Luke Cape Thesis

The Dynamics of Parental Involvement in an
Educate Together National School
Professional Master of Education (P.M.E.)
2014 - 2016
Marino Institute of Education
Name: Luke Cape
Student Number: 14262797
Word Count: 10,841
Supervisor: Paula Murphy
Submitted to Marino Institute of Education, Dublin 9, Ireland
18th May 2016.
ii

Declaration
This dissertation has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at this Institute or any
other Institution or University. It is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the
work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged
within the text of my work.
______________________________________________________________
Luke Cape 18th May 2016
iii

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Paula
Murphy. Throughout the writing of this dissertation Paula has provided me with invaluable
support and guidance. I thank her for her knowledge and patience which helped me in the
research and writing of this dissertation.
Secondly, I would like to thank my lecturers in Marino Institute of Education who
were involved in the dissertation process, namely Dr. Rory McDaid and Dr. Barbara
O’Toole. I thank them for their insightful comments and counsel which directed me
towards choosing my research area and questions.
Finally, I would like to thank the friends and family who have supported me
throughout the writing of this dissertation. Their support and advice has been indispensable
to me over the past seven months.
iv

Abstract
This study is an exploration of the motivations, experiences and desired outcomes of
parents taking part in school-based parental involvement programmes at an ethnically
diverse DEIS Band 1 Educate Together National School. It focuses on how parents involve
themselves in their children’s education with the aim of identifying how their involvement
practices can inform future school-based initiatives. The study consisted of focus group
and semi-structured individual interviews with parents who have been involved in
initiatives at the school in the past. The findings from the study highlighted how the
school-based initiatives equipped the parents with skills and self-efficacy to support their
child’s home-based learning, and how it enabled them to develop social and cultural capital
by interacting with teachers and other parents. In addition to this, the study revealed that
while parents with a low socio-economic status were highly motivated to involve
themselves in school-based activities, there was a need for increased parental voice in the
planning of activities and initiatives that would better suit the diverse community of
parents.
The findings from the study suggest that in order to promote a fully inclusive parental
involvement programme at the school, a meaningful consultative process with parents
should be followed in order to identify worthwhile initiatives that serve the diverse
interests of parents and children. Finally, the study recommends a broadening of the focus
of current parental involvement practice to one that builds advocacy and leadership among
parents in order to encourage equitable practice and identify parent leaders at the school.
v

Table of Contents
Declaration …………………………………………………………………….. iii
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………. iv
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… v
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Aim of the Study …………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Background of the Study …………………………………………….……. 1
1.3 Relevance of the Research …………………………………………………. 2
1.4 Research Questions ………..………………………………………………. 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………… 5
2.2 What is Parental Involvement? …………………………………………….. 5
2.2.1 Academic Definitions of Parental Involvement ……………………... 5
2.2.2 Parents’ Definitions of Parental Involvement ………………………… 7
2.2.3 Models for Parental Involvement Practice …………………………... 7
2.3 Why Parental Involvement? ……………………..…………………………. 8
2.3.1 Academic Benefits for Children ……………………..………………. 8
2.3.2 Benefits to Parents and Family ……………………..………………... 9
2.3.3 Benefits to Teachers and Schools ……………………..……………... 9
2.4 What Motivates Parents to Get Involved? ……………………..…………... 10
2.4.1 General Motivators ……………………..……………………………. 10
2.4.2 Considerations for Culture and Ethnicity ……………………..……... 11
2.4.3 Considerations for Low Socio-economic Status ……………………... 12
2.5 Parental Involvement and Capitals ………………………………………… 12
2.5.1 The Role of the Education System ……………………..……………. 12
2.5.2 Inclusion and Exclusion ……………………..………………………. 13
2.5.3 Preserving and Protecting Capital ……………………..…………….. 14
2.5.4 Which Capitals are Recognised in Schools? ……………………..….. 15
2.6 Barriers to Parental Involvement …………………………………………... 16
2.6.1 Barriers due to Culture or Socio-economic Status …………………… 16
2.6.2 Institutional Barriers ……………………..…………………………… 16
Chapter 3: Research Design
3.1 Introduction ……………………..……………………..……………………. 19
3.2 Methodology ……………………..……………………..…………………... 19
3.2.1 Theoretical Perspectives ……………………..……………………….. 19
vi

3.2.2 The Case Study ……………………..……………………..………….. 20
3.2.3 Interviews ……………………..……………………..……………….. 20
3.3 Sampling ……………………..……………………..……………………….. 21
3.4 Ethical Considerations ……………………..……………………..…………. 22
3.5 Limitations of the Study ……………………..……………………..……….. 23
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Introduction ……………………..………………………..…………………. 25
4.2 Motivators that Predict Parental Involvement ……………………..……….. 26
4.2.1 Personal Motivations ……………………..…………………………... 26
4.2.2 Specific Life Contexts ……………………..………………………… 27
4.2.3 Invitations to Involvement ……………………..…………………….. 29
4.3 Experiences of Parental Involvement ……………………..……………….. 31
4.3.1 Parental Involvement Practices ……………………..……………….. 31
4.3.2 Barriers to School-based Parental Involvement ……………………… 33
4.4 Desired Outcomes of Parental Involvement ……………………..…………. 34
4.4.1 Instilling a Value for Education ……………………..………………… 34
4.4.2 Comfort and Confidence ……………………..……………………….. 35
4.4.3 Changing Attitudes, Changing Capitals ……………………..………… 36
4.4.4 Parental Voice ……………………..……………………..……………. 37
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Introduction ……………………..………………………..…………………. 39
5.2 Summary of Findings ……………………..……………………..…………. 39
5.3 Recommendations ……………..……………………..……………………. 41
References ……………………..……………………..……………………..……. 42
Appendix 1 ……………………..……………………..……………………..…… 49
Appendix 2 ……………………..……………………..……………………..…… 50
Appendix 3 ……………………..……………………..……………………..…… 51
Appendix 4 ……………………..……………………..……………………..…… 52
Appendix 5 ……………………..……………………..……………………..…… 53
vii

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Aim of the Study
This research aims to investigate how parents of children in a designated
disadvantaged (DEIS Band 1) Educate Together National School involve themselves in
their children’s education. It also seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of current school-
based parental involvement (PI) initiatives in increasing parents’ participation. Particular
attention will be given to the motivations, experiences and desired outcomes of parents
who have taken part in school-based PI initiatives in order to identify how they define
good PI practice at home and at school. The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005, see
Appendix 1) model of PI will provide the framework for analysing parents’ personal
motivations, their response to school invitations and the impact of life contexts on their
level of involvement.
Overall, the aim of the research is to investigate which type of PI initiatives could
best match the parental body of this school by facilitating the most positive outcomes for
themselves and their children.
1.2 Background of the Study
Northfields Educate Together National School is a large co-educational primary
school in a growing suburb in Dublin with a population demographic that has diversified
rapidly in recent years. Ethnic minorities represent a large majority (87%) of the parental
body (Department of Education and Skills (DES), 2014) and certain school-led initiatives
have been organised by the Home, School, Community Liaison (HSCL) Officer in an
effort to develop PI at the school in question. Examples of these initiatives include a
1

Parent’s Council, ‘Learning for Fun’ (parents and children classes), English classes for
parents, IT, sewing and FETAC accredited courses.
So far, the ‘Learning for Fun’ classes have been well attended by parents. However
this year, initiatives such as parent education classes and community events have been less
well attended and the Parents’ Council has had difficulty attracting members. Another
challenge is that the growing enrolment at the school has forced the reassignment of what
was the Family Room in previous years (an area for coffee mornings and community
events) to become a third junior infants classroom. This has impacted the school by
removing an area which had been set aside specifically for home-school initiatives. In
previous years, these had included coffee mornings, parent education classes and school-
based PI initiatives.
1.3 Relevance of the Study
Studies have shown that participation in parent education programmes have
strengthened the role beliefs and involvement of parents (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; De
Gaetano, 2007), and that teacher invitations to join school programmes were the strongest
predictor of home and school-based involvement among parents (Hoover- Dempsey et al.,
2005; Murphy, 2014). However in ethnically diverse designated disadvantaged schools
such as Northfields, research has found that PI initiatives tend to focus on ‘intervention’
style involvement, aimed at school completion and developing home-school links, rather
than initiatives that involve parents in planning and directing activities (Hanafin & Lynch,
2002). There may be a need for research in order to ‘redefine’ PI from school-based
definitions such as the one above to one that aims to develop collaborative and relevant
roles for parents in these schools (Bower & Griffin, 2011).
2

