University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

What shapes middle school teachers' abilities to build productive parent-teacher relationships? The roles of self-efficacy and teachers' and principal's role constructions

(USC Thesis Other)

What shapes middle school teachers' abilities to build productive parent-teacher relationships? The roles of self-efficacy and teachers' and principal's role constructions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WHAT SHAPES MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ ABILITIES TO BUILD
PRODUCTIVE PARENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS?
THE ROLES OF SELF-EFFICACY AND TEACHERS’ AND PRINCIPAL’S ROLE
CONSTRUCTIONS

by

Nancy Thompson Smith

_______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Nancy Thompson Smith
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is dedicated to my father, John Neelands Thompson, who served as an
administrator with the Garden City Public Schools, Garden City, Michigan from 1958 to
1985. My father was a good listener who respected process and delighted in learning
from others. In his professional capacity, he was frequently required to act as a liaison
between school/district and community. He understood the place of the administrator to
be that of member of a team, and he considered each member of that team essential to the
education of children and youth. When he passed on in 2000, it comforted me to hope
that a part of him might continue to live through my own work.
This study is also dedicated to my dissertation chairperson, Julie Slayton, Ph.D.,
without whose willingness and commitment, this project would not have been possible. I
cannot express adequately my gratitude to her for her patience and her dedication to this
process. She, as well as her family, sacrificed; she put in countless hours of reading,
correcting, questioning, and explaining. In addition, I am grateful to Angela Hasan,
Ph.D., and Katherine Hayes, Ph.D., who served on my Dissertation Committee. May our
efforts contribute in some way to more effective partnerships between parents and
teachers.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Problem 2

Statement of the Problem 6

Purpose of the Study 10

Research Questions 11

Methodology 11

Significance of the Study 12

Limitations 13

Delimitations 14

Definitions of Terms 15

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Effects of Productive Parent-Teacher Relationships on Student Success in School 20

Components of a Productive Parent-Teacher Relationship 35

Impediments to Productive Parent-Teacher Relationships 47

Structural Supports of, and Constraints on, the Parent-Teacher Relationship 66

Conceptual Framework 80

Conclusion 86

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 87

Research Design 87

Data Collection 93

Data Analysis 96

Validity and Reliability 98

Conclusion 100

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 101

Finding #1 102

Finding #2 124

Finding #3 138

Summary 151

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 152

Summary 153

Implications for Practice 163

Limitations 164

Future Research 165

Conclusion 167

REFERENCES 168
iv
APPENDICES 179
Appendix A: Table 1: Teacher Characteristics Matrix 179

Appendix B: Informed consent Form: Teacher Participant 180

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form: Principal Participant 182

Appendix D: Teacher Interview Protocol 184

Appendix E: Principal Interview Protocol 188

v
ABSTRACT
Students whose parents have productive relationships with their teachers tend to
perform better in school than those who do not (Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Low income
students and students belonging to certain minority groups tend to perform less well in
school than their higher income, Caucasian peers (McKinley, 2009). The parents of low-
income students and of certain traditionally lower achieving minority groups are also less
likely to experience productive relationships with their child’s teacher (Joshi et al., 2005;
Kim, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Pena, 2000; Saft & Pianta, 2001). The purpose of
this study was to explore factors that influence the building of relationships between low-
income parents and parents of certain minority groups and their adolescent’s teacher.
This study employed a qualitative case study methodology to examine teacher
and principal perceptions regarding the building of relationships with their students’
parents. Specifically, teacher self-efficacy was examined in regard to his/her perceived
ability to develop relationships with parents. In addition, how the teachers and the
principal constructed the parent’s and the teacher’s role in their relationship with each
other was also studied. Data revealed that teachers who expressed high levels of self-
efficacy tended to mediate barriers to building relationships with parents. Furthermore,
the way the teacher constructed the teacher’s and parent’s role influenced the types of
relationships he/she reported being able to build with parents. The principal’s role
construction for parents and teachers in their relationships with each other was also found
to influence the teachers’ role constructions in that relationship.
The implications drawn from this study suggest that teachers’ role constructions
can influence the teacher’s success in building productive relationships with parents and
vi
that these role constructions are not immutable. Furthermore, many seemingly
insurmountable barriers to building relationships with parents can be overcome.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of efficacy and teachers’ and
principals’ role construction in the formation of productive parent-teacher relationships.
Parent-teacher relationships have been shown to play an important part in student
academic success (Hill & Taylor, 2004; Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Kohl, Lengua, &
McMahon, 2000; Marcon, 1999). A productive parent-teacher relationship can make a
positive difference in student achievement, especially for low-income students (Hughes
& Kwok, 2007). Conversely, students who are already challenged by their low socio-
economic and minority status may be further handicapped by the lack of a productive
relationship between their parent and the teacher (Joshi et al., 2005; Kim, 2009; Lareau &
Horvat, 1999; Pena, 2000; Saft & Pianta, 2001). This study sought to explore how
teacher self-efficacy and teachers’ and principal’s role construction influenced middle
school teachers’ efforts to build relationships with parents. Because of the correlation
between the quality of the parent-teacher relationship and student success in school,
understanding how to improve the parent-teacher relationship holds potential for
improving student achievement.
Given the importance of the parent-teacher relationship to student academic
success, understanding how efficacy and role construction best support, and not hinder,
teachers’ efforts to build productive relationships with parents may play an important role
in raising student achievement. This study examined only the teacher’s role in building
parent-teacher relationship, and not the parent’s, because this is the aspect of the
relationship that teachers and schools have the greatest power to change. Although
teacher and principal beliefs and efforts may indirectly influence parents’ role in the
2
relationship, how parents can build more positive relationships with teachers is not the
subject of this study.
Background of the Problem
In spite of decades of investment of time and resources on the part of educators,
taxpayers, and politicians, too many children in the U. S. achieve below grade level in
core subjects. For example, in 2011, only 34% of all fourth graders in the country scored
proficient or advanced in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012) and
40% in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). In 2011, 34% of eighth graders scored
proficient or above in reading and 35% did so in math (NCES, 2012). The fourth grade
average reading and math scores showed no significant change between 2007 and 2011,
while eighth grade reading scores increased by only three points between 2005 and 2011
and math scores improved by 3 points in the same time period (NCES, 2012), in spite of
investment in improving education mandated and funded by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001.
The academic achievement of American students continues to lag in comparison
to those of many other developed countries. When comparing the reading scores of 15-
year-olds on the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the U. S.
ranked 14
th
out of 34 countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). They ranked 25
th
in mathematics (Fleischman et al., 2010).
The mediocre ranking of American students is negatively influenced by the performance
of low-income and traditionally low-performing minority students. These results
demonstrate a need to persist in efforts to increase student success in American schools,
3
and especially in efforts to increase the academic success of low income students and
students of low-achieving minority groups (National Center for Education Statistics,
2011).
A significant achievement gap between students from low socio-economic status
(SES) and higher SES families remains, despite a variety of efforts to reduce it
(McKinley, 2009). According to 2009 NAEP scores, students who qualify for the federal
free lunch program performed approximately two years behind other students of the same
age (McKinley, 2009). This variation continues throughout the students’ academic life,
with only 9% of low-income students included in the freshman classes of the nation’s
120 most selective colleges and universities (McKinley, 2009). The persistence of this
gap suggests that public schools are currently not functioning as “the great equalizer”
envisioned over 200 years ago by Horace Mann, education reformer (as cited in Platt,
1993, p. 98). Rather, through public education, class differences are too often becoming
more entrenched, even exacerbated (Kohl et al., 2000).
Achievement gaps between certain ethnic minorities and Caucasian students are
also sizable. Significant differences in vocabulary and in social development between
Caucasian students and some ethnic minorities, as well as between low income and other
students, exist even before the students enter kindergarten (Sbarra, & Pianta, 2001). As
students move through the grades, the disparity continues. In 2009, only 15% of African-
American and 16% of Hispanic fourth graders in the United States scored proficient or
above in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress, compared to 41% of
Caucasian students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). The difference in
performance between Caucasian students and certain minority students widened as
4
students moved into the upper grades. The gap between math scores of American
Caucasian and Hispanic students grew by 41% between fourth and twelfth grades and by
22% between Caucasian and African-American students (McKinley & Co., 2009).
Another gap merits attention. Productive relationships between parents and school
staff are less common for low SES and certain minority children than for students from
higher income families (Hughes & Kwok, 2007); evidence of this is discussed further in
Chapter Two. Some researchers postulate that socio-economics and racial differences
may contribute to this disparity in relationship quality (Hill et al., 2004; Hughes, et al.,
2005; Pianta & Walsch, 1996). The majority of American teachers are Caucasian and
from a different socio-economic class than low-income and minority students (NCES,
2009). Cultural or socio-economic dissimilarity in priorities and practice may explain the
disassociation between teacher expectations and student behavior (van Ewijk, 2011).
Whatever the exact cause, because low income and Hispanic, African-American, and
certain other minority parents are more likely to have a lower quality of relationship with
their child’s teacher, improvement of the parent-school relationship is critical to the goal
of increasing the achievement of these subgroups (Hughes, et al., 2005; Hughes & Kwok,
2007).
Growing awareness of the importance of the parent-school connection is reflected
in various federal and state policies that contain measures, including provision of funds,
to promote parent involvement in their child’s education (California State Board of
Education, 2007; Public Law 107-110, 2002). Federal and state initiatives were born in
response to disappointing levels of student achievement nation-wide, a stubborn
performance gap between ethnic groups and between socio-economic groups, and
5
appreciation of the potential of parent involvement to contribute to student success in
school. For example, one of the six foci of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001 is parent involvement (Public Law 107-110, 2002). Both NCLB and President
Obama’s proposal for ESEA authorization (“A Blueprint for Reform”) require that all
districts and schools maintain parent involvement policies. No less than 1% of NCLB
funds (2% is proposed in the Obama “Blueprint for Reform”) going to Title I schools
must be spent on programs and other efforts to increase parent participation in their
child’s school or education (Public Law 107-110, 2002). An additional $39 million per
year has been allocated to finance Parental Information and Resource Centers (PIRC)
(United States Department of Education, 2010b). Yet, as discussed in Chapter Two, little
research can be found that explores the most effective ways to utilize these funds.
Providing parents with activities and other opportunities to be involved in school
has been the customary approach to building relationships between parent and teacher
(Powell, 2010). Family-school involvement has been linked to social (Izzo et al., 1999;
Marcon, 1999; Powell, 2010), academic (Hill & Craft, 2003; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Powell, 2010), and language success, especially in the early grades (Dryfoos, 2000;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Powell, et al., 2010). High levels of
parent involvement have been found to have a positive effect on student behavior
problems (Powell et al., 2010) and efforts to decrease drop-out rates (Rumberger, 1995)
and correlates with fewer grade retentions (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). The importance
of parental involvement has not escaped the attention of policy makers at the federal and
state level.
6
Although financial resources are targeted for the purpose of developing the home-
school connection, often for the purposes of strengthening the parent-teacher relationship,
little is known about which strategies are most successful in promoting a productive
partnership between parent and teacher (Seitsinger et al., 2008; Epstein, 2011).
Furthermore, policymakers often do not take into account that the needs of middle school
students in regard to the parent-teacher relationship are different than those of elementary
school students (Hill & Chao, 2009). The imperative to improve U. S. education and the
recognition of the important role parents play in their child’s educational success create a
great need to better understand how to support the middle school parent-teacher
relationship.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of low student achievement, the call for more collaborative
relationships between parents and teachers, and the need for school policies and practices
that support these relationships have emerged from a number of intersecting trends.
Demands on parents and teachers have changed over time in regard to the child’s
education (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Epstein, 2011), and the demographics of the
student populations of public schools have transformed and continue to transform
(Garcia, 2002; NCES, 2010). These changes have created new expectations, needs, and
challenges for students, educators, and parents and have changed and challenged the
relationship between parent and teacher.
Since the early days of American public education (Epstein, 2011), philosophies
and practice regarding the parent-teacher relationship have adjusted in response to
cultural changes and changes within the field of education. In the early 1800s, schools
7
were a community affair and parents were involved in their children’s education and in
the operation of the school. Communities made staffing decisions, created the school
calendar, and had leverage in curricular decisions (Prentice & Houston, 1975). Because
communities were more ethnically homogeneous, parents and teachers were more likely
to share a common culture (Gareau & Sawatsky, 1995). By the mid-1900s, a higher level
of teacher knowledge and professionalism resulted in teachers using methods and
teaching subjects that parents were less likely to understand (Adams & Christenson,
2000; Epstein, 2011). For this and other reasons, the parent-teacher relationship became
more remote and dissonant (Adams & Christenton, 2000; Epstein, 2011). The roles of the
parents and teacher became distinct and separate as teachers assumed the responsibility
of teaching academics and the parents were expected to teach their children about
religion, culture, and good behavior (Epstein, 2011; Hill & Taylor, 2004).
The demographics of American schools have also undergone significant change.
Between 1850 and the early 1900’s, as many as seven in ten U. S. citizens were foreign-
born. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, the ratio dropped to roughly one in twenty (Garcia,
2002). A wave of immigration between 1981 and 1990 increased the number of
immigrants by 63% (Garcia, 2002) and, by 2007, the ratio had increased again to one in
fourteen (NCES, 2010).
In addition to an increase in immigration, countries of origin have also changed,
creating new linguistic challenges for educators. The passage of the Immigration Act of
1965, abolishing quotas based on the country of origin, triggered an influx of newcomers
from Asia and Mexico (Garcia, 2002). In 1980, 9.8% of students spoke a language other
than English at home; by 2009, that number had grown to 21%. (National Center for
8
Education Statistics, 2009). By 2009, 11.3% of all students in U. S. public schools were
classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP).
A third factor in changing school demographics throughout the history of public
education in the United States has been the creation and enforcement of truancy and child
labor laws. Child labor laws were enacted to protect children from exploitation and to
increase availability of jobs for adults (Kotin & Aikman, 1980). Truancy laws,
implemented over the years for a variety of reasons, also reduced job competition for
adults and were designed to create a literate citizenry (Kotin & Aikman, 1980). As a
result, American schools now serve a wider and more diverse population than ever. Low-
income students, who in the past might have worked, now attend school. More recent
cultural changes, such as the increased rate of divorce and the erosion of the middle class,
have caused a growth in the percentage of students living in poverty, from 14.7% in 1979
to 17% by 2007 (NCES, 2010).
All of these changes create extra challenges for educators. The academic needs of
English Language Learners have demanded instructional accommodations. Also,
linguistic differences have caused communications challenges for students, parents, and
teachers. The profile of American teachers, primarily Caucasian and middle-class, has
not reflected the cultural and linguistic shifts (NCES, 2009), requiring teachers, students,
parents, and communities to bridge cultural and linguistic divides. All of these changes
have an impact on the parent-teacher relationship.
Research confirms the need for collaboration between parents and teachers in the
task of educating students (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Today,
it is more commonly accepted that both parents and teachers share the responsibilities of
9
socializing and educating students (Adams & Christenson, 2000) and that this partnership
is important to student success in school (Epstein, 2011). Not only has a functional
parent-teacher relationship been linked to academic success, it has been found to have a
mitigating effect on the performance disparity between ethnic groups and between
income groups. It can moderate the effect of the student’s background on classroom
engagement and on academic achievement (Hughes & Kwok, 2007). A related
perspective held by some researchers is that the achievement gap may be a result of
teachers’ misconceptions about low-income students and their families and about those
who are of a different ethnicity (Pianta, Rimm-Kauffman, & Cox, 1999; Pianta &
Walsch, 1996). In light of its potential benefit to the education of the student, there is a
pressing need to strengthen the parent-teacher partnership.
Research that demonstrates the correlation between positive parent-teacher
relationships and student success in school make clear that the attitudes and practices of
the past, in which the worlds of parents and teachers did not intersect, are no longer
appropriate. Supporting and encouraging both teachers and parents to build collaborative
bonds and strategies has great potential for maximizing student learning (Hughes &
Kwok, 2007). Teachers who value and have tried to develop these links may be an
important source of knowledge for determining what works. It is because of the potential
value of teachers’ perceptions, and because perceptions are measurable, that they were a
unit of analysis in this study. A second unit of analysis was the relationship between
teachers’ perceptions and the principal’s perceptions.
To date, research and practices have primarily focused on parent-school
involvement in general and, more specifically, on parent-school activities (Powell et al.,
10
2010). Yet, the body of research examining the relationship between parent and teacher is
much smaller (Henrich & Blackman-Jones, 2006; Powell et al., 2010). By identifying
specifically how relationships between parents and teachers can best be supported, time,
effort, and funds can be more strategically targeted for maximum gain.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to seek a deeper understanding of what
contributes to, or impedes, the development of productive relationships between
parents and teachers. One objective was to examine teachers’ self-efficacy in
regard to building these relationships, studying how teachers perceived and
approached barriers to building relationships with parents. A second objective
was to study the way teachers constructed their role and the parent’s role in their
relationships with each other, as well as how that role construction affected
teachers’ abilities to build relationships with parents. Finally, it examined how the
principal’s role construction for teachers and parents in their relationships with
each other influenced how the teachers constructed these roles. Teacher and
principal perceptions were only one approach to examining the building of
parent-teacher relationships; the results of this project provide a foundation for
further exploration of the topic.
More specifically, this study examined three questions:
1. What is the relationship between a teacher’s self-efficacy and his/her
ability to build productive relationships with parents?
2. What is the relationship between the way in which a teacher constructs
his/her role and the role of his/her student’s parents in regard to their
11
relationship with each other? How do those role constructions compare
to the relationships they believe they have with parents?
3. How is the principal’s role construction for parents and teachers in their
relationships with each other reflected in the way teachers construct
these roles?
Research Questions
The study was based on four bodies of literature. The first area of research
focused on the relationships between parents and teachers and how they could
positively affect student achievement. The second body presented the components
of a collaborative parent-teacher relationship and how they contributed to the
effectiveness of the relationship. The third described common barriers to building
effective parent-teacher relationships. The fourth acquainted the reader with
existing policies and practices intended to support the parent-teacher relationship.
Together, these four bodies of knowledge established the need for, and the
qualities of, a strong parent-teacher relationship throughout the middle school
years.
Methodology
This investigation was conducted in two stages. The first step was to
identify how the principal constructed the parents’ and teachers’ roles in their
relationships with each other. This stage involved document review and an
interview with the principal. Second, interviews were conducted to gather teacher
perceptions about the parent-teacher relationship. The interviewee was contacted
a second time to clarify questions that arose from the results of the initial
12
interview. These data collection methods were employed in order to pursue the
research question listed above.
Significance of the Study
Study of the effect of efficacy and role construction on the parent-teacher
relationship is especially timely for two reasons. One is the critical need to improve
public education and the growing awareness that one ingredient for that improvement lies
in the connection between parent and teacher. Examination of the relationship between
parents and teachers may hold clues as to why parents participate or not in their child’s
education and clues regarding how to improve the parent-teacher relationship, especially
for the low-achieving students who need support the most. Secondly, the bulk of the
public parent involvement money is invested in parent involvement at schools while little
is spent directly on building quality parent-teacher relationships (Hughes & Kwok,
2007). By identifying best practices that will strengthen the parent-teacher bond, public
funds might be put to more effective use (Hill & Craft, 2003; Mattingly et al., 2002).
There is a critical need to understand which efforts strengthen or hinder the
parent-teacher relationship (Hughes et al., 2005). With little research from which to
discern best practices, recipients of federal NCLB funds can only guess how to invest
most effectively to build parent-teacher involvement. For example, scarce studies
examine the impact of the principal’s role construction in regard to the parent-teacher
relationship. Because teachers and schools have more power to improve their own
practices than they do those of the parents’, these funds have the greatest potential for
impact if at least a portion supports research-based strategies for strengthening teacher
efforts to build relationships with parents. By identifying what is required to support
13
productive relationships between teachers and parents, federal funds can then be
effectively used to this end. This study is a small step toward learning how to use these
funds more strategically.
The study also contributes to literature in a variety of other ways. It provides
illumination regarding the influence of internal and external factors on the teacher’s
ability to build relationships with parents. By utilizing these outcomes as subjects of
further research, the process of building relationships with parents can be better
understood and best practices can be further developed to support these relationships.
Subsequent research built on this topic has potential to inform state and federal policy.
The ultimate desire, of course, is to promote student success in school and, in so doing, to
minimize the performance gap between low-income and certain ethnic minority students
and high socio-economic status students and Caucasians.
Limitations
A major limitation of this study is its reliance on teacher and principal
perceptions. The validity of the data, for example, is dependent on the honesty of the
participants. It is dependent on teachers and administrators to be thoughtful, accurate, and
thorough in their responses. Yet, there is value in obtaining feedback from practitioners,
who may have useful insight into what is and is not effective (Hill & Chao, 2009).
Although the study does not provide hard evidence, the findings suggest directions for
further research.
This study did not attempt to verify the accuracy of teacher or principal
perceptions or to compare teacher perceptions with parent perceptions. It did not attempt
to understand the parent’s role construction for the parent-teacher relationship, nor
14
compare it to the teacher’s. Also, although the data gathered sometimes revealed gaps
between a teacher’s actions and what he or she states is the ideal parent-teacher
relationship, the purpose of acknowledging this difference is to understand more fully the
teacher’s true beliefs, not to pass judgment on the accuracy of the perceptions.
Participation in this study was voluntary, although self-selection has potential to
skew results in unforeseen ways. The voices of teachers who were not motivated to
participate will not be heard, while those motivated to do so may have been driven by
strong feelings about a particular school policy or practice. Results must be interpreted
with this caveat in mind.
Delimitations
This study focused specifically on the quality of the parent-teacher relationship,
and not on the many other forms of family-school involvement. Research, policy, and
procedure have primarily centered on parent involvement in activities at schools, such as
volunteering or participating in school events (Powell, 2010). Parent involvement is a
general term that encompasses many things that may vary in terms of their effectiveness.
Because of this, researchers posit that results of studies are suspect if they are designed to
examine the impact of parent involvement, but do not measure the various types of parent
involvement separately (Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hong & Ho,
2005; Marcon, 1999; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Because all types of parent involvement
may not be equally effective, focusing on one aspect, that of the relationship between
parents and teachers, provides more meaningful data. For this reason, this study
considered all other parent involvement strategies only in light of their influence on the
parent-teacher relationship.
15
Impact on the parent-teacher bond is the lens through which all other parent-
involvement efforts were judged. If students are best served when their worlds of school
and home intersect (Epstein, 2011), then interactions between teacher and parent hold
great potential for bridge building. Attending school activities, volunteering, or helping
with homework may be impossible for the single parent working three jobs or the parent
with no transportation or who feels unqualified to provide academic guidance (Marcon,
1999). A positive and productive relationship between parent and teachers is not
measured by number of interactions or hours of volunteering, but by its perceived benefit
to the student. That is, by limiting the study focus to the one aspect of the family-school
relationship that can be expressed in a variety of ways, but which most parents and
teachers can share in one form or another, it is hoped that the results of the study might
benefit the greatest number of students, parents, teachers, and schools.
Definitions of Terms
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1989) defines efficacy as “peoples’ beliefs about their capabilities to
exercise control over events that affect their lives” (p. 9). According to social cognitive
theory, a person who believes he/she can succeed at achieving a particular goal is more
likely to behave in a way that will achieve the desired outcome. That is, a person’s self-
efficacy influences his/her motivation and his/her likelihood of achieving his/her goal.
Bandura (1986) also described perceived self-efficacy as:
people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned, not with
skills one has, but the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one
possesses. (p. 391)

16
Bandura found that a person’s level of self-efficacy influences his/her decisions about
which goals to pursue and his/her persistence in attaining these goals. A person’s level of
self-efficacy is influenced in part by his/her own experiences of success, by observing
successes of others, and through receiving encouragement from others (1989). Therefore,
the level of a person’s self-efficacy is not immutable, but can be influenced. For the
purposes of this study, self-efficacy is examined in regard to parents’ and teachers’
abilities to build relationships with each other.
Parent
For the purposes of this study, the term ‘parent’ refers to anyone fulfilling a
parental role in regard to a student. This person may be a biological or adoptive parent or
other relative, foster parent, or any other type of caregiver who serves as the school’s
contact person. It may be a neighbor who helps with homework and other school-related
responsibilities.
Parent Involvement/Family Involvement
According to Joyce Epstein, there are six categories of ways families can be
involved in the education of their students. They are “parenting, communicating,
volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaboration with the community”
(2009, p. 116). Parental involvement can include participation in school activities, parent
education, parental assistance with homework, and more (Graves et al., 2011). NCLB
defines parent involvement as “the participation of parents in regular two-way and
meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school
activities” (Public Law 107 – 110, 2002). For the purposes of this study, “parent
17
involvement” or “family involvement” will encompass any of the many ways parents and
families can be involved with schools and in their child’s education.
Parent Participation in his/her Child’s Learning
This phrase refers to the many ways parents can support their child’s learning and
success in school. For example, it can include verbally supporting the child’s interests,
providing homework help, ensuring that a child has breakfast before school, or teaching
the child responsibility. The ways a parent participates in his/her child’s learning will
vary, depending on the parent’s abilities, beliefs, desires, or understanding of the child’s
needs.
Productive Parent-Teacher Relationship
The parent-teacher relationship is an alliance or a connection between the teacher
and parent (Agnes & Guralnik, 2006). The “quality” of the relationship does not refer to
the amount of contact between parent and teacher, or the amount or type of parent
participation in activities, but how well the relationship serves to benefit the student
(Pianta & Walsch, 1996). Vickers & Minke define the quality of the parent-teacher
relationship as “…the affective quality of the home-school connection, as indexed by
trust, mutuality, affiliation, support, shared values, and shared expectations and beliefs
about each other and the child. (1995, 4)”
Epstein (2011) found that parent-teacher relationships are most effective when
they are collaborative. In a collaborative relationship, teachers and parents “share joint
responsibilities and rights, are seen as equals, and can jointly contribute to the process”
(Vosler-Hunter, 1989, p. 15). Vosler-Hunter described the elements of a collaborative
relationship as “mutual respect for skills and knowledge, honest and clear
18
communication, open and two-way sharing of information, mutually agreed-upon goals,
and shared planning and decision-making” (Vosler-Hunter, 1989, p. 17). The productive
parent-teacher relationship is further defined through variables introduced in Chapter
Two.
Role Construction
A teacher’s role construction for the teacher in the parent-teacher relationship is
his/her understanding of the teacher’s responsibilities in that relationship, and behavior as
a result of this understanding (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Keyes, 2000). Similarly,
the way a teacher constructs the parent’s role in the parent-teacher relationship is how the
teacher envisions the parent’s responsibilities and how he/she believes those
responsibilities should be fulfilled. For example, role construction refers, in part, to
whether the teacher or parent believes that supporting the student’s learning is the
responsibility of the parent, the teacher, or whether it is a shared responsibility between
both parent and teacher.
Student Engagement
The most commonly used definition of “student engagement”, and the definition
used for the purposes of this study is “behavioral engagement as indexed by cooperative
participation, conformity to classroom rules and routines, self-directedness, persistence,
and effort” (Fredricks, Blumenfield, & Paris, 2004; Hughes & Kwok, 2007, p. 4).

