introduction
International research (Epstein, 1985; Henderson, 1987) points out how reinforced parental collaboration within the school community seems to have positive effects on their children’s academic success (Aronson, 1996), whilst improving their attitude and school performance (Bradley, Caldwell, & Rock, 1988) as well. The research agenda shows that the ways parents may enhance the educational experiences of their children is more prominent through cooperation processes within the school community.
Epstein’s framework seems, by research outcomes, to be one of the most promising interventions that promote Parents' involvement in school (Epstein, 1982, 1987). It incorporates 6 different types of involvement that include: guidance/training of parents, communication and information about the educational program, voluntary participation of parents in school’s activities, support of children's learning at home, participation in decision-making and cooperation with local community institutions aiming at the support of school programs (Keyes, 2002). The particular cooperation model has proved to be effective in student’s achievement (Epstein et al, 2002, Fan & Chen, 2001), attendance (Fan & Chen, 2001), and emotional well-being (Epstein, 2005) and has been used by the US National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) to provide standards for parent/teacher involvement programs (National PTA, 1997). However, in order to enhance active and reflective engagement of parents into school’s educational strategies and practices, it should be complemented with an educational tool aimed at enhancing the capacity of parents to communicate, cooperate, and reflect with the school community and to be actively engaged in essential dialogue with their children.
A training program for parents that follows new standards of cooperation has been explored in this research. More specifically, this AR suggests a new learning opportunity that offers parents a variety of skills to deal with their children's education. It raises interest in an innovative educational formation that provides parents the means to engage deeper into their child’s life, and to better understand themselves. In addition, it appears to strengthen the already burdened teachers, who, unfortunately, are required to meet the demands of the modern economic and political system every day rather than the actual educational needs of their students. The specific pedagogical proposition includes, but is not limited to, diverse individuals (i.e. in ideas, beliefs, socio-economic backgrounds), in a multicultural environment, that are given the chance to voice their ideas in a democratic, empathic and respectful manner and co-construct a community that promotes trust and well-being, while establishing a Community of Philosophical Inquiry.
Through this differentiated model of collaboration with parents, both philosophical inquiry and a meaningful dialogue were exploited as a means for shaping an appropriate family environment towards a positive impact on the social and emotional development of the children, whilst amplifying their academic performance. The main emphasis of the aforementioned type of parents’ engagement is grounded on the development of reasoning, reflection and philosophical quest, in the sense of the revival of grassroots philosophy outside of Academia (Lipman, 1991). It has actually been inspired by Lipman’s educational model known and practiced as Philosophy for Children, P4C (2003). Similarly to that model, stories embedded with philosophical concepts have also been read, aiming at provoking philosophical inquiries from the parents, as practiced with the children. Problematizing parents and children in respective ways through storytelling has been an experimental strategy used thoroughly in the project to stimulate philosophical quests. The stories that were applied were children’s stories that have also been read previously in the classroom to the students prompting a philosophical discussion. These carefully selected stories were aiming to stimulate philosophical concepts such as Friendship, Love, Peace, Children’s Rights, Truth, Justice etc. They served as triggers for reflection and philosophical inquiry in both age groups (students and parents) almost likewise, as though it has been argued (Neile, 2009), that ‘’stories remind us that even if we do not know the answers. it is the questions that are paramount’’. The structure of the sessions with the parents, even though well organized and inspired by Lipman and Sharp’s theory, were not following the exact pattern. However, stories worked as stimuli for philosophical questions that were further discussed within the sessions.
Conclusively, the specific project that is presented in this article combined Epstein’s cooperation model whilst attempting to form a community of inquiry with parents. The model that was added has been inspired by Lipman’s Community of Philosophical Inquiry methodology. During the referred school years (2014-2016), two groups (Experimental & Control) were determined for this research. Epstein’s cooperation model, which had been already adopted from the previous years at the school with positive results, was implemented in both groups. However, the parents’ philosophical community venture has been applied only to the Experimental Groups. The results and conclusions of the project are unfolded and analyzed in another section.
theoretical background
Parents are widely considered reference persons and paradigms for their children. They model and share values and attitudes towards life through inter-family relationships as specified in the theory of Social Learning (Bandura, 1977). The Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model Theory (1979) further supports the aforementioned influence. According to this theory, the immediate environment-microsystem (i.e. home, school), the interaction-mesosystem of the members of the microsystem (i.e. parents, teachers, students), the immediate social environmental-exosystem, the cultural environment-macrosystem (i.e. economy, politics, culture) and the synchronization of various chronosystemic events during a child’s life, influence and shape its evolution. Accordingly, school and family are treated as part of the same system whose interaction is considered both desirable and self-evident.
