Suburban New York School District with Parent Participationjn;Ive Chicago City Schools
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 229 460 UD 022 668 AUTHOR Steinberg, Lois, S.; And Others TITLE Community Environments and Parent Participation [with Appendices]. INSTITUTION National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, Ill. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington,DC. PUB DATE Jun 20 CONTRACT 400-7J-0005 NOTE 335p.; For related document, see UD 022 669. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC14 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Community Characteristics; Comparative Analysis; Decentralization; Elementary Secondary Education; *Parent Associations; *Parent Participation; *Parent School Relationship; Participative Decision Making; *School Community Relationship; *Suburbari Schools; *Urban Schools ABSTRACT This study compares parent participation in suburban New York school district with parent participationJN;ive Chicago city schools. Sectionone provides an overview of the udy, which was based on an examination of externalinnovations (such as laws, court orders, and new programs) that creatednew bases for parents to become involved in edmcational decision makingat the local school level. Section two reviews characteristicsof the suburban school district studied and characteristicsof the school system which appeared to influence parent participation in major issues (budget controversies, school board elections,facilities, school community relations). In sections three throughfive, the history, personnel networks, and social characteristicsof several suburban parent groups are then reconstructed andinteraction settings and resources mobilized by thesegroups are described. rhe remainder of the study focuses on the urban reseAch,'with section six detailing methodological criteria. Sectionsseven and eight compare variations in parent participation levels in the five urban sites, and provide researchers' and communityorganizers' comments regarding the parent participation data. Implicationsof the study's findings for policymakers, administrators, andparents are discussed in section nine. Appended to the studyare conceptual and theoretical background, as well as 'research instruments utilized. (GC) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made frOm the original document. *********************************************************************** Mt OFPAPITMENT OF IOUCATIN N TIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION ' iCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 1 CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes hays been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions gated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent officio' NIS. position or policy. PARENTS' SCHOOL NETWORKS AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SCHOOL-COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTS AND PARENT PARTICIPATION MIN* Conducted for the National Institute of Education by The National Opinion Research Center Chicago, Illinois Principal Investigator: Lois S. Steinberg Project Consultants: Ira Katznelson Edward O. Laumann Research Assistants: Roberto M. Fernandez Chryssi Vitsilakis NIE Project Officer: Gary Sykes Contract No.: 400-70-0005 June, 1980 PREFACE My interest in comparing parent participation in suburban and urban school districts began in 1967. At that time I was working (as a researcher) on evaluations of federally funded compensatory programs in the New York City school system while my oldest child was enrolled in a suburban public school. Most of the people I interviewed in New York City (school administrators, teachers, parents, community organization members and other researchers) explained levels of parent involvement in terms of stereotypes. It was assumed that there were higher levels of parent participation in suburban districts because most residentswere middle class. The urbanites I interviewed were under the impression that this class status provided parents with the "power" to "run" their ahildren's schools (including the hiring and firing of principals and teachers) and a belief system that placed a high value on formal schooling. Lower levels of participation among inner city poor and minority parents were attributed to their relative powerlessness, problems associated with poverty, "lack of interest" in formal schooling and a more highly centralized professional bureaucracy. The stereotypes about suburban parent participation did not apply to my child's school district, which I call "Eastport." A majority were middle class, but few were active in school affairs. They were not provided with information about the schools (which were, in 1967, overcrowded), and hardly any had ever attended a school board meeting.The few who told me that they had tried to improve the quality OT-the cUrriculum or teaching, said they had given up because administrators and teachers resented parent "interference" or they could not find enough parents who were "really" interested. I felt it was important to document the experiences of suburban parents who tried to influence educational decisions since almost every strategy devised to improve educational services for inner city minority students is basedon the middle class model. This generalization applies particularly to compensatory programs and such political reforms as decentraliza- tion. Essentially, these reforms perceive minority students and, their parents as "disadvantaged" in comparison to their suburban peers and aim to provide services for students and participatory structures for parents to help eliminate,the differences. Federally funded compensatory programs, for example, include a parent participation component--usually called a "parent advisory council" (PAC). Although policy-makers intended that the PACs provide parents wAh an opportunity to participate in program depisions, they have rarely had this effect. Evaluati,s of these PACs indlcate that parents have not been provided with resources to do the job: participants are usually selected by school administrators, they are not givenany training and most of,Abe-time are merely asked to approve decisions made by scgool personnel (Davies, 1977). The inability of some urban decentralization experiments ,to bring about the anticipated redistribution of power between parents and professionals led some analysts to conclude that the reformers did not understand the nature of participation in the suburbs (Lalloue and Smith, 1973). Others concluded that the new forms did not give urban parents sufficient power in decisions relating to budget and curriculum (Gittell, 1973). Regardless of how the results are interpreted, there persists a belief that there is same way to restructure the schools so thatpoor inner city parents can end up with the political advantages of suburban parents. My observations of parent participation in Eastport led me to question the decentralization rhetoric. When I reviewed the research literature on parent participation and community'decision making, / discovered that the situation in Eastportwas not unique. Moseof the studies, conducted during the late 1950s and early 19608, indicated that both urban and suburban school systems were relatively-closed to parent influeike in school policy. The powers originally delegated by the states to local school boards had been taken over by professional educators. The rules governing parent participation were defined by the professionals. There were no formal procedures for parents to play a constructive role in the formulation of educational policy. Such activities We prohibited by the by-laws of the very organization that had been set up to represent parents: the PTA. (These by-laws were changed in 1972 and the National Congress of Parents and Teachers now encourages parents to participate in policy issues, including collective bargaining with teachers.) Thus, all established channels for parent access to'decisions were restricted to supportive participation. Parents and non-parents who chose to oppose administrative policies usually had to create ad hoc groups and were frequently labelled by researchers as "disruptive fA-ces" (Steinberg, 1979). J These early studies had several weaknesses. Analysts concentrated on formal structures and official role incumbents. .Tte investigation of informal social processes and influence was limited to relationships between elite citizens and school officials. When constituents have been included they are typically representatives of established voluntary associations. As a result our knowledge about the role of informal social processes and the methods by which excluded grouPs mobilize and develop influence is slim. Besides their neglect of ihformal social processes and non-elites, the community power studies do not consider the impact of increased federal initiatives-- particularp on the participation of women. A central thesis underlying this study is that the research focus on formal structures has created a narrow and distorted picture of parent participation in both the suburban and urban contexts, Since my initial recognition of the problem, I have had several opportunities to observe parent participation in urban settings. These experiences include the research for my doctoral thesis which dealt with the impact of federal bilingual education policy in New York City (Steinberg, 1978) and a national study of school-related advocacy groups sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation (Designs for Change). The first section of this report is based on data from a follow-up study of five Eastport parent groups that mobilized