Previous research has noted several issues hindering cooperation between home and school (see, e.g., Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). These issues include language and culture barriers as well as misunderstandings between the involved parties (e.g. Conus & Faharni, 2019; Schneider & Arnot, 2018) highlighting the role of communication in establishing a well-functioning relationship (e.g., Epstein, 1995).   

In recent legislation on education in Finland, such as the curricula of basic education, co-operation and partnership between parents and schools is emphasized. (Finnish National Agency for Education 2016). Schools should act as the initiators of the cooperation, but parents are considered to bear the main responsibility on their children’s socialization and education (cf. Böök & Perälä-Littunen 2015). In Finland the main ways of communication between home and school are digital (Korhonen & Lavonen, 2014). Digital communication requires ability and access, the minimum requirement being shared language, and recent research has suggested that digitalization can create exclusion (e.g., Park & Humphry, 2019). In a recent study by Kuusimäki, Uusitalo-Malmivaara, and Tirri (2019) it was noted that parents were mostly satisfied with digital communication, but teachers were more ambiguous in their views.

Schneider and Arnot (2018) present a model for communication between home and school. The model, titled transactional school-home-school (TSHS) communication model is developed based on ideas and previous models from transactional organisational communicational theory by Harris and Nelson (2007). The model describes how schools could “facilitate effective communication systems, emphasises circularity of dialogue between school and home, enhances the mutual understanding of teachers and parents, and creates an operational environment for parental engagement.”( Schneider & Arnot, 2018, p.)

The online education which resulted from the global Covid 19 pandemic as well as the lack of possibilities for face-to-face interaction between home and school have probably even more brought forth the role of communication for both teachers and parents. Therefore, the aim of the presentation is to explore how teachers describe communication between home and school as well as how they see the role communication in the cooperation and partnership.

The exploration of the teachers’ views was carried out by collecting small empirical qualitative data in January 2022. The data collection began with a questionnaire delivered via email directly to 341 teachers and 22 principals in eight municipalities. The email addresses of the potential respondents were found on webpages of the municipalities and schools. The principals were asked to fill in the questionnaire as well as send it to the teachers in their schools. By Jan 30th, 2022, five principals and 27 teachers had answered the questionnaire. While selecting the municipalities, the aim was to reach geographically and linguistically versatile areas. However, most respondents were Finnish speaking. Most schools in Finland are administered and funded by municipalities control many services, for example schools, and therefore their role in organising education is very important. The questionnaire contained 24 items and at the end of the questionnaire, there was a request to participate in an online interview. The topics focused were based on previous research on home -school cooperation and parental engagement including matters such as potential barriers of communication and the aim of the communication. The respondents were asked to focus on time before the Covid -19 pandemic, except for the last item, where they were asked to describe differences between communication with the parents during the pandemic and before it. The data will be analysed using the transactional school-home-school (TSHS) communication model to guide the analysing.

It is expected that the teachers are aware of the significance of effective communication and interaction with the parents and guardians. They are able to describe barriers and pitfalls of the cooperation and have encountered both positive and negative effects caused by the digitalization. Moreover, the findings of this study are planned to be used as a starting point for more extensive study.

Böök, M.L. and Perälä-Littunen,S. (2015). Responsibility in Home–School Relations — Finnish Parents’ Views. Children & Society, 29, pp. 615–625. DOI:10.1111/chso.12099 Conus, X. and Fahrni, L. (2019). Routine communication between teachers and parents from minority groups: an endless misunderstanding? Educational Review,71:2, 234-256, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1387098. Epstein, J.L. (1995). School, family, community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan; Bloomington 76 (9), https://www.proquest.com/docview/218509027?accountid=11774 Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education https://www.ellibs.com/fi/book/9789521362590/national-core-curriculum-for-basic-education-2014 Hornby, G. & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2010.488049 Korhonen, T. and Lavonen,J. (2014). Crossing school-family boundaries through the use of technology, in Crossing Boundaries for Learning-through Technology and Human Efforts, H. Niemi, J. Multisilta, and E. Löfström, Eds., CICERO Learning Network, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Kuusimäki, A.-M., Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L, and Tirri, K. (2019). Parents’ and Teachers’ Views on Digital Communication in Finland. Education Research International, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/823678 Schneider, C. and Arnot, M (2018). Transactional school-home-school communication: Addressing the mismatches between migrant parents' and teachers' views of parental knowledge, engagement and the barriers to engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education 75, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.005. Park, S. & Humphry, J. (2019). Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 934-953.