Educate Together schools regard PI as being integral to their educational practice,
citing the democratic involvement of parents as having an active role in the day-to-day
running of the school (Educate Together, 2004). However, in areas of rapidly changing
populations such as Northfields, involving parents from diverse backgrounds in school life
may be hampered by many factors, such as the limited awareness among Irish teachers of
issues of cultural diversity (Haverty, 2015) and the concurrent demands placed on teachers
to be inclusive of the multiple needs of a diverse group of parents and pupils (Burke,
2004). Research is needed in order to investigate whether the types of initiatives in place in
the school are compatible with the interests of the parental and student body, or whether
they exhibit a “schoolcentric” vision of PI (Lawson, 2003, p.126).
Finally, Ireland has experienced a rapidly diversifying demographic makeup as well
as a growing population in recent years (Central Statistics Office, 2011). This is
particularly true in the greater Dublin area, where many schools are oversubscribed,
resulting in the children of minority parents often being unable to enrol their children in a
local school due to selective enrolment policies (Holland, 2015). Enrolment policies may
put ethnic minority parents at a disadvantage in terms of accessing local schools on the
grounds of their religion or other enrolment issues such as priority being given to children
who have a sibling already enrolled at the school. As a response to this, recent government
policy has focused on opening new multi-denominational schools to better serve the needs
of a diverse local population than existing Catholic schools. The government aims to
increase the provision of such schools in the state to 400 by 2030 (Irish National Teachers’
Organisation (INTO), 2016). However, the opening of new schools in diversifying urban
areas has led to the creation of ‘immigrant schools’, as non-Catholic children of
immigrants enrol in the multi-denominational school sector while white, Catholic, Irish
3

children continue to enrol in the established Catholic ethos schools (Devine, 2013). In the
future, these schools will face great challenges in providing for a diverse parent and pupil
population unless equitable and inclusive PI policies are identified to best serve their
needs.
1.4 Research Questions
I aim to draw on Bourdieu’s (1986) research into the forms of cultural and social
capital while framing my research using Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) revised
theoretical model of the PI process (see Appendix 1). Using these and other relevant areas
of research, I aim to explore the following questions:
1. What are the motivators to partake in school based PI initiatives?
2. What are parent's experiences of school based PI?
3. What are parent's desired outcomes for their children from these initiatives?
4

Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Overview
Research has found that PI improves student participation, behaviour, confidence and
achievement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). The Educate Together charter commits itself
to developing inclusive PI policy: schools shall be “Democratically run with active
participation by parents in the daily life of the school” (Educate Together, 2004, p.2).
However, research has found that parents from a minority ethnic background in Ireland are
more likely to experience barriers to their school-based involvement (Darmody & McCoy,
2011) and therefore reduced levels of participation (Murphy, 2014).
Ireland has undergone large demographic changes since the Celtic Tiger boom of the
mid 1990s (Devine, 2013). Census data reveals that there were 544,357 people from an
ethnic minority background living in the state in 2011 (Central Statistics Office, 2012), and
that the proportion of children from a non-Irish background in primary schools stands at
11.1%, according to the most recently available statistical data (DES, 2014).
Given this context and previous research, analysing the involvement of ethnic
minority parents in their children’s schooling and examining ways which schools can best
promote PI of these parents in a diverse, DEIS Band 1 environment is a matter of
importance today.
2.2 What is Parental Involvement?
2.2.1 Academic Definitions of Parental Involvement
PI has been described as “a comprehensive set of multilevel and concurrent activities
that seek the broad participation of parents in the life and work of schools” (Giles, 2006, p.
5

258). However, a weakness of this definition is that it does not take into account home-
based PI, which has been shown to be an important factor in parental interaction in their
child’s education (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2011). To this end Smit,
Driessen, Sluiter and Sleegers (2007) instead used the terms Participation (in school) and
Involvement (at home) to differentiate between school-based and home-based activities.
Crozier (2000) is critical of such a simplistic view of PI, contending that it is a multi-
faceted and complex business, interpreted differently by different constituents and serving
a variety of purposes at different times.
Research has shown that school personnel often define PI in school-based terms,
while parents’ greater involvement in home-based activities to support their children’s
learning gets overlooked (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2011; Hoover-
Dempsey et al., 2005). In addition to this, Hanafin & Lynch (2002) argue that school
invitations to participate differ depending on the parents’ socio-economic status (SES):
working-class parents are “targeted” with early start programmes and early school-leaving
interventions, while parents from a higher SES are invited to partake in parents’
representative bodies and councils (p.35).
Teachers tend to frame PI in terms of their own perspectives and value positions,
which can serve to marginalise parents who come from different backgrounds and cultures
to their own (Crozier, 1999). The use of the word ‘involvement’ by schools also needs to
be scrutinized, as it can obscure “ornamental involvement”, where schools have many
parents involved in the school with very little dialogue or learning by either parents or staff
taking place (Burke, 2004, p.8).
6

2.2.2 Parents’ Definitions of Parental Involvement
Several studies have highlighted the difference in interpretation of PI between
parents and teachers (Bower & Griffin, 2011; Crozier, 1999; De Gaetano, 2007; Lee &
Bowen, 2006). De Gaetano (2007) found that while Latino families in the U.S. tend to
respect the role of the teacher and are therefore less likely to contact the school, this has
been interpreted by teachers as a lack of involvement rather than an act of deference. Many
parents like this who are seen by schools as uninvolved are in fact involved, but in ways
that schools may not notice or recognize (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Lee & Bowen,
2006).
Evidence suggests that parents from different backgrounds exhibit different types of
involvement (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Minority ethnic families are more inclined to be
actively engaged in supporting their children’s learning at home rather than becoming
involved at school (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2011; Jackson & Remillard,
2005; Bower & Griffin, 2011; Lee & Bowen, 2006), while majority ethnic, middle-class
parents are more likely to find active roles for themselves in the schools (Levine-Rasky,
2009). Crozier’s (1999) study of parents who come from a low SES background found that
they tend to view the school as separate from their everyday lives, and that to them the
parent-teacher role comprises a “division of labour” between home-based involvement
(parents) and school-based learning (teachers) (p.315).
2.2.3 Models for Parental Involvement Practice
In an effort to marry the differing interpretations of PI, Epstein (2013) suggests
interpreting them as “overlapping spheres of influence” of schools, families and
communities. In her model, educators need to look beyond PI, as it places the focus on the
7

parent, and away from the school. She prefers the term “School, Family and Community
Partnerships”, as this puts more emphasis on the broad participation of members of the
wider school community. However, this model has been criticised by defining the role of
parents in the decision-making process from within the existing framework of the school,
which ensures that “parental involvement is defined and evaluated in the school’s terms
rather than the families’ terms” (Bower & Griffin, 2011, p.78). They suggest redefining PI
from purely academic roles toward more collaborative and culturally relevant roles, which
could “create ownership” and develop “natural parent leaders”, thus balancing the power
between the parents and the school (p.85).
Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, Dallaire, Wilkins & Walker (2005) designed a theoretical
model for PI (see also: Appendix 1), which groups psychological contributors to PI into
five levels. Level one focuses on personal motivators for parents to be involved, invitations
to involvement and the specific life contexts of the parents. It also focuses on the different
types of involvement: at home, communication with school, involvement at school, and
values and goals of parents. Levels two, three, four and five focus on parental mechanisms
of involvement, how this is perceived by the child, and how this attributes to student
achievement. This research will use the Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler model’s first level of
PI as a theoretical framework, as it provides a guide for analysing research in the different
areas of PI relevant to the case study.
2.3 Why Parental Involvement?
2.3.1 Academic Benefits for Children
PI has been positively linked to indicators of student achievement, better
participation rates, student sense of personal efficacy, as well as adaptive school behavior,
engagement in schoolwork, and beliefs about the importance of schoolwork (Hoover-
8

Dempsey et al., 2005). Of the different types of PI identified in the previous section,
school-based involvement has been shown to demonstrate the strongest association with
student’s educational achievement (Lee & Bowen, 2006). This type of involvement is
exhibited most often by parents from dominant, middle-class cultural groups (Lee &
Bowen, 2006; Murphy, 2014). However, among parents with a low SES, involvement in a
parent-teacher organisation has been found to be significantly associated with student
achievement (Desimone, 1999).
2.3.2 Benefits to Parents and Family
From a parent’s perspective, research has found that participation in a parent
education programme within the school has improved parents’ motivations to become
involved in their child’s education (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; De Gaetano, 2007). Studies
have shown that programmes such as these increase parents’ skills and leadership (Higgins,
2007; Epstein, 2001) as well as increasing their sense of efficacy in supporting their child’s
learning (Higgins, 2007). Incorporating culturally relevant PI strategies such as parent-
organised events into schooling has also been shown to be effective in developing
relationships and building advocacy among parents from ethnic-minority, low-income
backgrounds (Bower & Griffin, 2011; Desimone, 1999).
2.3.3 Benefits to Teachers and Schools
Educational programmes such as language classes that build up a good reputation
among parents have been found to promote interaction between parents and the school
(Darmody & McCoy, 2011) while developing meaningful skills for the parents (De
Gaetano, 2007). For teachers, greater impressions of similarity between self and others
9

have been reported among teachers in schools with stronger PI practices (Epstein &
Dauber, 1991). For the school overall, PI initiatives such as having an open ‘family room’
have enabled improvements in school climate by bringing together the spheres of the
families, communities and schools (Higgins, 2007). Desimone (1999) found that PI is a
desirable policy for schools as it is “an efficient social investment with a payoff far greater
than its costs” (p.12) that addresses considerations of equity and equal opportunity in the
school.
2.4 What Motivates Parents to Get Involved?
2.4.1 General Motivators
Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) researched the motivators behind parents becoming
involved in their child’s schooling. They identified three causes: parents’ motivational
beliefs (how parents see their own roles, and their sense of efficacy in helping their child
succeed in school), invitations to involvement at the school and parents’ own life contexts.
Further research revealed that specific invitations to involvement from teachers played the
most important role in shaping parents’ involvement behaviours (Walker, Ice, Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 2011).
Gonzalez et al. (2013) found that in order to get involved, parents must believe that
school-based involvement is important, and will make a positive contribution to their
children’s success. However, it has been acknowledged that parents’ motivational beliefs
differ according to their social background (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Chrispeels and
Rivero (2001), for example, found that immigrant Latino parents in the U.S. had different
ideas about their appropriate roles in their children’s education than majority ethnic
parents, and this affected how they interpreted school invitations to involvement. This
10