19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Healthy and well-functioning parent-teacher relationships are critical to student
success in school (Fan, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Westat
& Associates, 2001). This study investigated middle school teachers’ beliefs about the
importance of the parent-teacher relationship to student learning. Additionally, this study
explored teachers’ perceptions of the ways in which self-efficacy and role construction
impeded their relationships with parents. In order to investigate these topics, the
researcher drew on four distinct, but related, bodies of literature. The first section of this
chapter offers what is currently known about the effects of productive parent-teacher
relationships on student success in school. Second, this chapter identifies components of
the parent-teacher relationship that contribute to student learning outcomes. Third is an
examination of barriers to building productive parent-teacher relationships. Finally,
existing school policies and practices implemented are explored for the purpose of
supporting parent-teacher relationships in regard to their effectiveness. The chapter
closes with a description of the conceptual framework that provides the foundation for
this study.
This study did not draw on the general and vast parent involvement literature.
Rather, it focused on a very narrow aspect of parent involvement: the beliefs of teachers
in relation to 1) the importance of the parent-teacher relationship to student learning, 2)
the ”ideal” parent-teacher relationship, and 3) the ways in which their principal supports
or interferes with the development of this ideal relationship. Therefore, only the research
that examined the very specific relationship between parent and teacher was extracted.
Such topics as parents’ involvement in school governance, parental homework assistance,
20
or assistance with parenting strategies are outside the scope of this project. In a
collaborative relationship, parents and teacher negotiate the roles that work for them and
for the student, which may be different, for example, for the single parent working three
jobs than for the at-home mom or dad.
Effects of Productive Parent-Teacher Relationships on Student Success in School
In order to understand teachers’ beliefs about the role the parent-teacher
relationship plays in their students’ academic and non-academic success, the research
looked to the studies that have revealed connections between the quality of parent-teacher
relationships and the children’s experiences in school (Adams & Christenson, 2002;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Xu & Gulosino, 2006). For example,
research suggests that children whose parents have productive relationships with their
teachers perform better academically and socially than children whose parents do not
(Hughes &Kwok, 2007). As children move from elementary school to middle and high
school, parent-teacher relationships shift. In elementary school, parents and teachers tend
to be closely connected. Many children tend to experience relatively high student
achievement and self-efficacy (Barber & Olsen, 2004). As children enter middle school,
both the nature of the relationship between the teacher and the parents and its effects on
many students’ academic achievement and self-efficacy change (Barber & Olsen, 2004;
Gutman & Midgley, 2000). As the parent-teacher relationship becomes more attenuated,
children often experience decreases in student achievement and self-efficacy (Grolnick,
Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000; Gutman & Midgley, 2000). Additionally, lower
income parents and certain ethnic minority parents, regardless of the student’s grade
level, often have less positive relationships with their children’s teachers (Hamre &
21
Pianta, 2001; Hill et al., 2004), and their children have been found to experience lower
levels of achievement than higher SES and Caucasian students (Hughes & Kwok, 2007).
This section first presents literature that examines the link between the parent-
teacher relationship and student academic and non-academic success in school. Second, it
focuses more precisely on studies that address student performance in middle school.
Third, it offers research that speaks to the parent-teacher relationship and school
performance for certain ethnic minority and lower income students. Finally, it explains
Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres of influence (2011), in which she suggests that
there are certain ways parents and teachers must interact with each other in order be the
most beneficial to children. This grounding in existing knowledge of how the quality of
the parent-teacher relationship can affect student success in school provides a yardstick
from which to compare and interpret teacher perceptions on this topic.
Student Academic and Non-Academic Success in School. Research has shown
that a collaborative relationship between teacher and parent on behalf of the student
correlates with student success in school (e.g., school engagement, student achievement,
sense of belonging). This section presents research that focuses on the connection
between the quality of the parent-teacher relationship and student learning outcomes.
Productive parent-teacher relationships have been linked with students’ sense of
belonging at school as well as their motivation, engagement, and achievement.
Xu and Gulosino (2006) examined teachers’ credentials, degrees earned, courses
taken, and investments in their relationships with parents, and compared their
effectiveness in increasing student achievement. The researchers found that the only
measure that had a significant effect on public school student achievement was the
22
teacher’s efforts to build relationships with parents. Parent support for the teacher was
found to be a mediator between teachers’ efforts to reach out to parents and student
success in school. When teachers reached out to parents, parents tended to rank the
teachers’ communication and teaching skills more highly and their student’s achievement
was higher. The researchers suggest that, when teachers perceive that parents are
supportive, they are more motivated toward building a partnership with the parent and
more motivated to do their best teaching. Xu’s and Gulosino’s findings are important to
this study because they suggest that students will benefit when school practices and
policies (e.g., hiring criteria) reflect the importance of promoting teachers’ efforts to
build relationships with parents.
When Hughes and Kwok (2007) studied relationships between teachers and their
students and parents, they found that teacher perceptions of productive parent-teacher
relationships correlated positively with teacher perceptions of student engagement.
According to the study, productive parent-teacher relationships were linked to the
students’ increased sense of belonging at school, which correlated with increased student
engagement and motivation. The researchers concluded that the quality of the parent-
teacher and student-teacher relationships were important to the student’s success in
school primarily because of its contribution to the student’s social relatedness.
Westat and Associates (2001) examined classroom practices in Title 1 schools
and found that teacher outreach to parents, an element of the parent-teacher relationship,
was the most effective means of supporting student school success. Teacher outreach to
parents was measured by teacher-completed surveys and was defined as “meeting face-
to-face, sending materials on ways to help their child at home, and telephoning both
23
routinely and when their child was having problems” (p. 1-2). Outreach to third grade
parents was correlated with improvements in reading for all students and with
improvements in mathematics for low-achieving students. Westat and Associates found
that, at schools where teachers reported high levels of outreach to parents of low
achievers as early as the third grade, student Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9
(SAT-9) mathematics test scores increased over the next two years and, by fifth grade,
were 40% higher than at schools where outreach was not frequent. SAT-9 reading scores
were also higher.
When Fan (2001) examined the effects of various types of parent involvement on
high school student achievement over a four-year period, she, like Westat and Associates,
discovered that an aspect of the parent-teacher relationship correlated the most strongly
with student academic success. Fan found parents’ high academic expectations for their
children were linked to high student achievement. This quality of parents’ academic
aspirations for student success constitutes shared goals with the teacher, assuming the
teacher also has high expectations.
Fan (2001) studied students’ eighth grade academic achievement as well as their
achievement trajectory from that time forward. When parents had high expectations for
their child, the student’s eighth grade academic achievement was higher than that of other
students, as was their rate of academic growth between eighth and twelfth grades. The
value of high parental aspirations for the child was consistently found across socio-
economic status (SES) and ethnic/racial groups and across academic subjects. Although
the study did not attempt to prove causality, Fan conjectured that high parental
aspirations might motivate parents toward certain supportive behaviors that might
24
contribute to student academic success. Fan found the SES of the family correlated with
the parent’s educational aspiration, but she did not seek to determine the direction of
influence between educational aspirations and income level. When both teacher and
parent share high aspirations for students, this common goal contributes to a productive
parent-teacher relationship.
Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a quantitative meta-analysis that studied the
effect of various kinds of parent involvement on student achievement. Their findings
confirmed those of other researchers (Fan, 2001; Hong & Ho, 2005; Jeynes, 2007);
parents’ high expectations for their child’s academic success correlated with high student
achievement. Parents’ high expectations had the strongest impact on student success of
any type of parental involvement examined. Two factors were included within this
category: “educational expectations” and “values academic achievement” (p. 7). Other
types of parent involvement examined were “parent-child communication,” “school
contact and participation,” and “home supervision” (p. 7).
Henderson and Mapp (2002) compiled a synthesis of research exploring parent,
school, and community partnerships and found that teachers tended to have higher
expectations for a student when there was a collaborative relationship between teacher
and parent. Aspects of the parent-teacher relationship that emerged as being particularly
beneficial to student success were teachers’ outreach to parents, high expectations for
student success, and the elements of respect, mutuality, collaboration, and reciprocity. In
addition, the researchers found that high-achieving schools were also those that made a
priority of building partnerships between parents and staff.
25
Henderson and Mapp (2002) found that a productive relationship between parent
and teacher was linked to students’ social and emotional success in school and to higher
academic achievement when compared to other students. The body of literature examined
by Henderson and Mapp encompassed both quantitative and qualitative studies along
with studies that utilized a range of data sources (e.g., experimental research, case
studies). Among them, the studies covered all of grades K – 12, and represented all
regions of the United States.
Miretzky (2004) studied the perceptions of teachers regarding the value of the
parent-teacher relationship and found most teachers believed that productive parent-
teacher relationships enhanced student learning. One teacher commented on the
advantage to students when they know that both family and home are caring about them.
Another mentioned the value of hearing parents’ concerns. Referring to both parent and
teacher, Miretsky summarized, “The meanings they attach to their encounters could be
characterized as a search for reinforcement - that their individual contribution to this
child is important, that their trust is not misplaced, that there is mutual respect for each
other as people and for each other’s opinions” (p. 830).
These studies demonstrate the importance of the parent-teacher relationship to
student success in school. Understanding teachers’ perceptions about the value of the
parent-teacher relationship to student success is critical to learning how to support these
relationships. Studies reflecting the impact of the parent-teacher relationship on middle
school student success are limited in number. Moreover, few studies explore teachers’
perceptions of how parent-teacher relationships impact student success in school. Thus, a
gap in the research exists.
26
Middle School. Early adolescence and the transition into middle school herald
tremendous change for students and demand a corresponding adjustment from the parent-
teacher relationship (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis, 2004).
While adolescents accommodate rapid physical, social, and cognitive growth, they also
enter a less personal educational setting in which teachers are responsible for larger
numbers of students, and students have more teachers (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Adolescents
also have a growing need for more autonomy (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis,
2004), which causes some parents and teachers to question how much parent
involvement in their child’s learning remains appropriate during middle school. In
reality, this is a critical time for parents and teachers to support the student’s educational
process.
In addition to having more teachers, middle school students also are faced with
more, and more complex, curricular choices (Hill & Chao, 2009). The courses they
complete in middle school can affect those they are eligible for in high school, which can
affect chance of admission to college or success in college. Therefore, students’ academic
progress and the decisions they make in middle school begin to have long-term
consequences. The ability of students to make appropriate choices can depend on one or
more of several factors, such as dissemination of the necessary information by the school,
the ability of the parent to help the student navigate these decisions, or the ability of the
student to seek the needed information.
Gutman and Midgley (2000) studied the academic progress of low socio-
economic status African-American students throughout their transition into middle
school. Although they observed a significant decrease in grades as students entered
27
middle school, the researchers found student achievement was positively affected, not by
parent involvement or by teacher support, but by the combined effect of both parent and
teacher support. Measures that illuminated this significance were parent reports of their
involvement in their child’s learning and students’ perception of teacher support.
Whether students benefitted academically as a result of collaboration between parents
and teachers or simply as a result of concurrent parent and teacher efforts was beyond the
scope of the study. The findings of Gutman and Midgley demonstrate that it is not
sufficient for students to receive support from teachers or parents. In order to have the
greatest impact on student achievement, parent and teachers must both provide their
assistance.
Crosnoe (2009) studied the importance of parent-staff relationships in regard to
middle school English Language learners’ and low-income students’ selections of first-
year high school mathematics courses. He examined parent, middle school, and high
school reports of communication between school and family regarding high school math
placement. Crosnoe discovered that, when the middle school staff, high school staff, and
parents all communicated with each other about student ability as it related to
mathematics course selection, fewer students inadvertently signed up for a math course
below their ability level. He also found that students who experienced and benefited from
the ideal three-way communication typically were not English language learners or from
low-income families. Yet, if the middle school did not automatically provide math
placement guidance, but low-income families reached out for information, those students
had a higher rate of higher-level math course selection than those from families who had
not.
28
Crosnoe was aware that choosing the correct high school mathematics course and
being aware of college admission requirements could have a significant impact on
students’ access to college. English language learners and low SES student groups tend to
have low college attendance and graduation rates (NCES, 2011). Crosnoe concluded that
improving communication between families and staff to ensure appropriate mathematics
placement has potential to improve attainment levels for ELL and low-SES students by
keeping more students in the “math/science pipeline” that prepares them for college
admissions and, perhaps, for vocations in these fields (2009, 165).
Seitsinger, Felher, Brand, and Burns (2008) studied one aspect of the parent-
teacher relationship, teachers’ efforts to communicate with parents, and its relationship to
student achievement. The data, which represented students from grades K–12, were
compiled based on whether the student was attending elementary, middle, or high school.
Seitsinger et al. found that teacher outreach to middle school parents correlated positively
with student academic performance. Teacher communication was determined by an in-
depth survey, completed by the teacher, documenting the amounts of various types of
communication to parents, including the amount of communication with individual
families. Teacher outreach to parents was also found to be successful in increasing
parent-teacher contact and parent attendance at parent-teacher meetings.
According to Seitsinger et al., teachers’ attitudes about the value of parent
involvement correlated with the amount of teacher outreach to parents. There was more
variation among middle school teachers’ attitudes about the benefit of parent
involvement than among elementary school teachers, and parent-teacher communication
was found to be less frequent in middle school than in elementary school. Because the
29
researchers found that teacher outreach to parents correlated with the level of parent
involvement, this study demonstrated that teacher outreach to parents can be successful
in involving parents in their students’ learning; thus, the decline in parent-teacher contact
in middle school can be successfully corrected by efforts of teachers to reach out to
parents.
Jeynes (2007) conducted a meta-analysis to determine parent involvement
practices that are most effective in increasing urban secondary school student
achievement. His study confirmed the findings of other researchers (Fan, 2001; Fan &
Chen, 2001; Hong & Ho, 2005) that one quality of a productive parent-teacher
relationship, high parental expectations for student success, was found consistently to
have the strongest correlation to student performance across all relevant studies and
across all racial and ethnic groups. High parental expectations were defined as “the
degree to which a student’s parents maintained high expectations of the student’s ability
to achieve at high levels” (p. 89). Although Jeynes speculated that the parents who were
found to have high expectations were also most likely to be well educated and to have a
higher income than those who did not, examination of the directionality of the correlation
was beyond the scope of the study.
When Dornbusch and Glasgow (1996) studied high school teachers’ perceptions
of parent-teacher relationships, they discovered that teachers found parental assistance
with student problems to be beneficial. Because of having a limited amount of time for
communication with parents due to the large number of students each teacher was
responsible for, teachers preferred a unidirectional relationship with parents. That is, they
reported favoring teacher-initiated contact over parent-initiated contact. Few, if any,
30
existing studies examine middle school teachers’ perceptions of the potential for parent-
teacher relationships to influence student success in school.
Research studying appropriate and effective ways for parents and teachers to
collaborate on behalf of young adolescent students, especially during transitions into and
from middle school, is limited (Crosnoe, 2009; Hill & Taylor, 2004). Many collaborative
efforts that are effective for elementary students are not effective when applied to
students in middle school (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Too often, elementary-aged strategies
are utilized in middle school without considering the differences between the needs of the
two age groups (Hill & Taylor, 2004). Dornbush and Glasgow’s (1996) study suggests
that teacher enthusiasm toward the parent-teacher relationship declines as the student
ages.
Nevertheless, research suggests a collaborative parent-teacher relationship can
contribute to middle school students’ success in school (Gutman & Midgley, 2000), even
though a productive parent-teacher relationship may look different than it did during the
elementary school years. Students can benefit from parent-teacher communication that
fosters high expectations for students (Jeynes, 2007) and that results in support for the
student in forming and preparing to meet career goals and in developing an appreciation
of the importance of education (Crosnoe, 2009). Furthermore, teachers can positively
affect their relationships with parents through outreach (Seitsinger, et al, 2008). This
study examined whether teacher participants believed that building relationships with
middle school parents was important and, if so, why. It also examined what teachers
believed about whether or how that relationship with parents must change as students
31
enter middle school. Teachers’ perceptions, their self-efficacy, and role constructions in
regard to parent-teacher relationships were interpreted in the context of these beliefs.
Low Income Students and Certain Ethnic Minorities. Teacher investment in
building productive relationships with parents of low-achievers may result in better
support for these students’ academic achievement (Hughes, Gleason, & Zhang, 2005).
Researchers have found that parents of low-income students and parents of students of
traditionally low-achieving ethnic groups tend not to have productive relationships with
teachers (Hughes et al, 2005). Recognizing and understanding correlations between the
quality of the parent-teacher relationship and student success in school holds potential for
improving these relationships and thereby providing better support to low achievers.
Hughes, Gleason, and Zhang (2005) examined the parent-teacher and student-
teacher relationships of low achieving students. They found that, when teachers
perceived their relationship with a student’s parents to be weak, they also tended to have
a low estimation of the student’s ability. They found that teachers were more likely to
rate the qualities of their relationships with Hispanic and Caucasian students as stronger
than those with African-American parents. Also, teacher ratings of student ability were
lower for African-American students than for other student groups. This discovery is
particularly important in light of existing research that has established a strong link
between the teacher’s perception of a student’s ability and that student’s future
achievement (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). The findings of
Hughes et al. (2005) suggest that investment in building productive relationships between
teachers and the parents of African-American students may improve the teacher’s
32
perception of African-American student ability and become a key to improving African-
American student achievement.
Iruka, Winn, Kingsley, and Orthodoxou (2011) examined the strength of parent-
teacher relationships in relation to student behavior and social skills. They determined the
strength of a parent-teacher relationship by examining parent and teacher ratings of the
trust level, quality of communication, and degree of agreement in the relationships. The
researchers found that a strong parent-teacher relationship correlated with fewer student
behavior problems and greater social competence. They found that, when teachers and
parents of African-American students worked well together, teachers tended to rate the
child’s social competency and behavior more highly than that of Caucasian students. The
study did not seek to determine the directionality of the correlations between the quality
of the parent teacher relationship and student behavior and social skills. The findings of
Iruka, et al. (2011) and Hughes, et al (2005) highlight the need to improve school support
for teachers’ relationships with parents of low-achieving students.
When Hughes and Kwok (2007) examined the impact of parent-teacher
relationships on student success in school, they found that the quality of student-teacher
and parent-teacher relationships was linked to race and income. The researchers
determined the quality of student-teacher relationships by both parent and student (peer)
reports; the quality of parent-teacher relationships were determined through teacher
perceptions. Hughes and Kwok’s study confirmed the findings of Hughes et al. (2005):
teachers’ relationships with African-American students and parents were typically less
cooperative than teachers’ relationships with Caucasian and Hispanic students and
parents. The researchers conjecture that cultural differences between the teacher and
33
family may explain their more conflicted relationship; however, the cause of this
disconnect was beyond the scope of the study. Because a disproportionate number of
low-income and African-American students tend to be low achievers, these findings
confirm and extend the conclusions of the Hughes et al. (2005) study, that building strong
parent-teacher relationships bodes well for improving the school performance of low-
achieving student groups. Furthermore, the findings of Hughes and Kwok (2007)
highlight the need to explore the effect of cultural differences on the building of
productive parent-teacher relationships.
Joshi, Eberly, and Konzal (2005) studied teacher perceptions of their interactions
with parents of culturally diverse backgrounds and the potential for these interactions to
affect student school success. Most teachers reported an awareness of the impact of
“patterns of communication, social values, preferred ways of learning and knowledge,
and child raising patterns” on students’ learning (p. 14). However, fewer than half
indicated they believed that culture and religious values would significantly influence
student learning. The researchers interpreted these responses from teachers as indicators
of the teachers’ superficial understanding of culture and of its impact on learning. The
findings of Joshi et al. raise awareness that teachers’ approach to cultural differences
between themselves and their students and parents may influence their relationships with
them.
Although research has identified a correlation between poor quality parent-
teacher relationships and low-achieving student groups (low-income or of certain
minorities), little is known about why this is or how these relationships can be supported.
Student needs from the parent-teacher relationship are found to vary according to culture,
34
race, or socio-economics (Hong & Ho, 2005). Researchers have found that how parent-
teacher relationships affect student achievement can be complex and multi-dimensional,
influenced by race, ethnicity, socio-economics, gender, or a combinations of factors
(Hong & Ho, 2005). Understanding how to support teachers’ relationships with minority
and low-income parents holds potential for improving student achievement for these
populations.
Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Epstein (2011) presents a theoretical
framework of overlapping spheres of influence (p. 31). She argues that effective family-
school relationships operate within overlapping spheres of influence, in which some
parent and school responsibilities are distinct and others are shared. According to this
perspective, both school and home share responsibility for educating and socializing
children. Epstein describes the sharing of roles by introducing the concepts of family-like
schools and school-like families. In family-like schools, a sense of family is created
within the building and classroom. Teachers recognize and respond to the individual
needs and strengths of each student. In school-like families, parents support student
learning at home (e.g. finding a quiet place and time for the student to do homework).
They create school-like tasks for their child and recognize achievement (p. 36). When
teacher and parent reinforce each other’s roles by creating more similarity between home
and school, students benefit.
Epstein builds on research demonstrating that students are more successful in
school when the three worlds in which they live (home, school, and community)
collaborate on their behalf and hold shared goals for their academic wellbeing. Although
the roles will never be completely identical, a true partnership exists to the extent that
35
maximum overlap of roles has been achieved. Epstein’s model actually includes a third
overlapping sphere representing community responsibilities, but for the purposes of this
study, only the parent/family and teacher/school aspects of the framework will be
addressed.
Epstein’s theory that students benefit when parents and teachers operate within
overlapping spheres of influence encompasses several assumptions. First, the degree to
which parents and teachers ascribe to, and invest in, such a partnership with each other
has an impact on student academic success. Second, student learning will be enhanced
when this collaboration is realized, not only during the student’s elementary school years,
but throughout his/her secondary education as well. The partnership is particularly
critical to students’ success during their times of transition, when they are likely to need
extra information and support. However, because families, schools, and students are
constantly changing, so, too, will the roles evolve and adjust throughout the student’s K-
12 career. Much of the research in this chapter aligns with the overlapping spheres of
influence concept of home-school relationships.
Epstein’s assertion that the overlapping spheres of influence framework
accurately represents the most effective parent-teacher relationship is the assumption
upon which this study was based. Therefore, teachers’ beliefs about the ideal parent-
teacher relationship were analyzed in relation to this framework. Specifically, evidence
of a collaborative partnership was sought.
Components of a Productive Parent-Teacher Relationship
In order to understand teachers’ beliefs about the “ideal” parent-teacher
relationship, this study examined research in which the components of a productive
36
parent-teacher relationship have been identified or posited. This section presents the
relevant literature. Primarily, the researcher drew from work undertaken by Blue-
Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, and Beegle (2004), who sought to determine the
components of a collaborative and productive parent-teacher relationship. Blue-Banning
et al. (2004) identified that, in collaborative relationships, the following characteristics
are demonstrated by both parents and professionals: “communication, commitment,
equality, skills, trust, and respect” (p. 167). Other studies that examined qualities of
productive relationships between parents and professionals focused on parents of special
needs students, examined relationships between parents and agencies (Park & Turnbull,
2002; Park & Turnbull, 2003; Vosler-Hunter, 1989), or produced shorter, more general
lists of characteristics. The majority of the results of other studies can be organized into
the categories developed by Blue-Banning et al. (2004). Therefore, for the purposes of
this study, qualities were grouped according to the categories developed by Blue-Banning
et al. Each of the qualities provides a clue to building cooperation between parents and
teachers. The factors of communication, commitment, equality, skills, trust, and respect
are highly complementary and often interdependent (Blue-Banning et al., 2004).
Communication. Communication has been identified as one of the most
important aspects of parent involvement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Westat &
Associates, 2001) and a necessary component of the collaborative parent-teacher
relationship (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). Blue-Banning et al. utilized the following
definition of communication between parent and teacher: “the quality of communication
is positive, understandable, and respectful among all levels of the partnership. The
quantity of communication is also at a level to enable efficient and effective coordination
37
and understanding among all members” (p. 174). Indicators of productive communication
determined by the Blue-Banning study participants were: “sharing [information about]
resources, being clear, being honest, communicating positively, being tactful, being open,
listening, communicating frequently, and coordinating information” (p. 174). The most
effective types of parent-teacher communication are not the same during elementary
school as they are during middle school.
When Farrell and Collier (2010) interviewed teachers to examine their
perceptions of family-school communication, they found that educators agreed: family-
school communication is necessary to student academic success. Participants described
five teacher characteristics critical to effective communication: “the educator’s
knowledge, availability, empathy, communication skills, and leadership” (p. 10). Some
examples of leadership skills participants identified were “maintaining a professional
stance across interactions with colleagues and families, and ‘following through’ with
plans and commitments” (p. 10). They agreed that the amount and mode of
communication should be guided by mutual preference. Although twice-a-year parent-
teacher conferences were considered valuable, participants stated that they were not
adequate and advocated to increase the number and/or length of the conferences.
Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) examined existing literature and found that
teacher-initiated communication with parents can have a positive impact on the parent-
teacher relationship and can affect parents’ involvement in their child’s learning. That is,
they found that parents’ and teachers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities
were not immutable; they could be influenced. When teachers clearly communicated
their desires for collaboration with parents, these efforts were found to improve the
38
parent-teacher relationship. The researchers acknowledged the necessity of two-way
communication between teacher and parent, but found that teacher outreach to parents
can be successful in initiating the process. This finding suggests that teacher-initiated
communication can have an impact on the involvement of the students’ parents.
In Miretzky’s (2004) study of parent-teacher relationships, she conducted focus
groups in which parents and teachers were asked to reflect on the value of
communication between parents and teachers and how it can be improved. A teacher
stated, “It was nice to know that the parents actually care about their kids and I’m not
alone” (p. 830). Both teachers and parents emphasized the importance of productive
communication and expressed the need to be respected, heard, and trusted. Miretzky’s
findings demonstrate the value of pursuing deep understanding from teachers about the
specific roles parent-teacher communication can play in assisting students and how this
communication can be developed.
Little is known about what types of parent-teacher communication are most
effective in middle school. Because of the increase in the ratio of teachers to students and
students to teachers, it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, for parents and teachers to
build the depth of relationship that was typical during elementary school. It is often hard
for parents to know which teacher to contact with questions. Adolescents’ growing need
for autonomy does not reduce the need for parent-teacher communication, but it would be
appropriate to encourage students to assume greater responsibility for soliciting support
from parents and teachers on behalf of their own needs and passions (Hill & Tyson,
2009). Yet, given the diversity of views on the value of parent involvement among
middle school teachers, more research is needed to explore effective ways to affect
39
teacher attitudes and practice in regard to communication and to building partnerships
with parents.
Commitment. Commitment, an ingredient of a productive parent-teacher
relationship, refers to the dedication of parents and teachers to doing everything possible
to collaborate in support of the child’s school success. Blue-Banning et al. (2004) defined
commitment as follows:
The members of the partnership share a sense of assurance about (a) each other’s
devotion and loyalty to the child and family, and (b) each other’s belief in the
importance of the goals being pursued on behalf of the child and family. (p. 174)

Two characteristics of parent-teacher commitment to collaboration are persistence
and shared vision. Both parents and teacher demonstrate commitment when they
are persistent in supporting the child’s learning. When they are dedicated to
working together to support the student’s success in school, this commitment
represents a shared vision or goal toward which they work together. When parents
and teacher both communicate high academic expectations and the importance of
education to the child, they are presenting a shared agenda to the student.
Persistence in promoting a shared vision is an ingredient of successful
collaboration.
When Miretzky (2004) studied teacher and parent perceptions about the
value and components of parent-teacher relationships, she found teachers agreed
that a commitment to support the child’s learning should be shared between
teacher and parent. Teachers wanted a closer, more productive relationship with
parents. Yet, how teachers envisioned the commitment varied. Some teachers
believed that parents who shared their concern for the child’s learning would
40
provide homework help or other assistance the teacher might request. Some
teachers believed that concerned and committed parents would send their child to
school ready to learn. Many teachers believed that, if parents experienced
obstacles to meeting their child’s needs, but were concerned and committed,
parents would find a way to overcome them. Miretzky’s findings suggest
teachers’ and parents’ role constructions can have an impact on how they interpret
each other’s commitment to helping the student.
Equality. Several studies have highlighted the importance of equality in
collaborative parent-teacher relationships (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Christenson, 2003;
Miretzky, 2004; Powell, et al., 2010). Blue-Banning et al. (2004) based their study on the
following definition of equality:
The members of the partnership feel a sense of equity in decision-making and
service implementation, and actively work to ensure that all of their members of
the partnership feel equally powerful in their ability to influence outcomes for
children and families. (p. 174)

Some phrases used by participants of the Blue-Banning study to describe equality in the
parent-teacher relationship were ”reciprocity” “avoiding the use of ‘clout’” “empowering
partners” “validating others” “partnership of equals” “acknowledge the validity of
parents’ point of view” (p. 174-177). Equality also implies bilateral communication,
responsiveness, and shared responsibility. It suggests a certain kind of discourse and
problem-solving mindset. For example, are both parties actively listening to the other and
are they willing to consider and act on a wide range of solutions?
In an equal partnership, learning is not produced by the educational institution,
but is produced by the student with the help of parent, teacher, peers, and anyone else
who supports his/her education (Seeley, 1985). This is in contrast to a traditional model
41
whereby the teacher is considered responsible for educating the student, but delegates
certain supportive responsibilities to the parent. In an equal partnership, parent and
teacher are both in a support position and what drives each decision is the wellbeing of
the child. Existing research suggests a more truly collaborative, equal partnership is the
type of parent-teacher relationship that is most beneficial to students (Christenson &
Sheridan, 2001; Epstein, 2011).
Based on existing literature, Christenson & Sheridan (2001) developed a
framework for the parent-teacher partnership that acknowledges equality as an essential
component. They described a partnership between parent and teacher as
a belief in shared responsibility for educating and socializing children – both
families and educators are essential and provide resources for children’s learning
and progress in school. There are no prescribed roles or activities for families or
educators; rather, options for active, realistic participation are created. (p. 37-38)

When teachers are willing to share power and negotiate with parents, rather than dictating
to them, they are participating in a partnership of equals. In equal partnerships, the
involvement of both parent and teacher is considered critical to the student’s success in
school. According to this model, parent and teacher share responsibility for supporting
the academic and social growth of the student. In contrast, in a traditional relationship,
the teacher or school assigns the parent’s responsibilities.
In an equal partnership, the parent’s and the teacher’s roles are fluid, and they bring a
problem-solving mindset to the creating of conditions that will support the student’s
academic and social success. Some evidence of shared responsibility is:
• The teacher believes that the parent’s involvement is necessary to the student’s
success and assumes responsibility for involving parents.