The influence of parents on their child's life is further analyzed in recent research and theories on parenting and its importance in a child's social, emotional, and cultural development (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008). According to international literature (Comer, J. 2005, Raffaelle, L. & Knoff, M. 1999), the most important factors that influence school performance and children's learning opportunities are the educational level and habits of the parents (Becker & Epstein, 1982, Aronson, 1996), the size of the family, and its socio-emotional environment in which children are engaged and acquire essential skills in school readiness and preparation. According to the above mentioned, the social and cultural background, the diverse personal experiences and events in parents' lives, effect both the learning and all-around development of their children. Respectively, Moles (1993) argued that the reduced skills and awareness of interaction and communication between both families and educators create barriers to complementary relationships.
Additionally, it is argued that highly educated parents usually have better communication skills and methods that are more effective in emphasizing the significance of educational success to their children (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Furthermore, high socio-economic status (SES) parents can obtain educational information from professional consultants beyond schools. This information can be useful for parents in supporting their child’s education through daily conversation. In short, because of differential resources and skills between higher SES and lower SES parents, even an equal amount of communication with the child may vary substantially in its impact on children’s educational outcomes. Conclusively, this difference appears to, on one hand, have an impact on the attitude of the educators towards parents, and on the other hand, on parents’ engagement with the school community. Indicatively, educators often hold a cautious or even distant attitude towards the families of their students, and many parents are reluctant, indifferent, or even aggressive towards their teachers and supervisors (Chavkin, & Williams, 1987). Nonetheless, in many cases when parents are non-participative in their children’s school-life, especially if they belong to a minority, teachers take it as indifference (Carasquillo & London 1993).
Based on a sound analysis of the scientific literature, we recognize other factors that play an indisputable role in empowering the family-school relationship. One of them, according to Raffaelle, L. & Knoff, M. (1999), is the organization and system that requires, among other things, family and school cooperation. These authors argue that the effectiveness of such cooperation should be based mainly on prevention rather than on reaction. That is, educators in the pedagogical process should refer to all families and not only to those whose children are facing school or learning difficulties. This means that the school should acknowledge and value the important contribution of parents, regardless of their educational or/and socio-economic background. Moreover, and according to Comer (2005), children need emotional support in order to learn. This support seems to develop efficiently when the family and school educators work together for the benefit of children. In addition, Bali, Demo & Wedman (1998), and Griffith (1996) emphasize the improvement of children's behavior, as well as parental and pedagogical relationships, which arise because of parental participation in developing school curricula. In other research, such as that of Epstein (2001), the importance of parents' participation in the education of their children from preschool to adolescence, as well as its relationship to the positive socio-emotional development of the children is documented, while also highlighting the positive impact on their school performance. Conclusively, research recognizes the beneficial role of an enhanced family-school relationship for the school community and, more importantly, for the students.
models of cooperation
Various models of cooperation are presented in the relevant bibliography. Each of these bring out a different perspective on how the relationship between family and school is perceived by emphasizing the specific characteristics of this relationship. We briefly mention some of them: a) the Model of the parents’ positions, which refers to a sociological perspective of the school-family relationship by emphasizing the role of parents in relation to the education of their child (Vincent, 2000), b) the Model of parental roles in education introduced by Greenwood and Hickman (1991) and which attempts an approach to the parents’ role as they interact with teachers and in conjunction with the boundaries set by the school for parental participation in their children’s education and c) the evolutionary Model of the family and school relationship of Martin, Ranson and Tall (1997), that emerged after a large-scale survey to inspect the quality of education provided in England.