shows that there is a need to analyse research on PI motivators with consideration to the
different backgrounds of the parents.
2.4.2 Considerations for Culture and Ethnicity
While specific invitations to school involvement are seen to be a robust predictor of
PI, general invitations to involvement from the school do not predict home-based or
school-based involvement among ethnic minority parents (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey
& Sandler, 2011). In a case study conducted in Ireland, a general invitation PI initiative
that involved culturally sensitive material was the only one that was well attended, among
many others (Murphy, 2014). In a study conducted with Latino parents in the United States
it was found that in order to become active in schools, parents need to view involvement as
their responsibility, not as a task directed by the school personnel (Gonzalez et al., 2013).
This research would suggest that culturally relevant, partnership-focused PI initiatives
would predict better school-based involvement among parents from minority backgrounds.
Further research with African American fathers (Abel, 2012) and Muslim parents in
Holland (Smit, Driessen, Sluiter & Sleegers, 2007) has suggested that parental role
construction influences whether or not parents will engage in school-based PI activities.
This indicates that culturally relevant PI initiatives developed in tandem with parents may
improve PI among these parents.
On the other hand, parents whose culture is congruent with the school’s demonstrate
the most frequent school-based involvement, in response to general invitations (Lee &
Bowen, 2006). In order to develop PI initiatives that appeal to all cultures, Bower &
Griffin (2011) suggest working to develop collaborative roles among parents, such as
parent support groups or presenters in classroom cultural enrichment activities. This would
11

help increase motivation for involvement by “empowering parents to serve as supports for
each other” (p.85), thus empowering them to have a more active role in the education of
their children.
2.4.3 Considerations for Low Socio-economic Status
Families from lower SES backgrounds have been found to expend considerable
effort to gain the recognition of school personnel as full partners in the education of their
children (Freeman, 2010). Indeed, the research found that these parents aim to “break the
stereotypical role” that teachers have regarding working class children by “continuously
intervening” on their behalf (p.187). Schools that have given this recognition by
establishing a “welcoming and nurturing environment” have experienced increased PI
from parents with a lower SES (Higgins, 2007, p.115). Another consideration for the
motivation of parents from low SES backgrounds is that they may see their involvement
roles as separate from the school (Crozier, 1999), and may lack confidence in their
interactions with the education system (Lee & Bowen, 2006).
To bridge this gap in understanding, Higgins (2007) suggests developing parental
education programmes with an appropriate pedagogy that develops friendship and
solidarity among learners, while instigating mutual respect and collaboration between
teachers and parents.
2.5 Parental Involvement and Capitals
2.5.1 The Role of the Education System
...it [education] is in fact one of the most effective means of perpetuating
the existing social pattern, as it both provides an apparent justification for
social inequalities and gives recognition to the cultural heritage, that is, to a
social gift treated as a natural one. (Bourdieu, 1974, p.32)
12

Bourdieu (1986) presents a theory that individuals make use of cultural and social
capital to advance and reinforce their standing in society. Cultural capital consists of
acquired knowledge of the dominant culture, and “skills and dispositions necessary to
succeed in that context” (Darmody & McCoy, 2011, p.147). This cultural capital is
embedded in children’s knowledge, language and mannerisms; namely, in what Bourdieu
(1986) calls their habitus. By socialising children into the dominant culture, the education
system sanctions the “hereditary transmission of cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.85).
Cultural capital in this way becomes determinant in the reproduction of social structures.
In a multicultural environment, this “monocultural” system of education serves to
enfranchise those with an abundance of cultural capital, while disenfranchising those who
are lacking (De Gaetano, 2007, p.148). In this section, this review will explore research
pertaining to cultural and social capital and its influence on the PI of parents from different
cultural backgrounds.
2.5.2 Inclusion and Exclusion
Research has shown that ethnic minority children struggle to succeed in the
education system due to a deficiency of incorporated cultural capital (Reese, Balzano,
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1995). Developing language proficiency has been identified as a
vital precursor to “unlocking the currency of cultural capital” both for parents and pupils
(Darmody & McCoy, 2011, p.159), and as such parents and pupils from backgrounds
different from the majority culture may experience marginalisation (Bourdieu, 1986).
However, ethnic minority communities, rich in their own social and cultural capital,
provide a site for the transmission of values through habitus (Devine, 2009). Parents
13

activate capitals through social groups and share information about schools and services,
while ensuring the reproduction of cultural norms by bringing their children to attend
cultural events (Devine, 2009). What emerges is a system of in/out group membership
among parents and children from ethnic minorities.
By recognition of either membership of one group or exclusion from another, people
“reaffirm the limits of the group, i.e. the limits beyond which the constitutive exchange…
cannot take place” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.89). It has been acknowledged however, that
predictors of group inclusion or exclusion may not be determined by having “a more or
less one-dimensional cultural capital”, but rather having the types of cultural capital that
yields the highest return in a given environment (eg. taking part in extra-curricular
activities yields greater benefits for children in a low and medium SES environment than
in a high SES environment) (Jaeger, 2011, p.295).
2.5.3 Preserving and Protecting Capital
Parents of the dominant cultural group use their habitus and cultural and social
capital to achieve positions of advantage in their interactions with the school, in stark
contrast to parents outside of this group (Levine-Rasky, 2009). The cultural capital
possessed by the dominant group magnifies the effects of PI on their children’s
achievement at school (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Levine-Rasky’s (2009) research with
cultural-majority parents in a multicultural school also found that these parents may “have
a knack for ‘working the system’” which parents from outside the majority culture would
not have (p.335):
‘I volunteered to be in the school not for me, but for them [her children] – for
all the teachers to know who I was ‘cause if they knew who I was, then by
extension they would know who my children were. And if they knew who my
children were then I felt that my children would be looked after better or would
14

be recognized better or would get more opportunities.‘ (parent quoted in Levine-
Rasky, 2009, p. 335)
Parents may use their capital advantage as a means to an end by promoting their child’s
school achievement through their own knowledge gained by experience of the system and
visits to the school (Coleman, 1988). This serves to reinforce and replicate the cultural
capital endowed on the dominant cultural group (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990).
2.5.4 Which Capitals are Recognised in Schools?
According to Bourdieu, a teacher’s teachings are always directed by the institution:
“pedagogic action must, by an apparent paradox, obtain the recognition of its authority in
and through the performance of the work of inculcation” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p.
124). This has been confirmed in research conducted into PI initiatives in Dutch primary
schools: it was found that in many schools with large proportions of minority ethnic
parents, the initiatives focused on “improved preparation of the parents” for the school
career of the pupils, while in non-minority schools the main objective was for having the
parents contribute to the running of the school (Smit, Driessen, Sluiter & Sleegers, 2007, p.
48). This study and others show how institutions work to perpetuate dominant types of
cultural and social capital, while neglecting non-dominant types.
In Devine’s (2009) study of migrant parent and children’s ability to mobilise capitals
in Irish schools, she found that children who were rich in social capital within their own
ethnic communities (in-group) chose to partake in activities that accumulated ‘Irish’ social
capital, as these activities created “a form of symbolic capital that signified their
‘Irishness’ and willingness to be the same” (p.528). This reflected the conviction among
children that their ethnic identities had little exchange value in the Irish classroom, and
15

confirms Bourdieu’s theory that capital is only acquired through “unceasing effort at
sociability in which recognition is affirmed and reaffirmed” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.90).
2.6 Barriers to Parental Involvement
2.6.1 Barriers due to Culture or Socio-economic Status
Possible barriers to PI are particularly relevant to my investigation in a school where
the majority of the parent population comes from a low SES, ethnic minority background.
Studies have found that working class parents feel and are treated by teachers as less
valuable than parents of the professional classes (Bennett, 2015). Crozier (1999) reported a
perceived gap among parents between their roles and the role of teachers in the school:
‘They've [the teachers] got their job to do, a parent has their job to do, and yes,
we do meet in the middle or we do meet and say, "Look what's going on here?"
or "This is good", you know.’ (parent quoted in Crozier, 1999, p.319)
Parents with a lower SES may not feel comfortable in the school building itself
(Darmody & McCoy, 2011) or may find it difficult to alter long working hours to attend
school events (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2011; Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2005). Bower & Griffin (2011) identified bridging the cultural gap between ‘middle-class’
schools and ‘working class’ families as the biggest challenge to PI among parents from a
low SES or minority background. They suggested empowering parents for advocacy by
establishing parent leaders within the school as one way to overcome this barrier.
2.6.2 Institutional barriers
Numerous studies have found that where a language barrier exists between the
parents and school staff, school-based PI is reduced (Cummins, 2000; Darmody & McCoy,
2011; De Gaetano, 2007; Murphy, 2014). However, school’s tendency to assume that
16

