Family Representatives Participation in Portuguese Public Schools: Who they are? What they do?
Author(s):
Pedro Patacho (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2016
Format:
Paper

Session Information

14 SES 07 A, Home-school-community Links: relationships, choice & participation

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-24
17:15-18:45
Room:
OB-E1.17 (ALE 1)
Chair:
Raquel-Amaya Martínez-González

Contribution

With the transition to democracy, in 1974, the democratic participation in schools become an important part of the organization of the Portuguese education system. Since then have been made some decentralization efforts to ensure greater school autonomy and greater democratic participation of family and community in schools life.

However, the Portuguese education system has been always described as highly centralized (Barreto, 1995; Barroso, 2009, 2011; Lima, 2011). Also, in early 90’s, the school autonomy efforts in many countries began to be strongly influenced by something else beyond democratic participation values, particularly by neoliberal agenda and its consumerist vision of education. This influenced education policy and created several tensions between democratic participation and managerial practices that can be conceived as obstacles to social justice and democracy in public schools (Gewirtz, 2003; Torres Santomé, 2001, 2011).

According to Sliwka and Istance (2006), most OECD countries have made provisions for parents and community to participate in school decision-making. “School councils, on which elected parent representatives serve together with teacher representatives, are a more recent development in most countries” (p.30). It seems that through this kind of participation, parents could “have more influence… and often have a say in developing local curricula, deciding about budgetary matters, and recruiting and selecting teachers and principals… however, there is a serious issue regarding how many parents are familiar with these arrangements and which parents these are...”. (pp.30-31).

In April 2008, the Portuguese parliament passed a law that established a new governance model for schools relied in two main ideas: a) strong leaderships, and b) family and community participation. The second was achieved by creating a new structure, the General Council (GC), that includes the representation of families and community, teachers, staff, and local government. Additionally, each class should have two family representatives to cooperate with teachers.The main arguments were the democratization and the efficiency and efficacy of the system.

This paper addresses a fundamental research question: a) How are family representatives participating both in schools GC and at the class level? More precisely, it aims to describe who is participating, how those persons are selected, how they actually participate, how other families see them, how they see schoolwork, and how teachers and school directors see them.

Dickson, Halpin, Power, Telford and Gewirtz (2005) states that school governance practices focused on having “people more involved in collective decision-making about local policy for schools is not easy to achieve... [The problems] often reflect some of the long-standing difficulties of implicating people in local decision-making, particularly when they have felt pushed to the margins of the democratic process in the past” (p.179).

Silva (2003, 2007) warned for a series of traps behind family-community-school relations. When he looked at these interactions as social power relations, the main trap seemed to be the social and cultural reproduction when some kinds of families often take the lead. Ensure that all voices are heard in this contested terrain seem to be the main challenges, as appointed by other authors (Silva, 2003, 2007; Abrams & Gibbs, 2002). Include families from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and other groups and offer them training to serve as representatives of other families were also challenges identified by Epstein (2011). According to Santomé (2011), social justice is the fundamental value that should drive school-family relations. A Civic Model is the only one, he claims, that could be considered fully participative, typical of a democratic society composed by citizens. In such a model, all the voices are heard, all the matters are discussed, and large compromises are settled involving schools, families, and other community groups.

Method

The research question and objectives presented in this paper are part of a larger multi-case study research (Flyvbjerg, 2011) developed with a constructivist orientation (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011). Two groups of schools in the metropolitan area of Lisbon (Group A and Group B) were selected based on two main criteria: a) very good external evaluation and very good reputation within the community; b) significant differences regarding the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status and cultural capital of the families. Group A includes 4 schools (3 primary schools and a 5th to 9th grade school) and serves mainly professional middle class white families with higher or secondary education. Group B also includes 4 schools (3 primary schools and a 5th to 9th grade school) and serves mainly low-income multi-racial/ethnic working class and immigrant families with basic education. Each group of schools has a General Council that includes family representatives from each school. Data reported in this paper were collected with document analysis (Rapley, 2014) and 22 semi-structured interviews (Kvale, 2011). Institutional documents were analyzed to understand the procedures to select the members of the GC. 11 interviews were conducted in each group of schools (4 teachers, 4 family representatives at class level, 1 family representative at the GC, the schools group Director, and the local government representative at the GC). All interviews were audio recorded and transcript. Data was analyzed using a ground theory approach based on the comparative method (Gibbs, 2012). Relevant themes were coded and re-coded during the analysis. Reflexive memos were written to produce an interpretation of the coded data. Participants were invited to discuss and validate findings (Walker, 2011).

Expected Outcomes

Family representatives at GC may include leaders of Parents Associations (PA) and others. The second ones are not elected and often coopted under influence of teachers and Directors. Sometimes, even leaders of PA are also coopted by Directors because there are no volunteers. Family representatives at the class level are not elected because there are no volunteers. They are often identified after much insistence of teachers. This reminds how difficult it is to implicate families (Dickson, Halpin, Power, Telford & Gewirtz, 2010). The family representatives are white middle class mothers with secondary or higher education. Problems of representation are evident (Silva, 2003, 2007; Epstein, 2011; Torres Santomé, 2011) are still great obstacles to overcome. One or more family representatives miss meetings. Family representatives that attend GC meetings discuss some of issues pointed by Sliwka and Istance (2006). However, participation is very limited as they have little to say. Family representatives that attend class meetings are often concern about their one child and miss the whole picture. They don’t know the other families, and are not in touch with them. Communication focuses on behavior and academic achievement. The family representatives at the class level don’t know whom and how many are the family representatives at the GC level. They don’t know what kind of issues is discussed at the GC meetings. In some cases they don’t even know what the GC is. Directors, teachers and other members of the GC consider participation positive, but regret the lack of preparation. This is coherent with the need of training to serve as representatives pointed out by Epstein (2011). However, they tend to disagree with the possibility of having parents’ participation in discussions about things that may affect directly teachers’ work with students (ex: curriculum). Some family representatives agree with this, but not all.

References

Abrams, L. S. & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the Logic of Home-School Relations: Parent Involvement Strategies and Practices of Inclusion and Exclusion. Urban Education, Vol.37, Nº3, pp. 384-407. Barroso, J. (2009). A autonomia das escolas: retórica, instrumento e modo de regulação da acção política. Em Adriano Moreira et. al., (Org.) (2aEd.). A Autonomia das Escolas. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian
 Dickson, M.; Halpin, D.; Power, S.; Telford, D.; Whitty, G & Gewirtz, S. (2005). Education Action Zones and Democratic Participation. School Leadership & Management, Vol.21, Nº2, pp. 169-181. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships – Caring for the Children We Share. In J. L. Epstein, School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. (2nd Ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 389-414. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp.301-316. Gewirtz, S. (2003). The Managerial School: Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education. London: Routledge Gibbs, G. (2012). El análisis de datos cualitativos en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Ediciones Morata. Kvale, S. (2010). Las entrevistas en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Ediciones Morata. Lima, L. C. (2011). Administração Escolar: Estudos. Porto: Porto Editora.
 Lincoln, Y.; Lynham, S. & Guba, E. (2011) Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences, Revisited. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, (4th Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp.97-128. Rapley, T. (2014). Los análisis de la conversación, del discurso y de documentos en investigación cualitativa. Madrid: Ediciones Morata. Rosenau, J. (2010). As Pessoas Contam! Indivíduos em rede na sociedade global. Mangualde: Edições Pedago. Silva, P. (2003). Escola-Família, uma Relação Armadilhada. Interculturalidade e Relações de Poder. Porto: Edições Afrontamento. Silva, P. (2007). O contributo da escola para a actividade parental numa
perspectiva de cidadania. In M. Miguéns (Org.) Escola, Família, Comunidade, pp. 115-140. Sliwka, A. & Istance, D (2006). Parental and Stakeholder ‘Voice’ in School and Systems. European Journal of Education, Vol.41, Nº1, pp. 29-43 Torres Santomé, J. (2001). Educación en tiempos de neoliberalismo. Madrid: Ediciones Morata. Torres Santomé, J. (2011). La justicia curricular. El cabalo de Troya de la cultura escolar. Madrid: Ediciones Morata. Walker, R. (2011). The Conduct of Educational Case Study: Ethics, Theory and Procedures. In H. Torrance (Ed.). Qualitative Research Methods in Education. Volume 1 – Theoretical Origins of Qualitative Research Methods in Education. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Author Information

Pedro Patacho (presenting / submitting)
Instituto Superior de Ciências Educativas
Paço de Arcos

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.