42
• Parent and teacher make their relationship a priority, take joint responsibility for
supporting the student’s success, and collaborate to solve problems.
• Parent and teacher roles are not prescribed by the teacher, but overlap and are
negotiated. Interactions between home and school are “flexible, responsive, and
proactive.” (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001, p. 96).
True collaboration requires sharing responsibility and sharing power.
In an equal partnership, parent and teacher share decision-making power. Shared
decision-making sends the message that the parent’s involvement is valued. Some
evidence of power sharing is:
• The knowledge and skills of both the parent and the teacher are respected, and the
teacher solicits the parent’s input.
• The teacher is willing to learn with and from the parent; differences of opinion are
respected.
• Parents are involved in goal-setting or agenda setting.
• Whenever possible, the parent is actively involved in the decision-making process
from the beginning (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).
Parent and teacher share decision-making power because the viewpoints of both are
considered necessary to the decision-making process.
In an equal partnership, the parent is viewed as someone who brings assets to the
parent-teacher relationship. Because every family is unique, recognizing what assets the
family brings to the parent-teacher relationship requires getting to know each parent
individually (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). When a teacher constructs his/her role
43
and the parent’s role such that the teacher sees the parents as bringing assets to the
relationship, the following will be observed:
• The teacher will take the time to get to know the parent.
• The teacher recognizes that it is the family who knows the child best.
• The teacher creates bridges between home and school by incorporating family
assets into the learning experience.
• The perspective that a parent brings to the parent-teacher relationship is
considered an asset.
In an equal partnership, the parent’s viewpoints and other assets are valued and utilized.
Powell et al. (2010) studied urban parents’ perceptions of teacher responsiveness
to parents and students. They found parents perceived teacher responsiveness to be
important to a productive parent-teacher relationship. Furthermore, teacher
responsiveness correlated to measures of student reading and social skills. Powell et al.
defined teacher responsiveness as a “key element of reciprocity in parent-school
relationships (p. 289). According to Powell, “Teachers demonstrate responsiveness to a
parent by communicating openness to new information, suggestions, and other forms of
feedback about the classroom, and maintain[ing] a welcoming, supportive stance toward
parents” (p. 272). The study did not compare parent perceptions with actual teacher
responsiveness.
Ferrara (2009) surveyed teachers for their perceptions about the value of parent-
teacher partnerships and found that teachers believed in the importance of parent
involvement in their child’s learning. Teachers mentioned many ways in which they
hoped to gain cooperation from parents, such as their desire for parents to volunteer, to
44
be more responsible parents, and to help with student learning. The responses were
primarily about what teachers wanted from parents, and did not reflect an understanding
of the value of the parent’s input. Therefore, Ferrara concluded that the teachers had a
limited understanding of the nature of a parent-teacher partnership. The teachers she
studied did not demonstrate relationships of equality with their students’ parents.
Skills. Skills emerged in the Blue-Banning et al. (2004) study as an important
factor in building a collaborative parent-teacher relationship. Skills are evident when
“Members of the partnership perceive that others on the team demonstrate competence,
including…ability to fulfill their roles” (p. 174). Under this category, the Blue-Banning
participants included the following qualities: “taking action” “demonstrate competence”
“make things happen” “being willing to learn” (p. 174, 178). Skills refer to both teacher
and parent competence.
Lawson (2003) interviewed teachers and parents at Title 1 schools about their
perceptions of parent involvement and found teachers felt parent competence was
essential to a productive parent-teacher relationship and to the child’s ability to learn.
Many teachers described parent competence in terms of sending the child to school
emotionally and physically ready to learn. Many teachers expressed the belief that the
child is not teachable if he or she does not come to school ready to learn. Some teachers
defined parent competence, in part, as the ability to cooperate in meeting the needs of the
teacher (e.g. the ability to make time to help the child at home with school activities).
Others believed that barriers parents faced to meeting their child’s needs did not
constitute incompetence, but that these barriers still compromised teachers’ ability to
teach the child.
45
Trust. Several researchers have confirmed the importance of trust in the
collaborative relationship (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Blue-Banning, et al., 2004; Bryk
& Schneider, 2002; Tschennen-Moran, 2001). The Blue-Banning et al. (2004) study
based its understanding of trust on the following definition: “The members of the
partnership share a sense of assurance about the reliability or dependability of the
character, ability, strength, or truth of the other members of the partnership” (p. 174).
Trust means “being reliable” “keeping the child safe” and “being discreet” (p. 176). A
component of trust is backing words with action. Perceptions of teachers’ and parents’
competency and commitment are closely related to the level of trust they hold for each
other.
In their study of the relationships between teachers and parents, Adams and
Christenson (2000) studied parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with
each other and found that trust is essential to collaboration. They also found that levels of
trust between parents and teachers decreased as students moved into secondary
education, perhaps because of decreased contact. Adams and Christenson defined trust in
the family-school relationship as “confidence that another person will act in a way to
benefit or sustain the relationship, or the implicit or explicit goals of the relationship, to
achieve positive outcomes for students” (p. 480). The quality, more so than the amount,
of communication between home and school predicted the level of trust in the
relationship.
Using observational and quantitative data, Bryk and Schneider (2002) studied
schools in the process of reform and found that growth of relational trust between the
stakeholders of the school community was an essential element of school reform. They
46
defined relational trust as how well two people trust each other to carry out the
responsibilities of their roles. Therefore, relational trust between a parent and teacher is
defined as how well a teacher and a parent trust each other to carry out their respective
responsibilities to the student. Relational trust relies primarily on four factors: “respect”
“personal regard for other” “competence” and “integrity” (p. 41). Bryk and Schneider
found that relational trust is built over time as the parties “show their sense of their
obligation toward others, and others discern these intentions” (p. 23-26). Teachers can
build relational trust with parents by developing interpersonal skills for working with
parents and by being sensitive to the context in which the parents and student live.
Relational trust can be influenced by the organizational climate or by the teacher’s or the
parent’s beliefs.
When Miretzky (2004) studied parent and teacher perceptions regarding the
building of a productive relationship, she discovered specific examples of how trust or
the absence of trust affected the ability of parents and teachers to work together.
Miretzky conducted focus groups with parents and teachers, giving them a venue in
which to share concerns and opinions with each other in a moderated setting. Both parties
felt the understanding they gained about each other through this process helped erode
misconceptions and build trust. Teachers expressed that they preferred for parents to
exhibit trust in them by seeking clarity with the teacher before believing student versions
of potentially disturbing events. Parents felt that being kept informed about their child’s
progress helped them develop trust in the teacher.
Respect. Closely related to the quality of trust is that of respect. According to
Blue-Banning et al. (2004), respect is present in the parent-teacher relationship when “the
47
members of the partnership regard each other with esteem and demonstrate the esteem
through actions and communication” (p. 174). Characteristics of respect are “valuing the
child” “being non-judgmental” “being courteous” and “avoiding intrusions” (p. 174).
Respect is something that is practiced, (e.g., through the use of basic courtesy), but it is
also a quality that is built over time. Respect between teacher and parent is a particularly
important and potentially challenging element of the relationship in today’s diverse
world, in part because of the likelihood that parents and teachers represent very different
ethnic and socio-economic cultures, representing practices and beliefs which each might
find difficult to understand.
When Miretsky’s (2004) study participants identified the elements of a
cooperative relationship between teachers and parents, they concluded that mutual
respect was one of the most important. Both parents and teachers wished to be valued by
the other and to have their contributions appreciated. Respect meant honoring
differences, whether they were differences of opinion or practice, and sharing credit for
successes. Both parent and teacher expressed the need for cooperation, not blame, when
communicating with each other regarding a student’s disappointing performance.
Impediments to Productive Parent-Teacher Relationships
In order to understand teachers’ perceptions of what impedes the building of
productive parent-teacher relationships, this section presents what research has revealed
to be barriers. Also, it reveals what research has shown to be teacher perceptions of the
barriers to building strong parent-teacher relationships. Research regarding the following
potential impediments is presented in turn: lack of resources, language barriers, socio-
48
economic and other differences, low efficacy, different understandings of role
construction, and lack of certain social and cultural capital.
Lack of Resources. Although little existing research examines the effects of
resource limitations on the parent-teacher relationship, evidence shows that lack of
resources can cause frustration and challenge for teachers and parents in their efforts to
communicate and collaborate. Those limitations can occur on either side of the
relationship. Families’ limitations may be a lack of food, school supplies, telephone
access, electricity, permanent housing, childcare, health care, or limited parental
education, knowledge or emotional reserves. (Lopez, Schibner, & Mahitivanichcha,
2001; Lott, 2001; Miretzky, 2004; Pena, 2000). Resource limitations can create challenge
for parent, teacher, and child if the limitations affect the child’s ability to learn. Also,
parents’ lack of time, telephone access, transportation, or a flexible work schedule can
make communication with the teacher difficult. Teachers and schools also may struggle
with lack of resources that can create communication barriers with parents, such as time
limitations exacerbated by large class sizes, or inadequate access to a telephone in the
workplace.
When Pena (2000) conducted a case study of Mexican American parents, she
found many resource limitations that affected their involvement in their children’s
learning. Through interviews and observations, she found that parents’ level of education,
and access to childcare and transportation impeded their communication with teachers.
Parents with limited education often were unable to read school signage or
correspondence from teachers, even when it was in the parent’s primary language. They
were also often unable to help their child with homework. Sometimes, parents could not
49
arrange a needed meeting with the teacher at school if they lacked childcare or
transportation and lived too far from school to walk.
Lopez, Scribner, and Mahitivanichcha (2001) conducted interviews with teachers,
administrators, other school staff, and parents, to examine parent involvement strategies
in schools with large migrant populations. Upon conducting home visits, teachers became
aware that the migrants’ homes had no phone for parent-teacher communication. The
families also had no indoor plumbing or electricity. As a result of home visits, teachers
became sensitive to the fact that many migrant families had survival-related needs even
more immediate and pressing than the student’s school responsibilities. After the visits,
many teachers were more sensitive and less judgmental toward parents and children.
When Miretsky (2004) asked teachers and parents to name impediments to
building closer collaboration, they agreed that the greatest obstacle was lack of time.
Miretszy writes, “Even parents and teachers with warm feelings toward each other cannot
make strong connections when they try to grab two minutes in the hall or play phone tag
because the only phone available is in the principal’s office” (p. 843). When parents
mentioned their desire for more communication from teachers regarding their students’
progress, teachers complained of the lack of time to call or write. Also, when teacher and
parent had difficulty finding time to communicate directly, they sometimes settled for
using an intermediary, such as the student, although using a third party often altered the
message.
Loder-Jackson, McKnight, Brooks, McGrew, and Voltz (2007) studied parent-
school relationships among urban African-American parents and found it was not the
lack of resources, but teachers’ attitudes toward the resource limitations, that created
50
barriers to their ability to collaborate with each other. Parents complained that teachers
were inflexible, unwilling to arrange meeting times that accommodated parents’ work
schedules. Also, teachers too often did not appear to value low-income parents’ concerns
and interest in their child’s education. For example, parents expected, and sometimes
requested, regular communication from teachers, which they too often did not receive.
Lott (2001) conducted a literature review to determine whether low-income
parents were treated by teachers with the same level of respect as middle class parents
received. He discovered that low-income families’ lack of resources often made
communication or collaboration between parents and teachers more difficult. Examples
of these limitations were “poverty, time restraints, atypical work schedules, heavy family
responsibilities, child care, and transportation problems…” (p. 254). Parents’ fatigue or
stress could also inhibit their ability to work with the teacher on behalf of the child.
Teachers tended to interpret parents’ lack of responsiveness due to communication or
other barriers as parental irresponsibility, lack of concern for their child, or lack of
appreciation for education. Low-income parents reported feeling unwelcome in the
schools. They stated that they did not feel respected by the teachers and did not feel that
their opinions or concerns were valued. Lott found that the greatest challenge to the
parent-teacher relationship was not the lack of resources as much as it was teachers’
misconceptions about low-income families.
Addressing the impact of resource limitations on the development of parent-
teacher relationships is necessary to understanding how to improve these relationships.
The research of Pena (2000), Lopez et al. (2001), and Miretzky (2004) identified specific
limitations that interfered with the development of parent-teacher relationships. Yet,
51
Loder-Jackson et al. (2007) and Lott (2001) found that teacher attitudes toward parents of
certain ethnicities and toward low-income parents were potentially more damaging than
lack of resources.
Language and Other Communication Barriers. Research shows that
communication barriers are one of the greatest impediments to productive relationships
between teachers and parents who are not fluent English speakers (Good et al., 2010;
Smith et al., 2008; Turney & Kao, 2009). Demographic and societal changes have
created challenges to parent-teacher communication. The number of students in the
United States living with one foreign-born parent grew from 15 percent in 1994 to 23
percent in 2010 (Federal Interagency on Child and Family Statistics, 2011). In 2010, 6%
of the children in American schools lived in households where no one over the age of 14
spoke English very well (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
2011). The increase in parents who do not speak English fluently represents a growing
challenge to communication between teachers and parents.
When Turney and Kao (2009) examined the experiences of immigrant parents
regarding impediments to parent involvement, they found that limited English-speaking
ability was strongly correlated with reports of barriers to immigrant parents’ school
involvement. The researchers also found that poor English-speaking skills correlated
negatively with the amount of parent contact with the teacher and was reported to be the
leading barrier to family-school involvement among Hispanic, Black and Asian
immigrant parents whose first language was not English. Fifty-four percent of Hispanic
parents participating in the study required that the research interview be conducted in
Spanish because of lack of English-language fluency. These parents complained that
52
many teacher or school meetings were often conducted in English with no translation
available.
Pena (2000) conducted a case study exploring the experiences of Mexican-
American parents in regard to their involvement with their child’s learning and found that
language was a major barrier. Parents complained that translation was often not provided
at meetings with teachers. One parent stated that she did not speak up in meetings
because she was unsure whether she had understood the discussion. When translation
services were not provided, many parents felt their time attending meetings was wasted
and that the lack of a translator was an indication that their presence and input were not
valued.
Good, Masewicz, and Vogel (2010) conducted focus groups of parents and
teachers of Latino English Language learners to discuss barriers to the students’
academic achievement. Both parents and teachers listed the language differences between
them as a major barrier to their ability to communicate and collaborate on behalf of the
students. They felt that the language barrier prevented them from having in-depth
conversations with each other, which negatively affected students’ achievement.
Teachers and parents felt the inhibited communication constrained the development of
trust, understanding, and mutuality between them. Some of the bilingual teachers felt that
more teachers should be bilingual and that existing bilingual staff were not appreciated.
When Miretzky (2004) conducted parent and teacher focus groups to discuss the
parent-teacher relationships, teachers identified several barriers to communication.
Although a large percentage of the student body were English Language learners,
teachers complained of limited availability of translators to assist with conversations with
53
parents. Teachers expressed the need for phones in the classroom. Also, smaller class
sizes and more preparation periods would free time for communication with parents.
Most teachers were not amenable to meet with parents outside of their regular work
hours.
When Boske and Benavente-McEnery (2010) studied teachers’ and parents’
interactions, they found teachers tended to view linguistic differences between home and
school as a problem that needed to be fixed and as something that stood in the way of the
child’s success in school. Rather than respecting linguistic differences by accepting and
appreciating them, teachers resisted accommodating the language differences, perhaps
expecting, instead, that change should come from parents. The researchers observed that
teachers frequently blamed parents for linguistic and other challenges students faced,
which impeded their ability to build a productive parent-teacher relationship.
Upon review of existing research, Keyes (2000) developed a theoretical
framework from which to examine impediments to the development of productive
parent-teacher relationships. She discovered that certain societal changes have challenged
communication between parents and teachers. For example, most students once lived in
traditional families in which the mother was the most frequent contact between home and
school. Now, a student is more likely to live in a single-parent home supported by the
extended family, or, in the case of divorce, he/she may have two homes. Therefore, the
contact person is more likely to change frequently or may be hard to establish. This can
make effective communication between home and school more challenging.
Each of these findings represents certain considerations that must be explored in
order to gain a deep understanding of factors that affect parent-teacher communication.
54
The work of Turney and Kao (2009), Pena (2000), and Good et al. (2010) reveal ways
communication barriers can affect parents’ willingness, as well as their ability, to work
collaboratively with teachers. Keyes’ findings remind that communication barriers exist
even with English-speaking parents. Boske’s and Benavente-McEnery’s (2010) research
highlights the need to explore teachers’ attitudes toward communication problems.
Exploring each of these avenues is necessary to developing a deep understanding of the
barriers that interfere with teachers’ and parents’ abilities to communicate with each
other.
Misconceptions Stemming from Socio-Economic and other Differences.
Misconceptions arising from socio-economic, cultural, or other differences between
parents and teachers have been found to hinder the establishment of a working
relationship between them (Boske & Benavente-McEnery, 2010; Hauser-Cram, Siris &
Stipek, 2003; Pena, 2000). These differences can encompasses a wide variety of practices
and beliefs, including styles of verbal and nonverbal communication (Keyes, 2000),
goals, parenting practices or even preferred methods of supporting the child’s education
(Hill, 2001). Hill, Tyson, and Bromell (2009) describe ways in which differences can
affect the parent-teacher relationship:
Families and school personnel hold assumptions about the ways students learn,
the nature of the world for which students are being prepared, and sources of
change and stability in children’s development. More relevant for adolescence,
these assumptions identify the ages at which adolescents should be responsible or
independent, the appropriate balance between parental and peer influences,
appropriate and desired adults roles for which adolescents should be prepared,
and the content and conflicts to be grappled with as core components of identity
development. (p. 59)

55
These practices or beliefs can be informed by socioeconomics, culture, family structures,
or other factors and differences in practices or beliefs can impede the growth of a
collaborative relationship between parent and teacher.
Hauser-Cram, Siris, and Stipek, (2003) compiled data from teacher-completed
questionnaires and observations of teachers’ instructional practices to examine teachers’
expectations of the abilities of low-income students. They observed that when parents
and teachers did not share the same beliefs about education or parenting, teachers held
low expectations for the student’s future success. Conversely, teachers had a higher
expectation of student success when dealing with parents who shared similar values
regarding education and parenting. The researchers found that teachers’ low expectations
correlated most strongly with value differences regarding education and parenting, rather
than with differences in ethnicity or income level. When teachers have low expectations
for student achievement, this can influence their willingness to invest in a productive
relationship with parents.
Boske and Benevente-McEnery (2010) examined teachers’ perceptions of low
income students’ families before, during, and after they conducted home visits. Gathering
data through the use of focus groups, interviews, field notes, and contents of teachers’
journals, the researchers became aware that many teachers originally held
misconceptions about their students’ families. Rather than recognizing cultural and
individual differences as strengths, many teachers held negative, stereotypical views of
the students’ culture and parents’ expectations for the student. According to the
researchers, “Students’ race, class, immigration status, and native language were
identified as problems…as a detriment to the success of all children” (p. 379). Original
56
perceptions of some families were that they were “bad people” “dirty” “irresponsible”
and that people who were poor “just don’t care about their children” (p. 380). For many
teachers, the visits were transformational; teachers’ understanding of, and respect for, the
families grew. In retrospect, some teachers felt that lack of cultural awareness had
created the original barrier to their understanding of students and their parents.
Lightfoot (2004) analyzed research regarding parent involvement in urban
schools. She found that teachers in urban schools tended to categorize parents in one of
two ways: parents were either capable of bringing value to the parent-teacher relationship
or they were not. Those who did not parent or live in a way the teacher could relate to
were commonly considered the latter. When teachers felt the parent was unable to bring
value to a parent-teacher relationship, this belief negatively influenced the nature and
potential of the relationship.
According to Lightfoot, teachers’ language and actions revealed their assumptions
about parents. The parents more similar to the teacher (e.g. middle class Caucasian) were
more likely to be respected by the teacher and were considered capable of supporting the
teacher and the child’s education. These parents were believed to bring personal strengths
and other assets to the parent-teacher relationship. Such parents might volunteer at school
or help the child with homework. Parents who were different from the teacher (e.g.
ethnically, socio-economically, or linguistically) were considered to be the other type of
parent, a parent in need of support. These parent-teacher relationships could not be
mutual or reciprocal; teachers tended to consider the parent too poorly educated, too
unsophisticated, or otherwise not likely to bring meaningful input to the parent-teacher
relationship. This misconception, that some parents did not have assets to contribute to
57
their relationships with teachers, created a barrier to building equal partnerships with
these parents.
Low Self-Efficacy. A parent’s or teacher’s lack of confidence in his/her ability to
influence the relationship with the other or to support the child’s learning can create a
barrier to a productive parent-teacher relationship. According to social cognitive theory,
people who believe they have the power to succeed at achieving a particular goal are
more likely to behave in ways that will produce the desired outcome (Bandura, 1989).
For example, the low self-efficacy of either the parent or the teacher may result in a
lower level of investment of that person in a relationship with the other.
A parent’s low efficacy in regard to parent involvement is the belief that the
parent does not have the power to help the student be successful in school or the power to
influence the teacher on the child’s behalf (Hoover-Dempsey, 2005). Teachers who do
not have confidence in their potential to influence a parent are less likely to attempt to
build a relationship with that parent (Garcia, 2004).
Level of efficacy can influence the amount of effort a parent or teacher will
expend to support the student’s academic success or how successful parents and teachers
will be at collaborating with each other. Lack of skills, cultural differences, perceived
unresponsiveness on the part of the other, negative past experiences, or different points of
view may cause a parent or teacher to believe that efforts to work with the other person
will not be fruitful (Keyes, 2000). For example, when the parent has little education,
research has shown that he/she sometimes feels unqualified to confront the teacher about
concerns or questions (Downey, 2002; Hill & Taylor, 2004).
58
Garcia (2004) used teacher survey data to determine teachers’ efficacy in regard
to parent involvement. She found that teachers who lacked confidence in their ability to
work with parents tended not to attempt to build relationships with them. Conversely, the
teachers who were more confident in their abilities to work with parents not only tended
to work with parents more often, but in a wide variety of ways. Teachers who were
confident in general, or confident in their teaching abilities, but not in their ability to
work with parents, tended not to engage in the types of activities that would build bi-
lateral relationships with parents.
When Miretzky (2004) studied perceptions of teachers and parents about parent-
teacher collaboration, both parties stated that strong parent-teacher relationships were
important, but both expressed that they were unsure of how to build these relationships.
Parents, especially those who were not fluent English-speakers, often felt intimidated
when communicating with the teacher. Some parents felt frustrated when trying to make
their concerns heard by the teacher. Other parents lacked confidence because of bad
experiences communicating with teachers in the past. A teacher questioned, “How can I
have a relationship with these parents when they don’t have their own act together?” (p.
834). Other teachers were empathetic regarding the challenges many families faced, but
were overwhelmed at the thought of being able to teach the students who lived under
such conditions. Miretzky identified a variety of ways parent self-efficacy and teacher
self-efficacy play a role in the development of productive parent-teacher relationships.
Role Construction. When teachers and parents do not share the same
understanding of their roles in regard to the child’s education, this can inhibit the
development of a productive parent-teacher relationship. How parents and teachers
59
interact is influenced by their understanding of what their role and each other’s roles
should be. Not all parents or teachers believe that parents should be involved in the
adolescent’s learning or that parents should share a collaborative relationship with
teachers.
As students enter adolescence, parents often become less sure of what their
appropriate roles are in regard to their child’s learning (Jones & Schneider, 2009).
According to Epstein (2011), middle schools, recognizing that adolescents desire greater
autonomy from parents as they age, too often do not invest in the parent-teacher
relationship. Actually, although some students of this age may prefer not to have their
parent visit campus, researchers have found that adolescents report appreciating many
kinds of parental support for their school success (Deslandes & Cloutier, 2002; Hill &
Tyson, 2009). How parents or teachers view the parent’s responsibilities toward
supporting the child’s education correlates with the degree to which the parent will be
involved during the middle school years (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005).
Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005) conducted a literature review from which they
elaborated on a model they had previously constructed (Hoover & Sandler, 1995) to
explain why parents chose to be involved with their child’s learning. Citing role
construction as one reason, the researchers state that parents’ role construction is
“influenced by parents’ beliefs about how children develop, what parents should do to
rear their children effectively, and what parents should do at home to help children
succeed in school” (p. 107). Role construction can be affected by parents’ own
experiences as children or by the beliefs of the parents’ friends and family. Parents often
sense what is expected of them from the child’s teacher or school, such as from whether
60
the teacher invites input from parents. If a parent senses that his/her involvement is not
wanted, this can reduce the likelihood that that parent will develop a relationship with the
teacher.
When Loder-Jackson, McKnight, Brooks, McGrew, and Voltz (2007) conducted
focus groups to examine the role constructions of urban African-American parents in
regard to their relationships with teachers, they learned that parents often took their cues
from teachers when determining what was expected of them. Although parents reported a
desire for reciprocal relationships with teachers that involved regular communication and
shared responsibility, many parents reported that they did not sense that the school or
teacher wanted their involvement. Parents complained that the teacher did not keep them
informed of their child’s progress and that teachers too often were inflexible and
unwilling to arrange meeting times that did not conflict with the parent’s work schedule.
Loder-Jackson et al., concluded that one major barrier to building productive home-
school relationships was the parents’ sense that such a relationship was not wanted by the
teacher or school.
Lareau and Horvat (1999) conducted a case study to examine the impact of race
on the parent-teacher relationship and found that what teachers, almost all of whom were
Caucasian, wanted from parents was support and trust. Using data from interviews with
parents and teachers, they determined that when parent concurred with the teacher’s
viewpoints or deferred to him/her, that parent tended to be favored and praised by the
teacher. Parents who did not agree, were critical, or who expressed anger were often
discounted as being difficult. In some cases, these were African-American parents who
had valid complaints about racially prejudicial practices of the school. Other African-
61
American parents who did not agree with many of the school practices, but kept their
concerns private, were rated highly by the teacher. Lareau’s and Horvats’ findings
(19991) provide an example of teachers who did not value differences of opinion and
were thereby deprived of a collaborative parent-teacher relationship, including the
important feedback from parents that can result.
Pena’s (2000) study of Mexican-American parents’ involvement in their child’s
learning revealed that cultural beliefs dictated parents’ understanding of their role in
regard to their child’s education. Many Mexican Americans believe that the child’s
education is the school’s responsibility. They are likely to stay away from school, leaving
decisions up to the teacher as an act of respect and trust. Pena found teachers sometimes
misinterpret this distance as a lack of caring. Pena’s findings demonstrate how cultural
differences and misunderstandings can impede teachers’ relationships with parents.
Keyes (2000) reviewed existing literature from which she developed a theoretical
framework to explain factors that contribute to productive parent-teacher relationships.
Like Hoover et al., (2005), she, too, cited role construction as an important influence. She
noted that, because teachers’ role constructions in regard to parent involvement typically
are developed independently, teachers’ perspectives can vary from believing that
adolescent learning support is a parent responsibility, a teacher responsibility, or a shared
responsibility. The belief that the parent’s role is to support the teacher has traditionally
been a part of many early childhood programs. However, the concept of an equal
partnership between parent and teacher is a relatively recent development.
Dunlap and Alva (1999) conducted focus groups with teachers, asking them to
examine their understandings of their role and the parent’s role in a parent-teacher
62
partnership. The researchers found that teachers agreed on the more traditional purposes
of a parent-teacher partnership. That is, partnerships with parents can build parental
support for improved student attendance, discipline, and for increased student learning.
Beyond that, Dunlap and Alva found that teachers’ visions of what an ideal
parent-teacher partnership should look like fell into two camps. Many of the teachers
understood parent-teacher partnership through a fairly narrow lens that focused on the
student’s education and educational activities. Other teachers interpreted partnership
more broadly, viewing education and learning in the context in which the students lived
and seeing home-school partnership as benefiting, not only the student, but the parents, as
well. Those in the second group were interested in the parents’ wellbeing and in ways in
which the parents can or do support the health of the whole child. The teachers with the
more narrow focus complained that parents expected them to be social workers, whereas
the teachers with the broader focus were more comfortable with parents utilizing them as
a problem-solving resource. Many of the teacher participants in Dunlap’s and Alva’s
study did not understand that the true nature of a partnership is bi-lateral and mutually
supportive.
Lack of Certain Social or Cultural Capital. Parents’ lack of the necessary
social or cultural assets can be an obstacle to building productive parent-teacher
partnerships. All parents have social and cultural capital, but these resources are only
valuable to the extent that they are useful and appreciated in the context in which they are
exercised (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). For example, African-American cultural resources
are unlikely to be of value in an organization in which only the Euro-American culture is
appreciated.
63
Middle class Caucasian families tend to have knowledge, skills and social ties
(social and cultural capital) that benefit them in their interactions with middle class
teachers and schools, advantages that low-income African-American families often do
not have (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Horvat et al. (2003) explain:
Parents in middle-class communities can act powerfully in their children’s
schools because they have relationships with each other centered on the
school, and they possess the education and other resources that give them
the confidence to relate to teachers as equals. (p. 2)

