Perlanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 9(1): 35·47 (2001) ISSN: 0128-7702© Univcrsiti Putra Malaysia Press

Models of School-Family Partnerships: The Malaysian Context

'JENNIFER WEE BENG NEO, 'SHARlFAH MD. NOR,'ZAKARIA KASA & 'FOO SAY FOOl

lMaktab Perguruan Teknik Kuala Lumpur2Fakulti Pengajian Pendidikan, Universiti PUlfa Malaysia,

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor

Keywords: Concepts, importance and school practices of school, family partnership, models ofpartnership

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini memperlihatkan persepsi guru besar dan guru-guru terhadap konsep, kepentingan,dan amalan sekolah dalam penglibatan ibu bapa unLUk mengenal pasti model perkongsian yang\\-'luud di sekolah rendah. Lima ratus lima puluh tiga responden menjawab soalan soal selidik.Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa persepsi responden terhadap konsep perkongsian adalahsepara. Ramai responden mempersepsikan bahawa penglibatan ibu bapa adalah penting dalampendidikan anak-anak, terutama untuk perkembangan kognitif, emosi, dan sosial. Dapatan jugamenunjukkan hanya beberapa amalan sekolah dalam penglibatan ibu bapa sahaja dikendalikanoleh sekolah. Terdapat beberapa model perkongsian digunakan oleh sekolah tetapi modeJ­model ini adalah model perkongsian yang separa. Hasil kajian ini mencadangkan bahawa untukmenghasilkan perkongsian yang holistik, sekolah perlu mengamalkan suatu model perkongsianyang komprehensif di mana penglibatan ibu bapa seharusnya meliputi bukan sahaja akLiviti dimmah tempi juga pada peringkat sekolah.

ABSTRACT

This study examined the headmasters' and teachers' perceptions towards the concepts, importanceand school practices in parental involvement in order to identify the partnership models thatexisted in primary schools. Five hundred and fifty three respondents answered the questionnaires.The findings showed that the respondents' perceptions of the concepts of partnerships werepartial. Majority of them perceived that parental involvement was important in the children'seducation especially for the children's cognitive, emotional, and social development. The findingsalso showed that only a few school practices in parent involvement were carried out. A fewpartnership models were adopted by the schools but these models were partial partnershipmodels. The findings suggest that a holistic partnership requires schools to adopt a comprehensivemodel where parental involvement should extend from home-based activities to school-basedactivities.

INTRODUCTION

OUT present education system focuses largely onteachers as the key players in the children'seducation with little consideration being placedin having parents as partners in the children'slearning process. The partial parentalinvolvement is not only inadequate but it alsofosters a society of individuals unprepared toengage in competent cooperative interactions.It is essential then, that teachers be adept not

only in working alone but also in having parentsas partners.

Family involvement and collaboration areneeded to assist the school in attaining its goals,after all parents are the children's first teachersand they are indirectly involved in the educationof their children too (Berger 1991). The suppOrtand cooperation of families in improving thechildren's education have also been accentuatedby Hallinger et al. (l992) and Epstein and Becker

Jennifer Wee Beng Neo, Sharifah Md. Nor, Zakaria Kasa & Faa Say Fooi

(1982). Stoll and Fink (1996) note, virtuallyevery reform effort has placed a heavy emphasison parent involvement in schools. Likewise,Dreeben (1968) and Lightfoot (1978) indicatethat although there are important differencesbetween schools and families, there is a needto recognise important similarities: overlappingof goals, responsibilities, and mutual influenceof the two major environments whichsimultaneously affect children's learning, growthand development. The reciprocal interactionbehveen these social systems can focus efforts to

establish a collaborative partnership to supportand fulfill the needs of the children.

Obviously, the concept of "separateresponsibilities" of institutions, which assumesthat the schools and the families have differentgoals, roles and responsibilities, is not practicalanymore (Epstein 1987a). The assumption of"separate resposibilities" maintained by oureducation system need to be reviewed if we planto achieve the nation's educational goals ofattaining highest quality education in the twenty­first century. Therefore the first measure thatmust be taken is for the school and familyinstitutions to abandon their concept of"individualism" and move towards the conceptof "partnership" in attending to the children'scognitive, emotional, social, physical and spiritualneeds. There is a need for a paradigm shift inthe school systems whereby the concept of"separate responsibilities" must be transformedinto "shared responsibilities" where the schoolsand the families share responsibility andaccountability in providing the children withtheir social, emotional and psychoeducationalneeds of the children,

