agree that increased parental and community involvement can bring multiple benefits to educators and the school: the educators’ work will be made more manageable; parents who are involved will have more positive views of the teacher and the school; and the parents and others who participate are likely to be supportive of the school, as alluded to by Davies (1993).
Middlewood et al. (2005) advise that parents should realise the importance of providing a quiet place of study for their children to carry out their schools tasks. They contend that some people learn best when surrounded by noise and activity, some need quiet isolation; while some learn by chatting to others. They cite Briggs (2001) who emphasises that the environment needs to enable learners to ‘tune in to’ learning; in this way learners feel respected and sense that their needs have been assessed and attended to.
Middlewood et al. (2005) posit that parents are also able to learn from their children. They cite the example of the advent of new technologies such as cell phones and digital cameras, which are a normal part of the modern child’s life. They argue that in most families adolescent children can demonstrate to at least one parent how a new technological development operates. The patience and instructional skills needed for a child to do this are in themselves invaluable. The difference between the child and the parent is their mindset. To children, the newest technology is not something to be consciously learned, it is just there! To many adults, it requires a conscious learning exercise.
that “most parents and educators want to do more but they have difficulty in arranging the additional time.”
2.6.1 Socio-economic challenges
There exists a range of social differences, especially in rural areas, that inhibit the establishment of effective parent-teacher relationships. Parents from deprived social backgrounds tend to feel inferior and avoid situations where they have to interact with their children’s educators.
Educators need to be mindful of such challenges parents experience, and create an environment where they make parents feel welcome and respected.
“In South Africa, many learners live in communities that, apart from socio-economic deprivation, are plagued by the difficulties that come with single parents, working parents, children without adults in the house-hold and problems brought about by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This means that many children come to school with a baggage of social, physical and emotional problems that prevent them from achieving success in the school. Educators are challenged by needs and problems that are often outside the school’s control. Such challenges can only be addressed where a solid working relationship exists between the school and parents”
(Clarke 2007, p. 176).
Joubert (2007, p. 26) posits that “growing up in a rural region in Southern Africa often means growing up without a good quality education.” Van Wyk and Lemmer (2009) concur and argue that the high incidence of poverty, lack of easy access to libraries, cultural institutions, health services, recreation and high transport costs incurred by families in disadvantaged communities deter otherwise committed parents from playing some role in the educative process. Rural people are caught in the vicious cycle of having no access to the services and opportunities that might lift them out of poverty - education, gainful employment, adequate nutrition, infrastructure and communication (Joubert, 2007).
According to Samuel (2005), labour migration and the emphasis on traditionalism have given rural areas their distinctive character. Women head a large majority of these households. Child malnutrition and food insecurity plague families in provinces such as the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal (the latter being the province within which the study was undertaken).
43
Patterns of daily life which are shaped by domestic economies as alluded to by Samuel (2005) include household chores such as minding animals, collecting wood and water, collecting social grants and looking after siblings. These socio-economic and cultural practices impact on the education of children in the rural context.
Lemmer and Van Wyk (2007) report that school programmes and educator practices are the strongest and most consistent predictors of parental involvement at school and at home. Redding (2005) and Edwards (2004) believe that programmes aimed at engaging parents must target the local needs of the school. Schools need to develop strategies that will address the specific needs of the school and the community it serves. Parents are more likely to become partners in their children’s education if they perceive that schools are inclined to involve them.
However, educators also need guidance to support parents, as few educational institutions and school systems provide new and inexperienced educators with information on working with families (Lemmer & Van Wyk, 2007). Success in the provision of quality education is possible where team-work exists between parents and educators. However, I believe that knowing the school community and establishing a partnership where the school and the community may work as a team will create an environment where parents will be encouraged to participate in the life of the school.
Michael (2012, p. 71) posits: “The low level of meaningful contact of the school with parents, especially Black parents, has led some educators and principals to conclude that such parents lack sufficient interest in their children’s education and do not want to work with the school. In reality this is quite the contrary; almost all parents want the best for their children.” The truth of the matter is that contextual factors hinder parents from engaging fully in the education of their children. These challenges will be difficult to overcome without a concerted effort from the school to convince parents that their involvement is essential and appreciated.
2.6.2 Contextual challenges
According to Van Wyk (2004, p. 51), “...a common problem experienced by many parents in South Africa and abroad is the lack of or inadequate expertise within the field of education which has a negative impact on parents’ ability to support educators.” Chikoko (2009) and Mncube
44
(2009) concur that although parents are part of school structures, most of them are not actively involved in the life of the school. They argue that even though parents have been elected to serve on the SGB, some parents, especially those in rural areas, have only basic literacy skills and are not always given sufficient opportunity to participate in crucial decision making on matters affecting the life of the school.
Lemmer and Van Wyk (2007) argue that many disadvantaged parents are seriously handicapped in supporting their children’s education by their own limited education or lack of proficiency in English. This impedes their effective interaction with educators, their understanding of school work and their ability to assist children academically at home. While parental involvement is crucial in achieving educational objectives, it has become necessary to deal with those factors that hamper the education process. It was hoped that the introduction of ABET classes would address this challenge. Unfortunately, many parents are not part of this programme for various reasons.
There are learners who intentionally give parents incorrect information about educators or who give educators incorrect information about their parents. This occurs to a point where parents and educators have misconceptions of one another. A relatively high probability therefore exists that judgments are being made as a result of differing problem identification. Moreover, the past of teachers and/or parents becomes a barrier in attempts to set up mutual strategies, and parents and teachers quickly become confused and mutually antagonistic (Miller, 2003).