Differences in social and cultural capital and in the school’s treatment of these
differences too often serve to exacerbate inequality (Lareau & Horvat, 1999).
When Lareau and Horvat (1999) examined the effect of race on family-school
relationships, they found that not belonging to the dominant racial culture created barriers
for many African-American families. In schools in which the majority of students were
Caucasian, middle class White parents enjoyed a form of cultural capital in that they
expected to be treated with respect and as equals by the teacher. Conversely, in the same
situation, African-American families were more likely to approach teachers with
defensiveness and suspicion because of past discriminatory experiences they had
experienced, whether at that school or elsewhere. Prior negative race-related experiences
of African-American parents created challenge to building a productive parent-teacher
relationship. Lareau’s and Horvat’s study did not examine the effect of belonging to a
minority racial or ethnic group on parent-teacher relationships in a school in which
cultural differences were valued. However, their research highlights the need to consider
the role of cultural capital in the process of building relationships with parents.
Carreon et al. (2005) conducted an ethnographic study of three immigrant parents
and found that each parent had a different experience of relating to their child’s teacher
64
and of supporting their child’s learning, based on the amount of social capital they were
able to build. Celia and Pablo each found different ways of building social capital. Celia
was able to build a productive relationship with her child’s teachers, but Pablo and Isabel
were not. Pablo, however, accessed social capital in other ways that allowed him to get
his child’s needs met.
The description by Carreon et al. of the three parents illustrates how social capital
can strengthen or impede a parent-teacher relationship, and how it can influence the
child’s academic success. Celia worked long hours, but still was able to find time to visit
her child’s classroom regularly and to stay in communication with the teachers about her
child’s progress. During these visits, she would often assist the teacher. These
experiences allowed her to build stature in the eyes of the teachers (social capital), which
allowed her to build a close relationship with them. Through these relationships, she was
able to monitor her child’s growth and learn how she could support her child’s success.
Pablo also worked long hours at his job but, because of his limited English-speaking
skills and his work schedule, he did not visit school frequently or develop productive
relationships with teachers. However, he supported his children’s learning at home. Also,
because he learned through his social network that other schools had higher academic
standards and fewer behavior problems than his sons’ current school, he was able to
transfer his sons to a better school. In contrast to Celia and Pablo, Isabel was
unsuccessful in building a productive relationship with the teacher, feeling that the
teacher did not take her concerns and input seriously. She continued to feel powerless to
help her child succeed in school. Carreon’s study demonstrates that many low-achieving
students who need the support of productive parent-teacher relationships are the same
65
students whose parents do not have the necessary social capital or for other reasons are
the least likely to be taken seriously by teachers. Therefore, the mutual respect that Blue-
Banning et al. found necessary to collaborative relationships must be extended to all
students.
Crosnoe’s (2009) study of mathematics course selection decisions for rising
eighth graders was an example of social capital at play. He found that, when parents,
middle school staff, and high school staff all communicated regarding selection of the
appropriate math course for the student, the student typically did not accidentally enroll
in a math course that was too easy. That is, when the middle school staff, high school
staff, and parents were in contact to discuss course selection, students and parents
presumably received the information needed to make an appropriate choice. However,
when schools did not offer the necessary information or guidance, parents or students
who did not recognize the importance of the decision, or did not know which questions to
ask or whom to ask were more likely to make an inappropriate course selection than
others.
The parents in Crosnoe’s study who were aware of the importance of the math
course decision may have gained this awareness through their interactions with others
(social capital) or through their own academic experiences (cultural capital). The
awareness that led families to seek the necessary information from the school may have
positively and significantly influenced the child’s trajectory for success. Conversely,
when student and parents were unaware of the need for information about math course
selection, their student was at greater risk of making an inappropriate course selection,
potentially affecting the student’s chances of college admission. In this case, because the
66
parents lacked the necessary social or cultural capital, they did not know to reach out to
the teacher for the needed information.
Crosnoe’s study brings attention to the importance of providing all families with
the guidance and education students need. The absence of these will constitute
discrimination against some students, while other students will succeed because their
parents had the resources to make up for this omission. Any study that seeks to contribute
to the strengthening of middle school parent-teacher relationships will need to examine
the sufficiency of course selection and career exploration guidance to all students and
their families.
Structural Supports of, and Constraints on, the Parent-Teacher Relationship
In preparation for examining the influence of self-efficacy and role constructions
on the building of parent-teacher relationships, existing research was reviewed that
evaluates the effectiveness of structural factors on the development of these relationships
to determine what the research revealed about teachers’ perceptions of these practices
and policies. The following are presented in turn: school-parent compacts, school
leadership, parent-teacher communication practices, home visits, professional
development, school and teacher competency, and on-going evaluation.
Although a wide variety of initiatives and practices are created for the purposes of
promoting parental involvement, there are few, if any, programs explicitly created solely
for the purpose of supporting the parent-teacher relationship (Mattingly et al., 2002). In
general, there are fewer programs in the middle and high schools to promote the family-
school connection than in elementary schools (Kreider & Bouffard, 2009). Also, few are
tailored to serve the unique needs of adolescents and middle schools in regard to the
67
parent-teacher relationship (Hill & Chao, 2009). Yet, the policies and practices included
in this study are common to most middle schools or are required by NCLB (Public Law
107-110: Section 1118, 2002).
School-Parent Compacts. By mandating the use of school-parent compacts,
Section 1118 of NCLB (Public Law 107-110, 2002) legislates that parents and teachers
share responsibility for student learning. School-parent compacts are “written agreements
involving parents, teachers, and sometimes students, which specify each party’s
responsibilities to promote students’ learning” (D’Agostino, Hedges, Wong, & Borman,
2001, p. 25). Implementation of a school-parent compact is required of every school
receiving Title 1 funds. By 1998, 75% of Title 1 schools reported using school-parent
compacts and schools reported that they had a beneficial effect on parent involvement
(D’Agostino et al., 2001).
The compact must enumerate the responsibilities of the parents and of the school
to support the student’s academic success. The school’s obligation is to “provide high-
quality curriculum and instruction in a supportive and effective learning environment”
(Public Law 107-110: Section 1118, 2002, p. 53). Some examples of suggested parent
responsibilities are “monitoring attendance, homework completion, and television
watching…participating, as appropriate, in decisions relating to the education of their
children and positive use of extracurricular time” (Public Law 107-110: Section 1118,
2002, p. 53). The compact communicates to all parties involved that education requires
the efforts of both parent and teacher, school and home.
D’Agostino, Hedges, Wong, and Borman (2001) studied parent involvement
strategies, such as school-parent compacts, and their effectiveness in involving parents in
68
their child’s learning and subsequently increasing student achievement. They found that
the most effective schools had implemented school-parent compacts and other
agreements. There is little or no empirical evidence that school-parent compacts, by
themselves, are productive in supporting student achievement or parent-teacher
relationships. There is also little, if any, research that explores teacher perceptions of
school-parent compacts. Yet, parent-school compacts were never intended to be effective
in isolation, but as a part of a bigger parent involvement plan. Also, the effectiveness of
the compacts is dependent on their implementation. Furthermore, because each district or
school devises its own school-parent compact, the effectiveness of compacts is likely to
vary based on the content of the agreement.
D’Agostino et al. concluded that school-parent compacts should serve as the
centerpiece of parent-school partnerships. The researchers state that parent
responsibilities enumerated in the compact should include a variety of types of parent
involvement, but that the expectations for each should be stated in very specific terms. At
the same time, they must be flexible enough to accommodate families’ busy schedule.
Compacts should vary by grade level and should reflect students’ academic needs at that
grade level.
Nakagawa (2000) analyzed school-parent compacts and parent involvement
policy to examine how they represent the role of the parent. She found that such policies
and practices that seek to define the role and responsibilities of parents might exacerbate
the gap in quality of the parent-teacher relationship that tends to exist between high-
achieving and low achieving children and families. The way in which parent
responsibilities were defined in the compacts were often skewed in favor of certain
69
parents, such as those who are available to volunteer at school or were capable of helping
the child with homework. Nakagawa suggested that the parent responsibilities outlined in
the compacts could be interpreted as implied definitions of what constitutes a good
parent. These definitions were typically very narrow and did not recognize the wide
variety of ways parents can and do support their child’s learning. Furthermore, Nakagawa
warned that the concept of a school-parent compact could too easily be interpreted as
letting the teacher and school off the hook if the parent did not fulfill his/her
responsibilities as outlined in the compact.
This study examined the parent-school compact that was implemented at the
research site. According to the findings of D’Agostino et al. (2001), schools that desire to
build successful relationships with parents implement parent-school compacts. The
parent-school compact can reveal much about the school’s parent and teacher role
constructions. Nagakawa’s (2000) findings suggest that school-parent compacts can also
reveal awareness or lack of awareness of the diverse ways in which parents support their
child’s learning.
School Administration. This section presents principals’ leadership practices
that have been shown to affect teachers’ ability to develop productive relationships with
parents. Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of school leadership on their efforts to build
collaboration with parents are also addressed. Existing literature that considers either of
these topics is limited (Mandell & Murray, 2009).
Auerbach (2010) compiled data from two studies to determine principals’
attitudes and actions regarding the importance of parent-teacher partnerships. The data
reflected a lack of shared decision-making between parents and teachers. Also, little
70
professional development was provided for teachers regarding how to build productive
family-school relationships.
From the results of these studies, Auerbach discerned four categories of
administrator attitudes. At one end is “leadership preventing partnerships” (p. 734). In
these cases, the principals do not see collaborative parent-teacher relationships as an
asset. Rather, a separation between family and teacher is maintained, while the principal
acts as a buffer between teachers and parents, protecting teachers from what they would
consider distractions. The second approach is “leadership for minimal partnerships”.
These principals allow a very limited amount of parent involvement and communication
is typically from school to home, without request for parent input. Third is “leadership
for traditional partnerships”, in which all efforts to involve parents are motivated by the
school’s goals and needs. However, in this case, reciprocal communication is
encouraged. Last is “authentic partnerships”. Auerbach describes this as a ‘reciprocal
empowerment model”, that requires staff to be sensitive to cultural differences and to
share decision-making. “Authentic family-school partnerships” is the most effective
model and also correlates with this study’s goal to build collaborative parent-teacher
partnerships. In this study, teacher perceptions were examined for clues to the principal’s
attitude toward parent-teacher relationships and evidence of the effect of his/her attitude
on the teacher’s efforts to build relationships with parents.
Sanders and Sheldon (2009) researched theory and administrative practice to
discern how principals support productive parent-teacher-community partnerships. They
found that principals create environments conducive to these relationships by addressing
issues of power, trust, communication, volunteering, and collaboration. When principals
71
share power and model collaboration, they can influence others to do the same. When
they model “respect, competence, caring, and integrity”, they build trust between
themselves and others and also contribute to the maintenance of a trusting environment
overall (p. 34). In addition to providing school-initiated communication, principals
encourage two-way communication by ensuring that parents are given many venues
through which to express concerns, provide input, or ask questions. When principals
nurture collaborative teams within the school or between the school and parents, teachers
gain experience in collaboration that can influence their relationships with parents.
Gordon and Louis (2009) studied the influence of the principal on parent
involvement. Through the use of interviews and parent and teacher surveys, they found
that when principals shared power with teachers, teachers were more likely to share
information and power with parents. Conversely, “Schools that are open to parent
influence are also more open to teacher influence” (p. 25). District policy or practice was
not found to have the same effect on parent involvement that the site administrator had.
When Miretzky (2004) gathered perceptions of teachers and parents in order to
study their relationships, teachers mentioned the importance of the principal’s leadership
to the process. Teachers suggested that, if principals made building productive parent-
teacher relationships a priority, teachers would follow their direction. Due to pressure
created by high-stakes testing, some teachers stated that they had little time to commit to
building relationships with parents. Miretzky’s findings provide suggestions of how
administration can influence teachers’ abilities to develop productive relationships with
parents.
72
Adequate, Regular, and Two-Way Communication between Parent and
Teacher. The importance of communication to the parent-teacher relationship is
recognized by the Federal government and by many educators. The school-family
compacts mandated by NCLB (Public Law 107-110, 2002) are required to “address the
importance of communication between teachers and parents on an ongoing basis through,
at a minimum…frequent reports to parents on their children’s progress; and reasonable
access to staff…” (p. 53). Little or no evidence exists examining how common adequate
communication practices are between parent and teacher.
When Kessler-Sklar & Baker (2000) surveyed superintendents of 200 school
districts about what types of policies they have implemented to encourage parent
involvement, the most common answer was communication with parents about student
progress and school programs (Kessler-Sklar & Baker, 2000). Almost 80% of the
districts represented had policies of communicating with parents. The two most
frequently used strategies for communicating with parents about student progress and
school programs were written notes and face-to-face meetings. Two percent of districts
reported using homework as a way to inform parents of the child’s progress. The study
did not seek to examine communication practices utilized between the teacher and parent
that were unique to specific teachers. Also, exploration of the effectiveness of the
communication strategies in place was beyond the scope of the study. Rarely were
particular parent involvement strategies reported in districts where there was not a
specific policy in place for that practice. This study built on Kessler-Sklar’s and Baker’s
findings by examining specific parent-teacher communication practices implemented or
mandated by the school.
73
Through interviews with principals, Hornby and Witte (2010) examined various
school practices to support the parent-school relationship, such as parent-teacher
collaboration, communication strategies, outreach to ethnically and linguistically diverse
parents, and creating a welcoming environment for parents. They found that most schools
implemented several modes of communication with parents, which allowed parents to
choose the method they preferred. Types of communication practiced between parent and
teacher were parent-teacher meetings at school or in the home (impromptu or by
appointment), parent-teacher-student conferences, report cards, portfolios of student
work, open houses, Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings, newsletters, parent
homework checking, school handbooks, enrollment packets, school websites, notes
home, telephones calls, e-mails, text messages, or home-school diaries. Some schools had
open door policies, allowing parents to drop in to observe their student’s class. Hornby
and Witte observed that few schools utilized home visits and none had written policies
about parent-teacher communication.
Stalker, Brumner, Maguire, and Mitchell (2011) studied cases of disabled parents’
experiences with school and teacher practice related to involvement in their child’s
learning. When physical accessibility to the school was problematic, schools arranged
alternate meeting places or other solutions. The researchers identified several school
perspectives on accommodating the needs of disabled parents. Some schools believed
that, for confidentiality purposes, only the students’ teachers needed to be aware of a
parent’s special needs. Other schools operated under the assumption that all teachers
should know. In a third arrangement, one staff member arranged accommodations for all
disabled parents.
74
Stalker et al. (2011) found that, although communication and mobility issues
presented potential barriers, parents described several incidents during which teachers
had been “flexible and proactive,” positive and open-minded, in encouraging partnership
with them (p. 241). The parents’ stories included teachers who provided information in
Braille or large font for vision-impaired parents and teachers who conducted home visits
when required. At one school, teachers were available to parents before and after school
for impromptu meetings; these informal meetings typically were preferred over formal
meetings by parents who had stress-related issues. Stalker et al. found that, in seeking to
build relationships with all parents, the special needs of disabled parents must be
considered.
Farrell and Collier (2010) examined teacher perceptions of family-school
communication and found staff agreed that supportive administrators were critical to
establishing productive home-school communication. Other staff members considered
their roles to be supportive of classroom teachers, indicating that classroom teachers had
the greatest responsibility in regard to home-school communication. Teachers
overwhelmingly agreed on the importance of communication to parent-teacher
collaboration and student success.
Home Visits. Home visits have been a component of Head Start and Early Start
programs and some preschool and kindergarten programs, but otherwise, they are not a
commonly used school or teacher practice (Epstein, 2011; Korfmacher et al., 2008).
However, they hold potential for contributing to a productive parent-teacher relationship
(Boske & Benavente-McEnery, 2010; Lin & Bates, 2010; Meyer & Mann, 2006). Home
visits can provide important information about the family that help the teacher relate to
75
both student and parent. Home visits can contribute to a spirit of collaboration if teachers
do not approach them with a desire to change the parent (Lueder, 2011). Because home
visits are time-consuming, they are often made only to the least involved families
(Lueder, 2011).
Lin and Bates (2010) studied the effects of home visits on Head Start teachers’
relationships with families by reading journals the teachers maintained after each visit.
The researchers found that a teacher’s visit to the student’s home at the beginning of the
school year created a strong start to building a positive relationship with parent and
student. This initial contact had potential to clear up cross-cultural and other
misconceptions of both teachers and parents. Visiting the student’s residence in order to
learn about the student in the context of their home could also be interpreted by the
parent and student as a gesture of respect and caring.
Meyer and Mann (2006) surveyed kindergarten through second grade teachers
about their perceptions of home visits that the teachers conducted at the start of a school
year and that were required by the school as an experiment for that year only. Home
visits had not been a part of school practice prior to the study, but the participating
teachers were impressed by the perceived effects of the visits and intended to voluntarily
continue the practice the following year. They felt the visits had a positive effect on their
relationships with parents and students, and on student engagement and academic success
throughout the year. The initial connection made during the home visit made future
contacts with parents easier and teachers reported being more sensitive to students and
perceptive to their needs throughout the academic year as a result of the visits. Through
home visits, teachers obtained information that helped them better understand students
76
and their families. Teachers also felt that the students began the school year better
prepared because of the visits.
Although the research of Meyer and Mann, Lin and Bates, and others have
confirmed the potential benefits of home visits, few schools have implemented home
visits on the scale of the schools in their studies. However, even introductory visits at the
school site can serve some of the same purposes that home visits do.
Professional Development. There is a gap between what research has established
about the importance of a collaborative parent-teacher relationship to student school
success and the amount of pre-service training and professional development a teacher
typically receives to assist with developing and maintaining these relationships (Bartels
& Escow, 2010; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Kreider & Bouffard, 2009). Teachers,
especially middle school and high school teachers, report that their relationships with
parents is one of the most difficult aspects of their jobs (Kreider & Bouffard, 2009).
According to teacher reports, those who teach adolescents feel less well prepared in this
regard than elementary school teachers do (Wright, Daniel, & Himelreich, 2000).
Principals also must be adequately trained to model and provide guidance for teachers in
regard to building productive relationship with parents (Epstein & Sanders, 2006), yet
such preparation is rarely required of administrators (Kreider & Bouffard, 2009).
Melnick and Meister (2008) surveyed new and experienced teachers and found
differences between the confidence levels and practices of new (0 – 3 years of
experience) and veteran teachers in regard to parent communication. Ninety-three percent
of experienced teachers, compared to 85% of new teachers, felt well trained to approach
parents regarding a conflict. Eighty-four percent of experienced teachers kept parents
77
informed of student progress, compared to 77% of new teachers. Sixty-six percent of
experienced teachers notified parents of student successes, compared to 57% of new
teachers. Eighty-five percent of veterans used multiple modes of communication with
parents, compared to 72% of new teachers. The differences between the confidence
levels and practices of experienced and new teachers demonstrate the need for
professional development that prepares newer teachers for communicating with parents.
Their findings suggest that novice teachers and veteran teachers may have different
professional development needs regarding building effective relationships with parents.
Eberly, Joshi, Konzal, and Galen (2010) conducted a professional development
course to help practicing educators build strong cross-cultural relationships with parents
and students. The course included self-reflection, a presentation by an ethnically diverse
panel of parents about their cultural beliefs and practices, and review of recommended
skills and strategies for teachers to use. They found that 3 sessions, each 2.5 hours in
length, were not sufficient for addressing all issues and for adequately preparing teachers
to successfully translate their new awareness into change in practice. Nonetheless, a final
practical exercise did reveal that some teachers comprehended how their newly acquired
cultural awareness must inform their practice.
Bartels and Eskow (2010) evaluated a series of graduate courses offered to
educators at schools in a high-need district. As a result of participating in the three
courses, the researchers found that educators’ attitudes toward building partnerships with
parents were improved and the newly learned skills were being utilized in the schools.
Also, evidence revealed that more positive parent-teacher relationships had developed.
After completion of the courses, most participants commented on the importance of
78
appreciating diversity and of attempting to comprehend the concerns and opinions of
parents. Participants mentioned the importance of listening to parents, communicating
well, and being self-reflective. After completing the courses, educators reported having
become more open-minded. Most of the participants reported they intended to
incorporate their new knowledge, skills, and understanding into their own relationships
with parents. Six months later, participants could clearly recall the content of the courses
and reported using their new knowledge and awareness in their work. In addition, the
researchers report that the participants enjoyed a noticeable growth in esteem among their
colleagues as a result of their newly acquired skills and awareness. Their findings suggest
that professional development holds promise for combatting deficit thinking toward low-
income families.
School Effectiveness and Teacher Competency. Little research was found
exploring possible correlations between school effectiveness or teacher competency and
parent-teacher relationships. However, research does establish skill or competency as a
necessary component of collaborative relationships (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). It is also an essential component of trust, which is necessary to
building productive partnerships (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Blue-Banning et al.,
2004; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Perceptions of whether a person is competent can be
influenced by such factors as first impressions, professional reputation, or school
reputation.
Bryk and Schneider (2002) developed a theoretical framework that identified
competency, or perceived competency, as a necessary component of the relational trust
required for collaboration between parents and teachers. They concede that teacher
79
competency is hard to measure and they do not address the relationship between school
effectiveness and the parent-teacher relationship. However, they do address trust as an
organizational characteristic. High trust within an organization engenders collaboration
by creating safe spaces for problem solving. Therefore, a school in which a climate of
trust has been established may provide a favorable environment for collaboration
between teacher and parent.
Ongoing Evaluation. Quality research examining the impact of evaluation of
parent-school practices is limited (Kreider & Bouffard, 2009). Although evaluation of
parent involvement policies and practices are mandated by NCLB, the lack of
enforcement has too often translated into lack of implementation. Section 1118 of NCLB
requires districts to
…conduct, with the involvement of parents, an annual evaluation of the content
and effectiveness of parent involvement policy… including identifying barriers to
greater participation by parents…(with particular attention to parents who are
economically disadvantaged, are disabled, have limited English proficiency, have
limited literacy, or are of any racial or ethnic minority background) and use the
findings of such evaluation to design strategies for more effective parental
involvement…. (2001).

Schools and districts, however, have no direct financial incentive to comply with this
requirement.
Stecher, Hamilton, and Gonzalez (2004) reviewed implementation of NCLB to
determine how practitioners and policymakers could make the policy more effective.
They note that it includes no incentives for building family-school relationships or parent
involvement. Therefore, schools and districts have no external motivation to encourage
strong parent-teacher relationships when they do not recognize the importance of these
relationships to student academic success or are otherwise not internally motivated.
80
Researchers acknowledge that implementation of NCLB requirements is dependent in
part on the resources and assistance provided by school and district leadership. Even
though NCLB does not hold schools accountable for investing in the parent-teacher or
the family-school relationship, existing research suggests that on-going evaluation is
important to the success of parent involvement efforts and to students’ success in school
(Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2004).
Conceptual Framework
For the purposes of this study, this section served as the conceptual framework or
lens through which to address the research questions. The parent involvement literature
contains several concepts potentially significant to the process of relationship building
between parents and teachers. These include the following concepts: self-efficacy, role
construction, and structural constraints.
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Drawing from Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive
theory, the researcher explored whether middle school teachers who expressed higher
levels of efficacy in regard to their abilities to build productive relationships with parents
also reported being more successful in building these relationships, regardless of the
impediments they faced. Bandura (1989) asserted that human behavior is not influenced
solely by external conditions or solely by internal factors that influence their perceptions.
Rather, behavior, and internal and external factors all have an impact on each other.
Bandura concluded that a person’s perception of his/her ability to create change could
influence them to act in a way that is more likely to produce that change.
Specifically, the researcher examined whether teachers who expressed higher
self-efficacy also tended to practice more outreach to parents. Existing research reveals
81
that teacher practices are more predictive than other factors in regard to the degree to
which parents become involved in their child’s education (Dauber & Epstein, 1993;
Epstein, 2011). Therefore, if teacher self-efficacy is predictive of teacher practices, and
teacher practices can influence the level of parent involvement, examining teacher self-
efficacy holds potential for better understanding of how to build parent-teacher
relationships that support student success in school.
The researcher also examined whether teachers with high self-efficacy provided
evidence of having mediated barriers, such as lack of resources, the presences of
language or cultural barriers, parental low efficacy, parental lack of relevant social
capital, and impeding structural constraints. This examination drew from existing
literature studying the relationship between efficacy and impediments to building
productive parent-teacher relationships.
Loder-Jackson et al. (2007) found that teachers’ misconceptions about
impediments to building relationships with parents and teachers’ resulting sense of
helplessness were often as much of a deterrent to building collaborative relationships
with parents as were the external challenge. That is, low self-efficacy is sometimes based
on a misconception. For example, when parents were unable to arrange meetings with
teachers because of work schedule or other impediments, Loder-Jackson et al. found that
teachers often perceived this as a sign that the parents did not care about their child. Such
a lack of caring would likely be beyond the teacher’s ability to change and might lead to
a lack of persistence on the teacher’s part. However, a teacher who persisted may have
discovered that being more flexible in regard to time or place would mediate this
perceived barrier.
82
Boske and Benavente-McEnery (2010) also found teachers’ misconceptions about
the strengths and abilities of low-income parents negatively influenced their relationships
with these parents. Teachers tended to interpret differences in belief or practice between
themselves and the parent as a deficiency on the parents’ part, something over which the
teacher had no control. After becoming better acquainted with these parents, many of the
teachers had a much stronger sense of efficacy about their ability to collaborate with
parents on behalf of their child.
Self-efficacy of parents has received much more scrutiny that teacher self-
efficacy as it relates to building relationships with parents (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2005). The influences on parental self-efficacy are suspected to be complex and multi-
faceted (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Bandura, 1989). Therefore, examination of teacher
self-efficacy provides description only and is not intended to be comprehensive.
Role Construction. The question of whether, how, or to what extent role
construction affected the building of productive parent-teacher relationships required
exploration of several related topics. One aspect of interest was the strength of the role
teachers held for themselves and their students’ parents in regard to their relationship
with each other and whether the strength of the role construction for parents translated
into parent involvement of relative strength. Also, what were the specific qualities of the
roles teachers envisioned for themselves and parents and how did these qualities inform
the types of relationships teachers were successful in building with parents? Finally, did
the types of relationships teachers aspired to build with parents resemble researched-
based models? If so, what did teachers do to build these types of relationships and how
did their reports of their actual relationships with parents compare to their goals?
83
Elemental to the examination of teachers’ role constructions in middle school was
their belief in whether or how much parents need to be involved in their child’s learning
during adolescence. Existing research has established the significance of the parent’s role
construction in regard to their child’s learning in middle school (Drummond & Stipek,
2004; Grolnick et al., 2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), yet little research has
explored the way middle school teachers construct their roles and the parents’ roles in
their relationships together. Seitsinger et al. (2008) found a lack of consensus among
middle school teachers about the importance of the parent-teacher relationship to students
of this age. Because a teacher’s outreach to parents can positively influence their child’s
learning, might, or how might, a teacher’s weak role construction for parents affect
parents’ involvement in their child’s learning? The strength of teachers’ constructions of
their parents’ roles in the student’s education may be a critical factor in his/her ability to
build relationships with parents and in the student’s success in school. The teacher who
believes that parent-teacher partnerships are unnecessary to the success of middle school
students is unlikely to expend effort to build one.
Because the nature of the relationship between parent and teacher tends to change
as students enter middle school (Barber & Olsen, 2004; Gutman & Midgley, 2000),
whether changing role constructions accompany this transition bore exploring. The effect
of the parent’s role construction on their involvement has been established by existing
research (Drummond & Stipek, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), yet Smetana et al.
(2004) find that parents and teachers are often unclear about what types of parent
involvement in the child’s learning is appropriate during adolescence. Few studies have
examined the middle school teacher’s role construction and its influence. Research
84
reveals teacher outreach can influence the parent’s role construction and involvement in
their child’s education (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Hoover-Dempsey, 2005, Kohl et
al., 2002; Seitsinger et al., 2008). Therefore, if teachers constructed their roles in such a
way that they frequently communicated with parents and invited parents’ involvement in
their child’s learning, existing research supports the ability of these teachers to influence
the role constructions of parents.
Finally, how did actual relationships teachers reported seeking or sharing with
parents align with research-based paradigms? Specifically, the researcher drew on the
work of Epstein (2011), whose framework of overlapping spheres of influence illustrates
the importance of collaborative partnership to the productiveness of parent-teacher
relationships. Epstein asserts that such a partnership is important to school success
throughout the student’s K-12 career. Blue-Banning et al. (2004) identified the essential
components of collaborative relationships (commitment, communication, equality, trust,
skill, respect). The researcher also examined whether the type of role construction a
teacher held influenced the likelihood that he/she would aspire to, or succeed at, building
a true partnership with parents.
Structural Constraints. The researcher examined whether the perceptions of the
principal about the parent-teacher relationship had an impact on the ways teachers
constructed their roles and the roles of their students’ parents in these relationships. For
example, do administrators’ beliefs about the relative importance of the parent-teacher
relationship to middle school student academic success influence teachers’ efforts to
build productive relationships with parents? Also, do administrators’ views on the ideal
85
parent-teacher relationship have an impact on how teachers construct their roles and
those of the parents in their relationships with each other?
Sanders and Sheldon (2009) found that principals supported partnerships between
parents and teachers through the types of school climates they created. High trust,
collaborative school environments were conducive to building high-trust, collaborative
relationships between parents and teachers. Similarly, Gordon and Louis (2009) found
that when principals modeled shared power with teachers, teachers were more likely to
share power with parents. Therefore, this study examined the types of relationships the
principal modeled with teachers and parents in order to learn about the impact of school
climate on teachers’ efforts to build relationships with parents.
Miretzky (2004) found teachers believed that school leadership and support was
necessary to their efforts to build relationships with parents. Teachers indicated that they
followed their principal’s lead in regard to how they spent their time. If the principal
expressed that building parent-teacher relationships should be made a priority, teachers
implied that they would do so. Therefore, this study examined teacher perceptions to
determine the effect of the principal’s beliefs and practices on their abilities to develop
relationships with their students’ parents.
When Nakagawa (2000) studied parent-school compacts, she found that the
compacts expressed the school’s position regarding the appropriate role for the parent
and teacher in the student’s learning. According to her findings, parent-school compacts
are an example of school or district policy that reflects the perceptions of either the
administrator or the school community about what constitutes the ideal parent-teacher
relationship. According to her findings, the role constructions described in the school
86
compact used at the research site can be assumed to reflect the principal’s and/or the
school’s role construction for parent and teacher in their relationships with each other.
Nagakawa warned that compacts might convey messages about parent and teacher
responsibilities that are not conducive to productive parent-teacher collaborations.
Conclusion
Exploration of the role of teachers’ self-efficacy and role constructions, as well as
the principal’s role construction, in regard to building relationships with parents was
undertaken for the purpose of better understanding the supports and impediments
teachers experience when building relationships with parents. The research presented in
this chapter has established the importance of the parent-teacher relationship to student
school success and has established the potential for improved parent-teacher relationships
to aid underserved students. The next chapter outlines the methodology that was used to
explore the research questions.