Finally, there are also d) the Model of overlapping spheres of the family and school, (Epstein, 2001) and e) the Model of influences and consequences of parental involvement in the school of Eccles and Harold (1996), which are two approaches that reflect elements of Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), according to Penteri (2012). All the models mentioned above clearly identified the roles, actions, and relationships in every phase of interaction of the family within the school community, despite the existence of differentiations. However, the latter two develop a systemic vision of the relationship between the school and the families while at the same time emphasize the processes, perceptions, practices, and characteristics of the three intermediary organizations: parents, teachers, and pupils (Poulou and Matsaggoyras, 2008).
adults’ learning, community and philosophy
As Brookfield (1983) points out, adults’ learning aims to transform society by enhancing knowledge and skill. The relationship, therefore, between adult education and society is narrow. One of the approaches to adult education is that of community education, which aims at two interdependent levels. The first level is that of personal knowledge and skill acquisition whilst the second is that of progress and community empowerment (Connolly, 2005). Therefore, adults’ learning within a community education system requires individuals to be consciously aware of the intention of social change, whilst preconditioning the readiness to renegotiate some of the traditional roles of the educational process.
A philosophical community is a phenomenon that comes from antiquity but continues to flourish today and could be respectively considered as community education. Looking back to the origins of philosophy in the fifth century BC, the ancient Greek philosophers - particularly the Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics - clearly thought of philosophy as a form of therapy, which cured the toxic false beliefs that cause suffering. Similarly, Socrates suggested philosophy as a way of life, for better understanding, elaborating and managing one's emotions, and self, while learning through dialogue. Philosophers in the ancient world learned how to examine their beliefs through dialogue and conversation, and they lived in philosophical communities of shared values and shared practices.
Furthermore, it is important that training can occur wherever the trainees feel intimate. That could be in a library, an area of the municipality, a social center or, like in our case, in a school. This could be a key factor in achieving broader participation in adult education and in empowering the community. Finally, the role of the trainer is reciprocal, equal to the trainees, and authority is transferred to the learners while the educator becomes a collaborative learner. That is, they work in cooperation and in solidarity with each other. Moreover, these communities grow in the jungle of informal education, often hidden from the view of the state, universities, and other formal adult education providers. By ‘informal’, it is meant that learning is not publicly-funded, and is often organized and self-run by volunteers as in this case. Therefore, it cannot be planned or structured from the top-down.
Dewey, in the early years of the 20th century, also insisted that philosophy should not be practiced within the "ivory tower” model of academic philosophy but instead, to stress the social and communal nature of learning (J. Dewey, 1910). Philosophy, he thought, should be a form of social practice that engaged with the social problems of the epoch. Additionally, he gave value to education that arises within social structures and contributes to them. His political ideal was of a ‘Great Society’, in which neighbors would meet up for face-to-face ethical and civic discussions - a vision of grassroots ethical philosophy that would inspire later community philosophers like Matthew Lipman. Lipman's concept of the "community of inquiry" was obviously influenced by American Pragmatist philosophers on one hand and Vygotsky's development psychology theories on the other (Lipman, 1991 a,b). However, as Lipman suggested, the communities of inquiry should follow Socrates advice to "follow the argument wherever it leads" (Lipman, 1988). Moreover, recent research in P4C sought to develop a form of P4C, which combines a Pragmatist with a virtue ethics approach (Lipman & Sharp, 1994, Sprod, 2001).
A significant feature of community based education, as presented in this article, is having an open, rational discussion, whilst exploring and analyzing needs and expectations within the educational community. In a philosophical community inquiry inspired by Lipman’s P4C, the discussion is directly related to values, ideas, and issues the participants face in everyday life, rather than conventional academic subjects. Moral and ethical issues and values of the trainees are stimulated by stories and are becoming the starting point. At the same time exploration, philosophical inquiry and discussion are the focus of the educational process.
exploratory questions and goals
This research was organized to investigate the following hypothesis:
I. If effective, parental-school cooperation can improve the academic and socio-emotional performance of the pupil in the school as well as within the family environment.
II. While strengthening the philosophical dialogue in the community of parents in school, do we strengthen a meaningful dialogue among all members of the school community (pupils, teachers, parents, community)?
III. If the simultaneous reinforcement of reflection, critical thinking, and dialogue through the creation of philosophical communities with adults (parents) of diverse backgrounds can contribute to community empowerment and enhance the substantive discussion of all parties involved.