parents are not likely to be involved because they lack the requisite language ability has
itself been found to be a barrier to PI (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Teachers may
interact less with parents from a minority ethnic background due to their preconception
that a language barrier may exist, even when it does not.
From a teacher’s perspective, there are few opportunities for in-service support in
developing collaborative, family responsive involvement practices within the school
(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Because of this, within Ireland the approach to cultural
diversity has predominantly been left to the individual teacher, who may vary in their level
of personal commitment (Parker-Jenkins & Masterson, 2013). Research conducted in the
United Kingdom found that teachers emphasised ‘integration’ of newly arrived pupils into
the dominant culture, which involved “conformity and control” of “other” cultures, rather
than sharing cultures and values (Crozier & Davies, 2008, p.298).
Teachers tend to employ the same strategies to involve all parents, thereby ignoring
the different values, needs and experiences of parents from different backgrounds (Crozier,
1999). Crozier (1999) claims that the endeavour to involve parents in this way is
“coterminous with achieving the ‘ideal type’ of parents” (p.327). She asserts that teachers
who attempt to reach an ‘ideal parent’ through their PI initiatives will inevitably turn to
parents who match their own perspectives and value positions, thereby doing nothing to
encourage the greater participation of marginalised parents. This reaffirms Bourdieu’s
(1986) theory of a cultural capital that is embedded in society by being “affirmed and
reaffirmed”, particularly by institutions of education and their agents (p.90).
Finally, Irish research has indicated that teachers may feel a perceived threat to their
professionalism by developing inclusive PI initiatives in their teaching (Bennett, 2015).
This may be created by being reluctant to share pedagogical methods with ‘unqualified’
17

parents, or they may feel it is impossible to be accountable for the multiplicity of needs
posed by dealing with parents as well as children (Burke, 2004).
All, or some, of these facets of the broad spectrum of PI may hinder school initiatives
to include parents in the home or school-based learning of their children. By developing PI
initiatives that do not take into account diversity and difference among the parental body,
schools risk only servicing part of the community, thus maintaining the status quo of
cultural capital transfer of the dominant cultural group and further alienation of
marginalised parents.
18

Chapter 3: Research Design
3.1 Introduction
This research project explored the experiences and dynamics of PI at Northfields
Educate Together National School through focus group interviews and semi-structured
individual interviews. This qualitative approach to gathering data focuses on “the
subjective world of human experience” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p.17).
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Theoretical Perspectives
The school where this case study was conducted is a diverse school, with 87% of
the parental body coming from an ethnic minority background (DES, 2014). In conducting
research into human experiences of ethnic minority parents in particular, the theoretical
approach and interpretation of findings reflected a critical multicultural perspective. This
perspective aims to develop critical consciousness and “equitable educational
practice” (Lea, 2010, p.34), as a response to hegemonic narratives that serve to perpetuate
“dominant values and common culture” in educational research (Parker-Jenkins &
Masterson, 2013, p.479). Acknowledgement of cultural differences in PI can only be useful
to this research project if it is accompanied by a critical assessment of the inequalities that
may exist between majority and minority ethnic parents at the school.
In order to guide the data analysis, the Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (2005, see
Appendix 1) model of PI was used, which helped to frame the analysis of parent’s
responses and experiences and guide the further discussion of the findings. The themes that
emerged from the coding process will be analysed in the next chapter.
19

3.2.2 The Case Study
Sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at
individual cases - not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope
of learning something! (Eysenck, 1976, p.9)
In choosing the case study as the research approach, this project aimed to learn as
much as possible from the group of parents interviewed. By focusing on this one instance
of the issue being researched, the case study can help to identify how the many different
players and processes in the school affect one another. In this respect, this research was
“‘holistic’, rather than dealing with ‘isolated factors’” (Denscombe, 2010, p.53).
Another characteristic of case studies is that they are conducted in a natural setting.
This setting should exist “prior to the research project and will exist after the project is
completed” (Denscombe, 2010, p.56). This natural setting is more conducive to the
gathering of information on experiences, relationships and processes as the research is
viewed by the participants as “the scene for a social interaction rather than a simple tool
for collection of “data”.” (Alvesson, 2003, p.169).
The selection of the case study setting is important. Denscombe (2010) notes that
“although each case is in some respects unique, it is also a single example of a broader
class of things” (p.60). In order to be able to generalise from the results of a case study, it
is important to choose a case that is either typical to the research area in question, or is an
extreme case (Denscombe, 2010). In the case of Northfields Educate Together National
School, it is in the extreme instance of parental body demographics: 87% of the parents
come from an ethnic minority background (DES, 2014).
3.2.3 Interviews
Interviews lend themselves to the collection of data based on opinions, feelings and
20

experiences (Denscombe, 2010), which is suitable for this case study research into the
dynamics of PI. In order to maximise the findings, focus group interviews were chosen as a
method of gathering data. Emphasis was placed on the interaction within the group as a
means of eliciting information. The aim of this method of gathering data is that it can
“yield a collective rather than an individual view” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p.
436) which can help to form coherent results for further discussion. In addition to this, the
researcher’s role in the process was to facilitate discussion, so that “the participants’ rather
than the researcher’s agenda can predominate” (2011, p.436). This provided a natural
setting for the participants to have their say in a relaxed environment, and may have
produced responses that may not have come forward in individual interviews (Denscombe,
2010).
A bank of questions were prepared for the interviews (see Appendix 5), which were
used to stimulate discussion during the interview (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). The
questions used the Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler model of PI (2005, see Appendix 1) as a
framework: beginning at level 1, the aim was to question parents on their Role
Construction, Sense of Efficacy, response to School Invitations, response to Child
Invitations, Knowledge and Skills and Time and Energy. The questions also aimed to
answer my research questions for this thesis:
1. What are the motivators to partake in school based PI initiatives?
2. What are parent's experiences of school based PI?
3. What are parent's desired outcomes for their children from these initiatives?
3.3 Sampling
The sample group for this research included parents who had taken part in
21

‘Learning for Fun’ initiatives at the school in the past. ‘Learning for Fun’ classes aim to
invite parents into the classroom to experience subjects such as Maths, English and Baking
with their children in a relaxed and fun way. During ‘Maths for Fun’ and ‘English for Fun’,
four learning stations are set up in the room, with one parent at each station. Parents lead
the group in learning activities, and groups rotate after a short period of time.
In order to get a broad sample of the parents, I distributed thirty invitations to
parents who have attended the Learning for Fun initiatives in the past. These included
parents from Nigerian, Irish, Algerian, Pakistani, Indian, Moldovan, Filipino and English
backgrounds.
The parents - names given as pseudonyms - who took part in the focus group
interview were:
Esther- Nigerian
Abigail- Nigerian
Temitope- Nigerian
Kebe- Nigerian
Olabisi- Nigerian
Ciarán- Irish
Anne- Irish
Brenda- Irish
Mahnoor- Pakistani
Yasmine- Algerian
Tanvi- Indian
Rebecca- English
Veronyka- Moldovan
The parents who took part in individual, semi-structured interviews were:
Nora- Indian
Patrona- Filipino
3.4 Ethical Considerations
This study was approved in advance by the Marino Ethics in Research Committee
(MERC). All participants in the study were informed of the purposes of the study, and were
subsequently informed that participation was entirely voluntary, with the focus group
interview intended to take approximately one hour. They were informed that the
information gathered would remain anonymous, including the name of the school,
22

participants, locations etc. Parents were asked to sign consent forms before the
commencement of the interviews and the transcripts produced after the interview were
limited to the researcher and thesis supervisor. Additional field notes were treated in the
same way, and all audio recordings were stored securely.
3.5 Limitations of the Study
One of the limitations of the case study method is the observer effect (Denscombe,
2010). There is a possibility that the presence of the researcher over a period of time might
lead to those being researched behaving “differently from normal owing to the knowledge
that they are ‘under the microscope’ and being observed in some way” (p.63). Alvesson
(2003) supports this view, adding that statements participants make could be determined by
the situation, i.e. they are related to the “interview context” rather than a specific
“experiential reality” (p.169). In addition to this, answers may be “tailored to match what
the interviewee suspects is the researcher’s point of view” (p.179). This limitation may be
mitigated by using focus groups as a method of gathering data: in a social situation with
other parents, the observer effect should be minimised due to the presence of people other
than the researcher. However in this study, the presence of the HSCL Officer in the focus
group may have augmented the observer effect on the group of parents present: it was
requested at the last minute that the HSCL Officer attend the focus group in order to gather
feedback and ideas on school-based activities from the parents.
Another limitation of the interpretivist approach is that the researcher must admit
that they are a human instrument and primary research tool in the data gathering process
(Merriam, 1998). The identity and cultural positioning of the researcher will inevitably
determine how the data is analysed. Ellis and Bochner (2000) argue that although it is
23

important for the researcher to remain “focusing outward on social and cultural aspects” of
the findings, one must also “look inward, exposing a vulnerable self that is moved by and
may move through, refract and resist cultural interpretations” (p.739). Being a white, Irish,
middle-class researcher may refract how qualitative data gathered from working class,
ethnic minority parents is interpreted.
Finally, two focus groups had been arranged, each with five parents having
confirmed their attendance. However, as the first focus group was beginning eight more
parents (including some who had confirmed their attendance at the second focus group)
joined the group, bringing the total to thirteen parents. This could limit the data gathered as
it is more difficult to gain a consensus in focus groups that have too many participants
(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011) and some parents may not be able to share their views
due to the crowded nature of the conversation.
24

