DEDICATION
5.2 EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF BROAD THEME ONE AND CONNECTION TO THE LITERATURE TO THE LITERATURE
5.3.1 The Rhetoric of Parents’ Involvement and Attitudes
From the perspectives of teachers in this study, the rhetoric of parents’ involvement is seen as providing two positions placed on a continuum; that is, involvement and non-
involvement. These two positions are accompanied by various forms of attitudes which are positioned hierarchically across the continuum of involvement and non-involvement namely; dedication, appreciation, arrogant, demanding and uncaring.
On the one hand, two of the teachers (Noah and Grace) talked about parents’ involvement as a good thing because of the positive attitudes that parents displayed towards teachers.
These teachers noted that such parents were dedicated and appreciative of teachers and their work because of their active involvement in the school life. For instance, Noah talked about parents who were involved in the school governance but were not doing enough to attract other parents to be involved in the school. Grace talked about parents who worked hand-in-glove with their children’s teachers and were therefore, able to know what goes on in the school.
Noah: It’s only very few parents who are dedicated and concerned about their children’s wellbeing, and some of them participate as governing body members; but they are also unable to fully mobilise more parents to be actively involved (NT 30).
Grace: For those parents who are involved, of course, they appreciate and they can know who is responsible for what. But for those that don't know, they always complain, whine and they also undermine us and they think we don't know what we are doing (GT 30).
From Noah’s and Grace’s articulations, it appears that there are two positions regarding parents; those that are dedicated to their children’s schooling and often have positive contributions [therefore appreciative of teachers and their work (NT30, GT30)], and those who are on the side-lines with no specific contribution except whining and complaining about teachers (GT30). What these teachers seem to be suggesting about parents’ involvement is that when parents are involved, they usually become well- informed about the school matters and the things that affect their children’s education and welfare. Where they are not well-informed, they often undermine teachers and their work.
Alternatively, those parents who whine and complain may also be regarded as partly involved parents although their contribution is not necessarily a positive one because of the negative attitudes that they bring with them.
On the other hand, there participants who believed that parents’ involvement was a bad thing when parents displayed negative attitudes towards teachers. Whilst Mercy talked
about parents who came to school with an arrogant attitude and without any prior arrangements with the school or the teacher concerned; Kadesh talked about parents who demanded that teachers do things that are beyond their scope of work:
Mercy: At our school, parents do not make appointments. They just come any time they want to, and sometimes when you tell the parent to wait, they become very angry in such a way that you may be also forced to leave the class if the principal insists that you should attend to the parent. If the parent is cheeky, then you have to attend to the parent at that moment (MT 20).
Kadesh: They expect us to do everything. Some parents have actually said that “hey, I’m unable to discipline this child, please help me out”. So if a parent is tired and is unable to discipline his/her own child, what am I expected to do as a teacher (KT 28)?
Mercy talked about the unbalanced power within the school where the parents seemed to come and go at any time and as they pleased. The expectation from teachers was that the principal would keep the parent away until a convenient time, which was not always the case. Where the parent was forceful, the principal would give in and command the teachers to leave the class unattended in order to attend to the parent. Such parents were partly involved in the education of their children although in terms of negative contribution as a result of their arrogant behaviours. Kadesh talked about the parents who shifted their responsibilities of disciplining their children and asked the teachers/school to help out. What these teachers are saying about parents’ involvement is that if the involvement goes with negative attitudes from parents, then it becomes disruptive to teachers and their work. Therefore, the rhetoric here is that some parents’
involvement and attitudes directly or indirectly undermine teachers and their work.
Parents’ involvement was viewed as having a positive role where it contributed to the smooth functioning of the teachers and the school in general – where parents were team players. It was, however, seen as negative when it was used undesirably by the parents.
Some teachers believed that there are parents who were not involved in the education of their children. This non-involvement ranged from parents who were uncaring, to those who shifted their responsibilities, to those who were ‘absent’ altogether.
One teacher talked about uncaring attitude of parents towards their children’s academic progress. He suggested that there was no correlation between the children’s background and their parents’ attitude or non-involvement in children’s school life:
Noah: In my school, many children/ learners receive social grants. These children are now a generation of the people we have taught. We know their parents as former learners but we have never seen them come to school, not once, to enquire about their children’s progress or whatever…. Parents just send their children to school and that’s finish ‘en klaar’ (Afrikaans word meaning ‘done and dusted’). As to what needs to happen for the child to perform better and achieve good results, it’s not their concern (NT 28).
Here the teacher referred to parents who were their former students. Because the parents also attended the school, the teachers seemed to think that they would have a relationship because the parents knew the school, the teachers and how the school operated. Based on the idea of familiarity, teachers expected much interaction with these parents and much of their presence in the school. As Noah noted that most learners in his school live in poverty, perhaps it would be understandable if their parents tried to avoid the school.
Possibly it was not that these parents were not concerned but that poverty brought its own shame. But what was the outcome? That where there is much poverty and disadvantage, teachers bear the consequences and teach learners by themselves without the involvement of parents. Noah made the assumption that the parents were not concerned.
Another teacher talked about non-involvement of parents as resulting from their lack of responsibility. Faith observed that parents expected teachers to be ‘super teachers’ and excel where parents have failed with their own children:
Faith: Some parents don’t want to be involved in the education of their children – it’s all about teachers. I have heard it so many times that when children are disobedient, parents would ask ‘is this what you are taught at school? This means that some parents just dump their children at school.
Schools have become day-care centres. They often say ‘you must see what you can do with that child – yoooh akeve ehlupha shame (s/he is a handful – troublesome!) (FT 28).
Faith held the view that some parents do not want to be involved in the education of their children but still expect the school to discipline the children, hence she makes reference to schools as “day-care centres” for children because the children are too troublesome to
manage. Teachers have to be parents as well, which they seem to find burdensome.
Teachers had added responsibilities because of parents who did not involve themselves in their children’s education. Such parents lacked responsibility and had the attitude of being unconcerned about their children’s education. Noah talked about parents who were
‘absent’, and completely not involved in the education of their children.
Noah: We have to deal with the children who seem to have been ‘thrown away’ to us by their parents who are ‘absent’ (NT 12).
Noah observes that there are parents who did not have the ethic of care and love for their children, parents who did not care about what went on in their children’s lives. According to Noah, such parents were not only absent in their children’s lives, but also uncaring.
Teachers in this study understood parents’ involvement to be operating on a logic of difference based on their explanations of both positive and negative experiences with parents. From what these teachers shared about parents’ involvement, it seems that some parents shared the responsibility of educating the child, whereas other parents appeared to be involved only when there was a problem with the child.
5.3.2 The Rhetoric of Interference by District Officials on Promotion of Learners