Биљана С. Бодрошки Спариосу, Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет, Београд, Србија, имејл: bbodrosk@f.bg.ac.rs
Наташа В. Духанај, ОШ „Веселин Маслеша”, Београд, Србија
Иновације у настави, XXXVII, 2024/1, стр. 1–15

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2401001B

Резиме: Циљ овог рада је анализа концепта и модела родитељске укључености у истраживања образовних постигнућа ученика. Концепт родитељске укључености настао је у области образовних политика земаља енглеског говорног подручја и тржишно оријентисаних образовних система. Истраживања су показала да различити облици родитељске укључености остварују значајне ефекте на исходе школског учења. Колманов извештај у САД и политика „образовне парентократије” у Великој Британији значајно су подстакли истраживања у овој области. Прегледом литературе може се констатовати вишедимензионалност концепта родитељске укључености, који подразумева и родитељску подршку школском учењу код куће и у школи, структурни и релациони аспект. У раду су представљена два најистакнутија модела родитељске укључености у дечје образовање – модел преклапајућих сфера утицаја и тзв. ДНА или дуално навигациони модел. У Закључку се констатује да постојеће концептуализације и модели родитељске укључености обухватају различите типове родитељских активности, што је од значаја за креирање и евалуацију школских програма родитељске укључености. Као последица доминације англоамеричког концептуалног и истраживачког оквира, с једне стране, истакнут је интердисциплинарни приступ у подручју истраживања родитељске укључености у дечје образовање. С друге стране, занемарен је аутентично педагошки поглед на циљеве и ефекте родитељске укључености у образовање као предмета проучавања аутономне науке у традицији континенталне Европе. Очекује се да ће будућа истраживања реафирмисати оне аспекте образовања који га чине управо „образовним”. Ослањање на педагошке принципе и циљеве образовања у грађењу односа породице и школе представља карику која недостаје у постојећој агенди глобалне образовне политике.

Кључне речи: укљученост родитеља у образовање деце, образовна политика, модел преклапајућих сфера утицаја, ДНА модел

Summary: The aim of this paper is to analyze the concept and model of parental involvement in the research on students’ educational achievement. The concept of parental involvement arose in the field of educational policies of the English-speaking countries and market-oriented education systems. Research has shown that different forms of parental involvement have significant effects on school learning outcomes. The Coleman Report in the US and the policy of “educational parentocracy” in the UK significantly stimulated research in this area. The review of the relevant literature confirms the multidimensionalityof the concept of parental involvement which includes parental support for school learning at home and at school, as well as structural and relational aspects. The paper presents two most prominent models of parental involvement in children’s education – the model of overlapping spheres of influence and the so-called DNA or dual navigation model. In the concluding section of the paper, the authors state that the existing conceptualizations and models of parental involvement include different types of parental activities, which is important for the creation and evaluation of school programs of parental involvement. As a consequence of the dominance of the Anglo-American conceptual and research framework, on the one hand, an interdisciplinary approach in the field of research on parental involvement in children’s education is highlighted. On the other hand, an authentic pedagogical view of the goals and effects of parental involvement in education as a subject of study of autonomous science in the tradition of continental Europe has been neglected. It is expected that future research will reaffirm those aspects of education that make it precisely “educational”. Relying on pedagogical principles and goals of education in building family-school relationships is a missing link in the existing agenda of global education policy.

Keywords: parental involvement in children’s education, educational policy, model of overlapping spheres of influence, DNA model