Viewing the significant contribution ofparents and families in the West, can theMalaysian schools be successful if schoolswelcome parents to play more concrete roles inassisting their children in their learning process?Can the schools involve parents extensively intheir children's learning activities? Currently,parental involvement is only via the Parent­Teacher Association or also known as 'Persatuan1bu Bapa dan Guru' (PlBG) platform (Wee1996; Wee 1995). Parental involvement mustbe extended beyond the horizon of just beinginvolved in the school's PIBG and in otherschool support activities. This means parentalinvolvement should not be confined to servingas commitee members in the PIBG's or in

supporting the school in its out-of-classroomactivities, and in the children's home~based

learning activities. Parents are to playa key rolein providing assistance in their children'seducation. Their involvement should expandbeyond these practices and they should bedirectly involved as active partners in the childrenlearning activities at classroom and school levels.

In this article, school-family partnerships inthe Context of our centralised education systemwill be discussed. The focus of this article is toexamine the perceptions of headmasters andteachers on the concepts, importance andpractices of school and family partnerships inorder to understand models of partnerships thatexist in the Malaysian primary schools.

Concepts of Partnerships

The term "partnership" is widespread, invokedto describe any number of relationships andactivi ties. Partnership - like change-is a process,not an event. A partnership is a relationshipbetween institutions (and people within thoseinstitutions). Partnerships often start modestly,with one or two partners providing specificservices, and grow through the years to includeincreasing numbers of partners working onlarger and larger concerns. Partnerships are,after all, developing reciprocal roles and sharingresources in order to accomplish a goal thatcannot be addressed successfully by anyoneparty (U.S Department of Education 1993).

Seeley (1982) describes partnership as acommon effort toward common goals wherebypartners may help one another in general orspecific ways but none is ever a client, becausethe relationship is mutual. Seeley's definitionis supported by Moore and Littlejohn (1992)who describe partnership as an interactive processin which all the parties are equal partners. Inthis context, equal partnership is more than justan annual parent-teacher meetings, rather itincludes parents in a variety of roles over time.In the field of education, the partnership conceptprovides a more prolific framework. Partnershipin education is the ideal school and familyconnection where both the school and the familyrecognise, respect and support each other in thechildren's learning (Epstein 1992). The primaryaim of creating partnership is for the school toreach out to families and prompt families torealise that they have a role, and are responsibleto\vard the children's learning process. As Epstein

36 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001

Models of School·Family Partnerships: The Mala)'sian Context

(1995) states the principal goals of partnershipsare to develop and conduct better communica·tion with families across the grades in order toassist students to succeed in school.

The bnporlance of School and Famil)1 Pa1-lnerships

Several studies have indicated that the children'slearning outcomes will be enhanced when thefamily and the school learning environments aresupportive and in harmony with each other.(Swap 1993). School and family partnershipsrepresent a shared approach to the education ofchildren. Partners recognised their sharedinterests in and responsibilities for children,and they work together to create betterprogrammes and opportunities for sLUdents(Epstein 1995). The collaboration between theschool and the family institutions are essentialfor the accomplishment of school and familypartnerships. A strong partnership betweenthe school and the home is needed if qualityeducation is to be provided to all children (Haleyand Berry 1988). Teachers who work effectivelywith parents really believe in the concept ofinvolvement. By working together, they canreinforce each other's effort and without thiscooperation, neither the teacher nor the parentcan be fully effective. Hence, a partnershipbenveen teachers and families is essential forthe children's success in education.

The importance of school and familypartnerships can be examined within the threephilosophies suggestcd by Swap (1993), so thatschools and families could collaborate indesigning more effective educational activitiesto enhance children's success in their education.The three philosophies are as follows:a. A philosophy of school-home transmission,

in which the school educators specify whatparents should do at home to support thechild's progress and to instil the values ofthe dominant culture.

b. A philosophy of interactive learning. in whichschool educators would work with parentsto establish continuity between theclassrooms and the homes and assist parentsin understanding the rituals and values ofthe schools.

c. A philosophy of partnership for schoolsuccess, in which parents are welcomed asassets and resources. are respected as equalsin the educational organisation, and are

empowered as a means of improving theirlives, and their children's lives.

Research on paren tal involvement hasfocused primarily on educational outcomes forchildren. The majority of this work iscorrelational, not experimental, in nature.Reviews of several research literature revealedthat family involvement in the children'seducation has proven to increase students'achievements, school improvement, students'psychoeducational and social development.improvement in attendance, motivation, self·esteem and behavior, and improvement inparent~teacherrelationships (Dietz 1997; Epstein1995, 1992; Henderson and Berta 1994;Stevenson and Baker 1987; Henderson 1987;Walberg 1984; Epstein and Dauber 1991;Chavkin and Gonzalez 1995).