IV. Which areas, if any, of the educational process with the children can facilitate an organised training program for parents?
methodology
For the research presented, Action Research (AR) was chosen as described in the work of Kapachtsi & Kakana (2010). AR is a form of thoughtful investigation that teachers and researchers use in planning, implementing, and evaluating. The intent is to improve school curricula, teaching practices, learning environments as well as their own professional development and understanding (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2005, Rust, 2007). AR is carried out in real-life situations, has an empirical character, and includes reflective processes which allow enquiry, discussion and cooperation as an element of the research itself (Carr & Kemmis, 1997, Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).
It is considered to be qualitative research, which is based on the basic assumption that knowledge about humans is impossible without describing the human experience as it is encountered and as described by the protagonists themselves (Sachini-Kardasis, 2004). This type of research provides the possibility, through the recording of qualitative characteristics of the population under study, to certify data, which in a quantitative survey does not emerge (Iosifidis, 2003).
The particular AR was conceived in a school environment as a collaborative effort between the researcher-facilitator (teacher-psychologist, as a source of professional and scientific assistance), and of colleague- teachers and parents. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, interpreting, analyzing, and reflecting on a major theme (parents-school collaboration), data-driven action design, and activation, documenting and collecting data on performance, and finally, evaluating and disseminating the results.
As part of this process (AR), the following actions were achieved:
· Creation of focus groups among the teachers and the principal of the school (problematization, debate, reflection),
· Collection of information, either from international bibliography or diaries and memos from previous years,
· Determining the two diverse groups that would be explored: the Experimental Group (where the goal is to create a Community of Philosophical Inquiry) and the Control Group (where Epstein’s Cooperation model is implemented, similarly with the previous years).
· Identifying, planning and implementing the main experimental activity (building a community of philosophical inquiry with the parents with the use of storytelling as stimuli for philosophical discussions),
· Designing and implementing simple exploratory questionnaires in the beginning and at the end of the school year with intent to initially explore the preconceived notions of the parents, mainly about school-family collaboration, and then come to an assessment at the end of the meetings in both school years and groups (eg. “Have you ever participated in any kind of parent’s training?”, “How often do you communicate with the school?”, “What matters do you usually discuss with the teachers?” Etc).
· Throughout the two years, there has been a participatory observation and recording of the actions (field notes, diary), in which teachers, parents and pupils have participated.
· Individual Student Portfolios (self-designed and based on the aims of the Greek national Curricula) have been documented by the teachers. Aiming on one hand to inform the parents during the individualized sessions throughout the year, and on the other hand, the Elementary School teachers’ that would receive the students in the next year. The points that were addressed concerned the students’ progress and their personal characteristics as observed (eg. Participation in class, social, emotional, and cognitive development, communication and problem-solving skills, etc.).
· The teacher modeled critical thinking and creative patterns of questioning and reasoning in the early stages to guide the adult-learners until the community of inquiry had been activated. The sessions were based on the same notion as with the children in the classroom, conceptualizing the construction of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning.
Finally, the effects of the intervention were assessed to determine if improvement in communication and thinking skills had occurred. Indicators that can be identified and noted while building the philosophical community of parents were used for measuring its effectiveness (Wartenberg, 2014), (i.e. number of participants, levels in participation during sessions, questioning, reasoning and anticipation for the next meeting.)
· The results were discussed among the participants and their dissemination was planned.
sample & context
More thoroughly, the situations and potentialities that have been enhanced are mentioned in this section. The empowerment of family relationships within school through AR has been implemented at the 1st Galatsi Kindergarten for two consecutive school years, 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is important to mention that compulsory education in Greece starts with one mandatory year of pre-primary (preschool) education. The specific school includes two full-day preschool departments. Each department has two teachers whom are responsible for working on a weekly shift rotation. One of the two sections played the role of the Experimental Group and the other had the role of the Control Group. Each is typically composed of 22-25 five to six-year-old children. This school is state-owned in a municipality near the centre of Athens and therefore pupils' parents are mainly of medium educational and economic profiles. At this school, the percentage of foreign families varies from 25% to 40% over the last five years. In the first year of the research, there were 8 foreign children out of 22 enrolled. By the second year, the numbers changed slightly to 9 out of 23. Of those, all the children were already fluent Greek speakers.
