Parent Involvement Revisited: Background, Theories, and Models

Abstract

Background of Parent Involvement Knowledge of the history of parent involvement efforts and programs both in the United States and Turkey provides a useful context for engaging in an in-depth analysis of parent involvement in young children's education. The historical overview is important because the historical developments in the subject matter have shaped the understandings, philosophy, perceptions, and beliefs about parent involvement issues today. Thus, this section contains background on parent involvement efforts both in the United States and Turkey. Background on Parent Involvement in the United States The importance of parent involvement in their children's education is not a new issue. Parents began to become involved in nursery schools at the beginning of 20th century in the United States. Parent cooperative nursery schools bloomed from the 1920s to the 1960s. Most of these educational centers were located in college or suburban towns and welcomed primarily stay-at-home mothers who served as paraprofessionals in the classrooms, assisting a teacher and taking physical care of the facility (Gestwicki, 2007). The major notion of parent involvement was that parents know what they want for their children and thereby should be involved in the school. Parent involvement in school helped those educational settings to decrease budget costs and build a tie between parent and school (Gestwicki, 2007). However, these parent involvement efforts were limited to middle-class families. While involving parents from lower socioeconomic and culturally and ethnically diverse background began during the Depression and grew during World War II through programs that supported parent involvement in activities such as parental self-development training and learning, extensive parent involvement was introduced via Head Start in the 1960s and 1970s (Wright, Stegeli, & Hartle, 2007). Head Start was designed for particularly disadvantaged families. Nevertheless, educators were uneasily tolerant of parents perceived as lacking knowledge and skills (Gestwicki, 2007). Later, Head Start was required to ensure the utmost level of participation by the families served. Parent involvement and empowerment were seen as Head Start characteristics (Goldberg, 1997). The main philosophy of the Head Start program was that parents were equal partners with education professionals in children's education (Zigler, 1992). Both parents and teachers were considered to be experts on children, with each bringing different types of expertise (Gestwicki, 2007). Parents began to decide on a level of involvement well-suited to their lives and commitments. According to the rationale, if children are to achieve their fullest potential; there must be an opportunity for Head Start parents to influence the character of programs that affect the development of their children (Henrich & Blackman-Jones, 2006). Parents were offered education activities to engage in with their children (Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993). For example, parents began to work with their own children along with the staff, plan parent activities by themselves, participate as volunteers in classrooms, and set standards for the hiring of professional staff. Thus, the Head Start program was able to actively reach out to parents (Stein & Thorkildsen, 1999). Chapter I of the Title I initiative, called Even Start, was eventually brought in as a family-centered education program that funded local efforts to improve educational opportunities for children, with an emphasis on a family-centered literacy program, and mandated involvement of parents via an agreement signed by parents. In this agreement, parents agreed to ensure that their children attended school, attended orientation sessions for parents, participated in parent/child/staff events during the year, read with the child, and attended at least five hours of family-school partnership workshops offered by the school (Gestwicki, 2007). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 77 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.