The importance of parental involvement in education is becoming increasingly recognized in education policies at both the local and global levels. Linkages between parental involvement and academic achievement (Mapp, 2013) have been well articulated in education literature. Parents' values regarding the importance of schooling affect the school attendance of their children (Irwin, et al., 1978) whereas their partnership with the school has been proven to be effective in order to reduce chronic absenteeism (Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). Parents can hold the schools accountable for their child’s learning by putting pressure on schools and influencing schools and policies informally and formally (OECD, 2021).  This puts parents in a pivotal role in improving both the school and home learning environment. This study explores how these parents if brought together in a common forum could also influence the educational landscape of their community.

Community schools in Nepal are the largest provider of Basic education with 76 percent of schools in Nepal as community schools (GoN, 2021). The National Education Policy, 2076, links good governance of Community schools to active participation and representation of community members in school management (GoN, 2020). It indicates a policy-level improvement in the effective participation of community members in the School Management Committee (SMC) and meaningful participation in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). The newly amended Education sector plan 2021 – 2030 postulates ‘maintaining the attraction and trust of parents towards community school’ as one of the main challenges of the educator sector in Nepal (GoN, 2021). However, Community schools in Nepal are considered to be government entities although education acts and policies devolve the responsibility to the community itself. The reluctance of community schools to involve the parents in the decision-making process (CERID, 2009) and parents oblivious about their roles and responsibilities has widened the gap between the two. The existing deficit discourse has negatively affected the students in terms of their academic achievement, school regularity, and school enrollment. (Pherali, 2021). One of the strategies to overcome this challenge is to increase parents’ involvement and engagement in education through regular dialogues.

This study focuses on children aged 6 to 14 years, officially at the age of attending the Basic Education system (Grades 1-8) of Nepal but is Out of school. These students are either not enrolled in school, are school dropouts, or chronic absentees (absent for more than 1 month in a row). The study brings parents of these students together forming Action groups. The groups are then sensitized about the value of education, involved in the process of regular Conscientization (Freire, 1970), and encouraged to be more engaged with other parents in the community and community schools.

Through participatory action research (Bennet, 2004, Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Heyman, 2011), narrative inquiry (Clandinin, 2006), and secondary data analysis, the research objective is to develop a systematic approach to parent engagement that would serve as a prototype that is replicable in a similar context.

The research questions include,

1. How do the parents understand, value, and use the out-of-school data to formulate effective action plans, implement the action plans and reflect on them leading to further action?
2. How will the values, beliefs, and behaviors of participants regarding the education of their children change as a result of participating in the study?
3. How does the meaningful engagement of parents in the action groups improve the education status of out-of-school children in the community?

The study includes the development, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of the impact of this participatory approach. 

Participatory action research can be regarded as a methodology that argues in favor of the possibility, significance, and usefulness of involving research partners in the knowledge-production process (Bergold, 2007 as cited in Bergold & Thomas, 2012). The participatory worldview is articulated using subjective-objective ontology (Heron & Reason, 1997) and epistemology of experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical ways of knowing (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2013). The methodology is characterized by collaboration between parents of out-of-school children and academic participants at each stage of the research, mutual learning, and resulting social as well as personal action. The axiology asserts the importance of practical knowledge for a Just society. This paper uses narrative inquiry as a complementary research methodology to present the “lived experience” (Clandinin, 2006) of the participants during the course of the research. A three-dimensional space comprising of personal and social (interaction), present and future (continuity), and place (situation) are used in the study where the researcher inquires into participants’ experiences, their own experiences as well as the co-constructed experiences developed through the relational inquiry process (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000 as cited in Clandinin, 2006). Participants' experience with the action research and its impact on their belief system is explored. Photographs, field notes, conversations & interview transcripts are recorded from the field in response to research questions 1 and 2. Research question 3 requires a holistic understanding of the impact of systematic parent engagement on parents’ out-of-school children (OOSC), so, an analysis of secondary school data is also included along with the qualitative inquiry. The data comprises School attendance data reflecting the six months before and after the program (i.e. patterns of attendance, enrolment, dropout, and general student demographics over the time of the study). Both secondary quantitative data and qualitative information is used to supplement each other and also for triangulation purposes where relevant.

Through regular meetings and reflection, the parents are able to develop action plans directed towards -the improvement of home learning environment and negotiation with the community school for quality education. Regular dialogue on employment opportunities increased the educational aspiration of parents for their children. The evaluation result shows a positive impact on student attendance and dropout rates. The action group members have a cordial relationship with the parents of OOSC in the community through regular home visits and interactions. Community members have formed a system to identify out-of-school children in the community; the list of which is provided to the school during the annual door-to-door enrollment campaigning activities. The school focuses on identified families during the campaigning and takes the support of the action group for counseling. However, there were also some challenges. Few of the participants participated in the action research with the motive of penalizing the schools for their autocracy. It took a considerable amount of time for the action group to expand their focus from their own children to other out-of-school children in their community. Some school management did not permit the visits of action groups in the schools and acted with resistance. Due to the heavy political influence, the local education department halted the formation of SMC and PTA in community schools. Despite this, the parents are hopeful that they will be able the transform the current status of basic education in their community through continuous dialogues aided by the process of Conscientization. The systematic engagement of parents in action groups provided a hopeful, potentially transformative approach to reducing the number of out-of-school children in the community. However, enabling policies/ practices to place parents and their voices in schools is required to realize this potential.

Bennet, M. (2004). A review of the literature on the benefits and drawbacks of participatory action research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 1(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.7202/1069582ar Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801 Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research studies in music education, 27(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010301 Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 452-477. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.3.h76250x720j43175 Government of Nepal. MoEST (2020). National Education Policy 2076. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, MoEST. Government of Nepal, MoEST. (2021). Education Sector Plan, 2021-2030. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, MoEST. Government of Nepal, MoEST. (2021). Flash I Report 2077 (2020-021). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, MoEST. Heyman, A. (2011). An exploration of factors which may influence how teachers perceive participatory action research tools being employed in schools. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.554226 Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative inquiry, 3(3), 274-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300302 Irwin, M., Engle, P. L., Yarbrough, C., Klein, R. E., & Townsend, J. (1978). The relationship of prior ability and family characteristics to school attendance and school achievement in rural Guatemala. Child Development, 415-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128706 Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2013). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences, Revisited. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln. Y. S. (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 199-267). SAGE publications. Mapp, K. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. Washington, DC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved December 20, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593896.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Parent involvement. Education GPS. Retrieved December 20, 2022, from https://gpseducation.oecd.org /revieweducationpolicies /#!node=41727&filter=all Pherali, T. (2021). The World Bank, Community Schooling, and School-based Management: A Political Economy of Educational Decentralization in Nepal. In L. Parajuli, D. Uprety & P. Onta (Eds.), School Education in Nepal (pp. 241-262). Kathmandu: Martin Chautari. Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development [CERID]. (2009). Community managed school: An innovative approach to school management (Study Report 33): Tribhuvan University Secretariat, C. A., & Durbar, S. (2015). Constitution of Nepal 2015. Kathmandu: Constituent Assembly Secretariat. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Constitution%20of%20Nepal%202015.pdf Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. The School Community Journal, 14, 39–56. Retrieved December 17, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794822.pdf