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the findings from the interviews with parents
which formed the basis of the study. The findings are discussed under the themes that
emerged following an in-depth analysis of the data, which followed the procedure outlined
in Chapter 3.
Firstly, it is important to note that while analysing the data it became evident that
cultural-majority parents dominated the responses during the hour-long focus group
interview. Out of a total of 245 responses during the interview, cultural-majority parents
made 159 (65%). On average, each cultural-majority parent contributed 16% of the total
responses, while cultural-minority parents only contributed 3.5%, which is particularly
pertinent given that cultural-majority parents constituted just four out of the thirteen
participants. This reflects research by Lee & Bowen (2006) which found that cultural-
majority parents’ “personal dispositions, attitudes, and knowledge gained from
experience” (p.198) would be more translatable in a school context, as they have more
confidence in their ability to discuss the inner workings of schools due to their “feel for the
game” and recognised cultural capital (Devine, 2009, p.111).
The aim of this chapter is to evaluate the ways parents involve themselves in their
child’s education at home and in school in order to assess PI practices that could be
supported and developed as part of school-based PI initiatives. With a view to finding out
why parents seek to involve themselves in their child’s education, I will begin by framing
my analysis using Level One of the Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler Model of PI (Hoover-
Dempsey, Sandler, Dallaire, Wilkins, & Walker, 2005; see also Appendix 1), which
25

identifies three contributing factors that motivate parents to get involved in their child’s
education: the parents’ personal motivations (their role construction and self-efficacy),
their specific life contexts and invitations to involvement.
4.2 Motivators that Predict Parental Involvement
4.2.1 Personal Motivations
Parents’ motivational beliefs predicted the way they approached school staff. Many
parents in the study mentioned that getting to know their child’s teacher(s) was a primary
motivator to become involved in school-based activities:
‘I think that meeting the people that are teaching the child first, and I suppose
having a good relationship with them… that would be the first thing that I
would do. And then find out, I suppose, what would be my daughter’s
strengths and what would be her weaknesses, and then try to work on that…
that would be what I would do at the start.’ (Brenda)
Some parents mentioned how they would use their relationship with teachers to the
advantage of their children in the future, thus making use of acquired social capital to
advance their standing with the school (Bourdieu, 1986):
‘As they get older, if you’ve had a relationship with the teachers, when
problems do arise, you’ve got that relationship and when you go in and talk
to the teacher… they respect you, and it makes a difference, you know?‘
(English parent: Rebecca)
The parent above aims to cultivate teachers’ positive regard for her children in order to
have the relationship pay off for her in the future. This mirrors Levine-Rasky’s (2009)
research with cultural-majority parents in a multicultural school that also found that these
parents may be able to work the system to their advantage, a skill that parents from outside
the majority culture would not have (p.335).
26

A parent’s sense of self-efficacy influenced their view of the parent-teacher role in
their child’s education. For cultural-majority parents, a shared role was envisaged as a
starting point in the parent-teacher relationship:
‘It’s definitely about shared information and a relationship that it’s always
taken positively, not like… “oh we’ve got to do this” or “we’ve got to do
that”… like a negative view.’ (Irish parent: Anne)
For parents from a cultural-minority background, approaches to the school staff tended to
be made when they had concerns or there were problems at home or in school. While it is
clear that these parents were satisfied with their interactions with staff, it did not appear
that they approached staff with the same sense of efficacy as above:
‘Maybe you could meet them after the school, maybe if you have any major
concern or anything like that you know’ (Indian parent: Tanvi)
Previous research has shown that parents such as Tanvi who would approach the school
cautiously have been interpreted by school personnel as exhibiting a lack of involvement
(Lee & Bowen, 2006), while in fact it has been found that ethnic-minority parents tend to
envisage the role of the teacher as separate to their own and are therefore less likely to
contact the school (De Gaetano, 2007; Darmody & McCoy, 2011). This perceived parental
lack of involvement by teachers is a cultural disconnect, and has been associated with
higher teacher ratings of students' academic achievement (Hill & Craft, 2003). As long as
teachers are unaware of this cultural difference in PI, these assumptions will continue to be
made.
4.2.2 Specific Life Contexts
The research revealed that the life contexts of parents affected their willingness to
become involved in school-based PI initiatives. Many of the parents were home-makers or
unemployed, and remarked that their life context motivated them to get involved:
27

‘The reason why I joined on my own was that I want to go out in the
morning: I’m bored.’ (Esther)
From some parents’ responses, there was evidence of frustration at their specific life
contexts, and school-based PI activities were an outlet for them:
‘It’s good for us as well. Because sometimes we don’t choose to be at home
doing nothing, but we have no choice. Because our children come first, and
in that way it gives us somewhere to come.’ (Rebecca)
Higgins’ (2007) argues that while negative factors such as poverty and unemployment may
place parents in a more marginalised position in terms of resources and insider knowledge,
it must not be assumed that these parents have lower aspirations or hopes for their
children’s attainment. Indeed, she found that parents involved in a PI programme in an
inner-city Limerick school were very motivated to get involved with their children’s
school-based learning, as one stated: “I had to work hard… scrubbing out bins and all for
her… I swore my three children wouldn’t do that… I always valued education, and I said
my children will not go through what I went through.” (p.117).
A significant predictor of PI in school-based activities in this study was the wish to
develop social and cultural capital by getting to know other parents (Bourdieu, 1986).
Many parents mentioned the benefits of getting involved with regards to gaining support
from other parents:
‘A lot of us haven’t got family around us… Everybody’s come here on their
own. So, sometimes it’s very lonely. That’s why you need… you get support
and friendship, because sometimes when you’re raising a family on your own
and you haven’t got… it’s lonely isn’t it?’ (English parent: Rebecca)
This reflects research conducted by Devine (2009) which found that migrant parents with
children attending schools reached out to others in similar situations in order to share
information and provide support for each other. It is also supported by research that has
shown that parents like Rebecca, a cultural-majority native English speaker who would
28

have significant cultural capital (language proficiency) when dealing with the school, may
be limited by having a lack of social capital (social networks) to draw upon (Darmody &
McCoy, 2011). This may differ from parents from a middle-class background, whose
cultural and social capital may better match the school. For parents like these, the desire to
get involved in school-based PI activities may be focused towards increasing the academic
achievement of their child and fostering advantageous relationships with teachers, rather
than developing social links and supports among other parents (Levine-Rasky, 2009).
Many cultural-minority parents alluded to the fact that through the social act of
meeting other parents, they could increase their cultural capital by sharing “skills and
dispositions necessary to succeed” in the context of the Irish schooling system (Darmody
& McCoy, 2011, p.147):
‘I’d say, meeting with the parents, and meeting with the teacher, to me it’s…
to meet with the new parents, to make new friends, and then you can talk
about your child, you can share news or experience with school.’ (Filipino
parent: Patrona)
The data clearly conveys that although these parents may be perceived to be marginalised
by their specific life contexts, they wished to use the school-based PI activities to help
develop links and relationships which could benefit them in developing cultural and social
capital. However, it is important to note that although the specific life contexts of the
parents in this study enabled them to become involved in initiatives during the school day,
these initiatives may not suit the life contexts of middle-class families, as many middle-
class parents could be working during school hours. Therefore in this case, unemployment
can actually facilitate PI, which is contrary to research conducted with PI among parents
from low SES life contexts (Crozier, 2001; Levine-Rasky, 2009).
4.2.3 Invitations to Involvement
29

In response to invitations to involvement from the school, all parents interviewed
mentioned that a central motivating factor to taking part would be their child’s response to
them being there, confirming Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler’s (2011) findings
on the motivators which play the most important role in shaping parents’ involvement
behaviours:
‘For me, involving… seeing my daughter seeing me there, and just give her
something that says “OK, my mum is involved so I am happy to go into
school every day because my mummy is helping in my school”, and she can
able to see me. That’s my reason.’ (Patrona)
However for some parents, in addition to the motivation mentioned above the initiative
would have to be beneficial to both parent and child in order for it to be successful:
‘If it’s not enjoyable, I’m not coming back. Everybody, so everybody has an
enjoyable experience… I need to know that this is a good environment to be
in with my child.’ (Anne)
It is clear from this data that parents have varying expectations of PI and have very
different criteria on what will draw them in to school-based PI activities. Research
conducted by Burke (2004) found that this demand for teachers and schools to cater for a
diverse range of parents and their varied motivations made it almost impossible for schools
to be “accountable for the multiplicity of needs, to a multiple audience, including children,
and to parents (who may not even agree with each other on priorities for their
children)” (p.96).
The parents in this study emphasised how they stood out in making an effort to get
involved in school-based PI activities:
‘I think they always invite parents to come for the baking. But some parents
doesn’t turn up. Me, I do come.’ (Esther)
Freeman’s (2010) research focused on how parents intentionally present themselves to the
school as involved in the education of their children in order to gain a position of
30