Литература

• Alexander, K. L., & Morgan, S. L. (2016). The Coleman report at fifty: Its legacy and implications for future research on equality of opportunity. Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.01
• Baumrind, D. (2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In R. E. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.). Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (11–34). American Psychological Association.
• Becchio, G., & Leghissa, G. (2017). The origins of neoliberalism: Insights from economics and philosophy. Routledge.
• Bellmann, J. (2014). Educational theory, nature of. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy (273–279). Sage reference.
• Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: a comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582255
• Biesta, G. (2015). On the two cultures of educational research, and how we might move ahead: Reconsidering the ontology, axiology and praxeology of education. European Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904114565162
• Biesta, G. (2022). World-Centred Education. Taylor & Francis.
• Bodroški Spariosu, B., i Senić-Ruzić, M. (2020). Savremena kultura roditeljstva: Pedagoške implikacije. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 52(1), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI2001007B
• Bonal, X., & Cristián, B. (2019). Introduction: The Renaissance of School Segregation in a Context of Globalization. In X. Bonal, & C. Bellei (Eds.). Understanding School Segregation Patterns, Causes and Consequences of Spatial Inequalities in Education (1–25). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Boonk, L., Gijselaers H. J. M., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24(1), 10–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001
• Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1201–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200507
• Bray, M. (2021). Shadow Education in Europe: Growing Prevalence, Underlying Forces, and Policy Implications. ECNU Review of Education, 4(3), 442–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119890142
• Bray, M. (2022). Timescapes of shadow education: patterns and forces in the temporal features of private supplementary tutoring. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2143330
• Bray, M., & Hajar, A. (2023). Shadow Education in the Middle East: Private Supplementary Tutoring and its Policy Implications. Routledge.
• Brown, P. (1990). The ’Third Wave’: education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569900110105
• Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring Family Background in International Studies of Education: Conceptual Issues and Methodological Challenges. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.). Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (150–197). National academy press.
• Chan, M., Manzon, M., Hong, H., & Khong, L. Y. L. (2022). Multidimensional profiles of parent involvement: Antecedents and impact on student engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12456
• Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Government Printing Office. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf.
• DeWiele, B. C. E., & Edgerton, J. D. (2016). Parentocracy revisited: Still a relevant concept for understanding middle class educational advantage? Interchange A Quarterly Review of Education, 47(1), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9261-7
• Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. J. (2016). Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716651676
• Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of parenting: Volume 5 (407–437). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Epstein, J. (2004). Meeting NCLB requirements for family involvement. Middle Ground, 8(1), 14–17.
• Epstein, J. (2005). Attainable Goals? The Spirit and Letter of the No Child Left Behind Act on Parental Involvement. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800207
• Epstein, J. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Westview Press.
• Epstein, J. (2008). Research meets policy and practice: How are school districts addressing NCLB requirements for parental involvement? In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.). No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy
  (267–279). Routledge.
• Epstein, J. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Westview Press.
• Epstein, J. L. (2019). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action. Corwin Press.
• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2019). The importance of evaluating programs of school, family and community partnerships. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716651676
• Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2022). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429400780
• Friesen, N., & Su, H. (2023). What is pedagogy? Discovering the hidden pedagogical dimension. Educational Theory, 73(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12569
• Hamlin, D. (2023). Parental Involvement in Schools of Choice the Interdependence of Parents and Schools. In J. William (Ed.). Relational Aspects of Parental Involvement to Support Educational Outcomes (329–350). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• Hill, K., & Scott, J. (2017). A Critical Look at Parental Choice: Is Parental Choice a Broken Promise? In R. A. Fox, & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.). The Wiley Handbook of School Choice (507–516). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Jeynes, W. (2005). Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic achievement of adolescents. Marriage and Family Review, 37(3), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v37n03_06
• Jeynes, W. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–109.
  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818
• Jeynes, W. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. Routledge.
• Jeynes, W. (2015). A meta-analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student academic achievement. Urban Education, 50(4), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914525789
• Jeynes, W. (2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1434767
• Jeynes, W. (2023). A Theory of Parental Involvement Based on Meta-Analyses. In J. William (Ed.). Relational Aspects of Parental Involvement to Support Educational Outcomes (3–21). Routledge Taylor ‒ Francis Group.
• Kvernbekk, T. (2021). The nature of educational theories goal-directed, equivalence and interlevel theories. Routledge.
• Lewis, S. (2020). PISA, Policy and the OECD Respatialising Global Educational Governance Through PISA for Schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8285-1
• Li, X., Yang, H., Wang, H., & Jia, J. (2020). Family socioeconomic status and home-based parental involvement: A mediation analysis of parental attitudes and expectations. Children and Youth Services Review, 116(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105111
• OECD (2019). Balancing School Choice and Equity: An International Perspective Based on PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2592c974-en
• Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). No parent left behind: Predicting parental involvement in adolescents’ education within a sociodemographically diverse population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667012
• Park, S., Stone, I. S., & Holloway, D. (2017). School-based parental involvement as a predictor of achievement and school learning environment: An elementary school-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 82(1), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.012
• Paseka, A., & Byrne, D. (Eds.). (2020). Parental Involvement Across European Education Systems Critical Perspectives. Routledge Taylor ‒ Francis Group.
• Ramaekers, S., & Suissa, J. (2012). The Claims of Parenting. Reasons, Responibility and Society. Springer.
• Reay, D. (2008). Tony Blair, the promotion of the ’active’ educational citizen, and middle-class hegemony. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980802518821
• Rosiek, J. (2019). School segregation: A realist’s view. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(5), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719827536
• Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Education Research, 98(4), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207
• Sheldon, S. B. (2019). Improving student outcomes with school, family, and community partnerships: A research review. In J. L. Epstein, et al. (Eds.). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action – fourth edition (43–62). Corwin.
• Spring, J. (2015). Economization of education: Human Capital, Global Corporations, Skills-Based Schooling. RoutledgeTaylor ‒ Francis.
• Tikkanen, J. (2019). Parental school satisfaction in the context of segregation of basic education in urban Finland, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2019.1688451
• Waldow, F. (2014). Von der Meritokratie zur Parentokratie? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(S3), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0521-6
• Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
• Wilmers, A., & Jornitz, S. (Eds.) (2021). International Perspectives on School Settings, Education Policy and Digital Strategies: A Transatlantic Discourse in Education Research. Verlag Barbara Budrich Opladen.
• Yu, J., & Zhang, R. (2022). A review of shadow education. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 11(2), 1579–1593.
• Yung, K. W. H., & Zeng, C. (2022). Parentocracy within meritocracy: parental perspective on lecture-style English private tutoring in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 36(4), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1981924
• Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2020). Comparative research on shadow education: Achievements, challenges, and the agenda ahead. European Journal of Education, 55(3), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12413

Copyright © 2024 by the authors, licensee Teacher Education Faculty University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited