen, 2004). These freedoms include the freedom to satisfy hunger, freedom to access health care, freedom to gain an education and freedom to participate in the social life of the community. Sen (1999) went on to suggest that these freedoms are influenced by economic opportunities, political liberties, social powers, and the enabling conditions of good health, and the encouragement and cultivation of initiative. He believes that education is a key enabling condition for development. Sen suggested a view of development as removing major sources of unfreedoms such as poor economic opportunities and social deprivations (pp 3–4). With adequate social opportunities, individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other, thus removing the unfreedoms that impact on their development. Sen described this as “the expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of people to lead the kind of lives they value—and have reason to value” (p18).

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Rouse), [email protected] (V.-A. Ware).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.05.001 Received 10 October 2016; Accepted 9 May 2017 0883-0355/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

Drawing on Sen’s notions of ‘unfreedoms’ this paper will present a review of literature that explores the interconnections between schools, families and communities as they impact on the educational outcomes for children. The literature review was undertaken as the initial phase of a small scale project undertaken in the outer eastern area of Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city, working across three primary schools. The locality which is the focus of this study features high levels of migrant resettlement and cultural diversity, low median incomes, high rates of early school leaving and high levels of crime. Over two thirds of residents were born overseas and this locality is the third most culturally diverse in the state. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) social ecology model which explores learners in the context of the interconnections that exist between families, community and schools, has shaped a project instigated across a cluster of Catholic schools located in this locality. This cluster has employed innovative approaches to engaging families in their children’s learning environment, through a number of community development initiatives. Schools that value the engagement of parents as partners in their child’s learning and who see parents as capable partners are more likely to have parents engaged in the learning of their child (Baum & Swick, 2008). By working with families to remove barriers to effective participation in school communities, and to enhance parental skills, these schools aimed to improve learning outcomes for disadvantaged students. A research project designed to explore the extent to which community development through school communities can lead to improved capabilities of families was developed. The initial phase of this project was to undertake a review of relevant literature to inform the research questions and the project design. Phase two of this research will be to explore practices that exist across the site schools. Findings from the fieldwork will be reported in future publications by the same authors. 2. Literature review method The purpose of the literature review was to provide a base for the proposed research project to identify what is already known, and ascertain the gaps in the evidence fine-tune the initial research questions and research methodology. The following research questions, listed below, shaped the direction for the literature review. Is there a correlation between the aspirations of parents, students and education professionals, and how do these influence learning outcomes? To what extent does parental engagement impact on children’s school engagement and improved outcomes? How can community development mechanisms build the capabilities of disadvantaged families and communities to achieve their aspirations for their children? To gather the data for this literature review a systematic investigation of electronic academic literature databases in the fields of social work, sociology, psychology and education (eg A + Education; Academic Search Complete; ERIC; JStor: Science Direct) was undertaken, using the following search terms:

Community development Community renewal Parental aspirations Family Learning outcomes Educational attainment Vulnerable children Refugee children

Social capital Neighbourhood renewal Parent and teacher partnerships Community Educational outcomes Connectedness Disadvantage Migrant families

The findings of the literature review were clustered in line with the research questions which will be explored and discussed within this paper. 2.1. Is there a correlation between the aspirations of parents, students and education professionals, and how do these influence learning outcomes? The literature suggests that many parents do have high aspirations for their children (Gutman & Ackerman, 2008). There has been found to be a strong correlation between the aspirations of parents and the aspirations children hold for themselves (Chavira, Cooper, & Vasquez-Salgado, 2016; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008: Strand & Winston, 2008). High parental aspirations have been found to have a significant effect on student outcomes (Strand, 2011). Aspirations can be related to the desires, dreams and hopes that an individual holds for the future. Bohme (2015) defines aspirations as ‘a desire to achieve a certain objective, the term aspirations describes goals that one would like to achieve in an ideal world without constraints’ (p2), and Chavira et al. describe them as ‘desire and hopes for one’s idea future career and expectations the realistic beliefs in one’s likely career attainment’ (2016, p 214). Gutman and Ackerman (2008) suggest that the aspirations a person holds are shaped by the individual’s perceptions of themselves and their abilities. They suggest that it is the belief that one can achieve success that fosters positive aspirations, and argue that children who believe that they can achieve in school and have the ability to do so are more likely to hold higher educational aspirations. 25