advantage with school personnel, thus improving the opportunities available to their
children. Another parent mentioned how she used her position to directly approach school
staff:
‘I came straight down. I think I rang Mary [secretary] and said can I come
and meet her and Joan [principal] came in straight away and was full
attention and literally did what she promised to do straight away. She was
great, yeah.’ (Rebecca)
While these quotes show that the parents are responding to a welcoming environment
fostered by the school (Higgins, 2007), it may also show a deliberate act of positioning by
parents as being involved, by continuously intervening on their child’s behalf to “break the
stereotypical role” held by teachers about low SES and cultural minority parents (Freeman,
2010, p.187).
4.3 Experiences of Parental Involvement
4.3.1 Parental Involvement Practices
The parents in this study showed a preference for structured home support of
homework as a priority in how they perceived their roles:
‘She's had the routine already: come in the door, sit down and homework.
So I sit down beside her and then making sure she's doing the right thing,
and then correcting and saying "OK, this is right", making sure that, you
know, everything's OK. That is the basic thing.’ (Patrona)
It is evident that the parents valued giving academic support to children in the home.
Although home-based parental help such as this has been found to be positively associated
with children’s academic achievement (Lee & Bowen, 2006), this type of PI practice is
often overlooked by teachers (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
Having a good relationship with the teacher was valued above all other things with
regards to how parents interacted with the school. This reflects research conducted by
Freeman (2010) which found that parents from lower SES backgrounds seek the
31

recognition of school personnel as full partners in the education of their children. This was
highlighted in a comment made by one of the Irish parents:
‘I think you need to know also that your teacher, or whoever you talk with,
wishes to engage with you in two way conversation. That needs to be, em,
discovered, and out there, you know at the beginning.’ (Anne)
It should be noted here that although all parents in the study shared the common goal of
having a good relationship with their child’s teacher, research has shown that teachers will
find it easier to ‘connect’ with parents who have the same cultural capital as them (Crozier,
1999). This may result in a more advantageous situation for Anne (quoted above), who
would share more cultural capital and knowledge of the Irish education system with the
teacher than a parent who would not have the same ‘insider knowledge’.
Parents were generally very satisfied with the welcoming nature of the school staff,
particularly teachers. The school has a policy that parents of junior classes can come to the
classroom door to collect their children at the end of the day. This encourages parent-
teacher discussion. One of the parents, whose child has special educational needs,
commented on the positive nature of these interactions:
‘They don't complain about her attitude. You know, some childs have
attitudes that… it's not encouraging school. But they're tolerant. And they've
changed her.’ (Esther)
All the parents stressed the importance of ongoing communication with the teacher over
the school year. This was important to the parents with regards to the academic
development of their child, but also in order to develop a balanced relationship with the
teacher:
‘You can't improve anything without communicating with each other,
between the parents and the teacher. Because if the teacher is not
communicating with the parents, they don't know what is going on there.‘
(Patrona)
32

Parental role construction is particularly relevant to this study as it has been shown
that schools may overlook parents’ greater home-based involvement to support their
learning (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2011) and that cultural-minority
parents’ role construction influences whether or not parents would engage in school-based
PI activities (Abel, 2012; Smit, Driessen, Sluiter & Sleegers, 2007).
4.3.2 Barriers to School-based Parental Involvement
It is important to note that the parents involved in this study were already involved
in school-based initiatives at the school, and as such may not give a balanced view of PI
practices among the wider parental body. However, by being involved with the school they
may be better placed to evaluate the experiences, relationships and processes at work
within the school (Denscombe, 2010). When the discussion turned to possible barriers to
PI, the parents interviewed acknowledged that for other parents, the language barrier could
be an issue:
‘I think the language communication barrier, and the lack of confidence is
the… some people are shy. So I think if we can have interpreter, like
somebody who is speaking for the… like some people can not speak the
language… So if we have the interpreter for them, they can come along
with us… So maybe that would solve the problem.’ (Nigerian parent: Esther)
Here it is notable that Esther highlights the importance of non-English speakers to “come
along with us,” by converting their unrecognised cultural capital (native language) into a
recognised capital (English). Non-dominant cultural capital is seen to have little exchange
value in the Irish education system by cultural-minority parents and children (Devine,
2009), and there seems to be an acceptance of the disconnect between the types of capital
required in the different spheres of influence at home and at school for these parents.
33

A second barrier to becoming involved in school-based PI activities was work
commitments. As mentioned previously, most of the participants in this study were either
home-makers or unemployed, and thus able to come to interviews organised in the
afternoon. However, parents suggested that if school-based activities were organised at a
different time, it might better suit others:
‘Well obviously, for the ones who can't work, if there was evenings, I mean
I can come in in the day, but we were saying we've got a gym there, and I
know it means the staff have to stay in, but how else are parents who work
going to ever get involved, how are they ever going to get to know other
parents? Also, you know, maybe if some of the clubs are evenings, and I
know it's hard for the teachers but…’ (Rebecca)
This highlights the importance of consultation with parents while designing school-based
PI initiatives. Previous studies have shown the consultative process has been inadequate in
taking in the needs and perspectives of parents on the periphery (Hanafin & Lynch, 2002)
and may reflect a schoolcentric approach to designing initiatives (Bower & Griffin, 2011).
However, teacher’s availability and ability to cater for all parents must be taken into
consideration, and in reality it may be impossible to suit the plurality of needs.
4.4 Desired Outcomes of Parental Involvement
4.4.1 Instilling a Value for Education
For many of the parents involved in this study, one of the most important aspects of
getting involved in school-based activities was to show to the child that they, as parents,
valued education:
‘I think it gives an impression to the child that education is valued by me as
well, so you need to value it as well. It is very important for them as well as
for… we have to reflect that to the child, through homework and through
reading and through the story that we did in the class. That more interests the
child when they see the parent involvement as well, you know?’ (Indian parent:
Nora)
34

Research carried out with lower income, cultural-minority parents by Drummond & Stipek
(2004) found that parents of primary school aged children valued reading above other
subjects, and that their PI increased when given specific invitations to involvement by the
teacher. This may suggest that for the parents involved in this study, being involved in the
school-based PI initiatives gave them a chance to demonstrate their value of education to
their children.
4.4.2 Comfort and Confidence
For some parents, becoming familiar with the learning environment at school was
important to reassure and inform them about the educational process:
‘It’s very good because number one I’m happy because he tells me he likes
school. And secondly… it gives me confidence that my child is safe where
he is.’ (Nigerian parent: Temitope)
Previous research has indicated that parents with a lower SES may not feel comfortable in
the school due to the perceived gap between the role of the parent and the role of the
school (Darmody & McCoy, 2011). Being invited to come in to the school building and see
their child in the classroom has enabled the parent above to overcome this barrier.
Furthermore, ‘comfort’ was a word mentioned by many of the parents as a desired
outcome of PI initiatives for both children and parents:
‘They hears their teachers talking and hears about their teachers and they
feel the comfort that the parents know their teachers as well.’ (Pakistani
parent: Mahnoor)
Cultural-minority parents felt that their being in the school could provide ‘comfort’ to their
children who are adapting to a new environment alien to both parent and child. This
highlights the need to turn the focus of PI initiatives from making demands of parents to
help facilitate the success of the school to a reciprocal demand made of the school to adapt
35

its own practices to suit a diverse, new community such as Northfields (Bower & Griffin,
2011).
4.4.3 Changing Attitudes, Changing Capitals
For some parents, being involved in a school-based activity increased their skills in
aiding the academic development of their child, underpinning research carried out in this
area by Epstein (2001) and Higgins (2007) which showed that targeted programmes
organised by schools could improve parents’ skills and efficacy:
‘I look at the teacher, and the way they teach at times. And I copy some of
that: the way, you know, when they talk, and I need the language. You know,
they have their language, as a teacher. So I, I steal some of that (laughs).‘
(Nigerian parent: Olabisi)
This parent also noted that being involved in a school-based initiative had also changed her
PI practice at home, thus developing the “correct” form of cultural capital to best prepare
her son for success in the Irish education system (Lee & Bowen, 2006, p.198):
‘I use it. At home. I take some home, with the language and the way… you
know, coming from Africa you force some children to read. But they don’t
need to be forced. Me, I say “Rich, do it!” But I didn’t, it’s not working.
“Oh, you can do it!” Encouragement. When I come in, I learn more than at
home.’ (Nigerian parent: Olabisi)
Other parents noted that their school-based involvement brought about a change in
attitudes towards schooling in their children. They noted that the child’s self-esteem
improved as a result of their being with them in the classroom, which directly correlates
with Hoover-Dempsey et al.’s (2005) research into the benefits of PI: “student motivational
and behavioral attributes are particularly important because they are susceptible to direct
parent influence” (p.106).:
‘It improves the child’s self-esteem. I notice that on the few occasions I’ve
come in, he’s always so happy to see me. Very happy, and he would have
told his friends: “My Mom is coming!”’ (Temitope)
36