The perceptions of the concepts ofpartnerships and the importance of partnershipsheld by the educators are important indetermining the model of partnerships practisedby the schools.

Models oj School-Family Partnenhips

Various types of models have been designed byresearchers in their study of school-familypartnerships. A review of some of these modelsmay provide some insights into the model ofpartnerships adopted by the schools in this study.Gordon (1977) proposes the family-impact andthe school-impact model. Sceley's (1989)introduces the delegation model whereas Swap's(1993) forwards the protective model, thc school­to-home transmission model and the curriculumenrichment model. However. Epstein's (1988)proposes a comprehensive six-type parentalinvolvement model and this model is used as theframework in identifying the model adopted bythe schools in partnerships.

Gordon's (1977) Model oj ParhIerships

n.. Famil)"lmpact Model

This model is designed to show how familymembers cope with the demands of theeducational system. In this model, the schoolreaches out to the families via variouscommunication techniques that is unidirectionaland parents are expected to respond to thedirectives of the professional. However, thismodel does not always stimulate active orsustained parent participation.

Penanikaj. Soc. Sci. & Hum_ Vol. 9 No.1 2001 37

Jennifer 'Nee Beng Nea, Sharifah Md. ~or, Zakaria Kasa & Foa Say Fooi

The School-Impact Model

The existence of this model is to shm\' howparents could be involved in the school asvolunteers or in parent advisory committees, inan effort to change the schools to be moreresponsive to the needs of the parents and thehome.

Seeley's (I989) Delegation Model

This model emphasizes that parents delegate to

the school the responsibility of educating thechildren and that educators accept thisdelegation of responsibility. In this model theschool is given the burden and responsibility ineducating the children, and having parents asadvocates or decision makers is seen as aninterference with the educators' jobs.

Swap's (I 993) Models of Partnerships

The Protective lvlodel

This model shows how connict is reducedbetween parent'; and educators, and how theschool is protected against paren t intrusion inmost circumstances. This model is identified asthe blueprint for avoiding intensive interactionsbetween home and school and for keeping theroles of teachers and parents separate.

The 5ichool-lo-Home Transmission Model

This model emphasizes the importance ofcontinuity benveen home and school, and theimportant role that parents play in enhancingthe educational achievement of their children.Educators have a responsibility to communicatewith parents to enlist them in supporting theobjectives of the school, and to inform themabout children's progress.

The Curriculum Enrichment Model

This model gives importance to the expansionand extention of the school's curriculum byincorporating into it the contributions of families.The assumptions of this model is that parentsand educators should ·work together to enrichcurriculum objectives and context. Parents haveimportant expertise to contribute and that theinteraction between parents and the schoolpersonnel will enhance the educational objectivesof the schooL

Epstein's (1988) Model of Partnerships

Earlier studies and reviews suggest that the keyto partnership is via Epstein's six-type parental

involvement practices (Epstein 1995; 1988). Eventhough this model is culturally biased, it is usedin most studies because of its compn.:hcnsivenessand it delineates several types of activities inwhich parents can be involved to enhance theirchildren's education at home or at school. Thismodel is based on Epstein's thirty years ofresearch and advocacy for parental involvementin more than 50 elementary and middle schoolsin Baltimore, Maryland.

Type i-Parenting: Basic Responsibililies of Families

This refers to the basic responsibilities of familiesto ensure children's health and safety; to provideparenting and child-rearing skills needed toprepare children for school; to respond to thecontinual need to supervise, discipline, and guidechildren at each age level; and to build positivehome conditions that support school learningand behaviour appropriate for each grade level.

Type 2-Communication: Basic Responsibilities ofSchools

Type 2 refers to the communications from schoolto home about school programmes andchildren's progress. In the light of the school'sresponsibilities in this parent involvementpractices, school should design effective formsof communication so that families could beinformed of the school's programmes and thechildren's improvement.

Type 3-Volunteer: Parent Involvement at School

This type refers to parent volunteers who assistteachers, headmasters, and children in classroomsor in other school-based activities. It also refersto parents who come to school to supportstudents' performances and sports activities; toattend workshops or other educational andtraining programmes; and to improve themselvesso that they are able to assist their children intheir learning.

7)pe 4-Home Involvement: Parent Involvement inHome Learning Activities

It refers to parent·initiated activities or child­initiated requests for help, and instructions fromteachers for parents to monitor and assist theirown children at home on learning activities thatare coordinated with the children's classwork.