Twenty parents (18 women, 2 men) participated in the program on a voluntary basis. Prior to their participation they had been informed about the content of the meetings/sessions from the specialized educator of their children's section (create a school for Parents in the form of a Community of Philosophical Inquiry). The majority (95%) had never participated in any kind of parenting schools, in either individual or group meetings with a psychologist or other qualified staff in the past. The teachers of both departments, and in particular the ones from the Control group, were experienced in both teaching and parents’ management. The collaboration between the teachers of the departments had always been successful in previous years, thus the students could follow a parallel educational program in each consecutive school year and with joint participation in pilot projects of the University of Athens, the Ministry of Education and other National Educational authorities. Nineteen out of the twenty parents who participated in the first year in the Experimental Group requested for the continuum of the group meetings in the following school year, despite their children moving on to the elementary school. As a result, the study of the Experimental Group 1 (parents of the 1rst Sch.Y.) could and did continue in the following year in parallel with the study of the Experimental Group 2 (parents of the 2nd Sch.Y).
During the first week of both school years, the teachers sustained a meeting with the parents, yet separately at each department. Its objective was to inform them about the basic functions of the school and the educational aims. Both Experimental Groups communicated with the teachers and consulted the principal, either as a group or individually, either in scheduled meetings or on demand. The principal in collaboration with the educational staff informed all parents from both Groups (Experimental & Control) that the school had taken the initiative to adopt an innovative approach for collaborating with them to benefit the pupils. Then, as in previous years throughout the first month of student and parent adjustment, all parents of the school were supported and encouraged to join forces with educators to improve the school environment and enhance the feeling of community within a climate of high academic achievement. After the adjustment period, the group sessions of the Experimental Groups were taking place every 3 or 4 weeks. The activities were pre-planned in the context of creating a community of interactive and philosophical quests of mutual concern that emerged mainly from the exploratory questionnaire which was distributed the first two weeks of the school year. The areas of interest include: 1) child development, 2) feelings, 3) extracurricular activities and home study, 4) communication, 5) limits and rules, 6) social networking and globalization, 7) multiculturalism and pluralism of religions as a new reality, 8) diversity, 9) ecology, 10) human rights, 11) sexual education.
At the aforementioned questionnaire that was distributed, they could, among other things, propose topics of discussion that would be of their interest. At the end of each school year, another questionnaire helped the evaluation of the project from the participants themselves. The teachers held individual sessions for further communication with the families, at a designated time, in the kindergarten, while considering the working hours of the parents.
The regular informative group and individual meetings of teachers with all parents, for both departments, had taken place at least four times cumulatively during the school year and always in the afternoon hours, pursuing parents’ participation in school activities. During those meetings, teachers presented to parents their child's progress and any concerns in all areas of learning, especially social and emotional.
Conclusively, during this exploratory effort to engage parents in their children's educational framework (home and school), the researcher has used carefully designed activities. That is: a) afternoon or morning, individual and group meetings with parents, b) engagement of parents into the philosophical inquiry while in groups, and through short stories to trigger philosophical questions; c) distribution/posting of scientific articles (relevant to the session subject-matters), d) playful home-learning activities were suggested and discussed d) Evaluation - Feedback.
Additionally, the stories that were used were selected by the facilitator as a result of their emerging philosophical ideas and their particular genre that was anticipated to trigger all ages. The specific stories had been read previously and stimulated questions and discussions for the preschool students. The participation in the procedures explained above has been carried out with the consent of all of the participants, while at the same time maintaining their anonymity wherever this was deemed necessary.
results
The research presented has been motivated by a working hypothesis based on literature findings and on the observation of the potentialities emerging from the educational context in previous years. All the following results were based on continual evaluations by all parts involved. In particular, the outcomes from the Experimental Group unfolded to a considerably greater extent compared to the Control Groups’. The appearance of certain attitudes was either not apparent before or with a very low progression compared to previous years. Actual comments and essays from participants are attached at the end of the article.
• Immediateness in acquiring image for the family & cultural environment of the students & thus better facilitating the educational process. While discussing subjects such as religion, culture, education, rules and others, the facilitator collected personal information about each family (in field notes). This information was used to personalize teaching directly, according to individual and family traits. One such example involves a student whose dad had died during that year. Through the philosophical discussion about “death”, the facilitator discovered that the specific child was raised mainly by the father because the mother initially had refused to have another child (she had already single-handedly raised her own 16-year-old twin girls). The boy had a very strong bond with the father and his sisters but was only slightly attached to the mother and therefore required a more personalized approach in the classroom.
