Volunteer
Meetings
Email Updates
Contact Indya
Links|
Indya
KINCANNON |
|
By
Maurice J. Elias & Yoni Schwab Parents
spend less time than ever with their children. How much of that time
should be focused on academics?In April, the U.S. Department of Education
released its long-awaited document describing how states, districts, and
schools are supposed to carry out the parental-involvement provisions of
the No Child Left Behind Act. “Parental Involvement: Title I, Part A:
Non-Regulatory Guidance” seems to place parents in the role of
curriculum policymakers and consultants, co-teachers, and teachers’
aides. One might get the impression that their main purpose is to ensure
their children’s optimal academic performance. Yet, as the Annie E.
Casey Foundation’s Kids Count surveys and related studies of child
outcomes suggest, parents’ top priority should be attending to basic
parenting responsibilities. There
are some necessary aspects of parenting that, if not done, will make the
academic-support activities recommended by federal officials ineffective
or unrealistic, especially for families in urban, high-risk communities.
For parents with the least time, energy, and resources to parent
effectively, schools should be a support in fulfilling their primary role,
not the other way around. We
do not mean to imply that parents should be excluded from educational
decisionmaking. On the contrary, we believe appropriate parental input
(taking into account that parents are not experts and should leave room
for educators to make pedagogic decisions) has myriad positive effects on
schools and their students. But parents burdened with too many
responsibilities and too little support should not be expected to become
policy wonks and curriculum specialists, as the guidance document implies.
And schools, so often challenged in direct proportion to the life
difficulties their families face, should not be saddled with yet another
time-consuming and nearly impossible task. In
fact, the very notion of partnership, as put forth in the department’s
“guidance on parental involvement,” is flawed. Here, for example, are
a few illustrative quotes from the document, with our comments: Introduction
and Purpose “Studies
have found that students with involved parents, no matter what their
income or background, are more likely to earn high grades and test scores,
and enroll in higher-level programs; pass their classes, earn credits, and
be promoted; attend school regularly; and graduate and go on to
postsecondary education.” (A-5) Defining
Parental Involvement “The
statute defines parental involvement as the participation of parents in
regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic
learning and other school activities, including ensuring that parents play
an integral role in assisting in their child’s learning; that parents
are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at
school; [and] that parents are full partners in their child’s education
and are included, as appropriate, in decisionmaking and on advisory
committees to assist in the education of their child. …” (A-1) Examples
of Involving Parents “It
is the responsibility of schools and LEAs to help parents understand
topics that will help them become equal partners with educators in
improving their children’s academic achievement. Schools and LEAs must
help parents understand such things as the state’s academic-content
standards and state student academic-achievement standards; state and
local academic assessments, including alternative assessments; the
parental-involvement requirements of section 1118; and how to monitor
their child’s progress and work with educators to improve the
achievement of their child.” (E-2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Like
mom and apple pie, much of what is being asked of parents appears
unassailable on the surface. The guidelines claim, ironically, that “although
section 1118 is extensive in scope and has many requirements for LEAS and
schools, the intent is not to be burdensome” (A-7). And what of the
demand on parents? In the quotes above, which represent just a fraction of
this 61-page document, readers can see that these requirements are both
impractical and misdirected. Parents
burdened with too many responsibilities and too little support should not
be expected to become policy wonks and curriculum specialists. Two
education professors— Diane Stephens of the University of South Carolina
and Gail Boldt of the University of Iowa— suggest in the May 2004 Phi
Delta Kappan a set of questions to gauge the adequacy of educational
partnerships. Their questions provide us with a framework for judging
these federal guidelines on parental partnerships and formulating
recommendations: 1.
Who will be partners? The
first challenge is that one school must partner with many “homes.”
Though a school can operate as a unit (in theory), each home is unique and
autonomous. How many “homes” must be involved, in which activities,
and to what extent? 2.
What does each partner receive, and what would have to happen for each
partner to feel adequately compensated for its contribution? In
this partnership, burdens are added to both parents and educators. Schools
must enable parents to become involved in the schools, in educational
policy, and in the academic life of students; parents must absorb these
teachings and add this participation to their already overburdened and
hectic routines. This area is closely related to the next question. 3.
What will each partner contribute? Imagine,
if you can, parents of power-plant workers coming in for a visit and
saying to supervisors, “You know, you should turn that water up a
little. I think it should be hotter.” Or parents of surgical patients
coming in to advise doctors that they should snip a little more here or
less there. The equivalent of this happens in education all the time, as
parents come to school and make curriculum suggestions—if not
demands—on teachers. It is not clear how, or why, parents should have a
great deal to contribute to issues of educational pedagogy, policy, and
practice. In
a similar way, teachers are supposed to be experts at educating children,
not adults. The Education Department’s guidance actually calls upon both
sets of partners to base their partnership on areas that are not their
primary areas of expertise. In
essence, it is saying that parents’ most important job is to ensure the
academic success of their children. While this is not stated in as many
words, our reading of the guidance is that the role of parents as their
children’s first teachers is narrowly interpreted to the three R’s,
rather than as educating students for success in life, as well as school. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There
is no mystery about what children need for social, emotional, and academic
growth and the development of sound character. Fortunately, it is within
the reach of the vast majority of parents to provide what is needed. The
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning and the
Laboratory for Student Success have taken a lead role in identifying these
factors and are excellent resources for educators and parents.
|