Type 5-School Governance: Leadershij) andParticipation

This refers to parents taking decision-makingroles in the PTA/PTO, advisory councils, or

38 PerranikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No. I 200 I

Models of School-Family Partnerships; The Malaysian Context

other committees or groups at thc school, district,or state levcl. It also refers to parent andcommunity activists in independent advocacygroups that monitor the schools and work forschool improvement.

Type 6-Collaboration: Collaborating with theCommunity

A sixth type of involvement has been suggestedas an important component in school'scomprehensive programmes for involvingfamilies and communities in their children'seducation (California State Board of Education}988). Type 6 practice refers to school havingconnections with agencies, businessesrepresentatives, religious groups and othergroups that share responsibility for the children'seducation and future successes. It refers toconnections that schools, students and familiescontribute [Q the community (Epstein 1988, 1992;Dietz 1992).

Epstein (1988; 1992; 1995) six-pan modelencompasses all the aspects of parentalinvolvement practices in the children's education.This comprehensive model acts as a bridge forteachers, families, and communities to cooperatetoward the attainment of school and familypartnerships. Apparently, school and familypartnerships will only be successful whensUldents, families, teachers and communitiescollaborate and inreract with one another in thechildren's learning.

Oldectiues

A study was carried OUt to identify the model ofschool-family partnerships by examining theheadmasters' and teachers' perceptions of theconcepts, importance and school practices inparental involvement. Specifically this sll1dyseeks answers to the following researchquestions:I. 'What are the headmasters' and teachers'

perceptions of the concepts of school andfamily partnerships?

2. What are the perceptions of headmastersand teachers on the importance ofparental involvement in the children'seducation?

3. 'What are the school practices in parentalinvolvement as reported by the headmastersand teachers?

4. What are the parmership models adoptedby the primary schools?

METHODDesign

The study focused on the headmasters' andteachers' perceptions of the concepts, importancean~ practices of school and family partnerships.ThIS study was primarily quantitative in natureusing a descriptive research design. As this stud;was exploratory in nature, a descriptive surveym?thodology was employed to gathermformatIOn about parental involvement.

Samples

Samples were selected from 10 high-achievingand 10 low-achieving schools. Samples consist of533 teachers selected lIsing proportionatestratified random sampling and 20 headmastersrepresenting the headmasters' population ofthese schools.

Instrumentation

Questionnaires were used to gather data fromthe respondents. The headmasters' and teachers'perceptions of the concepts of school and familypartnerships compdsed 19 items identifying whatwere the aspects that parents should and shouldnot be involved, followed by an open-endedquestion. The questionnaires on the perceptionsof headmasters and teachers on the importanceof parental involvement in the children '5

ed~cati?n consisted of 10 items, using a four­pOlllt Liken scale with the following anchors: 1­Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, 4-StronglyAgree.

The instrument was pilot tested with thirtyteachers, selected randomly to determine thereliability coefficient. The reliability coefficientof the instnuTIent using Cronbach alpha wasfound to be .70. No item was deleted from theinstrument when the actual study was conductedand the reliability coefficient of the instrumentwas found to be .79.

Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis was used. The respondents'responses on their perceptions of the conceptson school and family partnerships, their~erceptions on the importance of parentalJnvo]vemem in the children's education and theschool practices were analysed using frequencies,percentages, means and standard deviation.

Pertanika.J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001 39

Jennifer Wee Beng Neo, Sharifah Md. Nor, Zakaria Kasa & Faa Say Fooi

DISCUSSION

Concepts of Partnerships

Overall, the findings revealed that therespondents' perceptions on the concepts ofpartnerships were partial and confined to schoolsupport activities and home-based learningactivities. Most of the headmasters and teachersindicated that the need for parental involvementwas higher in Type I: parenting practice (96.4%);Type 2: commnnication practice (74.5%); Type4: home involvement practice (91.3%) and Type6: collaboration practice (90.1 %). However, therespondents' perceptions on the need forparental involvement in Type 3: Volunteerpractice (14.8%) and Type 5: School Governancepractice (4.3%) were low. Majority of therespondents perceived the need for parents tobe involved only in out-of-classroom activities,but not in classroom instructional activities andschool governance practices, especially in

curriculum development, and in matters relatedto the school's management (Table I).

This finding is not surprising as mostteachers believe that their classroom is theirprivate domains and that parents' intel\'entionin the classrooms may jeopardise theirprofessional status and interfere in the children'sprogress. Perhaps, the educators' belief systemsand preconceived concepts on the need forparents and families to be involved only in thenon-instructional activities might have influencedthe teachers' overall perceptions on the conceptof school and family partnerships, thus restrictingand confining parental involvement to onlyschool support activities and home learningactivities. In addition, perhaps, the teachers'lack of knowledge and skills on how they cansolicit parents/families to be involved in thechildren's education may be one of the reasonsleading to their partial perceptions on theconcept of partnership too. The findings of this

TABLE IFrequency distribution and percentage of

respondents' perceptions of concepts of partnerships

% of Respondents indicating the Need forparental involvement

PracticesHeadmasters Teachers Total

HA LA HA LA (n=553)n=IO n=10 n=281 n=252

Parenting 9 10 269 245 533(90) (100) (95.7) (97.2) (96.4)

Communication 8 9 197 198 412(80) (90) (70. I) (78.6) (74.5)

Volunteer 2 I 46 33 82(20) (10) (16.4) (13.1 ) (14.8)

Home involvement 9 10 249 237 505(90) (100) (88.6) (94) (91.3)

School governance I 0 3 10 24(10) (4.6) (4.0) (4.3)

Collaboration 9 10 242 227 488with community (90) (100) (86.1) (90.1 ) (88.2)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentagesHA - High Achieving Schools (0 = 291)LA - Low Achieving Schools (n = 262)

40 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. VoL 9 No.1 2001

Models of School-Family Partnerships: The Malaysian Context

study were supported by Leitch and Tangri's(1988) findings which indicated that teachers'stereotypes and misperceptions were the majorimpediments to school and family partnerships.

The respondents indicated that it was theteachers' roles to educate the children in schooland teaching should be left to the experts. Theteachers' perceptions are supporting Epstein's(1987a) theory of separate spheres of influencewhich stresses on the separate roles andresponsibilities of educators and parents in thechildren's education. Similarly, the findings aresupporting Seeley's (1989) delegation model andSwap's (1993) protective model of partnership.

fmlJortance of Parental Involvement in Children'sEducation

The findings showed that majority of therespondents perceived that parental involvementwas important in the children's educationespecially in practices pertaining to the children'scognitive, emotional and social growth anddevelopment; but less important in practicesthat were related to the effectiveness of teachers'teaching and children's learning activities; andin the organisation and management of theschools (Table 2).

More than 90% of the respondents perceivedthat parenLal involvement was important infostering closer relationships between the school andJamily (93.7%), and in the regularity oJthe children'sschool attendance (92.6%). Similarly, more than80% of the respondents perceived that parentalinvolvement was important for the enhancementoJ children's self-concept in the school (89.7%); forthe improvement of children's academic achievement(89.2%); for diagnosis oJ academic difficulty Jaced IJythe children (82.6%); and for school improvementtowards excellence (81.0%). More than 75% of therespondents perceived that parental involvementwas important in helping teachers to organise out­ofclassroom activities such as Sports Da)', etc.

The findings also indicated that from thetotal ten items, only three items indicated ahigher negative responses of 'disagree'and 'stronglydisagree'. The items were 'organisation andmanagement oJ the sclwols' (78. %); effectiveness ofclassroom learning activities (54.3%); and teachers'effectiveness in canying aut their daily tasks (48.8%)

The respondents' perceptions on theimportance of parental involvement in thechildren's education were parallel to their

perceptions on the need for parents to beinvolved in the children's learning process asdiscussed in the preceding section on therespondents' concepts of partnerships. Thefindings on the respondents' perceptions on theimportance of parental involvement in thechildren's education were supported by Swap(1993) research.

School Practices in Parental Involvement

The findings on the school practices in parentalinvolvement will be discussed using mean score.The mean score of the school practices rangefrom 1.00 at the lowest end to 4.00 on thehighest extreme. On the whole, the respondentsreported that the schools only organise a fewpractices to involve parents in the children'seducation (Table 3).a. Home involvement practice, that is parental

involvement in the children's horne learningactivities was the most predominant andpopular practice carried out by the high­achieVing and low-achieving schools asindicated by the mean of 3.25 and 3.33respectively. Parental involvement inchildren's home-based learning activitieswere mostly in assisting their children intheir homework and in their reading activity.

b. Communication practice was also carriedout by the both the schools. The high­achieving schools had more communicationwith parents/ families (mean=3.00) whereasthe low-aChieving schools indicated othenvise(2.95), A variety of communication tools,such as telephones, letters, notes, memosand newsletters were used by the schools to

communicate with parents/families. Theschools' contact with parents/ families weremostly pertaining to children's academicdifficulty and classroom disruptions, ratherthan informing parents of their children'ssuccess or soliciting parents to be involvedin the children's learning activities.

c. Collaboration practice was seldom carriedout by the school as indicated by the meanof less than 3.00. The low-achieving schoolshad more collaborative support from thecommunity (mean=2.56), and they differedSignificantly with the high-achieving schoolsat the level of .05. The schools receivedsupport from various agencies andorganisations.

PenanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001 41

~

'"

TABLE 2Frequency distribution and percentage of respondents' perceptions on the "-•,

importance of parental involvement in children's education,~"

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly :;:•

Agree Disagree •'" '"• •" ,0;

HA LA HA LA HA LA HA LA "", zr. •" n n n n n n n n .0"-en (% ) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) en0 :Tr ",.en Improvemcnt of school towards 68 105 156 119 52 34 15 4 i1'p. :T

PI' excellence (23.4) (40.1 ) (53.6) (45.4) (17.9) (13.0) ( 5.2) (1.5) 3::I; ?-

" z? Teachers' effectiveness in carrying 29 31 99 124 123 69 40 38~

~ out their daily tasks (10.0) ( 11.8) (34.0) (47.3) (42.3) (26.3) (13.7) (14.5)Eo'

'" ~Z Improvement in children's 105 121 148 119 29 17 9 5 ".?academic achievement (36.1) •- (46.2) (50.9) (45.4) (10.0) (6.5) (3.1 ) (1.9)

~'"0 ~0- Effectiveness of classroom 24 22 89 118 135 97 43 25 PI'learning activities (8.2) (8.4) (30.6) (45.0) (46.4) (37.0) (14.8 (9.5) 3'

0en

Organising Ollt-of-classroom 84 78 126 139 63 37 18 8 -"activities, such as SportS Day (28.9) (29.8) (43.3) (53.1) (21.6) (14.1) (6.2) (3.1) [

con't ...

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly;;:

Agree Disagree 00-0

HA lA lA lA "." HA HA HA lA 0

~~

n n n n n n n n en

" (% ) (%) (%)0, (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ".

rr 00.,..~go Organisation and management 11 13 43 55 114 111 123 83 3

0 of the school (3.8) ( 2.4) (14.8) (21.0) (39.2) 42.4) (42.3) (31.7) -<en ...p. ~PI' Diagnosis of academic difficulty 47 62 192 156 38 37 14 7 5;I; faced by the children (47.2) (23.7) (66.0) (59.5) (13.1) (14.1 ) (4.8) (2.7) 0

c ~

?".-E.

~ Closer relationships between 93 132 176 117 J7 10 5 3 "..,the school and the family (32.0) (50.4) (60.5) (44.7) (5.8) ( 3.8) (1.7) ( 1.1) ".

'" 0

z is::0- RegulariLy of children's 117 122 150 123 19 13 5 4 e:-o

'" school allendance (40.2) (46.6) (51.5) (46.9) (6.5) ( 5.0) (1. 7) (1.5) ~00 ".

"Enhancement of children's 83 87 173 153 32 18 3 4

()0

self-concept in the school (28.5) (33.2) (59.5) (58.4),

(11.0) ( 6.9) ( 1.0) (1.5) <;~

HA High Achieving Schools (n "" 291)LA Low Achieving Schools (n "" 262)

...~

:t

TAIlLE 3Means, standard deviation and t-test of respondents' perceptions of

overall school practices in parental involvement

Practices School Mean S.D. t df sig. (p)

Parenting HA 1.76 .70 -2. 62 539.42 · 009"

'" LA 1.92 . 73•">;

" Communication HA 3.00 .54 I. 22 545.90 . 221r.• LA 2.95 .53.,...g'r Volunteer HA 2.07 .58 5. 72 551 · 000**~ LA 1.81 .48?':I: Home Involvement HA 3.25 .62 -1. 75 550.80 .080"? LA 3.33 .56

~<0 School Governance HA 2.60 .66 -2. 03 551 .043'z LA 2.71 .59?->0

Collaboration0 HA 2.41 .74 -2. 36 549.37 · 018'" LA 2.56 . 70

LA - Low - achieving schools (n = 262) Scale: () ) Never (3) SometimesHA ~ High - achieving schools (n=291) (2) Seldom (4) Never

*significance at p<. 05**significance at p<. 01

~•"~"~•~

"oq

Z•.0'",.•;;;•,.:s:f'-z_Q

t;'~"••F?'