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

Cultural values have also been found to be linked to educational aspirations, and account for much of the differences in educational attainment (St Hilaire, 2002). Turok, Kintrea, St Clair, and Benjamin (2009) in their study with twelve and thirteen year old students in Scotland, found that families function as a source of support for young people and are generally supportive of their children’s aspirations. They also found that the parents in their study believed their children’s aspirations were achievable (Turok et al., 2009). The aspirations expressed by young people however reflect the expectations and constraints inherent within their setting. Bowden and Doughney (2010) found a relationship between high aspirations and high socio-economic status, while St Clair and Benjamin (2011) in their study which examined the aspirations of 490 young people in three major UK cities, present a view that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds may have depressed aspirations. However they also suggest that if low aspirations can be raised that this will break the cycle and lead to improved outcomes. Gutman and Ackerman (2008) argue that when young people believe that they have the ability to achieve and who attribute their success to hard work rather than luck or fate tend to have higher aspirations. Aspirations are responsive to changes in the environment and can be modified as they are strongly influenced by opportunities (Bohme, 2015; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; St Clair & Benjamin, 2011). Aspirations however differ from expectations. While aspirations are generally conceptualised as idealistic representations of future outcomes, expectations are considered more probable in that they relate to a more realistic belief in the future achievement (Beal & Crockett, 2013; Bohme, 2015; Carpenter, 2008). Carpenter in his 2008 study found that and higher achieving children tend to come from families which have high expectations of them (Carpenter, 2008). However Areepattamannil and Lee (2014) argue that it is a combination of both parent aspirations and parent expectations that impacts on academic performance. Family background has been found to be the key determinant influencing aspirations. Parental education, parental income, social class and minority status have been shown to influence parents’ aspirations for their children (Gutman & Ackerman, 2008). Chavira et al. (2016) in their US study which examined career and educational aspirations and expectations among 24 immigrant Latino early adolescents found that parents’ educational aspirations for their children, provision of educational resources and involvement with school are also important in understanding children’s aspirations. Gutman and Ackerman (2008) found parents’ educational aspirations to be more important for fostering the achievements of young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds compared with their more privileged counterparts. This mirrors the argument of Strand and Winston (2008) who view parents as significant in shaping the aspirations of students because they are the ones who provide opportunities and a culture of attainment. Strand (2011) argues that it is not the levels of perceived advantage that predicts student achievement, but rather it is the connection between the aspirations of the child and family coupled with access to capability building opportunities such as support with homework, access to computers, commitment to schooling and learning which supports educational attainment. In their UK study Lupton and Kintrea (2011) explored the influences of the neighbourhood and community on children’s aspirations and educational expectations and