4.4.4 Parental Voice: Suggestions for School-based Parental Involvement Initiatives
For parents of children in 5th and 6th class, the transition to second-level was an
area they wanted their children to encounter through school-based PI initiatives. While
they acknowledged that ongoing ‘Learning for Fun’ initiatives were beneficial, it was clear
that for older children preparing to make the transition to secondary school, a more
academically focused programme was desired:
‘We have to think what do they need to work towards, and for fifth and sixth
class it is all about going to secondary… parent teacher initiatives have to
change over time. It’s not just for fun, and it’s not just exercise, it’s
something that’s going to help them in school.’ (Rebecca)
The school in question had organised some information evenings for parents on the
upcoming transition to secondary school, but parents agreed that they still felt uninformed
about the enrollment process for schools in the area, and felt at a loss as to what to do:
‘It happens to most parents. They don’t know. They just do the forms and
they don’t know.’ (Nigerian parent: Kebe)
This quote underpins O’Sullivan’s (2014) research into how recent immigrant parents
negotiate the education system in Ireland. It found that “lack of clear guidelines” with
regards to enrolment to schools caused “huge confusion and uncertainty” among parents
which amounted to “a means of discriminating against certain groups and preventing them
from acquiring a place in their preferred school… this highlights institutional racism at its
worst.” (p.91). While it is important to note that the school itself was making efforts to
assist parents in this regard, it is clear that the system is stacked against parents on the
periphery when it comes to the issue of enrolment.
At this stage, parents in the focus group suggested taking on the organisation of
transition initiatives themselves, which could be effective in developing relationships and
37

building advocacy among parents from ethnic-minority, low SES backgrounds (Bower &
Griffin, 2011):
‘You could even do a homework club, just for fifth and sixth class. Get
them set up for secondary school… it gets them into the groove of
studying.’ (Ciarán)
This exemplifies the importance of parental voice in the planning of school-based PI
initiatives. By identifying second-level transition as one area that needed to be targeted,
parents highlighted an issue that the school may have been aware of had there been more
consultation with the school. Furthermore, it highlights the need for a move away from the
“traditional definitions of parental involvement” which make demands on the parents to
facilitate school-directed activities (Bower & Griffin, 2011, p.78). This approach has been
found to be derived from a cultural deficit model of explaining educational failure, as it
sees parental deficiencies at the heart of the low achievement of the school (Hanafin &
Lynch, 2002). The inclusion of parental voice in the planning of initiatives would seek to
redress this deficit model, and place parents on a more equal footing in matters that
directly affect them, their children, and the success of the school.
38

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Introduction
This research project set out to analyse the dynamics of PI among parents of
children attending a culturally diverse Educate Together National School. The data was
reflective of the motivations, experiences and desired outcomes of parents who were
involved in school-based PI initiatives at the school.
5.2 Summary of Findings
The findings from the study revealed a correlation between the motivations of
parents, responses to invitations from the school and Level 1 of the Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (2005) model of PI. Specific invitations were found to be the most significant
predictor of school-based involvement, which corresponds with Walker, Ice, Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler’s (2011) research in this area. Parents expressed their desire to
demonstrate their value for education to their children by being involved in their school-
based learning, and felt that this boosted the self-esteem of their children. The life contexts
of the parents at this DEIS band 1 school were a positive indicator of school-based
involvement. Parents expressed that their life contexts motivated them to get involved at
school and respond to invitations to partake in initiatives. All of the parents in the study
acknowledged and indeed emphasised the importance of education, irrespective of their
life contexts. They showed a preference for structured support of children’s learning at
home, supervising children’s homework and reading activities, and cited the importance of
ongoing communication with the classroom teacher to support this. In this way, the
research presents findings that are contrary to cultural deficit and value orientation theories
39

(Bernstein, 1975; Kluckhohn, 1962) used to shaped PI policies in schools that have been
found to be “explicitly classed”, with one strand serving parents marginalised by social
class or minority status which comprise interventions and home-school links, and another
aimed at all parents that tend to consist of policy-level involvement such as parent
representative bodies or boards of management (Hanafin & Lynch, 2002, p.35; see also
Smit, Driessen, Sluiter and Sleegers, 2007). Although the parents at Northfields would fit
the ‘marginalised’ category mentioned above, they did not exhibit a lack of motivation to
get involved in their child’s education, despite their life contexts.
Parents in the study showed a desire to develop social and cultural capital by
becoming involved in school-based PI activities. The social links they could develop
through meeting other parents could be used to either broaden existing knowledge of the
school system by becoming familiar with school staff, or acquiring the ‘correct’ form of
cultural capital that is required for success in the Irish education system (Devine, 2009).
Through these activities, some parents found they could acquire the skills and self-efficacy
necessary to help their children to succeed at an Irish school, which non-Irish parents may
not possess due to the “hereditary” nature of cultural capital transmission (Bourdieu, 1986,
p.85) . In addition to this, parents highlighted developing a relationship with the teacher as
a major motivator for becoming involved in school-based PI initiatives. However, whereas
some cultural-majority parents envisaged a shared role with teachers in their child’s
education, others felt they would only contact the teacher if there was an issue that needed
discussing. This supports the argument that cultural-majority groups may gain positions of
advantage in a multicultural school by “working the system” (Levine-Rasky, 2009, p.335).
Finally, it was evident from the focus group interview that parents desired a greater
voice in the planning of school-based PI initiatives. They felt that existing school-based PI
40

initiatives could be extended to include a school transition programme, aimed to guide
pupils and parents through the complicated and often confusing move to secondary school.
This underpins research that found parents who have been involved in school-based
activities become more motivated to be directly involved in their child’s education
(Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; De Gaetano, 2007), and bolsters the call for schools to
develop collaborative and relevant roles for parents in the planning of PI initiatives (Bower
& Griffin, 2011).
5.3 Recommendations
The research has highlighted the benefits of school-based initiatives for parents, as
well as children. A more detailed and focused analysis of the benefits and outcomes of
parent relationships developed through school-based PI initiatives would go a long way
toward increasing our understanding of how family relationships affect learning and thus
improve our ability to design programs to facilitate the most positive outcomes for
children. Additional research is needed in order to identify meaningful consultative
processes that include parental voice in the planning and directing of PI initiatives.
Furthermore, future studies should focus on broadening the focus of PI initiatives in
disadvantaged schools like Northfields from one of ‘intervention’ to one that aims to build
advocacy and efficacy among parents. Schools that implement initiatives that empower
parents to take on leadership roles have been found to increase the participation and impact
of existing strategies within the school by increasing ownership, accountability, and social
networks among parents (Bower & Griffin, 2011).
41

References:
Abel, Y (2012). African American Fathers' Involvement in their Children’s School-based
Lives. The Journal of Negro Education, 81 (2), 162-172.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and
closure, Higher Education, 46, 167–193.
Bennett, B. (2015). Policies and practices of parental involvement and parent- teacher
relations in Irish primary education: a critical discourse analysis (Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis). University College Dublin, School of Education. Retrieved from:
http://researchrepository.ucd.ie/handle/10197/6781
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and Control: Vol.3: Towards a Theory of Educational
Transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (pp.83-95). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1974). The School as a Conservative Force. In Eggleston, J. (ed.)
Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education. London: Methuen.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.
London: Sage Publications
Bower, H. & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein Model of Parental Involvement Work in a
High-Minority, High-Poverty Elementary School? A Case Study. Professional School
Counseling, 15(2), 77-87.
Burke, D. (2004). Making Parental Involvement a Key Process in Primary Education: An
Action Research Project in a Junior, Primary School (Unpublished Masters Thesis).
42

National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Retrieved from: http://
eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/5178/
Central Statistics Office (2012). Census 2011 Profile 7 Religion, Ethnicity and Irish
Travellers - Ethnic and cultural background in Ireland. Retrieved from: http://
www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/
census2011profile7religionethnicityandirishtravellers-
ethnicandculturalbackgroundinireland/
Central Statistics Office (2011). Census 2011 Profile 6 Migration and Diversity - A profile
of diversity in Ireland. Retrieved from: http://www.cso.ie/en/census/
census2011reports/census2011profile6migrationanddiversity-
aprofileofdiversityinireland/
Chrispeels, J., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How
parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119–169.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. New York:
Routledge.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, The American
Journal of Sociology, 94, pp.S95-S120.
Crozier, G. & Davies, J. (2008). ‘The trouble is they don’t mix’: self‐segregation or
enforced exclusion? , Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(3), 285-301.
Crozier, G. (2000). Parents and Schools. Partners or protagonists?. Stoke on Trent:
Trentham Books.
Crozier, G. (1999). Is it a case of ‘We know when we're not wanted'? The parents’
perspective on parent‐teacher roles and relationships, Educational Research, 41(3),
43