6'og>~

[

Models of School-Family Partnerships: The Malaysian Context

However, there were some practices thatwere not popular in the schools studied. Thepractices were as follows:a. School governance practice was seldom

carried Out by the school, as indicated bythe average mean score 2.65. Parentalinvolvement in this practice was minimal astheir only involvement was via the school'sPIBG. The high-achieving schools reportedthat their schools differed significantly fromthe low-achieving schools in carryingout this practice at the level of .05 asindicated by the t-test.

b. Volunteer practice was not a popularpractice in the high-achieving schools(mean=2.07) compared to the low-achievingschools (mean=1.81). The high-achievingschools reported that parent volunteers intheir schools differed significantly from thelow-achieving schools in carrying out thispractice at the level of .01 and ,05 asindicated by the t-test. Parent volunteerswere mainly in school support activities butnot in classroom instructional activities.Headmasters, teachers and the school's PIBGwere used to solicit parent volunteers.

c. The findings also indicaled that parentingpractice, that is basic responSibilities ofparents was the least popular practice carriedout by the schools as indicated by the meanof less than 2.00. Allhough the schools hardlycalTied out this practice, yet both the schoolsdiffered significantly at the level of .01 and.05 when a Hest was conducted.

Interestingly, from the above findings it wasfound that home involvement practice andcommunication practice were not significant atall. The findings indicated that these parentalinvolvement practices carried out by the high­achieving schools were similar to the practicescarried out by the low-achieving schools.

Models oj School-Family Parlnershi/JS

The findings of the overall school practicesprovided an indication of the type of partnershipmodels adopted by the schools. On the whole,a partial school-family parmerships existed basedon Epstein's six-part comprehensive model. Thefindings indicated that Epstein's Type 4 homeinvolvement practice. that is the involvement ofparents in the children's home-based learningactivities were the most predominant and popular

practice carried out by the schools in Petalingdistrict. Teachers' perception of parentalinvolvement in the children's horne-basedlearning activities shows that teachers and parentsstrongly advocate to Epstein's (1987a) lheory ofseparate responsibilities of institutions whichstresses that the schools' and the families' rolesand responsibilities are best achievedindependently. Type 4 practice is similar toSeeley's (1989) delegalion model and Swap's(1993) protective model. These models alsostress on the separate roles played by eachinstitution in the education of the children. Inaddition, Epstein's Type 2 communicationpractice was predominantly carried out by theschools. Type 2 communication practice iscongruent lo Swap's (1993) school-la-hometransmission where educators have a respon­sibility to communicate with parents in order to

infonn them about their children's progress,school policies and programmes andopportunities for involvement.

Models of partnerships that exist in theMalaysian schools show the tendency that theschools advocate the separate spheres ofinfluences of institutions and do not exhibit anintegral and holistic model of partnerships.

Recommendations

Parental involvement in home-based and school­based support activities indicate that a partialpartnership existed. This partial involvement didnot reflect an integral partnership between theschool and family organisations. An integral andholistic concept of partnership requires teachers,parents /families and communities to be involvedin all aspecl of the children's schooling. A fullpartnership emphasises on the involvement ofeducators, families and communities in all aspectsof the children's schooling and schoolorganisations. Parent should be involved inclassroom instructional activities, and in theschool governance practice and decision makingprocess so that families and communities areinformed and involved in all aspects of thechildren's education and the school'sorganisation and management. Thus, apartnership strategy which focused on the'\vholism>t concept of everyone is involved inthe children's learning process is recommended.Hence, schools are advised to adopt Epstein's(1988) six-type parental involvement practices.Each type of involvement leads to different

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001 45

Jennifer Wee lleng Neo, Sharifah Md. Nor, Zakaria Kasa & Foo Say Foci

results for students, families, teachers, schoolsand communities. All types include two-wayconnections to reflect the shared responsibilitiesof home, schools and communities to help theyoung generations of today develop skills andcharacter to be successful in the schools, and inthe future.

CONCLUSION

With the fast-paced time and an increased focuson smart technology, educators, parents andfamilies, local communities, businesses andcorporate organisations are encouraged to

cooperate and collaborate towards theimprovement of the children's education. Theeducation system of the twenty-first centuryshould encourage all schools to promote andadopt smart partnerships in their improvementefforts. Schools need assistance, support,recognition and on-going guidance in order todevelop and maintain successful programmes ofpartnership. Any efforts to include parents andfamilies in the children's education require ashift in the educators and public attitudes andmindsets regarding the importance ofpartnership in our children's learning. Familiesneed to be more involved in improving thechildren's learning not only in the homes, butalso in the school's environments so that anintegral partnership between the school and thefamily institutions could be established.

REFERENCES

BERGER, E.H. 1991. Parent involvemcnr: yesterdayand today. ElmzenlOlY School 91(3): 209-2[8.