achievements. They found that the behaviours and attitudes of an individual are directly influenced by those of their neighbours and that and that those behaviours and attitudes are in turn directly influential on the individual’s attainments in education. Students from lower socio-economic status are more likely to study for low level, non-university qualifications (Bowden & Doughney, 2010). St Hilaire (2002) in an earlier study also found that students become acculturated to the norms of their peers and the social environment in which they live. While family socio-economic status has been identified as a major determinant of adolescents' educational and occupational goals, it is parental education which has been found to predict adolescents' future educational and occupational goals (Beal & Crockett, 2013; Bowden & Doughney, 2010; Chavira et al., 2016). Children from low socio-economic status and are native born are likely to have lower aspirations than children from ethnic minority groups or immigrants (Raleigh & Kao, 2010; Strand & Winston, 2008), as it is suggested that immigrant parents carry with them hopes and dreams of a better life than the one they leave behind (Chavira et al., 2016; Priyadharshini & Watson, 2012) and tend to be deeply concerned about their children’s education, supporting them as best they can (Areepattamannil & Lee, 2014). Children from immigrant parents are more likely to aspire to go to university than non −immigrant family background children (Bowden & Doughney, 2010; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; Krahn & Taylor, 2005; Strand & Winston, 2008). The 2010 UK study into the aspirations of secondary school students in the western region of Melbourne found that the students from recently arrived nonEnglish speaking migrant groups from Africa, Asia and the Middle East demonstrated a strong preference to go to university (Bowden & Doughney, 2010). This mirrors the findings of Strand and Winston (2008) who found that children whose families were more recent arrivals to the country demonstrated high levels of both educational and career aspiration. Cultural expectations impact on educational aspirations. Lupton and Kintrea (2011) found students from Chinese and Indian backgrounds had higher aspirations regardless of their socio economic status, which were often modest. This was mirrored by Krahn and Taylor (2005) who argue that Asian background families have higher aspirations that begin early and remain higher for longer. Marjoribanks (2003) found that adolescents from Asian, Middle Eastern and Southern European families continued to have higher educational aspirations than did adolescents from Anglo-Australian or other immigrant family groups. Strand and Winston (2008) also found parents of the white boys were reticent in fostering high aspirations for their children as they saw them as unrealistic and did not want their children to experience disappointment, frustration and feelings of failure. Family ethnicity is also associated with adolescent aspirations (Marjoribanks, 2003). There is a strong body of literature which suggests that children from immigrant families are more likely to have higher aspirations for academic achievement and that these children are more likely to internalise the values and expectations of their parents around education and schooling (2014; Bowden & Doughney, 2010; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; Krahn & Taylor, 2005). Gutman & Ackerman found that parents from minority migrant backgrounds hold higher educational aspirations for their children than do non-minority parents, while Asian students have been found to have the highest educational and occupational aspirations of all the minority groups (2008). Francis and Arthur 26