87
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design, site and participant selection,
instrumentation, and methods of data collection and analysis used for this study. The
purpose of the study was to investigate teacher perceptions of the impact of efficacy and
role construction on parent-teacher relationships, as well as the interplay between the
principal’s and teachers’ role constructions for parents and teachers. The data collected
will help administrators and future researchers determine the best ways to support parent-
teacher relationships, given the importance of these relationships to student success in
school (Adams & Christenson, 2002; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hughes & Kwok, 2007;
Xu & Guliosino, 2006). The study was based on the conceptual framework presented in
Chapter Two and has sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teachers’
ability to build productive relationships with parents?
2. What is the relationship between teachers' role constructions for
themselves and their students' parents in regard to their relationship
with each other? How do those role constructions compare to the
relationships they believe they have with parents?
3. How is the principal’s role construction for parents and teachers in their
relationships with each other reflected in the way teachers construct
these roles?
Research Design
A qualitative case study was conducted with two units of analysis: teacher
perceptions and the relationship between the teacher’s perceptions and principal’s
88
perceptions. A qualitative methodology was chosen, which examined “how people make
sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (Merriam, 2009, p. 13).
That is, the purpose of the study was not to establish cause and effect, but to understand
teachers’ perceptions and experiences of developing relationships with parents.
A qualitative study was the appropriate design for this research because the
information sought was “thick, rich description” (Patton, 2002, p. 437), rather than
dichotomous or statistical data. The descriptions attempted to place the reader in the
position of the interviewee, from which perspective the reader might gain deep
understanding of, for example, how it felt to be a teacher in a specific context when
attempting to build a relationship with parents. The purpose of the study was not to prove
or disprove a theory, but to investigate the factors at play between teacher self-efficacy,
teacher role construction for themselves and parents, and the principal’s role construction
for parents and teachers in the parent-teacher relationship. Data were gathered through
the use of open-ended queries that allowed for the emergence of unanticipated factors.
The description that was forthcoming provided far richer detail than statistics would
have.
Sampling was purposeful; site selection criteria were developed to ensure that the
studied school represented situations that were likely to be information-rich and common
to a great number of readers. The purpose of this goal was to maximize the potential for
findings to be relevant to the largest possible number of people. This particular case
study examined a school with a primarily low-income, high-minority population, sizable
subgroups that are traditionally low performing and that also tend not to enjoy productive
89
relationships with teachers (Hughes, Gleason, & Zhang, 2005; Hughes & Kwok, 2007;
Joshi et al., 2005; Kim, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Pena, 2000; Saft & Pianta, 2001).
The original intention was to examine the experiences of five teachers at each of
three middle schools that matched the site selection criteria, as well as the beliefs of the
principals at these sites, and then conduct a cross-case analysis to determine the effects of
external factors on teachers’ perceived abilities to develop relationships with parents at
that school. After choosing the sites and gathering data from principal, teachers, and
documents at each site, two themes emerged. First, the quality of the study would be
improved if the number of included sites was reduced. Second, the appropriate focus was
not on school policies and practices, but on the role construction of the principal in regard
to the roles of parent and teacher in their relationships with each other.
After having collected data at three sites, and observing the richness of the data
collected, it appeared that the results of the study would be more valuable if it only
concentrated on the findings collected at one site, rather than comparing three. Therefore,
the site was chosen that provided the best example of a school that had invested heavily
in supporting parent-teacher relationships. This allowed for more in-depth single case
analysis of each teacher, which also set the foundation for a richer cross-case analysis,
comparing the perceptions, background, and experiences of teachers to each other.
Second, the original intention was to study the impact of school policy and
practice on teachers’ perceived abilities to develop relationships with parents. However,
teachers overwhelmingly reported that administrative beliefs and practices had the
greatest impact on their abilities to develop relationships with parents. Therefore, because
the principal’s role construction appeared to be the major influence on implemented
90
school policies and practices, the principal’s role construction became the focus, and
school policies and practices were only examined as an expression of the principal’s and
school’s role construction for parents and teachers.
This research was undertaken with the hope of improving educational practice
(Merriman, 2009). That is, the findings of this study will inform administrative and
school policy and practice for the purposes of more effectively supporting teachers in
their efforts to reach out to parents for the benefit of students. The intended audience is
researchers, teachers, and administrators.
Site Selection Criteria. This study was conducted at a comprehensive,
neighborhood middle school, serving students in grades 6 through 8. The school had
received an Academic Performance Index (API) score of 790 in 2010 and all subgroups
had made Adequate Yearly Progress for 2010 and for the prior 3 years. The school API
had increased 142 points in the past four years. This site was selected in order to
determine whether teachers perceived their relationships with parents had contributed to
this academic success and whether or how they believed school policies and practices
may have contributed. This study does not attempt to draw connections between efforts
to build and sustain parent-teacher relationships and student achievement. However, staff
perceptions regarding the impact of school policy and practice on relationship building
with parents is of potential value if what they learned is transferrable to similar
environments.
Because existing research suggests that ethnic, socio-economic, or linguistic
differences between teachers and parents can present potential barriers to the
establishment of the parent-teacher relationship (Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Joshi et al.,
91
2005; Kim, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Pena, 2000; Saft & Pianta, 2001), a site was
selected with the expectation that it would allow for examination of these conditions. The
student demographics of the selected site were as follows:
• 83% of all students qualified for Free or Reduced Lunch,
• 25% of students were classified as English Language Learners, and
• 95% of students were ethnic minorities
• 84% were Hispanic or Latino
Because the teaching staff of the typical American public school is primarily middle
class, English-speaking, and Caucasian (Lightfoot, 2004), it was expected that a research
site with a large minority student population would allow for the examination of cultural
differences between teachers and parents. However, at least three of the five teacher
participants spoke Spanish and expressed familiarity with Hispanic culture. Therefore,
the goal of studying cultural and linguistic differences was not realized.
Low-income students and those representing certain minority groups have been
found to have the greatest potential to benefit from improved parent-teacher relationships
(Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Hill, et al., 2004). Because 83% of the students at the research
site qualified for free- or reduced-lunch, this provided the opportunity to study
relationships between parents and teachers who were socio-economically different from
each other. Low-income families are likely to lack resources that affect their child’s
learning or the ability to communicate with the teacher. Although socio-economic
differences were not the focus of the study, the challenges teachers experienced that
related to a parent’s lack of resources are addressed in Chapter Four.
92
Middle schools can benefit from this study because of the very limited amount of
existing research about middle school parent-teacher relationships and how they can have
an impact on student success (Crosnoe, 2009; Hill & Taylor, 2004). The range of
variation in teacher beliefs about the importance, and the desired role construction, of the
parent-teacher relationship in middle school is greater than in elementary school
(Seitsinger et al., 2008). Furthermore, the quality of the parent-teacher relationship tends
to decline during the middle school years (Barber & Olsen, 2004; Gutman & Midgley,
2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2005). Understanding why this occurs and what can
mitigate this trend is critical to improving middle school students’ success in school.
A site was chosen that 1) serves student groups having the greatest need for
improved parent-teacher relationships (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Hill et al., 2004) and 2)
represents the most common type of school for these student groups. That is, the majority
of American middle schools are comprehensive public neighborhood schools, rather than
private, charter, magnet, alternative, or other kinds of schools. This study examined
comprehensive neighborhood schools and what teachers perceive help or hinder the
building of productive parent-teacher relationships in these schools because these
institutions presently make up the bulk of the learning environments of low-achieving
students.
Participant Selection Criteria. The foci of this study were the principal and
teachers. Five teachers were voluntarily recruited by the principal to participate in the
study. Sixth grade permanent, full-time language arts teachers were the preferred
participants. The actual participants taught Language Arts and either Social Studies or
English Language Development. However, two taught sixth grade, one taught seventh
93
grade, one taught eighth grade, and one taught both seventh and eighth grade students
and was also a sixth grade Instructional Coach. All were veteran teachers, having taught
between 7 and 42 years. The variety of grade levels represented did not offer the
opportunity that was originally hoped for to more thoroughly study the parent-teacher
relationship as it relates to the transition between elementary school and middle school.
Instead, this variation did provide the opportunity to explore whether or how teachers’
perceptions of their relationships with parents differed based on the students’ grade level.
Data Collection
Teacher perceptions were gathered primarily through semi-structured, in-person
interviews and through document review. Data collection at the research site took
approximately one month to complete. Interviews were conducted at a time and place
convenient for the participants, which, in the teachers’ cases, was their classroom either
during the planning period or immediately after school. The researcher was the sole
instrument of data collection. An interview of the principal was conducted first, which
provided information about his beliefs and practices and about the school policies and
practices.
Administrator Interview. Data collection began by conducting a face-to-face
interview of the principal. This interview lasted a little more than one hour and was
audio recorded with permission of the principal. An interview protocol designed
specifically for this interview was utilized, and notes taken during and immediately after
the interview provided a backup record. The purpose of interviewing the administrator
was to determine
94
• the administrator’s beliefs about the value of parent-teacher relationships to
student learning,
• the administrator’s beliefs about the ideal components of the parent-teacher
relationship, and
• the school practices and policies in place that may have influenced teachers’
efforts to build productive parent-teacher relationships.
Teacher Interviews. After the administrator was interviewed, one-on-one face-to-
face teacher interviews were conducted. Data collected from the interviews consisted of
“direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions, feelings, and
knowledge” (Patton, 2002, p. 4). Each teacher interview lasted between 45 and 70
minutes. Teachers were contacted by e-mail with follow-up questions seeking
clarification or information that was missed during the interview.
The interviews were audio recorded with the written permission of the
interviewee. Notes taken during and after the interview provided a backup record.
Teachers were questioned regarding professional background, beliefs, and perceptions of
ideal, and their actual, relationships with parents. They were also questioned about their
experiences and behaviors in regard to these relationships, and their perceptions of how
school policies and practices supported or impeded their efforts to build productive
parent-teacher relationships.
Interviews were the predominant data collection method because neither surveys
nor observations provide the flexibility needed to pursue understanding of teachers’
unique experiences and perceptions. The flow of the interview process provided the
freedom to capture this uniqueness, because it allowed for tailoring questions to
95
individual need. A survey was not administered because, even when survey questions are
open-ended, they do not offer the flexibility to add or change questions as the need arises,
as an interview format does. The full description provided from the “emic,” or insider,
perspective allowed the reader to put him/herself in the place of the interviewee, allowing
that reader to form his/her own opinions about the relevancy of the interviewee’s
situation to their own school environment (Merriam, 2009, p. 29; Patton, 2002).
Likewise, use of an interview guide ensured that each topic would be addressed
by each participant; yet, the wording and the order of questions remained flexible. Most
questions were open-ended. These open-ended queries could be modified to the needs of
the particular interview and were, therefore, less restrictive than a list of pre-established,
specific questions. Protocols were better suited than a more highly structured interview
instrument to drawing out a full description from a small sample of participants and were
most likely to provide deep understanding of teachers’ experiences (Patton, 2002).
After each interview was conducted, the interview was transcribed verbatim and
typed into a computer text file. The transcription was stored digitally and by hard copy in
a vertical file. Backup copies of both the hard copy and computer file were made. The
interviewer transcribed all interviews. Hand-written interview notes were typed, copied,
and stored.
Document Collection. After the administrative interview was conducted,
document collection began. Data collected from documents were “excerpts, quotations,
or entire passages (Patton, 2002, p. 4) that related to the research questions. The relevant
documents included the school vision statement and mission statement, Family-School
compact, Teacher Expectations document, Student Handbook, Parent Handbook, and the
96
school’s Strategic Plan. Document collection was a chosen data collection method
because these documents were easily accessible and yielded information that would have
been difficult or impossible to obtain another way (Merriam, 2007). All documents, or
their relevant sections, were numbered, photo copied, and optically scanned. Document
data were examined in a manner similar to that used to examine interview data.
Data Analysis
After data collection was complete, analysis of document and interview data was
conducted. A single-case analysis was conducted of each teacher’s responses. Then, the
data collected from each teacher, the principal, and documents were examined,
compared, and interpreted to obtain a detailed picture of the school, its policies, practices,
and climate, as it related to building relationships between parents and teachers. All data
were analyzed for their relevancy to the conceptual framework.
The single-case analyses were conducted in such a manner that information from
each participant was recorded in a matrix organized by theme. The themes were the
elements of a collaborative relationship, as identified by Blue-Banning et al. (2004), as
well as the following: school climate, school activities, parent role, teacher role, and
description of actual parent-teacher relationships. Documents were reviewed, and
relevant data were noted and coded for later use.
The data were examined for several potential indicators of teacher self-efficacy.
One potential indicator was how confidently a teacher described his/her perceived ability
to build relationships with students’ parents. Also, when a teacher expressed confidence
about overcoming situations other teachers experienced as insurmountable impediments
to building relationships with parents, and especially when he/she described specific
97
methods used to resolve these issues, this was considered an example of high self-
efficacy. Furthermore, when a teacher described indicators of his/her perceived
productive relationship with parents, such as a high percentage of parent attendance at an
activity, and attributed these positive outcomes at least in part to his/her own efforts, this
was considered an indication of the teacher’s high self-efficacy.
The data were also examined for evidence of the ways in which the teacher and
principal constructed the teachers’ and parents’ role in their relationships with each other.
What the teacher considered to be the ideal components of the parent-teacher
relationship, whether or how he/she believed the relationship between parent and teacher
has influenced student success in school, and what the teacher perceived to be the
purpose of communication between parent and teacher all provided evidence of how the
teacher understood the role of the parent and the teacher in their relationship with each
other. Also, descriptions of teacher practices and teacher interactions with parents also
provided evidence. How the principal’s role construction for parents and teachers
influenced teachers’ role constructions was also examined.
Data interpretation was conducted after the process of coding and analyzing.
Patton (2002) defines interpretation of data as “attaching significance to what was found,
making sense of findings, offering explanations, drawing conclusions, extrapolating
lessons, making inferences, considering meanings, and otherwise imposing order on an
unruly, but surely patterned world” (p. 480). Having sought to correctly capture the
principal’s and teachers’ understandings, these perspectives were once again considered
in light of the conceptual framework and in regard to their internal consistency, their
consistency with existing knowledge, and their potential usefulness to readers (Stake,
98
2010). Finally, the findings that emerged from data analysis were represented in narrative
form (Creswell, 2008).
Validity and Reliability
In order for the findings of this study to be useful to others, they must be deemed
trustworthy. Trustworthiness can be measured in terms of the validity and reliability of
the data. This study was designed and conducted in such a way as to ensure, as much as
possible, the validity and reliability of the findings. It is not the goal of this study to judge
the accuracy of teacher perceptions; the intention is to accurately convey them.
Several steps were taken to encourage the credibility, or internal validity, of the
data. Merriam (2009) defines internal validity by asking the question, “How congruent
are the findings with reality?” (p. 213). Although reality cannot be proven, the goal of the
researcher is to come to a conclusion that makes sense in light of the collected data and to
ensure that the documentation of the data accurately reflects the perceived reality of the
participant. One strategy for testing internal validity used in this study was the use of
member checks. After each interview was transcribed, the participant was asked to
review the transcript of their interview to check accuracy and to correct
misinterpretations. At that time, the researcher also solicited any needed clarification
regarding the contents of the transcript. Interviews of all five teachers generated enough
data that saturation was reached in regard to understanding the influences on the building
of parent-teacher relationships. Merriam defines saturation as that point when “you begin
to see or hear the same things over and over again” (2009, p. 219). This provided a sort
of triangulation of data. In addition, in order to guard against misinterpretation and bias,
the researcher continued to seek out data that might support alternative explanations
99
while remaining open to all possibilities. Data analysis is also subject to review by the
dissertation committee, whose duty it is to identify possible misinterpretations and
researcher bias. Finally, while in the process of analyzing data, the researcher remained
mindful of personal bias in favor of the value of collaboration, born from having positive
parent-teacher experiences that were collaborative in nature and from knowing and
working with collaborative administrators who were positive and effective role models.
According to Merriam (2009), in qualitative research, reliability has to do with
whether the findings are “dependable” or “consistent” (p. 221). One way consistency was
developed was through conducting pilot interviews. These interviews provided practice
with interview skills and allowed opportunities to try out and refine the accuracy, focus,
and clarity of the questions. Also, only one interviewer was used for all interviews, which
contributed to consistency of interpretation. Finally, a maintenance log or “audit trail”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 222) was maintained that documented the data collection and analysis
process, including names, dates and times, and the actions, questions, and decisions that
occurred along the way.
A third goal of this study was to ensure, as much as possible, the external validity,
or the “transferability” or usefulness of the findings to other situations (Merriam, 2009, p.
223). According to Merriam (2009), the purpose of qualitative studies is not to prove
generalizability; rather, it is to provide description that is detailed enough to allow the
reader to assess the similarity or dissimilarity of the sample site to their own environment
and to make an educated guess about the transferability of the findings to their own
situation. Interviews were chosen as the primary data collection method, precisely
because it allowed the flexibility to obtain the “rich, thick description” from which a
100
reader can determine the relevancy of the findings to themselves (Merriam, 2009, p.
227).
Conclusion
This study focused on teacher perceptions and the principal’s perceptions in
regard to productive parent-teacher relationships. The conceptual framework outlined in
Chapter 2 guided this study. Data collection began upon passage of the Qualifying Exam
and approval of the IRB. Chapter Four provides the results from the data that were
collected in order to answer the research questions for this study.

101
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived impact of structural
factors on the building of relationships between middle school parents and teachers.
Previous chapters have introduced the problem of how to support these relationships for
the greatest benefit of students. Existing literature has been presented that explored
relationship building between parents and teachers. Also, the methodology utilized for
this study has been established. In this chapter, the findings from collected data are
examined to provide insight regarding the research questions upon which this study has
been built.
This qualitative study was conducted by collecting data through interviews and
document analysis. The units of analysis were teachers’ perceptions and the interplay
between the perceptions of principal and teachers. The principal and five middle school
teachers were interviewed. School documents were examined to provide context through
which to best understand teacher input. For the purposes of ensuring anonymity,
pseudonyms are utilized in place of teacher and principal names.
In this chapter, the findings that emerged from the data are presented and
organized according to the relevant aspect of the conceptual framework. These findings
reveal how teachers’ self-efficacy and role construction influence their abilities to
develop productive relationships with parents. Also, the findings regarding the impact of
the way the principal constructed the parents’ and teachers’ roles in their relationships
with each other will be presented.

102
Finding #1
Middle school teachers’ level of self-efficacy can mediate barriers to building
productive parent-teacher relationships. (Bandura, 1989)
According to Bandura (1989), a person’s behavior is influenced not only by
external factors, but also by his/her efficacy, or perceived ability to create change. When
a person experiences circumstances that are challenging, the person’s perception that
he/she has the ability to influence or overcome the circumstances has an impact on
his/her willingness to try. Furthermore, when a person believes he/she has the power to
succeed, that person is more likely to act in ways that will produce the desired outcome
(Bandura, 1989).
Likewise, the data revealed middle school teachers’ self-efficacy influenced their
perceived ability to build productive relationships with parents. Teachers with higher
self-efficacy perceived fewer barriers to developing relationships with parents than a
teacher with lower self-efficacy. Furthermore, how teachers demonstrated high self-
efficacy differed, with one teacher perceiving an insurmountable barrier where another
teacher did not. Four teachers communicated high self-efficacy and described generally
positive results in regard to their abilities to develop productive relationships with
parents. The fifth teacher expressed low self-efficacy and described less productive
relationships with her students’ parents than the other teachers. This chapter presents the
unique ways each teacher demonstrated higher self-efficacy or lack of efficacy and how
that condition influenced her relationship with parents.
Ms. Molino: “Outreach to parents builds parent involvement.” Ms. Molino’s
reports of her relationships with her students’ parents suggested that she possessed a high
level of self-efficacy; she believed she possessed the ability to build parent involvement
103
through communication with parents. According to Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005), a
teacher’s outreach to parents can positively affect parents’ involvement in their child’s
learning. Similarly, when Ms. Molino consistently communicated with her students’
parents, and invited them to do likewise, she believed that these efforts contributed to
their high level of commitment to their relationship with her and to helping their child be
successful in school.
Ms. Molino described her students’ parents as interested and supportive people
who valued education; she believed that the supportiveness of her parents was due, in
part, to her efforts to communicate with them. She stated, “I don’t have any problems
with my set of students and parents…This year, it’s ideal.” She added, “Parents are really
good about calling me back, returning phone calls, here, um, notes; they’ll respond to
me.” She believed that her efforts to communicate with parents increased their
involvement: “It doesn’t seem like they get involved in the beginning, but once we take
the time to reach out to them, then they’re very involved.” Her parents’ attendance at
Parent-Teacher Conferences bears this out; one hundred percent of her students’ families
participated. Ms. Molino believed that her efforts to communicate with parents
contributed to her parents’ commitment to their students’ education.
Just as Hoover-Dempsey found that communicating to parents a desire for their
involvement in their child’s learning can contribute to building productive parent-teacher
relationships, Ms. Molino also communicated to parents her desire to work in partnership
with them. She stated:
Me, parent involvement is extremely important. I’m going to push for parent
involvement. I’m going to try to get the parent involved in any way I can. So, I
think the parents have been responsive to my effort to reach them.

104
Ms. Molino stated, “If a parent can’t meet me until 5:30, I think I need to wait for that
parent to come until 5:30, because it’s very important to have a relationship with the
parent.” This commitment is expressed through her communication practices.
Ms. Molino utilized a variety of modes for communication with parents. Hornby
and Witte (2010) found that offering a variety of communication modes allows parents to
choose the medium they preferred. Although maintaining multiple communication
avenues can add significantly to the teacher’s workload, it is optimal for creating
communication patterns with parents. Ms. Molino communicated with parents through
weekly updates, daily use of student planners, bi-weekly progress reports, and as-needed
face-to-face meetings. Parent contact was not simply for the purposes of addressing
problems. Every week, she rotated through class rosters, selecting the next five students
on each class list as her “focus group.” Parents of each of these students received either a
phone call or a note home. Parent signatures were required on any notes, progress
reports, or graded tests sent home for parental perusal. Her e-mail address, and home and
school phone numbers were also supplied so parents could contact her. She ensured that
even those parents without computer or phone access were updated weekly and received
individual communication with her periodically.
Ms. Molino’s high self-efficacy in regard to communicating with parents may
also have been positively affected by her professional knowledge and skills. Farrell and
Collier (2010) found that productive communication with parents is dependent in part on
the knowledge and skills of the educator. Ms. Molino expressed satisfaction with her
current teaching and classroom management methods, and offered specific details about
her behavior plan, curriculum, and intervention strategies. She believed these factors
105
contributed to the involvement of her parents and conjectured that the success of the
curriculum she was piloting may explain why she enjoyed particularly positive
relationships with parents this year. “I really think it’s the curriculum. I love this
curriculum and they [the students] are very interested in, like, the topics we discuss…”
She believed, not simply that happy and successful students created happy parents, but
that it was important to keep parents informed about what was happening in the
classroom. By communicating to parents what happened in the classroom and why, she
believed she was able to build support. She stated:
I think, if we educate parents about what we’re doing or what we’re trying to do
with the students in the classroom, I think it motivates them…I think they’re more
likely to even want to get involved, or even want to help the student, because they
kind of, and I’ve seen it, I’ve seen parents get excited about what the, you know,
what the students are doing in the classroom.

In this statement, Ms. Molino expressed confidence that, when parents know what
happens in her classroom, it can build their enthusiasm for, and confidence in, the
education process or what it can do for their child. Through Ms. Molino’s robust routines
for communicating with her students’ parents, it is likely that the parents gained a sense
of Ms. Molino’s competence as an educator, which may have contributed to their level of
trust in her.
Ms. Molino expressed a high level of efficacy in regard to her ability to reach
hard-to-contact parents. She explained:
I used to be a, a finance, a financial consultant, so I’m really good at, like, …to
find people…If I can’t find them, I’ll call the Grandma, then I’ll call the
Aunt…I’ll try to get a working number for them…and, if I can’t, we’ll write a
note home. If there’s no response through letter, then, I, it’ll go to the next step,
which would be to the office… If need be, they will go to the house and see
what’s going on, or…“Hey, can I get….a working phone number?”

106
She believed her persistence contributed to the responsiveness of her parents. However, it
is unclear whether her outreach was effective because it created a welcoming
environment in which parents felt comfortable responding, or whether it created a sense
of obligation.
Ms. Molino’s efficacy revealed itself in her enthusiasm for communicating with
parents and in the efforts she made and the strategies she used to involve parents in the
student’s learning process. For her, making parent contact was not considered a daunting
task, nor did she find it difficult to build parental support for what she was doing in the
classroom. Furthermore, when asked what she found to be a barrier to building
relationships with parents, she could not think of any. Her confidence in her ability to
communicate with parents and to develop relationships with them has mediated what
other teachers might consider barriers to developing relationships with parents. She
believed that her communication with parents has contributed to building the positive,
although traditional, relationships she reported sharing with parents.
Ms. Tapia: “Providing support to a parent can positively impact the
teacher’s relationship with the parent and the student’s success in school.” The data
show Ms. Tapia has demonstrated high self-efficacy in regard to her teaching abilities
and to her ability to act as a supportive partner to parents. She believed that parents are
essential to the education of their children and that she must work with parents for the
students’ benefit. The most common barrier she reported to creating productive
partnerships with parents was some parents’ lack of parenting skills. However, evidence
suggests that she was often able to overcome this barrier by providing guidance to
parents and helping them become more effective in their parenting roles.
107
Ms. Tapia communicated a high level of self-efficacy when she reported that she
enjoyed positive relationships with her students’ parents. She stated, “I’ve never had an
issue when it came to parent relationships.” This may be, in part, due to the skill she has
amassed in the classroom and with developing relationships with parents over her 42-
year career. What she liked most about these relationships, she stated, is “how long they
last” and what she liked least was that she got invited to things and “it’s kind of hard to
say ‘No.’” Evidence of her success in building relationships with parents was their high
rate of attendance at Parent Teacher Conferences, with 100% of families participating.
Her high self-efficacy was apparent from her stated belief that her support of parents was
important to her success in building these relationships with them, relationships that often
grew to extend beyond school hours or the school year.
Even after over forty years of teaching, and with the skills that accompany that
amount of experience, Ms. Tapia was convinced that her teaching efforts alone were
insufficient to produce successful students; involvement of parents is necessary to their
successful education. Addressing the importance of parent involvement, she asked:
Without their support and cooperation, what do I have? They’re the first parents,
I’m the second. And, if we both don’t work together on the same, and have the
same beliefs and the same…if we don’t weigh education in the same way, then
we’re going to have a problem and we’re not going to get him or her anywhere.

In this statement, she may have been alluding to how important it is for the student to
hear the same, rather than conflicting, messages, from parent and teacher. She also may
have been addressing the importance to parents and teachers of having a common goal in
order to successfully work together. Her statement reflected a belief that the teacher’s
role is, in part, that of “school-time parent” and that gaining the parents’ cooperation is a
necessary part of the teacher’s role.
108
Ms. Tapia’s understanding of her responsibilities in regard to the parent is in
agreement with the “overlapping spheres of influence” framework that Epstein (2010)
provides as a model for highly effective relationships between parents, schools, and
community. Ms. Tapia has manifested the shared responsibility implicit in this model by
assisting with the parenting role. She also expected parents to assist with the role of
supporting the child’s education by having high academic expectations for their student
and by holding the student accountable for their school responsibilities.
Ms. Tapia provided an example of how she believed she was able to help a parent
with parenting responsibilities. She told about a hard-to-contact parent who lived out-of-
town on weekdays, during which time the student lived with Grandma. Ms. Tapia
persisted in her efforts to make contact with the mother and then, once she established
contact, helped the mother and grandmother agree on a system through which she would
be able to contact one of them in the event of the student’s misbehavior. Once that was
established, the student’s behavior and grades began to improve. Ms. Tapia’s high self-
efficacy and her willingness to grapple with this family-related challenge resulted in
better relationships with this parent; it also benefited the student.
The most common barrier to working with parents that she reported confronting
was a lack of parenting skills by some mothers, fathers, and other guardians. She
explained, “A lot of the parents that I have, I have to teach the parenting skills, because
some of them don’t know what a consequence is.” She explained that many of her
parents were very young. She also suggested that some parents’ lack of confidence might
be due to fear of cultural differences. She stated, “…a lot of my parents seem to be afraid
to, um, correct behavior…or, not sure how much they can do…. sometimes I think
109
they’re afraid of society labeling them as bad parents if they correct behavior.” Because
two of Ms. Tapia’s classes consisted entirely of English Language Learners, many of her
students were relatively new to this country and its culture. “You have some parents,
who…I don’t think they have confidence in themselves as parents.” She perceived this
as a barrier to working together with parents to hold students accountable.
Even though Ms. Tapia reported that parents’ lack of parenting skills is a common
barrier she confronts, she expressed a high level of efficacy regarding her ability to
overcome this barrier. She provided an example involving a student who began a habit of
leaving home without asking her mother’s permission. Ms. Tapia stated:
She never gives me any trouble, but she had been doing, like, taking off from
home and not letting her Mom know. Because her Mom was working, she figured
she could do whatever she wants. Those kinds of things, that’s the kind of things
that we talk about and I give them [the parent] my own personal stuff and I think
that builds their confidence.

Ms. Tapia expressed a high level of efficacy, believing that, by drawing from her own
personal experiences to provide guidance to the mother, she was able to empower her.
Even though the problem this parent and teacher solved together did not involve the
student’s education, both Ms. Tapia and the student were likely to benefit. At the very
least, in all likelihood, it created goodwill between the parent and herself.
Ms. Tapia believed that building a relationship with her students’ parents was
essential to her ability to educate the student. Not only did she believe this relationship
building was necessary; she believed it was possible. She was particularly efficacious in
regard to her ability to communicate with parents and help them become more effective.
Her efforts resulted in perceived productive and long-lasting relationships with parents.

110
Ms. Freeman: “Building trust facilitates relationships with parents.” Ms.
Freeman sought to establish relationships with her students’ parents by earning their
trust. Her high level of efficacy regarding her ability to earn this trust was evident in her
efforts to build partnerships with parents through which to support the student’s success.
She believed it was important for her students’ parents to know that she cared about their
child, believed in their child’s ability to succeed, and was committed to their child’s
success. She described limited opportunities to meet face-to-face with parents as an
impediment to her ability to do the best possible job of serving her students. She also
considered it an impediment to her ability to form deeper relationships with the students’
families. However, data show her parents were supportive and responsive.
Ms. Freeman believed that her ability to build trusting relationships with parents
has contributed to the productive relationships she reports enjoying with them. She
stated, “I find that 100% of my parents are, um, into education, value education.” This
statement implies that the parents were supportive of the goal of educating the student.
She also reported, “I know that I have the support of all my parents” and she also
described her students’ parents as being very responsive. “If I call a parent, they’re
usually here by the next day, if, if need be.” These statements imply that the parents were
not simply fans of education; they were positive about her and about the job she is doing.
Ms. Freeman believed this was an outcome of her efforts to build relationships with
them.
Ms. Freeman provided numerous examples of parent-initiated communications
that supported her claim that her students’ parents were self-motivated to support their
child’s education. She stated, “Last week, I had a parent e-mail me about student
111
progress…normally, that’s the kind of e-mails I’m getting.” This parent was self-
motivated to help the student succeed, initiating contact with the teacher, rather than
simply acting in response to her. There was no evidence that Ms. Freeman had to “sell”
her agenda to her students’ parents to create this motivation. This suggests they
considered education a priority before she became their child’s teacher. One of Ms.
Freeman’s two cores consisted of students who had scored Advanced or Proficient on
state exams, and some had been identified as qualified for Gifted and Talented (GATE)
services. Clark (1993) found that parents of high achievers tended to be more active in
the education of their child than other parents, which suggests that the parents of students
in her high-achieving core may have been predisposed to support their child’s education.
Also, because she had already known some of her families prior to the beginning of the
school year, her high expectations may have attracted parents who shared her agenda.
She stated”
…some of my students…I had them as second graders. So,… I already have a
little bit of a relationship with them. So, or, I’m having siblings of them, coming
back to me, so they already kind of know what to expect…

Because many families knew about her high expectations in advance, and because she
perceived her parents as supportive, this suggests they may have chosen her as a teacher
or, at least been satisfied with their child’s assignment to her class. These external factors
may explain why many of her parents appear to have shared her goals for students from
the start. This common ground may have contributed to her successful trust-building and
relationship-building with parents.
Adams and Christenson (2000) found that communication was the best method
for establishing the trust of parents. Likewise, Ms. Freeman believed that her open
112
communication with parents helped to build their trust. Ms. Freeman communicated with
parents through weekly e-mailed updates, progress reports that were sent home bi-weekly
for failing students and every four weeks for others, weekly grade postings, and daily
phone calls to parents as needed. The information exchanged during the frequent
communication may have contributed to building the trust of parents by creating a degree
of transparency. It also may have reassured parents by giving them the sense that they
would be informed if a problem arose.
According to Blue-Banning et al. (2004), a collaborative relationship between
parent and teacher requires an element of caring, not simply between teacher and student,
but also between teacher and parent. Similarly, Ms. Freeman stated her desire to build a
long-term relationship with her students’ parents. That is, she expressed an interest in
knowing the parent for that purpose alone, not only for their value in regard to helping
with the education of the student. However, she articulated that every parent-teacher
relationship is different:
Some of my parents have my personal cell phone number and they’ll text me a
question if they have it…there are some parents I wouldn’t trust with my cell
phone number, because I wouldn’t know what they would do …there are some
parents I would hang out with…in the past on the weekends, and we’d go to
Disneyland.

Even though Ms. Freeman has expressed an interest in getting to know all of her parents,
she is aware that each parent-teacher relationship will look different and that she is not
entirely in control of the results of her efforts to build relationships with her students’
parents. Also, even though she has not been able to realize a long-term relationship with
all of her students’ parents, her interest in getting to know them demonstrated an assets-
113
based approach, in which she saw her parents as having a value beyond their ability to
support their child’s education.
Ms. Freeman reported that she had the hardest time building relationships with
parents who were confrontational at first. “If you’re calling them, I try to always start off
with a positive…I send positive notes home as much as I can.” Beginning with a positive
statement demonstrated that she saw the child as an asset, and believed in him/her. By
countering the negative tone from the parent with a positive one, she seeks to transform a
potentially argumentative conversation into a constructive one. This example shows that,
even in the cases she found to be the most difficult, she had a strategy for overcoming
opposition.
Limited opportunity to meet with parents face-to-face was a barrier she reportedly
was unsuccessful in overcoming. She stated, “I would like to see a lot more of my
parents…to foster that relationship with them or get to know them more...more about
them, versus just their child.” She hoped that the number of mandatory parent-teacher
conferences would be increased. Even though she was willing to invest more time and
effort to further her relationships with parents, she believed factors outside of her control
limited this possibility. The same high self-efficacy she brought to other aspects of the
parent-teacher relationship did not appear to extend to the challenge of increasing face-
to-face contact with parents.
Ms. Freeman expressed a high level of self-efficacy in regard to her perceived
ability to build trust with parents by communicating openly. She did not demonstrate the
same high self-efficacy in regard to increasing opportunities to build more of the close
relationships with parents that she desired and that she believed would more greatly
114
benefit her students. Although the preponderance of Ms. Freeman’s parents appeared to
share her high expectations for students, it was her high self-efficacy regarding her
perceived ability to build trust that transformed that shared goal into a partnership with
parents.
Mr. Ortega: Establishing and promoting a clear agenda of high expectations
for students provides a common ground upon which to build productive
relationships with parents. Deslandes and Bertrand (2005) found that parents become
involved in their child’s education when they perceive that teachers and students desire
their involvement. Similarly, Mr. Ortega demonstrated a high level of efficacy about
clearly articulating, even selling to parents, his high expectations for their child and the
importance of their involvement in supporting the academic success of the student. He
then proceeded to build partnerships with parents around this common goal. As a result
of this strategy, he reported overall success in building relationships with parents. He was
unable to think of any major barriers that kept him from developing productive
relationships with parents.
Mr. Ortega believed that his efforts to build common ground with parents and to
encourage their involvement contributed to the positive relationships he reported
enjoying with most parents. He estimated that 80 or 90% of his students’ parents returned
his phone calls promptly. When he sent home progress reports, he requested that the
students return them with parent signatures after they have shown them to parents. He
estimated that an average of 90% were returned. When he requested a meeting with a
parent, “It happens.” He believed parents supported him because “they know I’m on their
115
children’s side.” He believed that this support was cultivated through constant
communication with parents.
Mr. Ortega was efficacious in promoting parents’ involvement in their students’
learning. Mr. Ortega suggested that most of his students’ parents came to him with a
natural appreciation of the value of education. He explained, “All of them believe that,
um, it’s [education] the key to success. And, so, they support, they’re very big on
education.” Roughly one-half of his students are enrolled in English Language
Development, which means that a large number were first-generation immigrants. Mr.
Ortega suggested that many families appreciated education because “…coming from
countries where education is not given…like we have here…it’s their number one goal
for their children to be educated. That’s why they’re here.” According to Mr. Ortega’s
description, he did not need to promote the value of education, but he did actively
promote his high role construction for parent involvement to his students’ parents.
Mr. Ortega verbalized a high level of self-efficacy in regard to his ability to “sell’
parents” on involvement in their child’s education. Mr. Ortega began his efforts to build
an alliance with his students’ parents when he first met them on Back to School Night.
He stated:
I tell my parents at the beginning of the year, and I tell my kids as well…we’re
like a…triangle. There’s three points, and your parents are one, you’re one, and
I’m the other, you know. And complete, we’ll make this triangle and this triangle
will lead you to success…I tell them, the ‘arrow of success’.

Use of this analogy communicated his belief that parents are essential to the process of
educating students and it also communicated his desire to work as a team. It also
communicated his belief in the student’s ability to succeed when all three stakeholders do
their part. He believed that efforts such as this, which communicate to parents not only
116
that he desired their involvement, but also how he believed it should function, have
contributed to his perceived success in building partnerships with parents.
Mr. Ortega expressed a high level of self-efficacy in regard to helping his student
succeed, and he believed this was a common ground he could build on with parents. At
the core of his partnerships with parents was his expectation that every child can be a
success. He explained:
I know that their child has the potential to be successful and I want them [parents]
to know that and to believe that, so that they can…invest in their child and work
with their child, because, you know, I can only do so much here.