CALlFORl\'IA STATE BOARD OF EnUCATIOi'J 1988. ParentInvolvement Initiative: A Policy and Plan for Action.Sacramento: California State Board ofEducation.

CHAVhlN, N. F. and D. L. GONZALEZ. 1995. ForgingPartnerships between Mexican-AmericanParents and the Schools. Educational ResourceInformation Ceoter Digest. ED 388489.Charleston, WV. ERIC Clearinghouse on RuralEducation and Small Schools.

DIErl, M.J. 1992. Principals and parent involvementin "Wisconsin middle level public schools.Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Disscnation.University of ''''isconsin-Madison.

DREESEN, R. 1968. On What is Learned in School.Reading, lvlA: Addison-"Wesley.

EpSTEIN, J.L. 1987a. Toward a lh~ory of family­school connections: Teacher practices andparent involvement across the school years. InSocial Intervention: Potential and constmints, eds.K. Hurrclmann, F. Kaufmann, and F. Losel(Eds.). pp. 121-]36. New York: de Gruyter.

EPSTEIN, J.L. 1988. How do we improve programsfor parelll involvement. Edllca1ional Horizons66(2), 58-59.

EpSTEIN, J.L. 1992. School and Family Partnerships.In EncyclQIJcdia oj Educational Research, ed. M.Atkin. New York: MacMillan.

EpSTEIN, J.L. 1995. School-family-communitypartnerships: caring for the children we share.Phi Delta Kappan 76(9): 701-712.

EpSTEIN,j.L. and H. BECKER. 1982. Teachers reportedpractices of parent involvement: problems andpossibilities. Eleme1l1my SchoolJounlal83(2): 103- 114.

EPSTEIN, J.L. and S. DAUBER. 1991. School programsand teachers' practices of parent invoh'ementin inner elementary and middle school.Elemenlmy School Journal 91(3): 289-303.

GORDON, J. 1977. Parent education and parentinvolvement: retrospect and prospect.Childhood Edu.cation 54: 71-77.

HALEY, P and K. BERRY. 1988. Home and school aspartners: helping parents help their children.In Parent Involvemen1 and Student Achil!lJeJrt.entInJonnation Folio. Arlington, VA: EducationalResearch Service.

H"'LUNGER, P., J. MURPHY and C. H"US~IAN. 1992.Restructuring schools: principals' perceptionsof fundamental educational reforms. l::duca­tional Administralion Quarterly 28(3): 330-349

HENDERSON, A. 1987. The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent 11Ivolvemmt Improves Student Achievement.Columbia. MD: Narional Commitree forCitizens in Education.

HENDERSON, A. and N. BERL\. 1994. A New Generationoj I'.:vidence: The Family is Critical 10 StudentAchievement. Washington, DC: NationalCommittee for Citizens in Education.

LEITCH, M. and S. TANGRl. 1988. Barriers to home­school collaboration. Educational Horizon 66(2):70-74.

LIGHTFOOT, S. 1978. World Aparu: RelationshifJS BetweenFamilies and Schools. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

46 PenanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001

Models of School-Family Partnerships: The Malaysian Context

MOORE, D. and W. LITTLEJOHN. 1992. Trends towardincreased family-school collaboration.Contemporary Education 64(1): 40 - 45.

SEELEY, D.S. 1982. Education through partnership.Educational LeadershijJ 40(2):

SEELEY, O. S. 1989. A New Paradigm for ParentInvolvement. Educational Leadership 47(2): 46­48.

STEVENSON, D.L. and D.P. BAKER. 1987. The familyrelations and the child's school performance.Child Development 58: 1348-1357.

STOLL, L. and O. FINK. 1996. Changing Our Schools:Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement.Buckingham, PO: Open University Press.

SWAP, S.M. 1993. Developing Home-School Partnerships:from Concepts to Practice. New York: TeacherCollege Press.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 1993. Reaching theGoals: Goals 6. Washington, DC: Author.

WALBERG, H.J. 1984. Families as panners ineducational productivilY. Phi Delta KalJpan65(6): 397-400.

WIT BENG NEO, JEKNIFER. 1995. The role of primal)'schools in soliciting parent involvement inHuht Langat district. Unpublished Master ofScience Thesis. Universili Pertanian Malaysia

WEE KOK LENC. 1996. Penglibalan PIBG di Sekolah:persepsi pengetua dan AJK guru dalam PIBGdi Sekolah Menengah Taman Tasik. LaporanPenyelidikan Ijazah Sarjana Pendidikan.Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

&ceived: 29 June 2000

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 9 No.1 2001 47