Miller (2003) believes that parents and educators often have conflicting experiences with learners. Parents may be seen as being unwilling to accept that there is a problem, whereas they may genuinely not be experiencing the same difficulties in the home setting. Similarly, parents who mention difficulties with their children at home, when these children are models of conformity at school, may be inaccurately perceived as ‘fussing unnecessarily’, ‘neurotic’ or
‘incompetent’ as parents. This adds further confusion to the unstable home-school relationship in the rural context.
Desforges and Abouchar (2003) and Samuel (2005) cite the lack of education of parents, especially those in rural schools, as a barrier to parent involvement. While I agree that illiterate
45
parents may need more time for the translation and interpretation of written information, I believe they will make a vital contribution by participating in the education of their children as they know what they want for their children. It is here where educators could train and encourage learners to convey or read messages correctly to their parents.
According to Miller (2003, p. 58), the details from a range of well conducted studies “…show that if a particular type of working alliance can be forged between educators and parents, considerable improvements in classroom behaviour can be attained.” While Mncube (2010) posits that programmes and interventions that engage parents improve learner performance, (Miller, 2003) warns that bringing about such a working partnership is far from easy.
Squelch (2007, p. 144) stresses that “...a school’s organizational culture and school climate directly affects the establishment of an atmosphere that is conducive to participative decision making and collaboration, and ultimately the participation of parents.” Schools with an inviting atmosphere will attract parents to the school where they could share information about their children’s culture, background, talents and needs. This two-way exchange may prevent problems from developing between the school and the home that will negatively affect learner achievement.
2.6.3 Challenges associated with inequalities
Based on a survey, the Human Rights Watch (2007) revealed that rural schools are generally neglected. This is corroborated by Samuel (2005) who report that rural schools lack basic services such as water, electricity, roads and sanitation. This means that parents need to provide water to their children when water tanks at the school run dry. When gas used for cooking runs out, schools need to procure fire-wood, which becomes more limited. The poor physical structure of rural school buildings means that parents often have to do minor repairs and renovations.
The poor telecommunication network in rural areas negatively impact on the level of communication between parents and the school. The lack of qualified teachers who venture into rural school has forced SGB’s to recommend unqualified educators for employment. The lack of resources compromise teaching and learning processes which often leaves many parents
46
disgruntled as their children face poor quality education. For cultural and economic reasons, some parents choose to let their children care for family livestock while girls are often coerced to work as labourers like men (Samuel, 2005).
Studies have revealed that the poor learning conditions in rural schools have lead to anti-social behaviour. De Lange et al. (2007), for example, posit that violence against girls and young women in rural schools, as was revealed by the South African Human Rights report (2006), remains a critical area of concern. They cite Sathipassad (2006) who points out that in South Africa, male students continue to see it as their right within their culture to hit their girlfriends and to engage in coercive sex. De Lange et al. (2007) revealed that, in South Africa, many girls and young women in rural areas end up leaving school because of pregnancy. Moreover, they continue to be at high risk biologically and socially as they may become infected with HIV/AIDS. They receive very little or no help through care and counselling. Parents have to care either for newly born babies or sick children, which plunges them into despair.
While life in a rural setting may be perceived as static and bleak, I concur with Balfour et al.
(2008, p. 103) who assert that “…rural schools can and should be places where at least some of the complex intellectual work required to deal with rural problems is done, acknowledging however that this is far from easy to accomplish.” Further, Corbett (2007) advises that it is critical to build pockets of resistance against a “diseased and deceased” discourse in relation to rural life and to circumvent a type of hopelessness that is often presented to the youth.
Research by the Rural Teacher Education Project (RTEP) in South Africa found that parents welcomed young educators from cities moving into their [rural] communities. They also commended the presence of White and Indian educators in their communities and described the positive impact it was having on their children. I believe this project and others such as Funza Lushaka go a long way to deploying young qualified educators to rural areas. These educators could, in turn, invest some of their time into empowering parents. Balfour et al. (2007) advise that initiatives such as RTEP will be sustained only through a deep commitment on the part of the government and of National and Provincial Departments of Basic Education to the plight of rural communities.
47
However, I concur with Squelch (2007) who argues that efforts to empower rural parents to participate in the life of the school as legislated by SASA (1996) have not yielded much success.
This has hindered the creation of a co-operative working relationship between educators and parents and has therefore resulted in the lack of a collaborative working relationship between parents and educators of rural schools. Rural parents experience challenges of illiteracy, poverty, social deprivation and isolation that leave them feeling helpless and unable to influence the quality of education rendered to their children.
In my experience as an educator and later as a manager of a rural primary school, many rural parents are unable to perform tasks as envisaged by educationists. There are rural parents who have had very little schooling; some cannot read and lack the confidence to work with educators and learners. There are parents who take care of households and who seldom find time to leave their homes to tend to school matters. Some parents work long hours for farmers, while others work in forests or as domestic workers who are allowed two or three days off in a month.
Female parents who remain at home have their hands full taking charge of new born babies and family livestock, while they have to engage full-time in the upkeep of their homes. Child- headed homes are common occurrences in rural areas. Adolescent pregnancy, truancy, substance abuse, poor discipline and other social evils take root where parent supervision has been compromised.
I believe that rural schools need to invest in developing strategies to persuade parents to play their rightful roles of supporting their children’s education. Schools need to create an inviting atmosphere where parents feel welcomed and where they are allowed to experience a sense of ownership with an important role to play. Through effective communication, schools should make parents aware of their responsibilities and encourage them to play their part. Parents and educators should collectively work through challenges and devise ways of ensuring the provision of quality education to all learners.