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

(2005) argue that for migrant families who may have been deprived of educational opportunities there is a strong desire to provide their children with educational opportunities. 2.2. The aspirations gap While there is a strong correlation between the aspirations of parents with that of their children, the notion of an ‘aspirations gap’ is also prevalent in the literature. The ‘aspiration gap’ has been described as the mismatch between aspirations and education attainment (Bowden & Doughney, 2008; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; Priyadharshini & Watson, 2012). Carpenter (2008) found that while students from immigrant families in their study overwhelmingly aspired to attend university more than 20% did not achieve their aspiration. This mirrors the findings of Gutman & Ackerman who found there to be a gap between the aspirations and educational achievement for young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, some minority ethnic groups and females (2008). They argue that this is a result of structural inequalities, suggesting that young people from more advantaged homes have greater access to material and financial resources such as computers, tuition, and private tutoring and educational opportunities. The position of the family and ethnic group within this context of inequity has also been argued as influencing aspirations and creating these structural inequalities. Bowden and Doughney (2008) suggest that the decisions of young people and their families, are dependent on their socioeconomic backgrounds. Taking a Bourdieuian stance, they go on to argue that students from high socioeconomic backgrounds have an advantage in securing entry into higher education because they have been brought up in a sociocultural environment that is more closely aligned to that in which exists in the higher education system. Krahn and Taylor (2005) found that despite adults arriving as migrant with skills and high education levels than those of many of the local populations, that these credentials are not always recognised in the receiving country. Having high aspirations alone cannot overcome barriers associated with poverty, minority status, limited educational opportunity and life circumstances (St Clair & Benjamin, 2011). 2.3. Aspirations, expectations and unfreedoms While parents and children may have high aspirations for educational attainment and academic achievement, these aspirations can be stifled due to unfreedoms (Sen, 1999) associated with poor material circumstances, low parental literacy, traditional cultural roles and norms, and limited ability/confidence to engage with the school community. Educational achievements are constrained not by low aspirations but by unfreedoms impacting on what students are able to achieve, as outcomes may be far more strongly influenced by structures of opportunity than by aspiration or motivation (St Clair & Benjamin, 2011). Disadvantaged young people have very clear understandings of barriers which may prevent them from realising their aspirations (Gutman & Ackerman, 2008). Priyadharshini and Watson (2012) found that young migrants in their UK study were presented with four substantial obstacles to their aspirations and potential future success. These obstacles were identified as: a sense of low social status; poor psycho-social and communal support; schools’ inaccurate assessment of students’ academic ability levels; and financial hardship coupled with parental notions of entitlement (p 15). They found that despite these parents having high aspirations for their children, the constraints of long commutes and long working hours impacted upon their capacity to spend time with children. Elder children too are often charged with the care for themselves and siblings before and after school. Parental opportunities to support children in their schooling can also be impacted upon by language barriers along with challenges parents face in dealing with school systems through a lack of knowledge of the school curricula (Francis & Arthur, 2005; Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; Raleigh & Kao, 2010). For refugees whose prior education may have been severely interrupted, learning in mainstream schools and in a new language can be challenging (Parliament of Victoria Education and Training Committee, 2009). Gutman and Ackerman (2008) found that those families living in economic hardship have less financial security and fewer material resources of their own for investing in their child’s schooling. The UK study by Lupton and Kintrea (2011) found that neighbourhood child poverty reduced the likelihood of graduating from high school by 14%. The study found children from the most educationally advantaged neighbourhoods were between five and seven percentage points more likely to get ‘A-levels’ than children from similar family backgrounds living in neighbourhoods ranked in the bottom 10 percent (pp 323–324). Some studies have also suggested perceptions of teachers in relation to students’ educational achievement or success may also engender low expectations about their behaviour and academic potential (Gutman & Ackerman, 2008; Parliament of Victoria Education and Training Committee, 2009; Strand, 2011). Research indicates teachers may have lower expectations of certain minority ethnic groups and these lowered expectations may also be a causal factor in the differences in attainment (Gutman & Ackerman, 2008l). Gutman and Ackerman (2008) also found teachers and other educational professionals are often unaware of interests and expectations of parents from minority ethnic groups and therefore unable to provide relevant information and support. The authors suggest that language differences between teachers and minority ethnic parents may also impede communication. Hence, minority ethnic parents may not have the information they need to help their children achieve despite their high aspirations. 2.4. To what extent does parental engagement impact on children’s school engagement and improved outcomes? A wealth of literature provides evidence of the importance and improved outcomes for children when parents are engaged in their children’s schooling and education (Ashton et al., 2008; Duncan, 2007; Epstein, 2011; Knopf & Swick, 2006; Ratcliff & Hunt, 2009). In the early years of schooling in particular, the importance of partnerships between teachers and parents is a central belief (Hedges & Lee, 2010). Whalley (2013) argues there is overwhelming evidence of the importance for children’s learning and development through educators and families engaging in partnerships. Smith and colleagues (2000, cited in Hedges & Gibbs, 2005) argue 27

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

that: a major message emerging from the existing literature on early childhood education… that one cannot consider the two microsystems of family and the early childhood centre in isolation (p. 116). However across the literature, the terms ‘parent engagement’ and ‘parent involvement’ are at times used interchangeably. Pushor (2012) suggests these two terms are not synonomous and in fact denote different behaviours and expectations. Emerson, Fear, Fox, and Saunders (2012) argue it is the former (parent engagement) that has the greatest impact on children’s success. Parent involvement in education and schooling as a concept has been described as occurring when parents are active in the school through volunteer activities in the classroom or in school governance, help with homework and attend school-based events, and parent–teacher communication (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008; García Coll et al., 2012; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, & Sandler, 2005). Pushor (2012) suggests being involved is framed around participating in extracurricular school activities such as fundraisers and assisting in classrooms. It could also be argued that parent involvement is a western phenomenon. Whitmarsh (2011) argues that some migrant parents perceive teachers as the experts in children’s education, therefore they are less likely to engage with a western model of white, middle class partnership, however they make strenuous efforts to support their children’s education. Parent engagement, conversely, has been coupled with deeper thinking about the relationship existing between parents and schools to encompass a view which more closely aligns to notions of partnership (Emerson et al., 2011; Pushor, 2012). In exploring notions of what it means to be engaged, Goodall and Montgomery (2014) suggest parental engagement presents a level of ownership of actions by parents, and recognises a sense of commitment (p. 400). Exploring parental engagement with children’s learning should not equate to a view which examines the extent to which parents are engaged in the school. Rather, it is a broader construct acknowledging that parents are taking an active role in supporting their children’s engagement with the learning outside the classroom. Examples of parental engagement with learning include supporting children with homework, providing learning opportunities at home, reading to and with children, and sharing discussions about school and learning that make connections between learning at school and what is happening elsewhere. These activities are shown to connect children with their learning and lead to enhanced educational outcomes (Emmerson et al., 2011: Epstein, 2011; Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Patrikakou, Weissberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005; Pushor, 2012; Sime & Sheridan, 2014). Existing research has identified that parents who are engaged and involved in their child’s schooling create an environment for their children where schooling is seen as important. They are more able to structure experiences for children that lead to skill development and enhance children’s sense of competence and achievement (Jinnah & Walters, 2008). There is a strong indication parent involvement in their children’s schooling has positive effects on academic achievement, particularly in literacy and numeracy (Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Cavanagh & Romanoski, 2005; Ihmeideh, Khasawneh, Mahfouz, & Khawaldeh, 2008; Jeynes, 2010, 2011). Several studies also suggest parent involvement has positive effects on children’s attendance, behaviour in the classroom, attitude to schooling and retention (Bakker & Denessen, 2007; Emerson et al., 2011; Seginer, 2006; Zellman & Perlman, 2006). Children whose parents are engaged in their schooling also have increased self-confidence in their own academic ability and learning, as well as stronger intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014; Ihmeideh et al., 2008). Parents are more able to help children enhance their perceptions of their own competence and empower children to take control of their own learning (Grolnick and Slowiaczek, cited in Jinnah & Walters, 2008). Duncan (2007) also found when children observe interactions and mutual respect between adults, this helps children to understand relationships, develop positive dispositions and feel more comfortable at school. In the United Kingdom’s Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) project also identified significantly improved outcomes for children as a consequence of increased participation by parents in their child’s learning, finding that more intellectual gains were achieved for children in centres that encouraged high levels of parent engagement in their children’s learning. The most effective settings were those that shared child-related information between parents and staff, where parents were often involved in decision making about their child’s learning program (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blachford, & Taggart, 2004). Parental involvement also provides positive benefits for parents. Parents who are more involved with their children’s schooling become knowledgeable about school goals and procedures (Hill & Taylor, cited in Jinnah & Walters, 2008), leading to stronger engagement with schooling, and are thereby more able to communicate the importance of education to their children. Involvement in children’s schooling builds parents’ abilities to help their children learn. These positive attitudes and behaviours in turn influence students’ learning and educational success (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005) because parents become more involved in their children’s learning. They gain knowledge and strategies for structuring learning experiences and activities for their children that result in skill development (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Jinnah & Walters, 2008). ‘Parents’ instruction is likely to remain deeply rooted in the child’s memories even after they leave school’ (Miedel & Reynolds, cited in Imeideh et al., 2008, p. 161), leading to greater outcomes in later life. 2.5. Parental engagement and families from refugee backgrounds While evidence of parental engagement with children’s learning and education is clear, for many families who are marginalised or experiencing vulnerabilities, undertaking this engagement is often impacted by their sociocultural experiences and existing ‘unfreedoms’ (Sen, 1999) such as poor material circumstances, low parental literacy, traditional unmet material needs and limited ability/confidence to engage with the school community can lead to irregular school attendance and non-receptivity to learning opportunities. This may be particularly so for families from refugee backgrounds, and families experiencing vulnerabilities. Refugee families have fled home countries due to civil unrest, conflict, war or repression. Many have spent years in temporary refugee camps 28

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

with inadequate food, water, shelter, medical aid, education or employment (McBrien, 2011). In many cases children arriving in resettlement countries do so with only one or no parent and aunts, uncles, cousins or siblings may take on the role as household head (Atwell, Gifford, & McDonald-Wilmsen, 2009). Families may be concerned for family members still in camps, or in their homelands (McBrien, 2011). Families coming to a new country as refugees may experience difficulties trusting authority figures due to fleeing repressive government regimes (McBrien, 2011; Tadesse, 2014), which may extend to lack of trust in school administrators. Many refugee families experience post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSDs) which in classrooms may manifest in students’ poor concentration, inability to settle, fear of loud noises and difficulties with social interactions. Children may not be able to receive the psychological and emotional support from their parents as these adults are themselves victims of torture (Ascher, cited in Rah, Choi, & Nguyen, 2009, p 349). Refugee families many find it difficult to support their children with their schooling due to severe emotional distress, lack of English, low socio-economic status and issues with cultural integration (Rah et al., 2010; Tadesse, 2014). Teachers may also lack deep understanding of mistrust refugee families bring with them into classrooms, or may have low expectations of students (He, Bettez, & Levin, 2015). These families are likely to be unfamiliar not only with school systems of the resettlement country, but of school systems themselves having in many cases spent years in resettlement camps with little or no access to education (Foundation House, 2009; Georgis, Gokiert, Ford, & Ali, 2014; Tadesse, 2014). Lack of involvement in their children’s schooling may be misinterpreted as a deficit in the parent’s value system rather than in relation to the language, cultural and socioeconomic barriers these families face (Georgis et al., 2014). How can community development mechanisms build the capabilities of disadvantaged families and communities to achieve their aspirations for their children? Community development demonstrates awareness of structural inequalities that currently shape society. A key underlying characteristic of community development is the bringing together of people within communities who are helped to identify needs and then together are empowered to meet those needs. Tan (2009) describes this as the centrality of oppressed people in the process of overcoming externally imposed social problems (p. 9). Community development mechanisms place great emphasis on participation and empowerment, with community members involved directly in decision-making. People within communities themselves are encouraged to work together towards a collective solution (Gilchrist & Taylor, 2011; Tan, 2009). Grounded in theories of social justice, community development is about developing social capital, social inclusion and exclusion, and capacity building (Tan, 2011). There are strong connections between the mechanisms used in community development work with those found in the literature as effective approaches for building connections with schools for families experiencing vulnerabilities. Case & Hadfield (cited in Zyngier, 2011) suggest schools need to shift from seeing their work in isolation from their broader communities and note a cultural shift towards “more inclusive and holistic” multi-agency partnerships in education (p376). ‘Gaining the freedom to do the things that we have reason to value is rarely something we can accomplish as individuals’ (Evans, 2002, p 54). As such, creating collaborations between schools, families and communities build and enhance connections between families and schools, and work towards removing the unfreedoms typically limiting learning outcomes in schools located in disadvantaged regions. The key factor emerging from the literature for engaging with families experiencing vulnerabilities is the importance of relationships. As many families experiencing vulnerabilities come to the school community experiencing a lack of trust, mechanisms for building trusting relationships are critical. Emerson et al. (2012) suggest trust between parents and teachers is vital if parents are to become appropriately and sufficiently engaged in their children’s learning. They outline constructive approaches for creating positive and proactive relationships between parents and teachers. These approaches involve consistent dialogue between parents and schools, and dialogue between parents and school that keeps parents informed about curricula, courses, school rules, and assessments is important for developing communication leading to parents and teachers working together to support the child’s education. This dialogue can then lead to conversations about optimal home learning environments that in turn benefit a child’s academic pursuits. Goodall and Montgomery (2014) suggest within these relationships schools and families should work together, with each being recognised as valuable in its own right, rather than as solely an adjunct to the other. Sime, Seagraves, Sheridan, and Spohrer (2009) also identify the importance of engaging parents as equal contributors. They see this is important for facilitating shared understandings about children and how they learn. The mutuality of these relationships requires teachers to create time and space to speak to parents privately. Schools needs to create a welcoming environment in which parents feel valued and respected and parents need to feel that they belong to the school and are genuinely welcome (Ainscow, Muijs, & West, 2006; Emerson et al., 2012; Sime et al., 2009). This was also true of the study undertaken by Hardy and Grootenboer (2016) who found that when the social relationships were shifted from being viewed as problematic and difficult to being viewed within a broader sociological context then more engaging and productive discussions occurred. Within the literature several clear approaches have been identified as supporting families to build these trusting connections. Sime et al. (2009) examined the success of ‘family learning’ initiatives that involve families and children learning together such as literacy and health-promotion initiatives, parenting programs and even activities such as cooking classes, sports activities for families create a culture of schools as spaces for family learning and as catalysts for community learning (p 16). Hardy and Grootenboer (2016) identified a number of further initiatives for building relationships between school and families such as fixing damaged bicycles, developing community gardens, displaying children’s artworks in the community. They found these mechanisms valued and recognised students’ strengths, and helped forge new relationships within the community (p 31). These initiatives also support families to meet other parents which is an important mechanism for building community engagement and integrating school families into the wider community (Emerson et al., 2012). 29

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

In Hardy and Grootenboer (2016) the employment of a community development worker was seen as a key factor in building the engagement of families with the school. This worker was able to connect with teachers in designing relevant and engaging curriculum and also worked more closely with families to support children’s continued attendance, enhancing families’ productive involvement in their child’s schooling. This created avenues for teachers to see alternate ways of working with students and families. A further mechanism identified in the literature is the creation of networks of schools and community agencies for building relationships with other similar schools in local areas (Ainscow et al., 2006; Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016; Higgins & Morley, 2014). These networks need to be underpinned by strong commitment to social justice and strengths-based understandings of local communities. Through these school networks multiple relationships are forged across the community, via sharing resources, working together to invent new responses and by offering mutual support (Ainscow et al., 2006 p.195). 3. Conclusion This literature review of the literature has shown that parents from migrant and refugee families do in fact have high aspirations for their children’s education and schooling. Yet many ‘unfreedoms’ exist that hamper children’s learning success, including poor housing; unfamiliarity with the language, school context and curriculum; disrupted parental schooling; and trauma resulting from fleeing from war or civil unrest. These impact on the capability of many migrant and refugee families to build connections with children’s schooling and support learning. However research has shown that when schools and communities actively engage in mechanisms to build social capital and community connectedness many of these unfreedoms can be mitigated. Mechanisms which focus on building community, both community within the school, as well as linking school families to the community in which the school exists, creating social connections, building reciprocal relationships and drawing on the existing strengths that exist in families can work towards positive outcomes for students, families and schools. When teachers shift from deficit-thinking about children and families, expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of people to lead the kind of lives they value − and have reason to value − are enacted. Funding This work was supported by a grant from The Alfred Deakin Institute of Deakin University. References Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9(3), 192–202. Areepattamannil, S., & Lee, D. H. L. (2014). Linking immigrant parents’ educational expectations and aspirations to their children’s school performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175(1), 51–57. Ashton, J., Woodrow, C., Johnston, C., Wangmann, J., Singh, L., & James, T. (2008). Partnerships in learning: Linking early childhood services, families and schools for optimal development. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 10–16. Atwell, R., Gifford, F., & McDonald-Wilmsen, B. (2009). Resettled refugee families and their children’s futures: Coherence, hope and support. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(5), 677–697. Bakker, J., & Denessen, E. (2007). The concept of parent involvement. Some theoretical and empirical considerations. International Journal About Parents in Education, 1, 188–199. Baum, A. C., & Swick, K. J. (2008). Dispositions toward families and family involvement: Supporting pre-service teacher development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(6), 579–584. Beal, S. J., & Crockett, J. (2013). Adolescents’ educational and aspirational goals: A test of reciprocal relations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 219–229. Berthelsen, D., & Walker, S. (2008). Parent’s involvement in their children’s education. Family Matters, 79, 34–71. Bohme, M. (2015). Migration and educational aspirations – Another channel of brain gain? IZA Journal of Migration, 4(12), 1–24. Bowden, M. P., & Doughney, J. (2010). Socio-economic status, cultural diversity and the aspirations of secondary students in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. Higher Education, 59, 115–129. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Carpenter, D. M. (2008). Expectations, aspirations, and achievement among Latino students of immigrant families. Marriage & Family Review, 43(1–2), 164–185. Chavira, G., Cooper, C. R., & Vasquez-Salgado, Y. (2016). Pathways to achievement: Career and educational aspirations and expectations of latina/o immigrant parents and early adolescents. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15(3), 214–228. Duncan, R. (2007). Building connections. Education Horizon, 9(6). Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Saunders, E. (2012). Parental Engagement in Learning and Schooling: Lessons from Research. Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) for the Family-School Community Partnerships Bureau. Epstein, J. (2011). School, family and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder. Colorado: Westview Press. Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60. Foundation House (2009). Foundation House—Victorian Foundation for the Survivors of Torture. Talk’s in—families of refugee background and schools in dialogue. Francis, B., & Arthur, L. (2005). British–Chinese pupils’ and parents’ constructions of the value of education. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 89–108. García Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., Di Martino, L., et al. (2012). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(3), 303–324. Georgis, R., Gokiert, R. J., Ford, D. M., & Ali, M. (2014). Creating inclusive parent engagement practices. Multicultural Education, 21(3/4), 23–27. Gilchrist, A., & Taylor, M. (2011). The short guide to community development. Portland, OR: The Policy Press. Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parent engagement: A continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399–410. Gutman, L. M., & Ackerman, R. (2008). Determinants of aspirations. London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education. Hardy, I., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Cultivating community: Detailing school and community engagement under complex conditions. Teaching Education, 27(1), 21–38. He, Y., Bettez, S. C., & Levin, B. B. (2015). Imagined community of education: Voices from refugees and immigrants. Urban Education, 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0042085915575579. Hedges, H., & Gibbs, C. (2005). Preparation for teacher-parent partnerships: A practical experience with a family. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 115–126.

30

International Journal of Educational Research 84 (2017) 24–31

E. Rouse, V.-A. Ware

Hedges, H., & Lee, D. (2010). I understood the complexity within diversity: Preparation for partnership with families in early childhood settings. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 257–272. Higgins, D., & Morley, S. (2014). Engaging Indigenous parents in their children’s education. Resource sheet no. 32. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies Produced by the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M. (2005). Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s education. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships for children’s success (pp. 40–56). New York: Teachers College Press. Ihmeideh, F., Khasawneh, S., Mahfouz, S., & Khawaldeh, M. (2008). The new workforce generation: Understanding the problems facing parental involvement in Jordanian kindergartens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(2), 161–172. Jeynes, W. H. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 747–774. Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. New York: Routledge. Jinnah, H. A., & Walters, L. H. (2008). Including parents in evaluation of a child development program: Relevance of parental involvement. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 10(1). Knopf, H., & Swick, K. (2006). How parents feel about their child’s teacher/school: Implications for early childhood professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(4), 279–287. Krahn, H., & Taylor, A. (2005). Resilient teenagers: Explaining the high educational aspirations of visible-minority youth in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Immigration, 6(3), 405–464. Lupton, R., & Kintrea, K. (2011). Can community-based interventions on aspirations raise young people’s attainment? Social Policy & Society, 10(3), 321–335. Marjoribanks, K. (2003). Family background, individual and environmental influences, aspirations and young adults' educational attainment: A follow-up study. Educational Studies, 29(2–3), 233–242. McBrien, L. J. (2011). The importance of context: Vietnamese Somali and Iranian refugee mothers discuss their resettled lives and involvement in their children’s schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(1), 75–90. Parliament of Victoria Education and Training Committee (2009). Inquiry into geographical differences in the rate in which victorian students participate in higher education: Final report Retrieved from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/etc/HE_Report/hepreliminaries.pdf. Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). School-family partnerships: Enhancing the academic, social and emotional learning of children. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships for children’s success (pp. 1–17). New York: Teachers College Press. Priyadharshini, E., & Watson, J. (2012). Between aspiration and achievement: Structure and agency in young migrant lives. Power and Education, 4(2), 150–161. Pushor, D. (2012). Tracing my research on parent engagement: Working to interrupt the story of school as protectorate. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5–6), 464–479. Rah, Y., Choi, S., & Nguyen, T. S. T. (2009). Building bridges between refugee parents and schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(4), 347–365. Raleigh, E., & Kao, G. (2010). Do immigrant minority parents have more consistent college aspirations for their children? Social Science Quarterly, 91(4), 1083–1102. Ratcliff, N., & Hunt, G. (2009). Building teacher-family partnerships: The role of teacher preparation programs. Education, 129(3), 495–506. Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting, 6(1), 1–48. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sime, D., & Sheridan, M. (2014). ‘You want the best for your kids’: improving educational outcomes for children living in poverty through parental engagement. Educational Research, 56(3), 327–342. Sime, G., Seagraves, L., Sheridan, M., Spohrer, K., & Save the Children (Funder) (2009). Improving outcomes for children living in poverty through home-school partnerships in the early years: Final reportGlasgow: University of Strathclyde Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf /9029121.pdf. St Clair, R., & Benjamin, A. (2011). Performing desires: The dilemma of aspirations and educational attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 501–517. St Hilaire, A. (2002). The social adaptation of children from Mexican immigrants: Educational aspirations beyond junior high school. Social Science Quarterly, 83(4), 1027–1042. Strand, S., & Winston, J. (2008). Educational aspirations in inner city schools. Educational Studies, 34(4), 249–267. Strand, S. (2011). The limits of social class in explaining ethnic gaps in educational attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 197–229. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blachford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of preschool education (EPPE) project: Final report Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3155&context=sspapers. Tadesse, S. (2014). Parent involvement: Perceived encouragement and barriers to African refugee parent and teacher relationships. Childhood Education, 90(4), 298–305. Tan, A. (2009). Community development theory and practice: Bridging the divide between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ levels of social work. NACSW convention 2009. Terjesen, S. (2004). Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Graduate Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 344–347. Turok, I., Kintrea, K., St Clair, R., & Benjamin, A. (2009). Shaping educational attitudes and aspirations: The influence of parents, place and poverty: Stage 1 reportJoseph Rowntree Foundation Retrieved from http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/40872/1/40872.pdf. Whalley, M. (2013). Working with families in children’s centres and early years settings. London: Hodder Education. Whitmarsh, J. (2011). Othered voices: Asylum-seeking mothers and early years education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(4), 535–551. Zellman, G. L., & Perlman, M. (2006). Parent involvement in child care settings: Conceptual and measurement issues. Early Child Development and Care, 176(5), 521–538. Zyngier, D. (2011). Raising engagement and enhancing learning: School community partnerships that work for students At promise. Creative Education, 2(4), 375–380.

31