He believed in his power to convince parents, when necessary, of their child’s ability to
succeed. In order to realize this success, he communicated to parents what was required
of them. He explained the importance of state exams to the student’s future, the necessity
of making homework a priority, the importance of staying “on top of our students”
because “We need to make sure that you [the student] succeed.” Although he worked to
create a team with parents, the agenda for that team was unilaterally established.
Mr. Ortega believed that he could build productive relationships with parents
through constant communication with them. He made himself available to students and
parents before and after school and during lunch. He communicated with parents through
student planners, and through progress reports sent home every 3 weeks, online grades
updated once or twice a week, and phone calls to parents, a few of which he made every
day. He welcomed parents to visit the classroom at any time without warning, and
frequently set up parent meetings. He believed it was these communications through
which he was able to create the teamwork with parents that he desired and that he
believed the students needed.
117
Mr. Ortega believed that, through communication, he could build a partnership
with parents for holding students accountable. He supported and advised parents when
appropriate, “helping the parent realize that they’re the parent, they’re the ones in charge,
and that they can do this.” In addition to communicating both positive and negative news
about student progress, he also invited parent input. However, for parents with low self-
efficacy, such an invitation may not be sufficient.
Mr. Ortega perceived no major barriers to his efforts to build productive
relationships with parents. Many of his parents worked two jobs, which made it difficult
for them to find time to communicate with the teacher or address student needs.
However, when asked about barriers, his high level of self-efficacy and how it influenced
his mediation of this particular potential barrier became apparent. He stated, “I was going
to say work…but, there’s always a way to communicate and to establish…a relationship
with them.” He reported that, although the majority of his parents were supportive, “Not
all of them [are]. I wish… because then I wouldn’t have some of the low grades that I
have.” This statement reflects his belief that parents truly are essential to their child’s
success in school.
When confronted with the occasional parent who remained unwilling to enter into
a partnership with him, his high self-efficacy appeared to be unaffected. He reported that
some parents have appeared annoyed at his efforts to communicate with them. He stated:
They see it as a bother, and I can tell, because of their short e-mails and their
body language when they’re here. You know they’re upset. They don’t want to be
here, it’s a ‘waste of time’, they had to leave work three hours early…

He clarified, “It’s because they just have so many other things in their lives going on that
it’s hard…” In this statement, he reflected recognition that making time for involvement
118
in their child’s learning is particularly difficult for some parents. Mr. Ortega gave no
evidence of being deterred by such a situation; however, the extent to which he was
willing to work around the parent’s schedule and negotiate communication practices that
worked best for the parent was unclear. In general, his descriptions of his relationship
with his students’ parents provided limited evidence of the give-and-take of an equal
partnership, in which the input and agenda of parents share equally with that of the
teacher.
This teacher was highly efficacious in his communication with parents about the
value of education and about how parents could help their child be successful in school.
His high level of efficacy led him to proactively build a supportive partnership with his
students’ parents and he reportedly enjoyed productive relationships with them. The
relationships he sought to build were essentially traditional and narrow in scope,
revolving around parental support of the school’s agenda of educating the student.
Ms. Good: A teacher with low self-efficacy tends to perceive insurmountable
barriers to building relationships with parents and experiences few productive
relationships with parents. Ms. Good demonstrated a low level of self-efficacy
regarding her perceived ability to build productive relationships with parents. She
believed that she faced many insurmountable external barriers to consistently building
productive relationships with the parents of her students. She expressed a belief that there
was little she could do to create productive relationships with parents and she reported
mixed results in regard to her perceptions of the quality of her relationships with them.
Several factors indicate that, although these results may have been partly due to
119
unfavorable conditions, they were also a reflection of her low self-efficacy and false
assumptions.
Ms. Good reported dissatisfaction with many of her relationships with her
students’ parents and did not believe that she had the power to improve them. She
explained, “A lot of times, they’ll go straight to administration. And they like to yell a
lot. They get very loud.” She did not identify the source of the parents’ complaints or
attempt to explain what might have caused parents to bypass her; she simply saw their
behavior as an indication that she did not have a close relationship with them. She also
indicated that few of her students’ parents attended Parent-Teacher Conferences; out of
the 80 students in her classes, only 32 families were represented. This represented a
significantly lower rate of attendance than that of her colleagues. This was in spite of the
fact that she sent up to three letters to parents in an attempt to set up conference
appointments. She believed that parents’ poor attendance at Parent-Teacher Conferences,
and other signs of absence of support from parents was something that was not within her
ability to influence.
Ms. Good expressed a low level of self-efficacy in regard to her ability to
influence parents’ rate of follow-through. She stated, “Some of them are, the parents say,
‘Yes, Ma’am, we’ll do it’ and ‘He’s going to be punished’ and restrictions and this taken
away and that taken away, and then there’s nothing. There’s no follow-through
whatsoever. Um, there’s parents that I call that …will not call me back.” She reported
that students have told her their parents do not return phone calls when they know the call
is from the school. “…one of my students said, ‘Well, she’s not going to answer the
phone, because she knows it’s you guys.’” This statement reflected either a lack of
120
support for the teacher or for the task of educating the child. These parents may not have
understood their role in regard to the student’s education in the same way that Ms. Good
did. Ms. Good perceived that some parents did not believe they should need to be
involved in their child’s education during the middle school years. She explained:
Um, when they’re eighth grade, a lot of the parents think, “Well, they’re going to
be in high school next year, so they should be able to handle their business here at
school.” That’s what parents have told me. And, oh, you know, “We try to give
them their space” and “We try to let them be responsible for it.”

In this statement, Ms. Good revealed her recognition that the true barrier to developing
relationships with these parents in these cases may lie in how they perceive their role and
responsibilities to the student’s education. However, she did not express any confidence
that she could overcome this barrier by influencing the parent’s beliefs. She did not
report taking a proactive role in addressing this challenge in order to build more
productive relationships with them.
Her lack of efficacy appeared to stem from a lack of confidence that parent
involvement with their child’s education can be influenced or that it is usually a good
thing. She believed that her attempts to communicate with parents sometimes made
things worse for the student. She stated:
It definitely can influence in a negative way. You know, I do have a lot of
students that live with their grandparents. And grandma comes in crying...“I don’t
know what else to do. I don’t know what else to do.” And then the kid sees that
and then just completely shuts down and still won’t do anything.

According to this description, Ms. Good’s efforts to involve Grandma had two
consequences. First, Grandma responded to Ms. Good with expressions of helplessness.
If Grandma were truly without the power to support Ms. Good and the student’s
performance in school, Ms. Good may have saved time by not involving the parent at all.
121
Furthermore, when Grandma communicated helplessness in front of the student, she may
have increased the student’s sense of empowerment, confirming to the student that the
student owned the power, rather than supporting the teacher’s attempts to set limits for
the purposes of improving school performance. By offering this example as evidence that
parent/guardian involvement is not always good for the student, Ms. Good implied that
she was powerless to help Grandma improve her ability to positively influence her
child’s behavior. Perhaps, unlike some of her older colleagues, Ms. Good lacked the
confidence or skills to help the grandmother because she did not have personal
experience with parenting adolescents from which to draw.
Ms. Good’s low self-efficacy was also evident when she reported that she did not
observe much change in her relationships with parents or with student academic success
as a result of her outreach efforts. When asked if she believed relationships between
parents and teacher contributed to the students’ improved achievement scores, she
answered:
I think it’s the relationship between administration and the teachers and
expectations. No so much parental involvement, because, in all honesty, I haven’t
seen improvements of parent and teacher involvement. Or, at least, I know on my
end, there hasn’t been an increase.

Her statements suggested a lack of confidence in her ability to affect parent involvement
or student success through her outreach efforts to parents. Furthermore, Ms. Good could
not explain how she formed relationships with parents. When asked, she simply said, “I
don’t know…they just happen.” Her lack of awareness of how she formed relationships
with parents is an indicator that she was not consciously proactive in her efforts to
develop productive relationships with parents. Both examples confirm Ms. Good’s belief
that she was powerless to build productive relationships with parents.
122
In addition, Ms. Good did not believe that her relationship with the parents of her
students would usually influence her students’ achievement. Instead, she put the
responsibility squarely on the student. She argued that her relationship with students’
parents can influence student achievement, depending on the student, “if that student
actually cares.” These statements reflect a conviction that the parents and she have little
power to motivate students or to control how effective her parent involvement efforts will
be.
Loder-Jackson (2007) found that teachers’ misconceptions can also impede
relationship building with parents. This appears to be the case with Ms. Good. For
example, if Ms. Good believed that students are solely responsible for whether they care,
she would be unlikely to consider it her responsibility to reach out to that student’s
parent. If she believed that productive parent-teacher relationships are a matter of luck
and that parents who “will not call me back” do so because they simply did not bother, or
because their role constructions were immutable, she was unlikely to invest heavily in
relationships that did not develop automatically. In reality, students can benefit when
parents and teachers intercede (Adams & Christenson, 2002; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Xu & Guliosino, 2006), and parents may not return phone calls
for one of a number of reasons. There is no evidence that Ms. Good had gotten to know
her parents, which would have made her better qualified to form opinions about her
students and parents.
Garcia (2004) found that teachers with little confidence in their ability to develop
relationships with parents tended not to try. As suggested above, Ms. Good did not
believe she could develop productive relationships with parents unless they were “open,”
123
available, and interested in doing so. By extension, Ms. Good appeared to exert less
effort in developing relationships than she was expected to by her administration. For
example, she sometimes sent home progress reports at a 4-week interval, rather than
every 2 weeks, as required by her administration. She made phone calls to individual
parents on average 2 or 3 times a week. Although she sent occasional notes home and
sometimes tracked down a parent in the parking lot after school, she did not have a
regular routine for communicating with all parents, other than through progress reports.
This means that parents who did not have computer access to view online grades
sometimes had to wait four weeks to know if there was a problem. A parent who wanted
to be updated more frequently, but did not have home access to the Internet to check
online grading may have lacked the confidence to make such a request of her. Parents
who were not confident about their ability to influence the teacher’s practice were less
likely to make such a request of the teacher (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005) and were
likely to experience this infrequent communication as a barrier to monitoring their child’s
academic performance.
The data show Ms. Good had experienced limited success with building
cooperative relationships with parents. They indicate that she was not efficacious in
regard to her ability to develop relationships with parents. In addition, she may have
made false assumptions about the reasons for some parents’ reactions. Furthermore, her
examples appear to bear out the premise that teachers with low self-efficacy perceive
insurmountable barriers that impede their ability to build relationships with parents.
Language Barriers. How language barriers might have affected teacher self-
efficacy in regard to building relationships with parents and teachers was not examined.
124
A site with a high percentage of Hispanic students was chosen because of the potential to
study language barriers between parents and teachers. However, of the five teachers
participating in this study, all but one was either a fluent Spanish-speaker or had some
ability to speak the language. The only teacher who did not speak Spanish, Ms. Freeman,
had been assigned a bilingual aide for part of the school day.
Although the principal rated the level of translation support for parents and
teachers “inadequate,” it was much more robust than at most schools. Teachers’
responses were mixed when asked about the extent to which language was a barrier in
their relationships with parents. Teachers who were better Spanish speakers reported that
they found the question irrelevant, because they did not utilize translation services except
in regard to communication with a parent or student whose native language was other
than English or Spanish. However, Ms. Freeman, who reported sometimes being able to
understand Spanish, but not able to speak it well, stated, “Sometimes, parents will hold
back calling school because they’re afraid they won’t be understood.” Her statement
implies either that parents were unaware of the translation services available at the
school, or that the services were not particularly easy to use. This raises the question of
whether the Community Liaison was available for parent-initiated calls and, if so,
whether parents were aware of that.
Finding #2
Middle school teachers’ role construction for themselves and the parent will
influence their success in creating productive parent-teacher relationships.

The data revealed middle school teachers’ role constructions for themselves and
their students’ parents influenced their ability to create productive relationships with
parents. The teacher’s role construction in regard to the parent-teacher relationship is her
125
understanding of her role in that relationship, as well as her behavior as a result of that
understanding. Likewise, the teacher’s role construction for the parent in the parent-
teacher relationship is what she understands the parent’s role in the relationship to be, or
what the teacher expects from the parent (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Keyes, 2000).
A productive parent-teacher relationship is one that benefits the student and
supports the student’s success in school. Epstein (2011) found that, in the most effective
parent-teacher relationships, the roles of parent and teacher overlap (p. 43). The potential
effectiveness of teachers’ role constructions will be discussed in light of how they
compare to the Epstein framework. What a teacher believes the purpose of the parent-
teacher relationship to be will be presented because it provides evidence of his/her role
construction for self and the parent. Also, qualities the teacher expected to be present in
the parent-teacher relationship will also be identified as evidence of the teacher’s role
construction for the teacher and the parent.
The Epstein framework describes the most effective relationship between parent
and teacher to be a collaborative relationship; for this reason, the researcher looked for
the qualities of a collaborative parent-teacher relationship as identified by Blue-Banning
et al. (2004), “communication, commitment, equality, skills, trust, and respect,” to
determine the degree of collaboration present in teachers’ reports of their relationships
with their students’ parents. The data show qualities present in the teacher’s role
construction influenced the qualities of the relationships they reported experiencing with
their students’ parents.
Ensure Student Accountability. Teachers considered their role and the parent’s
role in their relationship together was to be enforcers of student accountability and
126
supporters of the students’ academic success. Teachers agreed the purpose of the parent-
teacher relationship is to hold the student accountable for his/her performance in school.
Ms. Good described what she considers the ideal relationship between parent and
teacher: “Accountability on both parent’s and student and teacher parts. Parents are held
accountable for their students. Students are held accountable for their work.” To this end,
the teachers believed that it was their responsibility to communicate with parents, clearly
articulating their expectations of the students, and keeping parents informed about their
child’s performance in school. They believed it was the parent’s responsibility to monitor
the student’s performance and to hold him/her accountable. Ms. Freeman clarified, “I
expect them to make sure that their child is doing their homework at home…checking,
making sure it’s done, making sure that they are communicating with me if there’s an
issue that comes up.” Ms. Good described her expectation of parents in these words:
"Accountability. Availability. Um, willingness to hear what's going on with their students
and to make some changes, if need be.” The way most teachers constructed their role and
the parents’ role was consistent with the communicative and responsive relationships
they reported enjoying with them.
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) define “strong” or “high” role construction as
the belief that parents should be highly involved in their child’s academic growth.
According to this definition, most interviewed teachers held a “strong” or “high” role
construction for their students’ parents. The strength of the teachers’ role constructions
for parents was evident in their communication patterns.
All teachers reported the primary responsibility of parents and teachers to each
other was to communicate regularly, and most teachers’ routines for communicating with
127
parents revealed strong role constructions for the parents. Each time the teacher initiated
a communication with the parent, this drew the parents into the education process and
into the process of monitoring student progress. Therefore, teachers who communicated
frequently with parents conveyed a high role construction for parents. Mr. Ortega
verbalized a strong role construction for parents in their child’s learning when he
specified the need for, “…constant communication. And I mean constant. On a weekly
basis.” Similarly, Ms. Molino articulated she expected parents to check their students’
agendas daily. Teachers also mentioned requiring parent signatures on progress reports
that were sent home, to ensure that students showed them to their parents, and to invite a
parent response. These are examples of ways in which teachers communicated to parents
that they should be highly involved in the process of holding students accountable. The
teachers who conveyed a high role construction for parents also reported enjoying
relationships with parents that they perceived to be supportive and committed to the
education of their child.
Conversely, Ms. Good employed a less robust parent-teacher communication
routine. This conveyed a weaker role construction for parents in their relationship with
the teacher and in their involvement in the student’s education. The only regular
communication habit she practiced for communicating with all parents was sending home
progress reports every 2 to 4 weeks. That Ms. Good sustained less frequent regular
communication with her students’ parents than the other teachers suggests that parent
involvement was not as much of a priority for Ms. Good.
None of the teachers participating in this study specifically stated that providing
homework help to students was an expected part of their role construction for the parent.
128
Existing research has determined that many parents are unable to help students with their
homework (Lopez et. al, 2001; Lott, 2001; Pena, 2000). Some parents work in the
evening or lack formal education or sufficient familiarity with the English language to be
able to help the student with schoolwork. Instead, Mr. Ortega stated, “We’re available
before school, during lunch, and after school for our kids.” Teachers stated they expected
parents to hold their children accountable by monitoring homework completion, and to
let them know if the student is experiencing a problem. However, they did not appear to
depend on parents to help with homework. By providing other opportunities for students
to get homework help, teachers provided a learning environment that is more fair to all
students, regardless of their home situation, than if they did not.
Although teachers agreed on the need for parents and teachers to provide a system
of accountability for students, their role constructions varied in regard to the extent to
which equality was present in their relationships with parents and, in one instance, the
extent to which parents were invited into the education process. The significant ways in
which each teacher’s role construction for parent and teacher differed and the influence
of their role constructions on their perceived relationships will be discussed in turn.
Share Power with Parents. Ms. Freeman and Ms. Tapia constructed their role
and the parent’s role as that of being of equals. They believed it was their role and the
parent’s role to share power while working together to support the student’s academic
success. They understood the purpose of their relationship with parents was to
collaborate to hold students accountable to high expectations. Each teacher demonstrated
shared responsibility and power in a way that reflected their particular strengths. The way
129
they talked about their roles leads to the conclusion that they constructed these roles in a
way that produced a high level of trust and close relationships with many of the parents.
Blue-Banning et al. (2004) found equality to be a necessary quality of a
collaborative relationship between parents and teachers and considered shared power and
responsibility to be characteristics of equality. Evidence of equality is two-way
communication, active listening, open-mindedness, and a focus on problem solving.
When a teacher and a parent enter into a partnership of equals, each person’s opinion is
of equal importance and each person should feel equally powerful.
The presence of equality in Ms. Freeman’s role construction is evident in her
expectation not only that the parent should to be accountable to her, but also that she
must be accountable to the parent. Ms. Freeman described her understanding of the
responsibility parents and teachers share and why they must work together:
Having that communication, it’s like a team. You know, you can’t, I can’t just do
one thing with their child here and then not expect something from them at home
and they can’t expect me to not do something that their values or morals are or
their…values of education. They’re expecting me and entrusting me with their
child to educate them on the things that I know and I’m professional about. I’m
expecting them to, you know, help their child at home, and, you know, so they
have a role, the child has a role, and I have a role. So, we’re kind of a team.

In this example, she expressed a need to be sensitive to the fact that her students’ parents’
morals and beliefs may not be the same as her own. This accounting suggests that she
actively listened to the parent and that she considered the parents’ concerns to be equally
as important as her own.
Ms. Tapia’s role construction for parents and teachers resembled Epstein’s
“overlapping spheres of influence” (2011, p. 43), in that the parents’ and teachers’ roles
overlapped to create “family-like schools” and “school-like families.” According to
130
Epstein (2011), parent-teacher relationships are most effective when parents engage in
school-like behaviors and teachers engage in family-like behaviors. A school-like family
supports the educational needs of the child. For example, the parent may ensure that the
student has a quiet place and a distraction-free time in which to complete his/her
homework. In a family-like school, the individual needs of each student are recognized,
not simply the needs of the group. In a family-like classroom, the teacher not only
differentiates instruction to meet the unique academic needs of the student, but also
addresses his/her emotional needs.
Ms. Tapia’s role construction for herself resembled that of a family-like school
environment. She stated, “From Day 1, I tell [the students] that we’re a class, so we’re a
family. And, I’m the, I’m the Papa and she’s [the Teacher’s Assistant] the Mama.” Ms.
Tapia implied that the father was the person with the most power in the family and that
she expected to be respected to the same extent. However, her statement also set another
tone for the classroom. When she introduced herself to parents, she stated, “I like to treat
your children as if they were mine.” In both cases, she compared her responsibility to the
student with that of a parent, suggesting that she was not only responsible for the
student’s academic wellbeing, but also for his/her overall wellbeing.
Similarly, her role construction for parents was that they would support her goal
of educating the student at home. She stated, “I expect them to be accountable for their
children, not only academically, but behavioral.” Although she reported that she rarely
needed to communicate with parents about behavior, she often requested support from
parents regarding missing homework. She also stated that she would like parents to have
131
high expectations of their child. For her, the roles of the parent and the teacher were not
distinct.
Ms. Freeman’s respect for the opinions of her students’ parents revealed that
power sharing was a part of her role construction for them in their relationship with each
other. Rather than attempting to impose her own opinion on parents, she stated:
Even if we might not get along or disagree about something, we can always come
to an agreement by the end of the conversation and come to a mutual
understanding about, you know, what their child needs, what I’m expecting, what
they’re expecting of me.

Her statement reflected that she respected the parent’s right to have a different opinion
from her own. Ms. Freeman supplied the following example to illustrate how a typical
conversation might have proceeded: “Usually, it’s ‘O.K., we understand…where you’re
coming from and we have that value, also, but we may teach it a different way, but I
understand how you do it here.’” This example suggests that parents sometimes
reciprocated her respect for differences.
Because many of Ms. Freeman’s parents appeared to naturally share a common
agenda with her, it may be that the differences they confronted were typically not
particularly great. However, the following statement described her attempts to collaborate
when a common agenda was not so apparent:
I do see some…that just don’t have that focus as much as they should on their
child. And I don’t know if that’s because of their work schedule or they’re just
stressed out, or home life, or, you know, something personal going on in their life,
or what. So, I usually give them the benefit of the doubt and say, “Well, maybe
something’s going on. You know, let’s try it a different way.”

In this example, Ms. Freeman recognized that she did not know the cause of the parent’s
lack of attention to the child and was willing to be flexible and tenacious in her
willingness to keep working to find a solution to the issue at hand. She did not impose a
132
right and wrong way to accomplish the goal, which also demonstrated not only respect,
but also a sharing of control between herself and the parent.
Evidence suggests that power sharing was also a part of Ms. Tapia’s role
construction for her students’ parents and herself. Although she expressed the desire that
all parents would have high expectations for their students, she validated the parent’s
right to his/her opinion when this was not the case (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). When
discussing the impact of seventh grade academic performance on student’s opportunities
in later years, she told parents, “I’m going to prepare your child for the future. Do you
want them to be on a path to go to college? Do you want them to be on a path to learn a
trade? Do you want them to be on a path to just finish high school? Because, you have to
let me know what your expectations are.” By asking these questions, she signaled that the
parent’s opinion is as important to the process of educating the child as her own.
She responded in a similarly non-judgmental manner when asked if the ideal
parent-teacher relationship would look the same, regardless of the student. She replied, “I
don’t think they could look the same. …” “I don’t think there is an ideal.” She explained
further:
Like, some of my parents, very low, very low in their own academic skills, and so
they may look at a fabulous education by just having their child graduate from
high school. I think there’s idealism in all of the different levels of parents that we
have, but it’s just, it’s different. And some parents will take a little longer to reach
it than others.

According to this statement, Ms. Tapia did not judge the parent’s aspirations for his/her
child as either good or bad. Ms. Tapia did not give any evidence that she lowered
academic standards for students based on the parent’s goals for the student. However,
this statement does indicate that she did not consider it her role to unilaterally make
133
decisions about the child’s future. Instead, she considered it her responsibility to partner
with the parent.
Partnerships with Parents to Serve School Agenda. The role constructions Ms.
Molino and Mr. Ortega held for parents and teachers in their relationships with parents
demonstrated many of the qualities of a collaborative parent-teacher relationship as
defined by Blue-Banning et al. (2004), but did not show strong evidence of the presence
of equality. Both teachers believed that the purpose of the parent-teacher relationship was
to hold students accountable for their academic success, but the consideration of parent
input was not described as central to this process. Both teachers’ descriptions of their
relationships with parents suggested that the way in which they constructed their role and
the role of the parent produced mutually supportive partnerships, in which they employed
a problem-solving mindset to work together for the benefit of the student.
Both teachers’ role constructions for the parent included an expectation that, just
as they would keep parents informed, parents would also keep them informed about
anything that might affect the student’s performance in school or about any concerns or
questions the parent might have. Both teachers reported providing contact information to
parents at the beginning of the year and emphasized to them that they should contact the
teacher with questions or concerns. Mr. Ortega stated he considered it his responsibility
to let parents know “they can come to me if they’re happy or if they’re not happy” and
that he expected parents to “bring up any issues that they have.” Even though the teachers
may have been desirous of receiving parent input, parents with lower self-efficacy might
have been reluctant to initiate contact.
134
Although Ms. Molino did not represent herself as being averse to power sharing
with parents, her descriptions of her communications did not lend themselves to creating
these kinds of interactions with parents who were not among the most efficacious. The
following example suggested that she was comfortable with sharing decisions with
parents. She provided this example of a conversation when asked to describe the type of
parent she most enjoys:
OK, my child has a goal, this is the plan, this is what I expect from you as a
parent…the parent tells me, this is what they expect from me as a teacher, and
then it goes, it goes really smooth from there

In this situation, Ms. Molino and a parent collaborated as equal partners. However, the
parent she was communicating with was highly efficacious. Parents with low self-
efficacy would be less likely to initiate such a conversation. Other than invitations to
parents at the beginning of the year, or in a mass communication, no evidence was
offered that solicitation of, and consideration of, parent input shared equal billing with
the teacher’s goals on the agenda of parent-teacher meetings and phone calls.
Whether solicitation of parent input occurred at the beginning of a conversation,
at the end, or at all suggested the relative importance this input was given. When either
teacher mentioned requesting parent input at a meeting, that request appeared to be
“tacked on” to the end of the meeting, rather than at the heart of it. For example, Mr.
Ortega described Parent-Teacher Conferences at length and ended his itemization of the
many tasks on the agenda with, “and, of course, if they have questions or comments or
anything...” Leaving parent input to the end of the meeting can send a message to the
parent that their contributions are secondary in importance. Also, placing parent feedback
135
last on the agenda increased the possibility that sufficient time would not remain to give
the parents’ issues the attention they required.
Ms. Molino provided the following example that illustrated her need for two-way
communication between parent and teacher:
We need to really inform our parents about what’s happening in the
classroom….if we have any concerns about student behavior, we definitely need
to inform our…and vice versa…we’d like to build a trusting relationships with
the parent, so, in turn, they can help us understand if anything’s going on at home.

Ms. Molina may have wanted to be informed about home life because that knowledge
could have helped her teach the student more successfully. In that case, although she
articulated the need for parent input to help her be effective at her job, this example does
not demonstrate recognition of the potential for a parent to have a concern unrelated to
the purpose of better understanding and serving the student at school.
Although both teachers considered the promotion of high expectations of students
to be part of the role constructions for both themselves and their students’ parents, no
evidence was provided that teachers solicited input from parents about their own hopes
and dreams for their child. While high expectations for the student was likely to be a
mutual goal, an equal partnership required both members of the relationship to establish
the agenda for their interactions together. For example, Mr. Ortega reported that he told
parents, “We [parents and teachers] both have to be on track and we both have to
agree...homework is first.” I know that we all have lives after…school and sports and
family and stuff, but homework is gotta be the number one.” In this example, he dictated
to parents what the family priorities should be. Even though most educators and many
parents would agree with his statement, there was no evidence that Mr. Ortega attempted
to also get to know his parents’ beliefs, priorities, and preferences.
136
Both teachers believed that their role constructions for themselves and their
students’ parents have contributed to how involved and supportive they perceive their
parents are. However, the agenda appeared unilaterally set and requests for parent
feedback were secondary to the teacher’s goal of any teacher-initiated contact. Therefore,
although the interchanges between teacher and parent may have been respectful and
collaborative, there is an element of mutuality that appears to have been missing from the
relationships. However, both teachers reported developing parent-teacher relationships
that appeared to function successfully according to the goals they had set.
Parent as Teacher’s Helper. Ms. Good’s role construction for parents, as judged
by her practices, is one in which the parent provided assistance to the teacher in order to
support the student’s education. Her reports of her actual relationships with parents
revealed a similar relationship to one described by Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel (2001).
They explored parent-teacher relationships and discovered that a common role of parents
in their relationship with teachers is that of a helper of teachers. For example, “teachers
contact parents; parents, as involuntary clients of the institution, respond as subordinate
consumers or receptors of information.” (p. 92) In Ms. Good’s relationships with parents,
communication with many parents was primarily uni-directional, initiated by the teacher
when she needed help. Ms. Good reported dissatisfaction with her efforts to involve
parents and reported that those efforts had produced mixed results. She described them as
follows:
We have very strong-willed parents who are here all the time, that want to talk to
the teachers all the time, and then we have parents that I’ve never seen or never
been able to speak to or get a hold of. So, they range from very involved to not
involved at all.

137
Her report suggests that those parents who were self-motivated to be involved continued
to do so, and those who were not, continued to be absent from the process of supporting
their child’s success in school.
Ms. Good’s stated role construction for herself in her relationship with her
students’ parents included communication with parents for the purposes of informing
them and holding students accountable. However, she had not implemented
communication that is as frequent as that of some of her colleagues. Without frequent,
regular communication with parents, the teacher works in isolation from them, rather
than in partnership. Furthermore, a regular communication routine is respectful of a
parent’s need to be kept informed. Although she advocated “open lines of
communication,” the frequency of communication that Ms. Good employed was not
adequate to build an ongoing collaboration with parents.
How parent input figured into Ms. Good’s role constructions for her students’
parents and herself is unclear. Ms. Good stated her appreciation for parent-initiated
contact requesting updates of student progress and her preference for increased parent
presence on campus. However, based on the evidence that was presented, little about Ms.
Good’s practices suggested they were likely to produce frequent, bilateral
communication with less efficacious parents. Communication she described having with
parents primarily focused on what parents could do to help the child be successful in
school. She stated a desire that all parents exhibit, “willingness to hear what’s going on
with their students and to make some changes, if need be.” Little in her current routine
provided opportunities to get to know families or their specific concerns.
138
Certain elements Blue-Banning et al. (2004) identified as necessary to
collaborative relationships were missing in Ms. Good’s role construction and in her
description of her relationships with parents. There was little evidence of a tone of
mutuality or equality between parent and teacher. Her descriptions of her relationships
with parents also belay a shortage of the trust necessary to create parental support. She
stated:
And then, for the ones that I have more of an issue with, it’s, I think it’s because
they get…they’re tired of hearing that their student is bad. Not so much bad, and I
would never say that you have a bad student…they’re more on the defensive than
anything, but there, there still is that willingness to have a discussion.

This statement suggests that Ms. Good’s role construction has not created success in
communicating to some parents her regard for her students and the fact that she
genuinely cares about them.
Finding #3
The principal’s role construction for parents and teachers in the parent-teacher
relationship influences teachers’ abilities to build productive relationships with
their students’ parents.

Data revealed Ms. Hughes held a high role construction for parents and teachers
in their relationships with each other and for parents’ involvement in their child’s
learning. She believed the relationship between parent and teacher is essential to student
success in school, and that it exists for the purpose of monitoring and supporting student
academic success. The ways in which she constructed the roles of parent and teacher is
consistent with the supportive relationship most teachers reported having with their
students’ parents.
The principal constructed her role and the parent’s role in her relationships with
them as similar to an equal partnership. That is, the data show that her relationships with
139
parents demonstrated a respect for their opinions, flexibility of roles, and shared power.
However, how she constructed parents’ and teachers’ roles in their relationships with
each other was more traditional. The purpose of the relationships between parents and
teachers, according to how she constructed these roles, was to inform each other and to
support and monitor students’ progress. Three of the teachers constructed their roles in a
similar manner.
Epstein (2011) found that a collaborative partnership is the most effective type of
parent-teacher relationship. The specific qualities of a collaborative partnership identified
by Blue-Banning et al. (2004) are communication, commitment, equality, skills, trust,
and respect. Most of these qualities were present to some degree in Ms. Hughes’ role
constructions for parents and teachers. Whether or how each of these qualities appeared
in Ms. Hughes’ role constructions for parents and teachers is addressed in turn. Her role
constructions for teachers and parents are compared with the ways in which teachers
constructed these roles. Also, this section presents how the ways in which Ms. Hughes
constructed the roles of parent and teacher in their relationship with each other influenced
the teachers’ role constructions for themselves and their students’ parents.
Communication. Ms. Hughes’ construction of the roles of teacher and parent in
their relationships with each other demonstrated that she believed communication
between parent and teacher is critical. Blue-Banning et al. (2004) found that
communication that is frequent and bi-lateral is necessary to collaborative relationships
between parents and teachers. However, the type of communication Ms. Hughes
described between parents and teachers was bi-directional, but not necessarily bilateral.
When parents and teachers communicate, she stated, “parent knows what’s going on at
140
school, teacher knows what is going on at home and telling parent, then it, it’s much
easier to monitor that student, how he or she’s doing.” This description suggested bi-
directional discourse, but does not indicate the presence of shared decision-making in the
communication Ms. Hughes envisioned between parent and teacher
She believed that a purpose of this communication was for parent and teacher to
keep each other informed. Ms. Hughes communicated this role construction to teachers
through several specific expectations:
• At the beginning of each school year, teachers are required to distribute a
welcome letter and a syllabus to parents, explaining the expectations for students,
• Teachers will send progress reports home to parents every two weeks,
• Teachers will inform parents immediately if there is a problem with the student’s
academic performance,
• Teachers will update online grades a minimum of every two weeks,
• Teachers are required to document communication with parents and turn in a
documentation log to administration every two weeks.
These expectations clearly communicated the need for teachers to initiate contact with
parents. They established that communication should begin immediately when the school
year starts and be consistent and ongoing. Only three teachers reported consistently
sending home progress reports every two weeks for all students. However, all other
communication expectations articulated by the School Compact were matched by the
teachers’ expectations of themselves. Therefore, it is apparent that how the teachers
construct their roles in regard to parents reflected that of the principal in regard to
communication.
141
Ms. Hughes expected teachers and parents to not sidestep each other, but to
communicate with each other directly. Direct communication enabled them to share
information about the situation at hand that might contribute to its resolution. She
encouraged direct communication by insisting that parents be the teacher’s “first point of
contact” when there was a problem and vice versa. Ms. Hughes explained how she
responded when a parent approached her with a complaint about a teacher:
My first question is, “Have you talked to the teacher?”…If they haven’t, I direct
them to the teacher…But, I am not going to, I can’t…I wasn’t there, so I can’t
say, “Well, no, your child didn’t deserve a detention.”

In reference to the teacher, she explained:
If they’re having an issue with a student, don’t come running to me…they need to
talk to the parent. They need to find out a child’s background…nothing frustrates
me more than when I know more of a child’s background than a teacher of the
student who’s in their class for at least two periods a day.

This statement suggests that, when a problem arose, she expected teachers to seek
additional information about a student that might help the teacher understand a situation
better and resolve it. She did not express any expectation that teachers would
communicate with families with the purpose of getting to know the families and students
better as an end in itself, or for the purpose of developing a relationship with them. The
principal’s expectations were reflected in how at least three teachers constructed their
roles in regard to parents. In contrast, Ms. Freeman clearly stated the desire to move
beyond this construct to get to know the families for the sake of developing a relationship
with them.
Ms. Hughes also constructed the roles of parent and teacher such that they were
expected to be initiators of communication with the other. This expectation was
expressed in the School Compact, which states teachers are expected to “communicate
142
regularly with families about their child’s progress in school.” Teachers were also
expected to provide parents with contact information at the beginning of the school year
and many teachers reported stressing to parents that their questions or feedback were
welcome. Similarly, the compact also articulated that parents were expected to
“communicate with the school when I have a concern.” The School Compact, therefore,
clearly established expectations of bidirectional communication between parent and
teacher for the purposes of informing and problem solving.
The school compact also stipulated bilateral communication when it requests
parents and teachers to “participate in shared decision making with [other] school staff
and families for the benefit of the student.” However, it is this expectation of more truly
collaborative communication between parents and teachers that was not clearly
articulated in any other way and, therefore, did not seem to be a conscious aspect of how
the principal constructed the roles of parent and teacher in their relationships with each
other. Evidence of attempts to establish a more deeply collaborative relationship with
parents only surfaced in the cases of Ms. Tapia and Ms. Freeman, both of whom
described examples of sharing power with parents by incorporating parents’ opinions into
the communication and decision-making process.
Therefore, most teachers constructed their role and that of the parent in a way that
was reflective of the way Ms. Hughes expressed the purpose of communication with
parents to teachers. The purpose she articulated was that communication was for the
purposes of keeping the other informed, not necessarily to collaborate or to build a
deeper relationship with parents. Her expectations reflected a traditional form of
143
cooperation and most teachers, while complying with these expectations, did not extend
their practices beyond this.
All teachers reported receiving parent-initiated communication, but, without a
systematic way of gathering parent input, feedback was unlikely to be forthcoming from
parents who lacked the confidence to initiate contact with the teacher. Also, without
routinely soliciting and incorporating parent input, the chance to build true collaboration
had been missed, along with the possibilities of better serving students that collaboration
provides.
Commitment. Ms. Hughes constructed the roles of the teacher and parent in their
relationships with each other in such a way that they were expected to demonstrate a high
degree of commitment to each other and to the student. Blue-Banning et al. (2004)
consider evidence of commitment to be the presence of persistence, accessibility, and
shared vision. All of these qualities were present in Ms. Hughes’ role constructions for
teachers and students’ parents.
A part of Ms. Hughes’ role construction for teachers and parents is that they
believe that every student has the ability to learn. These high expectations of all students
were clearly communicated to parents and students in letters home, Orientation, Back-to-
School Night, syllabi, and the student handbook. The principal stated, “Unfortunately,
you do hear teachers say, ‘If only I didn’t have him in my class.’… If I do hear that, I put
a stop to it...It’s our job to educate them. I don’t care what it takes.” Ms. Hughes
expected the teachers in her school to hold high expectations for every student. The
School Compact articulated the expectation of teachers that they “communicate high
expectations to every student” and of parents that they “talk to my child regularly about
144
the value of education.” Similarly, every teacher reported an understanding of their
teaching role that included holding high expectations for every student. Furthermore,
some teachers reported actively promoting high expectations of students to their students’
parents. Therefore, how Ms. Hughes constructed the roles of teachers and parents in
regard to expectations of, and belief in, students was mirrored in how teachers
constructed their roles and that of their students’ parents.
According to Ms. Hughes, doing whatever it takes meant that teachers were
expected to make themselves available to parents at a time convenient to the parent. She
explained, “It frustrates me when I hear….when I see a parent come in and say, ‘Well, I
told them I could meet with them at this time, but they said they couldn’t.’” Teachers
reported meeting parents at their convenience, even in the evening or on a weekend. Ms.
Hughes also encouraged accessibility to parents by modeling it. She had an open door
policy for both parents and teachers, allowing them to drop in to speak with her without
warning. Ms. Molino stated, “Administration, they will drop whatever they’re doing to
talk to a concerned parent. And I’ve seen it.” By expecting teachers to accommodate
parents’ scheduling needs, Ms. Hughes required them to make a parent’s involvement in
their child’s education as easy as possible; teachers consistently communicated that they
went out of their way to be available to parents.
Equality. Although the way Ms. Hughes interacted with students’ parents
demonstrated qualities of an equal partnership, this was not how she constructed the
teachers’ and parents’ roles in their relationships with each other. Existing studies have
found that equality is necessary to effective parent-teacher relationships and is
demonstrated through the sharing of responsibility and power (Blue-Banning et al., 2004;
145
Christenson, 2003; Miretsky, 2004; Powell, et al., 2010). The School Compact set a tone
of equal partnership by articulating the expectation that parents and teachers will
“participate in shared decision making with school staff and other families for the benefit
of students.”
However, the way Ms. Hughes constructed teachers’ and parents’ roles was more
teacher-led than collaborative and more bidirectional than bilateral. Also, some school
policies and practices unilaterally set expectations for parents, without much, if any,
solicitation of parents’ input. Furthermore, these expectations were framed as something
the school needed, rather than as something that would benefit the child. These word
choices suggest, whether intentionally or not, that the school was the arbiter of the
agenda and the assumer of power. Three teachers constructed their roles and parents’
roles in a manner consistent with that of Ms. Hughes. Only Ms. Tapia and Ms. Freeman
constructed their roles and that of their students’ parents in a way that suggested equal
partnership.
Christenson and Sheridan (2001) state that, in an equal partnership, “there are no
prescribed roles or activities for families or educators; rather, options for active, realistic
participation are created.” (pp. 37-38). Likewise, evidence revealed Ms. Hughes’ role
construction for parents in regard to supporting their child’s education remained fluid.
She stated:
If you have the parent that’s…can only be so involved, yet they’re providing and
supporting their child to come to school, if that’s all I can ask, that’s all I’ll ask.
So…my number one expectation of the parents would be communication.

In this statement, Ms. Hughes implied awareness that many of the parents at her school
faced challenges that limited their ability to support their child’s learning. She recognized
146
that each parent’s ability to do so would be different and expressed appreciation for
whatever a parent could do to support the child’s education.
Although she expressed certain clear expectations of teachers, her role
construction for them in regard to building relationships with parents also had a fluid
aspect. She stated:
I think, if the parents and teachers, I, I’m not going to go as far as to say have a
positive relationship. I, you know, there’s going to be differences in philosophies
and beliefs. But, if they have a communicating relationship…

In this statement, she was realistic about the difficulties inherent in building relationships.
However, she stated, “There has to be some relationship between parent and student to
monitor student success.” Her primary expectation of teachers and parents is the same:
communication.
Ms. Hughes modeled mutuality in her relationship with teachers. “I think the
teachers need to know that they have my support…I need to know I have the teachers’
support.” However, even though every teacher confirmed their perception that the
principal has been supportive of them, that support was not provided at the expense of
parents. Ms. Freeman stated:
I think, with… the administration being supportive, and… them having that open
door policy that, if a parent, or if I, or if both of us are having problems
communicating, that they will help be kind of a facilitator and working through
that issue and being kind of, you know, supportive on both aspects, of “Yes, OK,
we need to come together and we’re here for the child. We’re not here for, you
know, bickering or what it may be” type thing. I think that’s very important.

In this example, the principal supported parent and teacher equally, without assuming the
power for herself or “assigning” it to either the parent or teacher. Instead, parent and
teacher shared the decision-making power and responsibility.
147
Evidence suggests Ms. Hughes considered her own relationships with parents to
be partnerships of equals. In the following statement, she communicated her need for
parent input:
If you’re happy about something and you want to see something going, let us
know. ...Give me some type of feedback, positive or negative, so I can make
changes. I’m open to that…I understand some things work better than others and,
you know, seeing it from an outside perspective helps me.

In this example, Ms. Hughes articulated not simply that she was willing to entertain
parent input, but that she valued it and found it to be helpful.
Even though Ms. Hughes modeled partnerships of equals in her relationships with
parents, some statements and policies were imposed unilaterally, in which cases a school-
supplied agenda was imposed on the parent by the school. For example, parent
attendance at Parent-Teacher Conferences was considered mandatory, at which time the
School Compact was presented and parents were expected to sign it. Ms. Hughes
described her advice to teachers about the scheduling process:
… contacts to the parents, saying, ‘This is when your child’s Parent-Teacher
Conference is. This is when I need you here.” And, basically not give the parent
an out. Say, “No, I can’t make it at this time. Can we schedule for this time?”
“No, this is when I need you here.”

Similarly, when teachers described their presentation of the School Compact to the
parent, some teachers’ accounting of this process suggested a unilateral imposition of the
compact on the parent in that parent input was requested after the fact. This sends an
inconsistent message to the parent regarding whether power is to be shared between
teacher and parent. This sending of a double message is consistent with the finding that
only two teachers constructed their roles and their students’ parents’ roles in such a way
that it was likely to create equal partnerships with parents.
148
Skill. Parenting and teaching skills are necessary to effective collaboration
between parent and teacher, according to Blue-Banning et al. (2004). Teaching skill and
fulfillment of parenting responsibilities are essential, according to how Ms. Hughes
constructed the roles of parent and teacher in their relationships with each other. The
School Compact articulates the expectation that teachers will “provide high quality
curriculum and instruction,” “endeavor to motivate my students to learn,” and “teach and
involve students in classes that are interesting and challenging.” Furthermore, teachers
are expected to “participate in professional development opportunities that improve
teaching and learning.” The School Compact articulates the expectation that parents
“ensure that my child gets adequate sleep, regular medical attention, and proper
nutrition.” The importance of teaching skill was evident in how teachers constructed their
roles. Also, all teachers articulated in some way or another that fulfillment of parenting
responsibilities was evident in way they constructed the parent’s role.
The school provided support to parents and teachers designed to help them be
effective in their roles. The school’s Community Liaison was responsible for organizing
and providing parenting classes, some of which were designed to help parents support
their child’s academic success. Likewise, teachers were provided with opportunities to
collaborate with other teachers and with support for providing intervention to students.
This support, which translated the articulation of high expectations into action, helped
teachers realize the high expectations they promoted. Most teachers constructed their
roles in regard to students and parents in such a way that they expected to provide high-
quality instruction that would support student success. Therefore, Ms. Hughes’ emphasis
149
on high-quality instruction and support for parents was reflected in the way teachers
constructed their roles and that of their students’ parents.
Trust. The data show development of trust was an important element in the way
Mr. Swanson constructed the roles of both parent and teacher in their relationships with
each other. This is consistent with the finding of Blue-Banning et al. (2004) that a
collaborative partnership is possible between parent and teacher when they believe they
can rely on each other. Reliability means, in part, keeping confidences, keeping the
student safe, and being honest.
Ms. Hughes understood her role in regard to teachers was to provide a high-trust
environment. Teachers reported their perceptions that the principal’s support and trust
was the most powerful of school policies or practices in regard to promoting effective
parent-teacher relationships. Their perceptions are supported by the research of Sanders
and Sheldon (2009), who found that principals who are most effective at supporting
parent-teacher relationships do so by building conducive environments that demonstrate
power sharing, model collaboration, and address issues of trust.
Earning parents’ trust was an important part of the way Ms. Hughes constructed
the teacher’s role in his/her relationship with parents. She believed that trust could be
built through transparency and availability. She explained what she expected the teachers
to do to build trust: “Number one, at the beginning of the year, making the connections
with the kid...and if you don’t do that, that trust isn’t going to be built…with the parent.”
This statement revealed Ms. Hughes believed that building trust with the student was as
important as, and related to, the process of building trust with the parent. Every teacher
except Ms. Good mentioned the need to develop the trust of their students’ parents.
150
Respect. According to Blue-Banning et al. (2004), evidence of respect is being
courteous, valuing the other, respecting and honoring differences, and cooperating.
Similarly, Ms. Hughes constructed the teacher’s role in regard to the parent in such a way
that teachers were expected to project a positive attitude, make parents feel welcome at
school and treat parents with courtesy. The School Compact articulated the expectation
that parents and teachers would “respect the school, staff, students, and families.”
Ms. Hughes’s construction of the teacher’s role in relation to the parent is that the
teacher would be welcoming toward the parent. She stated:
I think a positive attitude, towards not only toward the parents, but students and
everybody else goes a long way and that’s what I try to model for my staff, all
staff members, not just my teachers. So, if a parent walks into this office, they’re
greeted with some type of smile, “Hello” “How are you” “What can I help you
out with?”

Such an attitude communicated to the parent that he or she was welcomed, not only on
campus, but into the process of educating the child. Ms. Hughes’ eagerness to welcome
parents was also evident in teachers’ constructions of their roles and their students’
parents’ roles.
Although Ms. Hughes’ construction of the parent’s role did not include an
expectation that parents would visit campus or their student’s classroom, she expressed
the hope that this would happen more frequently. This was not articulated as an
expectation in the School Compact. However, she stated:
I would like a relationship where all parents would feel comfortable coming in to
that teachers’ classroom…not just to watch their child, but to feel comfortable
that, and feel welcome enough to where the teacher’s not going to be wondering,
“Why is this parent here?”

151
Ms. Hughes’ statement suggests that making parents feel welcome also required that
teachers were comfortable with parents’ presence in their classroom. This awareness
implies that she realized there was work to be done to realize this goal.
Summary
Data show the way Ms. Hughes constructed the role of the teacher and the parent
in their relationships with each other strongly influenced not only the way the teachers
constructed these roles, but also teachers’ abilities to build productive relationships with
their students’ parents. In most cases, the elements of a collaborative relationship that she
sought to encourage between parents and teachers were evident in those relationships.
However, the quality that was often missing in teachers’ relationships with parents was
that of equality – specifically, that of power sharing. Also, there was a lack of effort on
many teachers’ parts to get to know their families. This limited their ability to effectively
serve their students.

152
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the self-efficacy and role constructions of middle school
teachers in regard to building relationships with their students’ parents. It also examined
the relationship between how the principal constructed the teachers’ and parents’ roles in
the parent-teacher relationship, and how that influenced the role constructions of
teachers. The purpose of this study was to better understand the factors at work when
teachers seek to build relationships with parents in order to determine how to better
support this process.
A qualitative study employing a multi-case study methodology sought to answer the
following research questions:
1. What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and the teacher’s
ability to build productive relationships with parents?
2. What is the relationship between teachers' role constructions for
themselves and their students' parents in regard to the parent-teacher
relationship? How do those role constructions compare to the
relationships they believe they have with parents?
3. How is the principal’s role construction for parents and teachers in their
relationships with each other reflected in the way teachers construct
these roles?
To answer these questions, data from interviews and documents were collected at
a suburban middle school. Pseudonyms were used for the names of the principal
and the teachers for the purpose of protecting the participants’ identities. All data
were transcribed and organized on an EXCEL spreadsheet according to themes
153
that evolved from the Conceptual Framework providing the basis for this study.
Each teacher’s data were analyzed as a separate case, as were the principal’s,
before a cross-case analysis was conducted. This final chapter concludes the study
by summarizing and discussing findings, presenting implications and limitations,
and making recommendations for further study.
Summary
Data revealed middle school teachers exhibiting high levels of self-
efficacy in regard to building relationships with their students’ parents were able
to overcome barriers to developing these relationships. Four of the five
participating teachers expressed high levels of self-efficacy and demonstrated
ability to overcome barriers in unique ways. The fifth teacher did not display a
high level of self-efficacy and experienced certain external situations as barriers
that other teachers were reportedly able to overcome. Furthermore, middle school
teachers’ role constructions for themselves and parents influenced their success in
creating productive parent-teacher relationships and had an impact on the types of
relationships they were able to build. Finally, how the principal constructed the
role of the parent and the teacher in their relationships with each other influenced
how teachers constructed their roles and the parent’s.
Middle School. Although existing research shows parent involvement in
their child’s education tends to decline during middle school years (Epstein, 2011;
Hoover-Dempsey, 2005; Spera, 2005), most participating teachers reported a high
level of parent involvement in their child’s learning. Each teacher had a different
explanation for why this was. However, they did implement several research-
154
based practices designed to increase parent involvement, such as participating in a
large amount of outreach to parents (Seitsinger et al. 2008) in such forms as
welcome letters, progress reports, and regular updates. All teachers employed
multiple modes of communication with parents (Hornby & Witte, 2010). Also,
parents were encouraged to maintain high expectations for their children (Jeynes,
2007), as did the teachers. Existing research has found that all of these practices
either resulted in increased parent involvement or were especially beneficial to
supporting student academic success.
Teachers’ descriptions of their relationships with their students’ parents did not
reveal any trend of declining rates of parent involvement as students advanced through
the grades. The four teachers who reported involved parents taught at a variety of grade
levels. Ms. Good, who reported dissatisfaction with her relationships with her students’
parents, taught eighth grade. She believed the lack of parents’ responsiveness was due, in
part, to the grade level of her students. Although the grade level of the students may have
been a factor, her level of self-efficacy and how she constructed her role and the parents’
role in their relationship with her was found to also contribute to the lack of
productiveness of many of these relationships. Conversely, Ms. Molino taught an eighth
grade core and reported positive relationships with her students’ parents. Therefore, the
results of this study suggest that teacher self-efficacy and teachers’ role constructions for
themselves and the parent can contribute to maintaining a high level of parent
commitment throughout the middle school years.
Existing research has revealed that some parents possess certain cultural or social
capital which contributes to their interactions with middle school teachers and
155
administration and that are critical to the success of their student. For example, students’
successful preparation for college can hinge on knowing which courses must be
completed in order for the student to stay on track for college admission (Carreon et al.,
2005; Crosnoe, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999). When schools provide the necessary
information to all students, student success is less dependent on what the parent knows
and a more level playing field is created. Similarly, at the research site, teachers reported
preparing parents for how student performance can affect the students’ future. Several
teachers mentioned discussing with parents the importance of state test scores and their
relevancy to students’ personal goals. For example, they explained the ways in which
academic expectations increase as the students move through the grade levels. Ms. Tapia
described how teachers at the research site prepared parents, explaining,
My part is to say, …“This is how they look at your CST scores in seventh grade.
This is what they use them for in preparation for CAHSEE [California High
School Exit Examination]”. ’Cuz CAHSEE is the test they have to pass, and it is
mostly eighth grade Math, seventh grade Language Skills and Writing.

By providing this type of information, the teachers demonstrated awareness that many
parents do not know how performance on state exams can affect their child or even what
the various performance levels mean. By explaining to parents the importance of various
benchmarks, parents were then able to gage for themselves the alignment of their child’s
current performance with aspirations for the future. Also, this information explained to
parents teachers’ motivations for wanting students to do well on exams and helped build
a mutual understanding with them that promised to strengthened their partnership in
regard to enforcing student accountability.

156
Traditional vs. Equal Partnerships. A traditional understanding of the
relationship between parent and teacher was found to be the most dominant approach to
relationships between teachers and parents at the research site. The ways the majority of
teachers expressed efficacy and constructed their roles, and the role of their students’
parents, suggested traditional, bidirectional perspectives. Furthermore, the way Ms.
Hughes constructed the roles of parent and teacher in their relationships with each other
was also traditional; that is, she envisioned teachers to be responsive to parents and
accessible for parent input, but in other ways the relationship she described was school-
directed and existed primarily for the purposes of sharing information.
Qualities of an equal partnership between parents and teachers were less evident.
Examples in which the teacher established goals and terms for communications with
parents were common, whereas examples of negotiation were rare. There was little
evidence that parents were involved up front in the creation of agendas unless they
initiated the contact. Little evidence was presented of fluidity of roles and an assets-based
mindset toward parents. Little mention was made of the need to get to know parents.
Finally, evidence of power sharing between parent and teacher was limited. However, the
principal’s insistence that teachers remain available to parents conveyed a message that
parents were equal in importance; most teachers expressed the need to be responsive to
parents.
The traditional approach to parent-teacher relationships does not yield the deep
understanding of students and families that allows the teacher to most effectively serve
the student. Furthermore, by not recognizing and utilizing parents’ assets, the wealth of
resources parents have to offer the relationship remained untouched. At the research site,
157
the school and teachers have implemented a very strong effort to involve parents in their
students’ education; however, the traditional approach currently in place can be
transformed to produce to deeper, more effective relationships with parents.
Language and Cultural Barriers. Because language and cultural barriers were
not examined in the course of this study, the question of the possible effect of language
and cultural differences on the relationships between parents and teachers remains. The
three teachers who were the strongest speakers of Spanish and also expressed familiarity
with Hispanic culture all reported positive relationships with parents. Ms. Freeman
reported she did not speak Spanish well, although she had a bi-lingual aide for part of the
day, but she reported positive relationships with parents. Ms. Good, who did not report
generally positive relationships with her students’ parents, was not a strong Spanish-
speaker and did not express familiarity with Hispanic culture, although she may have
some. She also reported that she did not consider the availability of translation services to
be a barrier. Although it is possible language and cultural difference contributed to the
mixed results of her efforts to build relationships with parents, she constructed her role
and the parents’ role in such a way that it, too, was a likely contributor.
Summary: Finding #1. Data showed teachers’ self-efficacy in regard to
building relationships with parents affected their ability to build those
relationships. Each of the four teachers who expressed a high level of self-
efficacy demonstrated it in a different way. For the most part, the ways they
demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy were traditional, suggestive of being
bidirectional. Ms. Molino reported being particularly skilled at reaching hard-to-
contact parents. Mr. Ortega reported an ability to build a common agenda with
158
parents by promoting high expectations for the student. Ms. Tapia reported being
able to help parents, particularly with the task of setting consequences for the
student. Ms. Freeman reported being able to build trusting relationships with
parents. Each of the four teachers reported experiencing productive relationships
with parents.
What one teacher experienced as an insurmountable barrier to building
relationships with parents was not so for another. For example, Ms. Good
provided an example of a grandparent who stated, “I don’t know what to do”
when the student apparently was not completing his/her work. Ms. Good implied
that the time spent contacting this parent was not simply a waste of time, but may
have resulted in harm to the student. Ms. Tapia reported facing similar challenges,
when she described parents who, “don’t know what a consequence is” or “seem to
be afraid to correct behavior.” However, rather than seeing little value in further
pursuing the assistance of the parent, as Ms. Good did, Ms. Tapia provided
several examples of situations in which she responded by advising and
empowering the parent, and, in at least one instance, observed improved grades or
behavior of the student as an outcome. Ms. Molino and Mr. Ortega also provided
examples of situations in which they provided parenting advice and then observed
an improvement in student performance.
Likewise, Ms. Good stated that the type of parent she had the most
difficult time developing relationships with were those who were “tired of hearing
that their student is bad.” Although Ms. Good clarified, “I would never say that
you have a bad student” and possibly never even thought it, her description
159
suggests that some parents interpreted her communication with them in that way.
Ms. Freeman described the parents she had the hardest time developing a
relationship with as, “the ones who are very confrontational in the beginning.”
She had a strategy for building a relationship with this type of parent. “I try to
always start off with a positive…because I know that, a lot of times, we tend to
focus on the negative behavior.” Although she did not suggest that this strategy
was always completely successful in developing a more collaborative relationship
with these parents, she did use the phrase, “in the beginning,” which suggests that
at least some of these relationships improved over time. Therefore, although Ms.
Good experienced defensiveness of parents as an insurmountable barrier, Ms.
Freeman was able to mediate this barrier in some cases.
Summary: Finding #2. Data show the way teachers constructed their role and
the parent’s role influenced the types of relationships they reported having with their
students’ parents. Ms. Molino, Ms. Good, and Mr. Ortega constructed their roles and
their students’ parents’ roles according to a traditional model, while the way Ms. Tapia
and Ms. Freeman constructed their roles and the parents’ revealed some qualities of equal
partnerships. To a large extent, the way four of the five teachers constructed these roles
was translated into actions that produced the result they desired. This was only partly true
for Ms. Freeman, who wished to develop deeper relationships with her students’ parents,
but found that limited opportunities to meet with them face-to-face made this difficult.
Ms. Good was an exception, as acting on her role construction did not produce the
intended result. That is, the relationships she reported having with her students’ parents
varied greatly; only some resembled her ideal. Her habits for communicating with
160
parents were also not likely to produce the types of relationships she reported wanting to
share with her students’ parents. The infrequency of her communication routines did not
relay to parents her desire for them to remain consistently involved in monitoring their
students’ progress. Also, Ms. Good did not report any regular practices of
communicating positive information to parents. As a result, the message this
communicated to parents, however unintentionally, was that parents were needed only
when a problem arose.
The ways Ms. Tapia and Ms. Freeman constructed their role and the role of the parent
in the parent-teacher relationship had several hallmarks of a truly collaborative
partnership. They expressed respect for parents’ opinions and reported soliciting and
accommodating parent input. Ms. Freeman reported, “Even if we might not get along or
disagree about something, we can always come to an agreement by the end of the
conversation.” Her description implied dialogue in which parent and teacher negotiated a
common ground. Ms. Tapia reported asking parents about their aspirations for their
children. With that information, she could advise parents on what the student would need
to do to reach his/her goal. Also, the ways in which both teachers constructed the role of
the parent and the teacher were often nontraditional, extending beyond interest in the
child’s academic success to encompass concern for the whole child. Both reported
having developed deeper relationships with some parents. Ms. Freeman explained that
she gave her cell phone number to certain parents, and that, in the past, she has socialized
with some families on the weekends. Ms. Tapia explained, “Some parents want me to
come over to their house for dinner.” That parents and teacher voluntarily socialized
outside of school hours suggests a high level of mutual regard. Their role constructions
161
were not rigid or confined to narrow definitions, nor were the relationships they reported
experiencing with their students’ parents.
In contrast, Ms. Molino, Ms. Good, and Mr. Ortega constructed their roles and the
roles of their students’ parents such that communications were typically teacher-initiated
and revolved primarily around satisfying the school’s agenda. Relationships focused
primarily on what the teacher wanted from the parent are not equal partnerships (Ferrara,
2009).
Summary: Finding #3. Data show the traditional way Ms. Hughes constructed
the roles of the teacher and the parent in their relationships with each other strongly
influenced the way the teachers constructed these roles. Ms. Hughes believed that the
parent-teacher relationship was essential to student success in school. She clearly
articulated to teachers her expectations of how they should fulfill their roles in this
relationship. Furthermore, she implemented many school procedures and other supports
to aid teachers in the process of building the desired qualities in their relationships with
parents.
The principal’s role construction for parents and teachers was traditional; that is,
it was primarily teacher/school-driven. Her emphasis on being responsive and available
to parents communicated a partnership of equals. Also, she modeled certain behaviors in
her own relationships with students’ parents that were elements of an equal partnership.
However, in other ways, this was not the role construction she communicated she
expected teachers to have. The ways in which the principal held teachers accountable in
regard to her expectations of them in their relationships with parents also enforced a
traditional model. Teachers were held accountable primarily for communicating with
162
parents and keeping them informed. The traditional role construction was therefore
present in the ways most teachers constructed their role and the role of their students’
parents.
The traditional role construction for parent and teacher is limited in how well it is
able to serve parent, teacher, and student. This approach may have functioned adequately
for highly efficacious parents, but does not take into account parents who lack the
efficacy to initiate in setting forward their concerns. Furthermore, little mention was
made of efforts by teachers to get to know parents. Not making efforts to learn about
parents, or frequently putting off requests for parent input until the end of a meeting can
send a message that parent input is secondary in importance to teacher input. Highly
efficacious parents are less likely to be deterred by this message and the traditional role
construction is likely to work better for parents who are predisposed to support their
child’s education, and who do not experience many barriers to doing so. However,
parents who tend not to become involved are often the ones whose students could benefit
the most from a productive relationship between their parent and teacher. Therefore, the
full potential of the parent-teacher relationship to benefit the student is not realized.
Teachers perceived the principal’s support and trust was the most powerful of
school policies or practices in regard to promoting effective parent-teacher relationships.
Their perceptions are supported by the research of Sanders and Sheldon (2009), who
found that principals who are most effective at supporting parent-teacher relationships do
so by building supportive climates. Doing so requires sharing power, modeling
collaboration, and addressing issues of trust.