315-328.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy. Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Darmody, M., & McCoy, S. (2011). Barriers to School Involvement. In M. Darmody, N.
Tyrrell & S. Song (Eds,) The Changing Faces of Ireland (pp. 145-163). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The role of culture in engaging Latino parents’ involvement in
school. Urban Education, 42(2), 145-162.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Department of Education and Skills (2014). Primary School Annual Census 2013/2014.
Unpublished report in Duncan, P. & Humphreys, J. (2015) Census figures raise
concerns of ethnic segregation in schools [Newspaper article]. Retrieved from: http://
www.irishtimes.com/news/education/census-figures-raise-concerns-of-ethnic-
segregation-in-schools-1.2114559
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking Parent Involvement With Student Achievement: Do Race
and Income Matter?, The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.
Devine, D. (2013). Practising leadership in newly multi-ethnic schools: tensions in the
field?, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 392-411.
Devine, D. (2009). Mobilising capitals? Migrant children's negotiation of their everyday
lives in school, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(5), 521-535.
Drummond, K.V. & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-Income Parents' Beliefs about Their Role in
Children's Academic Learning, The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197-213
Educate Together (2004) Charter, Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Our Values and
Commitments. Retrieved from: https://www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/files/
44

charter_0.pdf
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity. In
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Epstein, J. (2013). Keynote address at ‘Great Expectations Conference’ hosted by National
Parents’ Council and European Parents’Association, National College of Ireland,
Dublin, June 15th 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8NjvqaUg7l4
Epstein, J. (2001). School, Family and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and
Improving Schools. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Epstein, J.L. and Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools, The Elementary School
Journal, 91, 289-305.
Eysenck, H.J. (1976). Introduction. In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.), Case Studies in Behaviour
Therapy (pp.1-15). London: Routledge.
Freeman, M. (2010) ‘Knowledge is acting’: working‐class parents’ intentional acts of
positioning within the discursive practice of involvement, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(2), 181-198.
Giles, C. (2006). Transformational leadership in challenging urban elementary schools: A
role for parental involvement? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 257-282.
Gonzalez, L. M., Borders, L. D., Hines, E. M., Villalba, J. A., & Henderson, A. (2013).
Parental Involvement in Children’s Education: Considerations for School Counselors
Working With Latino Immigrant Families. Professional School Counseling, 16(3),
185-193.
45

Hanafin, J. & Lynch, A. (2002). Peripheral Voices: Parental involvement, social class, and
educational disadvantage, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 35-49.
Haverty, E. (2015). The Role of Teacher Identity in the Culturally Diverse Classroom.
(Unpublished Masters Thesis). Marino Institute of Education, Dublin, Ireland.
Higgins, A. (2007). My Kids, Your Kids, Our Kids! In P. Downes & A. Gilligan (Eds)
Beyond Educational Disadvantage (pp.114-123). Dublin: Institute of Public
Administration.
Hill, N. E. & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance:
Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and
Euro-American families, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74-83.
Holland, K. (2015). Hindu family fails to get place for child in local school. (Newspaper
Article). Retrieved from: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/hindu-
family-fails-to-get-place-for-child-in-local-school-1.2388898
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Sandler, H.M., Dallaire, J.R., Wilkins, A.S. & Walker, J.M.T.
(2005). Parental Involvement: Model Revision through Scale Development. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85-104.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. et al. (2005) Why Do Parents Become Involved? Research
Findings and Implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (2016). Programme for Partnership Document
agreed between Fine Gael and Independents. Chapter 10: Education. Retrieved
from: http://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/LatestNews/Downloads/
ProgrammeforGovernment_Education.pdf
Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American
46

mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School
Community Journal, 15, 51–73.
Jaeger, M.M. (2011). Does Cultural Capital Really Affect Academic Achievement? New
Evidence from Combined Sibling and Panel Data, Sociology of Education, 84(4),
281-298.
Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Culture and Behavior. New York: Free Press.
Lawson, M.A. (2003). School-family relations in context: parent and teacher perceptions
of parental involvement, Urban Education, 38(77), 77-131.
Lea, V. (2010). Empowering Preservice Teachers, Students, and Families Through Critical
Multiculturalism. In S. May & C.E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical Multiculturalism: Theory
and Praxis. London: Routledge.
Lee, J. & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent Involvement, Cultural Capital, and the Achievement
Gap among Elementary School Children. American Educational Research Journal,
43(2), 193-218.
Levine-Rasky, C. (2009) Dynamics of parent involvement at a multicultural school. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 331–344.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, P. (2014). Hard to Reach Parents or Hard To Reach Schools? A Case Study of
Ethnic Minority Parental Involvement in an Educate Together National School.
(Unpublished Masters Thesis). Marino Institute of Education, Dublin, Ireland.
O’Sullivan, J. (2014). An examination of the experiences of recent Immigrant parents in
navigating their way through the Irish Education System and their Engagement with
Government Services. (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Marino Institute of Education,
47

Dublin, Ireland.
Parker-Jenkins, M. & Masterson, M. (2013). No longer ‘Catholic, White and Gaelic’:
schools in Ireland coming to terms with cultural diversity, Irish Educational Studies,
32(4), 477-492.
Reese, L., Balzano, S., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1995). The concept of educacion:
Latino family values and American schooling. International Journal of Educational
Research, 23, 57–81.
Smit, F., Driessen, G., Sluiter, R. & Sleegers, P. (2007). Types of parents and school
strategies aimed at the creation of effective partnerships. International Journal about
Parents in Education, 1, 45-52.
Walker, J. M., Ice, C. L., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2011). Latino parents'
motivations for involvement in their children's schooling: An exploratory study. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 409-429.
48

Appendix 1: Revised Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler theoretical model for PI process
Adapted from Hoover-Dempsey, Sandler, Dallaire, Wilkins, & Walker (2005).
49

Appendix 2: Letter to Board of Management
Marino Institute of Education,
Griffith Avenue,
Dublin 9
6th February 2016
Northfields Educate Together,
Newpark,
Northfields,
County Dublin.
Dear Chairperson,
I am researching “Dynamics of Parental Involvement” as part of my Professional Masters
in Education Degree in Marino Institute of Education, Dublin.
I would like to ask for approval to conduct focus group meetings with parents in order to
discuss parental involvement in schooling.
These focus group meetings would examine how parents view their roles in relation to
their child’s education and what motivates them to get involved. The focus group
participants would be parents who are taking part in the ‘Learning for Fun’ classes being
co-ordinated by the Home, School, Community Liaison officer.
The aim of this research is to establish ways in which the school management and parents
can work together to develop meaningful parental involvement initiatives and enhance
children and families’ experience of school at Northfields ETNS.
The proposed focus group meetings and ensuing research will run in full compliance with
all school policies and Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation.
If you have any questions regarding this research, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Cape
Lcapepme14@momail.mie.ie
50

Appendix 3: Letter to Parents involved in ‘Learning for Fun’ classes
Marino Institute of Education,
Griffith Avenue,
Dublin 9
6th February 2016.
Dear Parents/Guardians,
My name is Luke Cape, and I am currently studying for my Professional Masters in
Education in Marino Institute of Education, Dublin. I am currently on school placement at
Northfields Educate Together National School, where I am working with 3rd and 6th class,
and developing I.T. resources for the classrooms.
As well as this, I am researching “Dynamics of Parental Involvement” as part of my
masters degree, under the supervision of Paula Murphy. I am very interested in finding the
best ways for parents and teachers to work together to enhance your child’s learning.
I would like to invite you to participate in a small group interview with other parents to
discuss parental involvement at Northfields Educate Together. The aim of the interview is
to discuss ways in which the school can support you to become involved in your child’s
education.
Participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time. All information
(names, locations etc.) will remain anonymous. If you wish to participate in the study,
please fill in the attached form and return it (by post or to the school office) by
Monday, 18th February. The group interview will be held at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday
27th February in the “Family Room” at Northfields Educate Together and will last
approximately 45 minutes. Light refreshments will be provided.
If you have any questions regarding this research, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your support in this education study.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Cape
(Trainee Teacher)
lcapepme14@momail.mie.ie
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I would like to take part in the interview on Wednesday 27th February at 10am
Name: _____________________ Telephone Number: ________________
Signature: ________________________
51

Appendix 4: Interview Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Focus Group Study as part of Professional Masters in
Education (PME) Thesis, Marino Institute of Education, Dublin.
Please
check the
boxes
The purpose of the group discussion and the nature of the questions have been
explained to me.
I consent to take part in a focus group about my experiences with regard to
parental involvement in education. I also consent to an audio recording during
the focus group discussion.
My participation is voluntary. I understand that I am free to leave the group at
any time.
None of my experiences or thoughts will be shared with anyone outside of the
Marino Institute of Education, Dublin, unless all identifying information is
removed first.
The information that I provide during the focus group will be grouped with
answers from other people so that I cannot be identified.
___________________________
Please print your name ___________________________
Date
___________________________
Please sign your name
___________________________ ___________________________
Witness Signature Date
52

Appendix 5: Question bank for Interviews
1. What do you think is the role of a parent in their child’s education?
2. What activities do you do to support your child’s education at home?
3. What activities do you do to support your child’s education at school?
4. What activities are most important to you in terms of your child’s education?
5. What do you hope these activities will achieve for you and your child?
6. How often do you communicate with staff in the school?
7. On what occasions do you communicate with staff in the school?
8. What makes it difficult for parents to interact with school staff?
9. If you could improve one thing about parent’s and staff’s communication, what would
it be?
10. Have you been involved in school-based activities eg. Learning for Fun before?
11. Why did you choose to take part in these activities?
12. What are the benefits of the Learning for Fun classes, in your opinion?
13. Do you think the Learning for Fun classes could be improved in any way?
14. Has your opinion of the school changed since joining the Learning for Fun classes?
How?
15. Are there any other school-based activities that you would like to be involved in at the
school?
16.What would make you want to become involved in another school based activity?
17.What are the benefits of parents becoming involved in their child’s education at school,
in your opinion?
53

Luke Cape Thesis

More Related Content

Similar to Luke Cape Thesis (20)

Luke Cape Thesis