• Empowering parents to develop effective parenting strategies. After having philosophically discussed “parenthood” in a meeting, a great need for information and suggestions about parenting strategies had emerged. Scientific articles and suggestions were given to all the families in school, however those who actually applied the strategies and gave feedback were the ones from the experimental groups.
• Cultivating group climate for the young & adult students. The parents from both Experimental groups soon established close ties among each other in both years. As a result, they presented great willingness to volunteer at school to do anything they were asked to. Additionally, out-of-school meetings occurred much more frequently for the experimental group. Their children also attached much faster and formulated a team, compared to previous years or to the other department.
• Integration of parents into the educational process inside and outside the school. As mentioned above, parents were very often willing to take part in school activities and school trips, and often asked for advice on playful educational activities that could take place outside of the school setting. Their interest in the social and emotional maturity of their child grew significantly while they stopped wondering if their child would learn how to read and write by the end of the year.
• Develop trust relationships in the Educational Triangle: School - Child - Parent. Discussion among parents and teachers increased significantly, and not just in regards to their children’s performance at school (as mentioned in the questionnaire by all parents). After the 2nd or 3rd session, the majority of parents would bring up a variety of matters for critical and creative discussion. In addition, they would soon pursue further contact with the teachers or other parents to discuss their personal issues, sometimes looking for advice on issues that concerned their family and not just their children. In one case, a mother in the study shared information regarding problems with her husband (he had just lost his job). Another mother shared that she was continuously fighting with her mother, with whom she shared the same apartment, and was looking for an excuse to move elsewhere with her husband and children. Teachers were also eagerly discussing their concerns with the parents about their children, or were asking them for help, without hesitation. The children seemed to enjoy this relationship and often told their parents in the mornings, "leave now, this is my teacher", and the parent responded with satisfaction, "but she is my teacher too, you know!"
• Developing a positive climate in school from all participating sides.
All issues were resolved in a positive manner even when the person concerned (parent, teacher) did not achieve the goal e.g. damage at school that was not repaired directly. The discussion that concerned several issues evolved to a “caring” level compared to the previous “complaining” one.
• Parents promoted their children academically after assimilating how to enhance and link learning in the family environment with learning at school. As documented in the short essays included with the evaluation forms, all of the participants asserted or mentioned a dramatic change in both, their own and their child’s way of discussing or reflecting on various issues. Many of them declared raising questions “like children” and discussing issues philosophically that were stimulated by current events or by a particular incident during their day. Most participants shared that the subjects discussed at home were now not just about academic performance but mostly about friendship, peace, inclusion, being different, death, happiness etc.
• Parents responded with great enthusiasm to school whenever cooperation was sought. The parents were eager to help the teachers in every situation, by painting walls, cooking, accompanying students at out-door activities, making whatever needed for the bazaars etc.
• The relationships between the parents that participated persevered in the following years. The parents from the Experimental groups set up a group in an application in order to be able to communicate daily. There was a case in which a father was seriously injured by a car and the rest of the team supported the mother and the children for at least four months (cooking, cleaning, baby-sitting). In another case, a mother had to go abroad for a serious surgery and the group, in addition to the psychological support they provided daily with their discussions raised money for the patient’s expenses. Moreover, a mom from the group accompanied the patient to the country where the surgery took place because she knew the language. More recently, a mom said “I cannot remember my life before you.” and another stated that “while looking at my wedding pictures, a few days ago, I was trying to find you all..because I feel like I’ve known you forever”.
• The parents who participated were looking for cooperation and remained attached to the kindergarten during the next year, regardless of having their children in elementary school. They actually said: “We want to follow this community of parents next year too. if you cannot make a 2nd group with us, we will hide behind the doors and windows to listen to the stories for your new group and participate…”. The parents from both Experimental groups still participate in raising funds for the school i.e. through organizing the Christmas and Easter Bazaars.
The last of the results, but certainly not the least important, were derived unexpectedly from the teachers. That is, recognizing and highlighting the contribution of the family environment to children's psychology, its relationships with the peer group, and the educational process. The three teachers, except for the researcher/observer, were constantly discussing and enjoying the active participation of parents as well as the development of an integrated community. Meanwhile, the pupils, teachers and parents worked together for the benefit of the children’s and school’s community. Additionally, there was one parent from the Control Group who requested to be included in the meetings of the Experimental Group (School for Parents- as called) because, as she explained to the teachers, “could not resist the wonderful feeling of community, that emerged from that particular group of parents inside and outside the school!!”
Most importantly, this relationship was built despite any SES, linguistic, religious, and academic background differences. The Experimental group parents’ relationship with the teachers is still very strong and continues to evolve. This is likely due to the fact that all participants had the opportunity to build personal, earnest connections among one another.
conclusions
For years, both parents and teachers have faced the challenge of preparing a new generation of people in parallel, and not in cooperation with each other. However, in order to achieve cooperation between the institutions of school and family, their communication should be essential and not formal. The need for communication and intensified relationships for the children and their parents has been revealed through this collaboration. There seems to be no other alternative than teamwork, respect for diversity and willingness by all those involved in the pedagogical process.
It seems that in this case such an alliance has been successful in various ways, as mentioned in the results. The great need for effective school-family cooperation with the primary aim of maximizing the pupil's benefit for its full-fledged development is disclosed. While at the same time, parents come to understand the sincere concern of teachers for their students. In addition, what has been realized is that both teachers and parents are required to work collectively as partners in favor of their children's education. Furthermore, they should work together to identify the significant contribution of both sides as it relates to the development and success of the children. It has also been verified that effective family-school collaboration, based on mutual respect and trust, promotes parental empowerment through positive, meaningful, two-way communication between school and home. Moreover, while educators are seeking cooperation with parents, they need also to acknowledge them as the first teachers of their children and be flexible and innovative in their efforts to reach out to a diverse, modern society.
An important issue that has been verified is that cooperation should and could be open while ensuring that opportunities for participation for all the families are made available, regardless of the educational level of the parents, their linguistic background, and/or their familiarity with the school processes. However, in order to achieve such unanimity, we likely need to strengthen these skills among all three parts of this alliance (students, teachers, and parents). Thus augmenting life, cognitive and learning skills that are valuable when aiming to build a community of individuals whom have the ability to react, adapt, and enact change. Obviously, skills such as critical thinking, reasoning, communication, and collaboration are crucial for the students (Lipman, & Sharp, 1994). Nevertheless, how about nurturing them respectively for teachers and parents, who are mainly interacting in the immediate environment of the students? If children could communicate, interact and learn in respective ways within home and school environment, the impact would possibly be more intense. Consequently, parents and teachers require a considerable amount of appropriate scientific support and training. This exploratory effort, with a relatively small number of parents, has shown that with appropriate guidance a “newborn” philosophical community can have impressive effects, not only in communication, but also in the relationships of all members of the micro-system (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) therefore fostering advancement of the children.
In other words, this project emphasizes the necessity for a multifaceted intervention-empowerment of the educational and learning process with alternative strategies by both teachers and parents. Moreover, it seems important to design the support strategies for parents, while respecting and taking into consideration parents' experiences and resources. Another important issue that arises through this effort is the need for parents to discuss their concerns about their children in the past, present, and future, while at the same time listening and exchanging thoughts with other parents about their respective experiences and difficulties. This chance for discussing matters of mutual concern was given through the philosophical community. Consequently, children and those involved in the pedagogical process are collecting short-, medium- and long-term results throughout parent / child / teacher interaction and communication skills enrichment. Furthermore, children can create solid foundations for their school success in virtue of the improved family relationships. The above proposal is, in my opinion, a minimal step in the right direction so that parents and educators develop effective strategies for dialogue and cooperation in order to create a two-way communication between home and school. In addition, it provides an opportunity for the disclosure of "authenticity, in the education of children". Teachers, in turn, within a society dominated by social, cultural, and linguistic diversity, are now more than ever, obliged to communicate with all families through innovative and flexible methods that can promote and enrich the students and their families. By actively discussing and participating, parents learn ways to facilitate the development of the academic and social skills of their children to their fullest potential. Conclusively, this project attested that a school community that works to increase organic and sincere dialogue between parents, teachers and students can create a new, stronger community where parents and school become partners and co-conductors in the upbringing and education of their children.