163
Implications for Practice
Parent-teacher relationships can be transformed from the current, primarily
traditional, school-to-home model into equal partnerships that have potential to be more
beneficial to students. Such a transformation requires professional development, both for
the principal and for teachers. This professional development can help the principal and
teachers redefine their understanding of the parent’s role and the teacher’s role in their
relationships with each other. The principal’s professional development can also help her
redefine the roles of the school and the parent in the relationship between home and
school. It can help the principal identify structures that can be established to support this
change.
Implementing an assets-based relationship with parents requires the teacher to get
to know the parent and to incorporate the assets parents bring to the parent-teacher
relationship and to the students’ learning process. Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2005)
recommend that teachers “Learn about parents’ goals, perspectives on child’s learning,
family circumstances, culture.” They suggest that teachers solicit suggestions from
parents and follow through on those suggestions. Also, an assets-based approach means
utilizing family strengths upon which to build learning experiences in the classroom,
tying a student’s prior knowledge to his/her learning and building on students’ strengths.
Finally, another way of implementing an assets-based approach is to recruit parents to
share their knowledge and skills in the classroom (Gonzalez et al., 2005). More frequent
Parent-Teacher Conferences, introductory meetings with parents at the beginning of the
school year, occasional home visits by teachers, and other additional opportunities to
164
meet face-to-face with parents can help develop the deeper relationships with parents that
will most benefit students.
Power sharing can be implemented through the ways in which parent-teacher
meetings are conducted and the School Compact is presented. This begins by soliciting
the parent’s assistance in setting the agenda, asking parents what concerns or questions
they would like to address or information they would like to share during the course of
the meeting. For example, parents can be reminded in advance of Parent Teacher
Conferences or other meetings to bring any questions and concerns (Swap, 1993). Then,
the facilitator of the meeting must ensure that those concerns are addressed. Also, when
parent input is solicited throughout the meeting, this communicates that the parent’s
opinion is considered essential to the decision-making process. Similarly, presentation of
the School Compact should be preceded by a discussion of what the parent considers to
be his/her role and the teacher’s role. Only after that discussion has taken place should
the Compact be presented. Any requests for change by the parent might be followed by a
discussion in which parent and teacher seek to find common ground.
Limitations
The intention was to choose a research site that would represent the most
common educational setting for low-income minority students. It was hoped that the
more readers who found the setting of the research site similar to their own, the more
readers would see the findings as relevant to their own situation. This would increase the
likelihood that they would be able to utilize them for the benefit of their students. For that
reason, a comprehensive public neighborhood middle school was chosen. However, it
was later discovered that this school had been the recipient of a Quality Investment in
165
Education (QIEA) grant, which made possible resources that are not available to many
schools. Teachers reported this grant funded smaller class sizes, giving teachers more
time to get to know their students and their families. However, the grant does not in any
way challenge the findings of this study. It simply means that some of the practices
reported by the research site may be financially difficult for another school to implement.
Future Research
There are three natural extensions of this study that might contribute to improved
relationships between teachers and low-income and minority parents. One is an
evaluation of the effectiveness of professional development designed to support the
development of parent-teacher relationships. Second, an evaluation of school policy and
practice, also designed to support equal partnerships between parents and teachers, would
be beneficial. Finally, more study of the effect of language barriers on the building of
relationships between parents and teachers is needed. None of these subjects is
sufficiently addressed in existing research and all have potential to contribute to the
development of relationships between parents and teachers and to the academic success
of students.
Evaluation of professional development designed to support the transformation of
parent-teacher relationships into equal partnerships has potential to reveal the best
practices for helping teachers and administrators create these relationships. Examination
of how professional development can most effectively influence the way the principal
constructs and communicates the role of parent and teacher in their relationships with
each other can lead to more effective preparation of principals. Furthermore, the study of
teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of professional development that
166
assists teachers in transforming the way they construct their role and that of the parents
have potential to lead to improved preparation of teachers.
Also, study of how structural factors can best support equal partnerships between
parents and teachers can also lead to more productive relationships between them.
Although the School Compact made reference to shared decision-making, the findings of
this study show the statement in the Compact was insufficient to influence the
development of this characteristic. Furthermore, although the school provided significant
resources to support teachers and families, it was unclear how well utilized or useful
these services were or might be to influence the quality or construction of the relationship
between parent and teacher.
Furthermore, this study did not reveal sufficient information for studying language
barriers in regard to the parent-teacher relationship. A study of a school with a similar
student demographic, but with the more common primarily Caucasian, monolingual staff
would provide the opportunity to study best practices in regard to mediating the language
barrier between English only teachers and parents who are not fluent English speakers.
Such a study that incorporated parent perceptions has potential to be particularly
valuable.
The explorations by this study can be usefully extended in other regards. For
example, a similar study of a site that is less well positioned to financially support
relationships with parents may provide deeper understanding of the barriers teachers
commonly face to developing relationships with parents. Also, a study similar to this, but
incorporating both teacher and parent perceptions, would add another level of depth of
understanding about the process of developing productive parent-teacher relationships.
167
Conclusion
The findings of this study confirmed the importance of teacher self-efficacy and
teachers’ and principals’ role constructions to teachers’ ability to develop productive
relationships with parents. More specifically, it revealed that, when a principal holds a
traditional view of the parent-teacher relationship, regardless of the qualities of the
relationship she models with parents, teachers are likely to construct their roles with
parents according to the more traditional paradigm. Therefore, a principal who holds
what research has found to be the most effective role construction for a parent-teacher
relationship is most likely to successfully promote the same role construction among the
teachers at his/her school. Therefore, educating principals regarding what research
reveals is the most effective role construction for the parent-teacher relationship holds
promise for improving middle school parent-teacher relationships.

168
REFERENCES
Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship:
Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades.
Journal of School Psychology. 38(5), 477–497.
Agnes, M., & Guralnik, D. B. (Eds). (2006). Webster’s new world college dictionary (4
th

ed.). Cleveland, OH: Wiley Publishing.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’
achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward an
understanding of parents’ decision making. The Journal of Educational Research,
100(5), 311–323.
Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic
school-family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20, 728-757.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175-1184.
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2004). Assessing the transition to middle and high school.
Journal of adolescent research, 19(3), 3-30.
Bartels, S. M., & Eskow, K. G. (2010). Training school professionals to engage families:
A pilot university/State Department of Education partnership. The School
Community Journal, 20(2), 45-72.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., Beegle, G. (2004).
Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for
collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167-184.
Boske, C. A., & Benavente-McEnery, L. (2010). Taking it to the streets: A new line of
inquiry for school communities, Journal of School Leadership, 20(3), 369-398.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
California State Board of Education, (2002). Nell Soto Parent/Teacher Involvement
Program. Retrieved July 17, 2011 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/profile.asp?id=1011
Carreon, G. P., Drake, C., Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant
parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research
Journal, 42(3), 465-498.
169
Christenson, S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the
learning competence of all students, School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454-
482.
Christenson, S. L,. & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children succeed
or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Family-school connections and the transitions of low-income youths
and English-Language learners from middle school to high school.
Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1061-1076.
D’Agostino, J. V., Hedges, L. V., Wong, K. K., & Borman, G. D. (2001). Parent-
involvement programs: Effects on parenting practices and student achievement. In
G. Borman, S. Stringfield, & R. Slavin (Eds.), Title 1: Compensatory Education
at the Crossroads (pp. 117-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-
level schooling. The Journal of Education Research, 98(3), 164-175.
Deslandes, R., & Cloutier, R. (2002). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental involvement
in schooling. School Psychology International, 23(2), 220-232.
Dornbusch, S. M. & Gloasgow, K. L. (1996). The structural content of family-school
relations. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they effect
educational outcomes (pp. 35-44)? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Downey, Douglas (2002). Parental and family involvement in education. In A. Molnar
(Ed.), School reform proposals: The research evidence (pp. 113-134). Greenwish,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Drummond, K. V. & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ beliefs about their role in
children’s academic learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 197-213.
Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Coalition for
Community Schools. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from
http://www.communityschools.org/
Dunlap, C. Z., & Alva, S. A. (1999). Redefining school and community relations:
Teachers’ perceptions of parents as participants and stakeholders. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 26(4), 123-133.
170
Eberly, J. L., Joshi, A., Konzal, J., & Golen, H. (2010). Crossing cultures: Considering
ethnotheory in teacher thinking and practices. Multicultural Education, 18(1), 25-
32.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators
and improving schools (2
nd
ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children
we share. In Epstein & Associates (Eds.) School, family, and community
partnerships: Your handbook for action (pp. 9-30) (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L. & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for
school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education,
81(2), 81-120.
Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth
modeling analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1), 27-61.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement:
A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Farrell, A. F., & Collier, M. A. (2010). School personnel’s perceptions of family-school
communication: A qualitative study. Improving Schools, 13(1), 4-20.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2011). America’s children:
Key national indicators of well-being, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from
http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2011/ac_11.pdf
Ferrara, M. M., & Ferrara, P. J. (2005). Parents as partners: Raising awareness as a
teacher preparation program. Clearing House, 79(2), 77-82.
Fleishman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights
from Pisa 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading,
mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfield, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,
74, 59–109.
Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy
and family involvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation.
Urban Education, 39(3), 290-315.
Garcia, E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge
(3
rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Company.
171
Gareau, M., & Sawatzky, D. (1995). Parents and schools working together: A qualitative
study of parent-school collaboration. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
41(4), 462-473.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Good, M. E., Masewicz, S., Vogel, L. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging
achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos
and Education, 9(4), 321-339.
Gordon, M. F., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Linking parent and community involvement with
student achievement: Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of stakeholder
influence. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 1-31.
Graves, Jr., S. L., & Wright, L. B. (2011). Parent involvement at school entry: A national
examination of group differences and achievement. School Psychology
International, 32(1), 35–48.
Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources
and the transition to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(4), 465-
488.
Gutman, L., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the
academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle
school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 223-248.
Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory
of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2),
6225-6638.
Hauser-Cram, P., Sirin, S. R., & Stipek, D. (2003). When teachers’ and parents’ values
differ: Teachers’ ratings of academic competence in children from low-income
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 813-820.
Heinrich, C. C., & Blackman-Jones, R. (2006). Parent involvement in preschool. In E.
Zigler, W. Gilliam, & S. Jones (Eds.) A vision for universal preschool education
(pp. 149-168). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis
2002. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for
Family and Community Connections with Schools. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from
www.edl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school
readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(4), 686-697.
172
Hill, N. E., & Chao, R. K. (Eds.) (2009). Introduction: Background in theory, practice,
and policy. Families, schools, and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy,
and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance:
Mediated pathways among socio-economically comparable African-American
and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 74-83.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004a). Parental school involvement and children’s
academic achievement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161–
164.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F., (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-
analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 45(3), 740-763.
Hill, N. E., Tyson, D. F., & Bromell, L. (2009). Developmentally appropriate strategies
across ethnicity and socioeconomic status: Parental involvement during middle
school. In N. Hill & R. Chao (Eds.), Family, schools, and the adolescent:
Connecting research, policy, and practice (pp.53-72). New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Hong, S., & Ho, H. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental
involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across
ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1). 32-42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in
their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L.,
Wilkins, et al. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2010). Parent involvement in rural elementary schools in New
Zealand: A survey. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 771-777.
Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital:
Class differences in the relations between schools and their parent networks.
American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319-351.
Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’
perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and
majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 303-320.
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, Q. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher
relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51.
173
Iruka, I. U., Winn, D. C., Kingsley, S. J., & Orthodoxou, Y. J. (2011). Links between
parent-teacher relationships and kindergarteners’ social skills: Do child ethnicity
and family income matter? The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 387–408.
Izzo, C. V., Weisbeg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal
assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education
and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6),
817-839.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban
secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban
Education, 42(1), 82-110.
Jones, N., & Schneider, B. (2009). Rethinking the role of parenting: Promoting
adolescent academic success and emotional wellbeing. In N. Hill & R. Chao
(Eds.), Families, Schools, and the Adolescent: Connecting Research, Policy, and
Practice (pp. 73-90). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Joshi, A., Eberty, J., & Konzal, J. (2005). Dialogue across cultures: Teachers’
perceptions about communication with diverse families, Multicultural Education,
13, 11-15.
Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A. J. L. (2000). School district parent involvement policies
and programs. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 101-118.
Keyes, C. R. (2000). Parent-teacher relationships: A theoretical approach for teachers.
Issues in early childhood education: Curriculum, teacher education, &
information dissemination. Paper presented at the Lillian Katz Symposium.
Retrieved October 21, 2011 from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsympro.html
Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parent involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus
away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review, 4, 80-102.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school:
Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and
demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 501–523.
Korfmacher, J., Green, B., Staerkel, F., Peterson, C., Cook, G., Roggman, L., Faldowski,
et al. (2008). Parent involvement in early childhood home visiting. Child Youth
Care Forum, 37, 171-196.

174
Kreider, H., & Bouffard, S. M. (2009). Opportunities for moving family involvement
research into policy and practice. In N. Hill & R. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools,
and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice (178-194). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education,
72(1), 37-53.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions
of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.
Lightfoot, S. L. (2004). “Some parents just don’t care”: Decoding the meaning of
parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39(1), 91-107.
Lin, M., & Bates, A. B. (2010). Home visits: How do they affect teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and diversity? Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 179-185.
Loder-Jackon, T. L., McKnight, A. N., Brooks, M., McGrew, K., & Voltz, D. (2007).
Unmasking subtle and concealed aspects of parent involvement: Perspectives
from African American parents in the urban south. Journal of School Public
Relations, 28, 350-378.
Lopez, G., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental
involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 253-288.
Lott, B. (2001). Low-income parents and the public schools. Journal of Social Issues,
57(2), 247-259.
Lueder, D. C. (2011). Involving hard-to-reach parents: Creating family/school
partnerships. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Mandell, C. J., & Murray. M. M. (2009). Administrators’ understanding and use of
family-centered practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(1), 17-37.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parental school involvement and
public school inner city preschoolers’ development and academic performance.
The School Psychology Review, 28(3), 395-412.
Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L, Rodriguez, J. L. & Kayzar, B. (2002).
Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of
Educational Research, 72(4), 549–576.
McKinley & Co., (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools: Summary of findings. Retrieved August 16, 2011 from
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/K
nowledge_Highlights/Economic_impact.aspx
175
Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced
teachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39-56.
Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J. A., & Mann, M. B. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of home visits
for early elementary children. Early Childhood Education, 34(1), 93-97.
Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for
disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379–
402.
Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-
teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814-
851.
Nakagawa, K. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent
involvement. Educational Policy, 14, 443-472.
National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and
Bureau of Indian Education elementary and secondary school teachers in the
United States. Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved August 13, 2012,
fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009324/tables/sass0708_2009324_t12n_02.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). National statue dropout rate. Trends in
high school dropout and completion rates in the United States, 1972-2008.
Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/dropout08/findings3.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Mathematics: National assessment of
educational progress at grades 4 and 8. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved
August 13, 2012, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2011/
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Reading: National assessment of
educational progress at grades 4 and 8. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved
August 13, 2011, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/
Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2002). Quality indicators of professionals who work with
children with problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(2),
118-122.
Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2003). Service integration in early intervention: Determining
interpersonal and structural factors for its success. Infants and Young Children,
16(1), 48-58.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
176
Pena, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. Journal of
Educational Research, 94(1), 42-54.
Pianta, R. C., Rimm-Kauffman, S. E., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The transition to
kindergarten. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Pianta R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing
sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.
Platt, S. (1993). Respectfully quoted: A dictionary of quotations. New York: Barnes and
Noble, Inc.
Powell, D. R., Son, S., File, N., & San Juan, R. R. (2010). Parent-school relationships
and children’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten.
Journal of School Psychology, 48, 269–292.
Prentice, A. R., & Houston, S. E. (1975). Family, school, and society. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Public Law 107 – 110 (2002, January 8) No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington,
D. C.: Congressional Record, 115 STAT. 1500–1505.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of
students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.
Saft, E. W. & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with
students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children.
School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125-141.
Sanders, M. G., & Sanders, S. B. (2009). Principals matter: A guide to school, family,
and community partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sbarra, D. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teacher ratings of behavior among African
American and Caucasian children during the first two years. Psychology in the
School. (38), 229–238.
Seeley, D. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Seitzinger, A. M., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, A. (2008). A large-scale
examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage parents:
Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School
Psychology, (46), 477-505.
Smetena, J., Campinoe-Barr, N., & Daddis, C. (2004). Longitudinal development of
family decision making: defining healthy behavioral autonomy for middle-class
African American adolescents. Child development, 75(5), 1418-1434.
177
Smith, J., Stern, K., & Shatrova, Z. (2008). Factors inhibiting Hispanic parents’ school
improvement. The Rural Educator, 29(2), 8-13.
Stalker, K. O., Brunner, R., Maquire, R., & Mitchell, J. (2011). Tackling the barriers to
disabled parents- involvement in their children’s education. Educational Review,
63(2), 233-250.
Stecher, B., Hamilson, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Retrieved October 21, 2011 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138.html
Swap, S. M. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.
Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school improvement: Are immigrant parents
disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257-271.
U. S. Department of Education (2010a). Blueprint for reform. Retrieved July 6, 2011
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2010b). Parental Information and Resource Centers:
Funding Status. Retrieved July 8, 2011 from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/pirc/funding.html
Van Ewijk, R. (2011). Same work, lower grade? Student ethnicity and teachers’
subjective assessments. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1045-1058.
Vickers, H. S., & Minke, K. M. (1995). Exploring parent-teacher relationships: Joining
and communication to others. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 133–150.
Vosler-Hunter, R. W. (1989). Changing roles, changing relationships: Parent-
professional collaboration on behalf of children with emotional disabilities,
Families as Allies Project. National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved October
21, 2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ER
ICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED332414&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&a
ccno=ED332414

178
Westat & Policy Study Associates (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school
change and performance (LESCP) in Title I schools: final report. Volume 1:
Executive summary. U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 21, 2011
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ER
ICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED457306&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&a
ccno=ED457306
Wright, K., Daniel, T., & Himelreich, K. S. (2000). Preparation for building
partnerships with families: A survey of teachers, teacher educators, and school
administrators. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved October 21, 2011
from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-
publications/preparation-for-building-partnerships-with-families-a-survey-of-
teachers-teacher-educators-and-school-administrators
Xu, Z. & Gulosino, C. A. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effects of
teacher-parent partnership on early childhood performance in public and private
schools. Education Economics, 14(3), 345-367.

179
APPENDIX A
TABLE 1: TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX

Ms. Molino Ms. Tapia Ms. Freeman Ms. Good Mr. Ortega
Years at
Research
Site/Total
Years
Teaching
2/7 20/42 4/7 9/9 10/15
Teaching
Assignment
7
th
/8
th
Grade
English 3D
(ELD*)
7
th
/8
th
Grade
English 3D
(EO*)
6
th
Grade
Instructional
Coach
7
th
Grade
Language
Arts/Social
Studies
One Core:
ELL*
One Core
EO*
6
th
Grade Language
Arts/Social Studies
One Core: SEI*
One Core:
Advanced/
Proficient
With Many GATE*
8
th
Grade
Language
Arts/Social
Studies
One Core:
Basic or
mixed
One Core:
Advanced/
Proficient,
Many
GATE*
6
th
Grade
Language
Arts/
Social
Studies
ELD*
Spanish
Speaking?
“I’m not
fluent, but I
can survive…I
get my point
across.” “I
understand
what the parent
says.”
Bilingual “I’m not proficient,
but I speak Spanish.
I understand more
than I speak…” I
usually depend on a
translator so I don’t
make a mistake in
my speech.”
[Do you find
language to
be an issue
between
yourself and
parents?]
“No. We get
translators…
or I’ll have a
student
translate for
me. I know
enough,
understand
enough.”
Bilingual
Does the
parent-
teacher
relationship
influence
student
achievement?
“Yes.” “If we
educate parents
in what we’re
doing and they
believe in what
we’re doing,
they will
support us.”
“Yes”
“Without
their support
and
cooperation,
what do I
have?”
“Absolutely.” “It can. I
believe it all
depends on
the student,
if, if that
student
actually
cares.”
“Absolutely.”
*ELD-English Language Development ELL–English Language Learners EO-English
Only GATE-Gifted and Talented Education SEI-Structured English Immersion

180
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT FORM: TEACHER PARTICIPANT

The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to
participate in the study Teacher Perceptions: How School Policies and Practices Impact
Parent-Teacher Relationships. You are free to choose against participating in this study.
You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time, without influencing your
relationship with the researcher, your school or district, and the University of Southern
California.

Purpose
The purpose of the study is to seek understanding of ways in which school policy and
practice can best support, and not impede, teachers’ efforts to build productive
relationships with parents. The findings of this study will be available to participating
teachers and administrators for the purposes of sharing perceived best practices and for
improving practice.

Procedures
This study will consist of one in-depth interview with the principal of each site,
collection and analysis of teacher and school documents, and one in-depth interview with
each teacher participant. Interviews will be recorded on digital audio and then transcribed
for analysis. You will be asked to review the transcript of your interview and clarify any
errors or misconceptions.

Interview questions asked will be in regard to the professional roles of the participant.
You will be queried regarding your perception of what constitutes the ideal middle
school parent-teacher relationship. You will be asked questions about the actual nature of
your relationships with parents and the barriers you face in attempting to work with
parents. Finally, you will be asked which school policies and practices impact your
efforts to build relationships with parents and how they do so.

The interview cannot be conducted during instructional time.

Rights
You may decline consent to participate at any time preceding this study’s publication of
findings. Consent can and may be revoked regarding one item, a group of items, or your
entire contribution to the study. For example, if you provide information during an
interview that you later regret disclosing, you may request that the information cannot be
used in the study, and this request will be honored.

You are welcome to ask questions before or during the study. You will have access to
your own data. If you desire, I will also share findings with you after the study is
complete.

181
Privacy
Your privacy will be protected at all times. A pseudonym will be utilized for the names
of school district, school, principals, and teachers in this study. Audio recordings and
transcripts will be maintained in a password-protected computer file until destroyed. All
audio recordings and transcripts will be maintained for a maximum of one year following
the publication of any and all data collected during this study. Revelations of illegal
activity or of child abuse or neglect cannot be kept confidential.

Risks and Benefits
No harm or injury is anticipated to result from any of the data collected in this study. An
expected benefit is illumination of how school policy and practice does or can effectively
support your efforts to build relationships with parents. This information can improve
practice in your classroom or school, or, in the event of publication, in the schools or
classrooms of others.

Your signature on this form will acknowledge that you have been informed of, and agree
to, the above information and have granted permission to participate in the study. You
will be provided with a copy of this form.

___ I agree to the audio recording of the interview.

___________________________________________ ______________________
Signature Date

Nancy Smith, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
nancysmi@usc.edu
719-271-9481

182
APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM: PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANT

The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to
participate in the study Teacher Perceptions: How School Policies and Practices Impact
Parent-Teacher Relationships. You are free to choose against participating in this study.
You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time, without influencing your
relationship with the researcher, your school or district, and the University of Southern
California.

Purpose
The purpose of the study is to seek understanding of ways in which school policy and
practice can best support, and not impede, teachers’ efforts to build productive
relationships with parents. The findings of this study will be available to participating
teachers and administrators for the purposes of sharing perceived best practices and for
improving practice.

Procedures
This study will consist of one in-depth interview with the principal of each site,
collection and analysis of teacher and school documents, and one in-depth interview with
each teacher participant. Interviews will be recorded on digital audio and then transcribed
for analysis. You will be asked to review the transcript of your interview and clarify any
errors or misconceptions.

Interview questions asked will be in regard to the professional roles of the participant.
You will be asked to describe your beliefs about the potential of the middle school
parent-teacher relationship to impact student success. You will be asked to describe your
concept of the ideal middle school parent-teacher relationship. You will be asked to
describe school policies and practices that impact teachers’ efforts to build relationships
with parents, or policies and practices that were implemented to serve this purpose.
Finally, you will be asked to describe policies, practices, or other elements that constitute
barriers to teachers as they attempt to build productive relationships with parents.

Rights
You may decline consent to participate at any time preceding this study’s publication of
findings. Consent can and may be revoked regarding one item, a group of items, or your
entire contribution to the study. For example, if you provide information during an
interview that you later regret disclosing, you may request that the information cannot be
used in the study and that request will be honored.

You are welcome to ask questions before or during the study. Each participant will have
access to his or her own data. Findings will be shared with you after the study is
complete. The principal will be granted the right of review in the event of publication.

183
Privacy
Your privacy will be protected at all times. A pseudonym will be utilized for the names
of school district, school, principals, and teachers in this study. Audio recordings and
transcripts will be maintained in a password-protected computer file until destroyed. All
audio recordings and transcripts will be maintained for a maximum of one year following
the publication of any and all data collected during this study. Revelations of illegal
activity or of child abuse or neglect cannot be kept confidential.

Risks and Benefits
No harm or injury is anticipated to result from any of the data collected in this study. In
the event that an unexpected ethical or other issue arises, advice will be procured from
my dissertation chair without divulging the names of the people, school, or district
involved.

An expected benefit is illumination of how school policy and practice does or can
effectively support efforts of teachers to build relationships with parents. This
information may improve practice in your classrooms or school, or, in the event of
publication, in the schools or classrooms of others.

Your signature on this form will acknowledge that you have been informed of, and agree
to, the above information and have granted permission to participate in the study. You
will be provided with a copy of this form.

____ I agree to the audio recording of the interview.

___________________________________________ ______________________
Signature Date

Nancy Smith, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
nancysmi@usc.edu
719-271-9481

184
APPENDIX D
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Hello, I’m a doctoral student at the University of Southern California and I’m
studying how school policies and practices impact parent-teacher relationships. When I
began to teach in a school that had a particularly high percentage of low-income students
and non-English-speaking parents, I ran across many new challenges to building
relationships with parents. This is part of the reason for my interest in this topic.

In order for your school to be used as a research site, I’m required to provide this
information regarding how the study will be conducted and I’m required to get your
signature, showing that I’ve done so. [Informed Consent form]…

I’m going to begin by asking some general questions about your interactions with
parents.

A. Background Questions
1. Describe the parents of your students.
i. Phone, computer access, transportation, demeanor, values,
employment, safety, language, ethnicity, mobility
2. Communication
i. Describe the types of interactions you have had with parents over
this school year so far.
ii. How often do you interact with parents in regard to students?
iii. Give me an example of a time in the past week when a parent and
you communicated in regard to a student.
1. What was the purpose of the interaction?
2. What was the result of the interaction?
3. Describe your teaching schedule.
4. Number of years teaching
i. At this school
ii. At other schools

Thank you. This helps me to picture your relationships with some of your parents.

Now, I’m going to ask some questions about your beliefs about teachers’ relationships
with parents of middle school students.

B. Beliefs
1. Do you felt that your relationships with your students’ parents influence
their success in school?
i. In what ways?
ii. How does this happen? Can you give me a specific example from
your own experience?
185
2. Do you feel the relationships between parents and teachers have
contributed to the success of students at this school?
i. If so, in what way?
3. What philosophy, if any, about the place of parents in the education of
middle school students is conveyed by the administration of this school?
i. How is this conveyed?

The next questions are about what you would consider to be the ideal relationship
between a teacher and a parent.

C. Role Construction
1. Describe what you would consider to be an ideal relationship between a
parent and a teacher. What does it look like? Sound like? Feel like?
i. What are the features/components/qualities of it?
2. Would your ideal relationship with a parent look the same for parents of a
high-achieving student? If not, how would it differ?
i. An under-performing student? “”
ii. A misbehaving student? “ “
iii. If not, how do they differ? “ “
3. What do you expect of yourself in your relationship with a parent?
4. What do you expect of your students’ parents?
5. What does this school’s administration expect of you in your relationship
with your student’s parents?
6. How, if at all, do you feel the ideal relationship between teachers and
parents of middle school students should differ from the relationship in
elementary school?

Thank you. This is so helpful, because it helps me understand what you are trying to
accomplish in your relationships with parents.

The next series of questions are more specific questions about the actual relationships
you have with parents this year.

D.Teacher’s actual relationships with parents.
1. How do your actual relationships with parents compare to the ideal you
described?
a. How did this come about? Was it accidental or how do you work to
develop these relationships? What steps did you take? What do you do
to try to form the kind of relationship you want with parents?
2. What kinds of parents do you have a hard time with?
ii. What are these relationships like??
3.What kinds of parents do you have an easy time with?
iii. What are those relationships like?

186
4. Suppose I were a parent who has heard a different version of a situation from
the student than you would have given. How would your typical parent handle
this situation?
i. How would you handle it?
5. What do you like most about developing relationships with parents?
6. What do you like least?

E. Language Barriers
1. I understand that many of your students are (ethnicity), so I’m guessing that
many speak___? Do you speak any of these languages?
2. Do you find language to be an issue between yourself and the parent?
3. How adequate and available would you say translation services are to help
you communicate with non-English-speaking parents?
i.Do you have translation services available to you?
ii.How have you used these?
iii.Is there anything that has helped you use them or made it difficult for you
to use them?

Thank you. This helps me to understand what you feel is working and what isn’t. This
lays a foundation for the next set of questions.

Now, I would like to ask some questions about the school policies and practices that you
find influences your efforts to build relationships with parents.

F. Current School Practice and Policy
a. What beliefs, if any, about the ideal relationship between parent and
teacher reflected in school policy? Practice?
i. How are these communicated?
b. What school policies and practices do you find support your efforts to
build productive relationships with parents?
i. How do they do this?
c. What school policies and practices do you find impede your efforts to
build productive relationships with parents?
i. How do they do this?
d. Walk me through a typical parent-teacher conference.

G. Communication of Expectations
e. How does the school or principal communicate to you what is expected of you in
the parent-teacher relationship?
f. Does the school communicate with parents about what is expected of them? If so,
how? Can you give me an example?
i. Explicit messages? Implicit messages?
g. How do parents know what will be expected of students?

187
Thank you. This helps me so much as I try to understand what works for you here at your
school and what is not helpful.

Now, I turn our attention to the future and what you would like to stay the same and what
changes would you like to see that would facilitate your efforts to create relationships
with parents.

H. Future
a. In regard to school policies and practices that affect your relationships
with parents, which do you find the most valuable that you would like to
see continued?
b. What changes would you like to see that you believe would facilitate your
attempts to build relationships with parents?

Finally, I would like to know how your experience at this school might compare to those
at other schools where you have taught.

I. Previous Schools
a. How do your relationships with parents this year compare to your
relationships with parents at previous schools?
b. To what do you attribute these differences?
c. How do school practices and policies that influence the relationships
between parents and teachers compare to those at other schools you’ve
worked at?

I have one final question that will conclude this interview.

J. Is there anything I haven’t asked you, something I need to know that would help
me better understand your relationship with parents?

188
APPENDIX E
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The researcher will explain the purpose of the study, inform the participants of
their rights, and be sure the participants understand their rights prior to signing the
Informed Consent form, prior to beginning the interview.

Questions

A. Background Information

1. How many years have you been the principal at this and other schools?
2. How many years were you the principal at each school, and what type of
school was it?
3. What languages do you speak?

B. Beliefs about the ideal parent-teacher relationship

1. What impact, if any, can the middle school parent-teacher relationship
have in supporting or impeding student success in school?
2. How do you envision the ideal middle school parent-teacher relationship?
3. What are some qualities you would expect to find in the ideal parent-
teacher relationship?

C. School policy and practices related to building parent-teacher relationships

1. How does school policy and practice, and how do you, support the
relationship between parents and teachers?
2. How does the school accommodate parents who do not speak English
well, and parents who are disabled?
Describe the methods, types, and frequency of communication between the school
and parents this year.
3. Describe parent-teacher meetings. How often, when, and where do they
take place?
D. Barriers

1. Are there school policies or procedures that impede teachers’ efforts to
build relationships with parents?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Students whose parents have productive relationships with their teachers tend to perform better in school than those who do not (Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Low income students and students belonging to certain minority groups tend to perform less well in school than their higher income, Caucasian peers (McKinley, 2009). The parents of low-income students and of certain traditionally lower achieving minority groups are also less likely to experience productive relationships with their child’s teacher (Joshi et al., 2005

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining Latino parents' perspective on parent involvement at the secondary level: why should we care

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

The parent voice: an exploratory study to understand Latino parent involvement in schools

PDF

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

PDF

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

PDF

Examining parent involvement activities in two mmigrant-impacted schools: a comparative case study

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Teacher's use of socio-constructivist practices to facilitate mathematics learning

PDF

A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

Developing mathematical reasoning: a comparative study using student and teacher-centered pedagogies

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Nancy Thompson (author)

Core Title What shapes middle school teachers' abilities to build productive parent-teacher relationships? The roles of self-efficacy and teachers' and principal's role constructions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/30/2012

Defense Date 08/14/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education,efficacy,middle school education,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent involvement,parent-teacher relationships

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie M. (committee chair), Hasan, Angela Laila (committee member), Hayes, Katherine (committee member)

Creator Email nansmith07@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-92792

Unique identifier UC11290115

Identifier usctheses-c3-92792 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SmithNancy-1175.pdf

Dmrecord 92792

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, Nancy Thompson

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA