Family-school cooperation and quality of education : a case study of primary schools in Ethiopia

(1)



Family-School Cooperation and

Quality of Education:

A Case Study of Primary Schools in Ethiopia

Arthur Belle

Student Number: 10548564

Email: p.belle89@gmail.com

Supervisor: Hülya Kosar Altinyelken

Second Reader: Margriet Poppema

Date: July 8, 2014

(2)

- 2 -

“Education is not a single person’s work; we need the participation of all society

and all the stakeholders. Therefore, we should involve everybody in education;

students, teachers, parents and the community”

(3)

- 3 -

Abstract

Key Words: Family-School Cooperation; Quality of Education; Ethiopia; Parental Involvement; Social Reproduction Theory

This study is an analysis of the family-school cooperation in the context of Ethiopia. The study has a special focus on perceptions of local stakeholders, parents and teachers, on the benefits, barriers and outcomes of family-school cooperation. In-depth interviews and focus groups have been conducted in two primary schools, one in an urban area, one in a rural area. While some patterns of cooperation mirror patterns found in western societies, the local perspective offers a new insight into the challenges that remain to provide access to quality education in Ethiopia in specific, and in the world in general.

Effective cooperation can contribute to improved attendance, better behavior in and out of class, improved learning outcomes, and as a result improved quality of education. When the parents and the teachers know what is going on with the children in and out of school, following up on their progress can result in higher motivation and encouragement to learn.

The obstacles to effective family-school cooperation are plentiful, however, and socio-economic realities exclude many parents from the process as they do not have the time or the means to cooperate with the school. A further lack of education and awareness about the importance of education adds to the equation and many parents are rather detached from the educational process. At the same time, the teachers have to deal with a huge number of students, and thus lack the time and/or capacity to effectively reach out to all the parents. This process can reproduce socio-economic inequalities that the parents of students face in the first place.

One redeeming factor in the (lack of) family-school cooperation is the role the community plays when parents are less involved. Where many parents are less involved in the learning process, the community takes a more prominent role, mobilizing these parents and following up on the students. Future research could focus on this

family-school-community cooperation, to discern the linkages between the family-school-community and the school, and

(4)

- 4 -

Acknowledgements

Going into the field all by myself was one of the scariest things I have ever done. The best support came from the encouragement of friends, family and my supervisor, Dr. Hülya Kosar-Altinyelken. Hülya has been ever supportive of my research project, even when at times I was not so much myself. With only the frail guidance of a research proposal and some leads to contacts in Ethiopia I left for the field in mid-January.

While the interaction via email had been somewhat problematic, once I showed up at the office of Development Expertise Centre in Addis Ababa, they have been nothing but supportive, accommodating and friendly. The enthusiasm and openness with which I was welcomed warmed my heart. I especially want to thank Melisie, who first welcomed me and introduced me around; Bari Siyane, who helped me making contact with schools and

travelled with me to them; Gezaihn, who welcomed me on the fieldtrip to Asaita and helped me during the second part of my research; and Miressa, with whom I could always share a laugh and who also assisted me one day when I did not have another translator. And to all the other people at DEC; Keep up the good work!

I would like to thank my roommates in Addis Ababa, who immediately accepted me amongst them and showed me around in a new and exciting country. I am especially thankful for Willow and Diane for moral support; Joel and Bacha for helping me navigate Addis and helping me with translation; and BK and Rufael for laughing with me when I needed it.

Further I would like to thank all the teachers and parents that were willing to sit down for me for the interviews, or helped me to find others for interviews. The enthusiasm with which they accommodated my research was enormous, and I will be forever grateful for that.

Finally, I wish to thank my friends and family back home for their support before I left, and while I was away; my mother and sister for believing in me; my friends Niels and Lars for encouraging me; and my fellow students for understanding me.

(5)

- 5 -

List of Abbreviations

CTE College Teacher Education DEC Development Expertise Centre EFA Education for All

MDG Millennium Development Goal NGO Non-Governmental Organization PTA Parent-Teacher Association

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Conceptual Scheme Figure 2: Map of Africa Figure 3: Map op Ethiopia Figure 4: Age distribution

Figure 5: Map of Research Locations Table 1: Sample Interviews

(6)

- 6 -

1. Introduction

1.1 Family-School Cooperation

Education is the cornerstone of every society and impacts every aspect of life. As such, education is one of the main focus points for development in developing countries, both for countries themselves as for the international community. Global initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), to promote universal primary education; and Education For All (EFA), to promote universal quality education, have been put forward to promote education in developing countries.

UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank and many more organizations have formed a global agenda and corresponding framework to improve access to and quality of education worldwide. The focus of this agenda is especially focused on developing countries, as

currently more than 50 million children worldwide are out of school and more than 250 million children lack the ability to read or write despite attending primary school (DfID 2014). Most of these children live in low-income countries. Increasing access to education and subsequently also the quality of education, especially in the critical areas where poverty is widespread, has been an objective of the international community for some time now.

This focus was first primarily aimed at the school, the infrastructure, and then the teachers. The focus of these initiatives has shifted to some extent, to include a wider scope than the school environment only. It has been recognized that good quality education is not only the result of good schools and good teachers. Good education entails the entire and complex interaction between an enabling school environment, an enabling home

environment and an enabling policy environment, as well as smooth interplay between these environments (Tikly 2011: 13). Without one of these enabling environments, or their cooperation educational outcomes are less likely to be positive (Tikly 2011). As a

consequence of this recognition, more attention has been given recently to the full-cycle learning and early child development (DfID 2014), emphasizing the importance of other factors outside the school boundaries. One of these factors is the subject of this research project; the cooperation between the family and the school. This will be researched in the context of a developing country, namely Ethiopia.

(9)

- 9 -

The main intention of this research project has been to explore this theme in a low-income country, for which purpose Ethiopia has been selected, as it is one of the countries with the biggest struggles in terms of access to quality education, but has been making great strides forward recently. The objective in this research project is to identify the different forms of cooperation that exist between the school and the family; to analyze what benefits they offer for the quality of education; and to understand what obstacles are present that obstruct effective family-school cooperation.

To research this theme, two different primary schools in Ethiopia have been selected, one in an urban area, and one in a rural area. In these schools in-depth interviews have been conducted with parents and teachers to acquire a deeper insight about their perceptions about the barriers to and potential benefits of effective family-school cooperation, and the impact this can have on the quality of education. To directly observe the cooperation between the parents and the teachers, and to gauge their positions vis-à-vis the other, a focus group has been organized as well. In addition, on-site observations and observations during the interviews and focus groups have been used to get another perspective on the interaction between parents and teachers, and thus triangulate the findings in the interviews and focus groups.

1.2 Problem Statement

The cooperation between the school and the family has become an important focus of attention in the global framework for improving the access to and quality of education (Tikly 2011). When the school recognizes and understands what is going on at home, and when the family recognizes and understands what is going on at school, both environments can become more enabling and stimulating for students to learn. Thus, effective cooperation between the family and the school is an integral component of learning outcomes and therefore of quality of education.

Family-school cooperation is perceived as essential for the attainment of quality and responsive education (Epstein 2001). Effective family-school cooperation offers substantial opportunities and benefits to the process of education, as it stimulates students to perform better, creates awareness among teachers to the unique situation of students, creates awareness among parents about the special needs of their children in terms of learning,

(10)

- 10 -

reduces drop-out rates, improves the educational achievements of students, and thus the overall quality of the school (Epstein 2001), as well as a higher enrollment rate (Booth 2003). Many studies have shown that parents (and communities) can have a very positive impact on the learning achievements of children (Berger 1991; Christensen 2004).

Not all parents and teachers are in a position to cooperate together, as many barriers between parents and teachers persist (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). These barriers relate to social, economic and cultural capital (Lareau 1987). In this light, barriers to family-school cooperation can reproduce the inequalities that student’s parents face, and thus perpetuate patterns of inequality (Collins 2009).

1.3 Academic and Social Relevance

As much of the research about family-school cooperation and the possibilities of and barriers to cooperation are particularly focused on western developed countries, it is somewhat strange that the framework is often rather directly transposed to the context of developing countries. This is somewhat problematic as the context in low-income developing countries is often radically different from the western ideal of family-school partnerships. Indeed Booth points to the “difficulty of directly transporting Western ideas regarding the impact of parental education and other measures of ‘human capital and social capital’ to an African setting”. Booth argues that Western theories about parental involvement can at best be partially applied to a sub-Saharan African setting (Booth 2003: 271). This does not imply that we should start from scratch however:

“[…] these theories can be used as a starting point from which to investigate the similarities and differences in Western and non-Western societies and to develop additional

perspectives regarding human and educational development” (Booth 2003: 272).

This is precisely what this research project has aimed to do; to start with the theories, travel to the context of a developing country, and use these theories to have a starting point in the analysis of the local context.

The knowledge of this theme in the context of developing countries is relatively lacking, yet the potential advantages of understanding these processes that underlie family-school cooperation for the quality of education, could be quite substantial. This research

(11)

- 11 -

project will aim to start filling the gap of academic knowledge concerning family-school cooperation in developing countries, and thus contribute to a broader understanding of the quality of education debate, embedded in a local context.

The societal relevance of this project is even more substantial. The international community is concerned with access to quality education for all, which can be deduced from the inclusion of universal primary education in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the emphasis on quality education in the Education For All (EFA) initiative, led by

UNESCO. The family-school nexus is an integral part of the quality of the learning experience of the child (Tikly 2011: 13). Effective family-school cooperation potentially improves the overall educational achievements of students.

In contrast, a lack of effective family-school cooperation works against all these points, irrespective of what the underlying reasons are for this deficit. Therefore, an improved understanding of the processes of family-school cooperation offers substantial potential benefits to the quality of education, and increased enrollments.

Linguistic, cultural and socio-economic barriers not only decrease the possibility of effective family-school cooperation, consequently they also ‘reproduce’ these inequalities for their children (Collins 2009). Understanding these patterns of (re)production is therefore necessary in order to be able to challenge them, and to know how to challenge them.

1.4 Research Questions

The main research question of this research project is:

How do local stakeholders (e.g. parents and teachers) perceive the influence of family-school cooperation on the quality of education, and what are the barriers to such cooperation at primary schools, in Ethiopia?

In order to answer this question, the following sub questions have been formulated. Each deals with a specific aspect of the main question:

(12)

- 12 -

2) How do parents and teachers perceive the influence of family-school cooperation on quality of education?

3) How do parents and teachers perceive the barriers to effective family-school cooperation?

4) To what extent do parents coming from different socio-economic backgrounds understand the barriers and benefits of family-school cooperation differently?

The case of Ethiopia offers an interesting context as a low-income developing country. The aim of this project is to analyze how family-school cooperation impacts the quality of education, and how this can be encouraged to develop further, in order to create a more conducive learning environment for children. In order to gauge this theme further, different aspects will be touched upon. How does family-school cooperation take place, and more specifically, what do the local stakeholders (e.g. Teachers and parents) think about the outcomes of and barriers to effective family-school cooperation and/or partnerships? It is laudable that the global agenda for development of education has emphasized the

importance of family-school cooperation, but in that context it is all the more important to also know how the local actors feel about this family-school cooperation.

1.5 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis consists of eight chapters. The first is the introduction, including the problem statement, research questions and relevance of the research. The second chapter consists of the theoretical framework, including the concepts family-school cooperation, outcomes of family-school cooperation and barriers to family-school cooperation. The third chapter discusses the contextual background of this project in Ethiopia, and the different regions that were visited. The fourth chapter explains the methodologies used in this research and how this research was conducted.

The fifth, sixth and seventh chapter present the results of the data-analysis in the same order as the issues are raised in the sub-questions in this introductory chapter. The first deals with the various forms of family-school cooperation that take place at primary schools in Ethiopia; the second discusses the influence of family-school cooperation on

(13)

- 13 -

educational outcomes and education quality; and the third data chapter overviews the barriers to family-school cooperation from different perspectives.

Whether the socio-economic background of parents has an influence on the topics discussed in these chapters will be commented on in each chapter in addition to overall results. The final, conclusion chapter will overview the main findings, propose some

(14)

- 14 -

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter introduces the main concepts, which are used in the problem statement and research questions of this project, as they are found in the literature. First, types of family-school cooperation and the forms of parental involvement will be discussed. Next, studies on how this cooperation impacts the learning process will be overviewed. After that, barriers to effective family-school cooperation will be discussed. Finally, the interrelations of these themes for the purpose of this research project are exemplified in a conceptual scheme.

2.1 Parental Involvement and types of Family-School Cooperation

Parental involvement entails the extent to which parents are involved in the learning process of their children (Smit et al. 2007: 46). This can manifest itself in different aspects First there is the role of the parent at home, providing a learning environment for their children, and if possible assist them in their learning activities. Second there is the communication with the teachers and the school, for instance by attending parent-teacher conferences. Thirdly, parents can be active in the school itself, through volunteering activities and/or being involved in the decision-making by PTA’s ((Huntsinger and Jose 2009: 399).

Family-school cooperation is concerned with the latter two; communication between the family and the school, and other activities of parents in the school. In instances of

effective family-school cooperation, the parents and the teachers collaborate together to identify problems, solve these problems and stimulate and guide students to learn (Epstein 2001: 4).The cooperation between the family and the school can take different forms. The ideal form is an interdependent relation of partnership, where teachers and parents

cooperate as equals in the learning process of their children. In this instance school life and family life become integrated (Lareau 1987: 76). Unfortunately this is not always possible, due to different factors, which will be dealt with more elaborately below.

It is important for teachers to know what kind of problems children face at home, just as it is important for parents to know what kind of problems the children face at school. To this end parents and teachers need to cooperate together and share information. Family-School cooperation involves every situation in which a member of the family of the student interacts with the school, the teachers, or a head teacher, either formally or informally, either with the intent to improve the learning achievements of the child or not. Essentially,

(15)

- 15 -

this also includes bringing children to school and picking them up. The level of parental participation in the education of their children both in and out of school can vary as some are very active, and others are not active at all.

Parents that are actively involved in the education of their children can do that in different ways, each with its own specific impact on the learning process of their children. Broadly speaking these can be divided in non-interventionist strategies (i.e. leaving the school be) and interventionist strategies (i.e. being actively involved in school processes) (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). The former is associated with deference to the professionalism of the teachers at school and home-based support, motivation and stimulation of children; the latter is associated with a partnership of parents and teachers and school-based involvement, interacting and cooperating with teachers, being active in school activities, and being included in decision-making (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013; Smit et al. 2007).

The latter mode of cooperation leads to home-school partnerships with a joint responsibility for the educational process between the parents and the teachers, while the former seems to produce a mode of cooperation where the parents are more dependent on the teacher as a professional and defer the process of learning entirely to the school. Parents can in fact have a positive impact on the learning process, while not playing a very large role at the school (Turney and Kao 2009). Parents can be active in both spheres of involvement, at home and at school, only in one, or participate in neither. The more active the parents is, the larger the impact they can potentially have on their children’s educational achievements (Berger 1991; Christensen 2004), and as a result the overall quality of the school (Epstein 2001).

There is also a cultural element to this picture, as appropriate forms of parental involvement in the learning process of their children and their roles in the school are to a large extend culturally defined (Huntsinger and Jose 2009; Protheroe 2006; Epstein 2005). Some cultures place a different emphasis on different forms of parental involvement and family-school cooperation (Huntsinger and Jose 2009: 398); not all cultures place an equal level of emphasis on in-school involvement as is the norm in most Western countries (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013), where parental involvement extents to PTA’s, in-school activities, regular information-sharing meetings and volunteering at the in-school.

(16)

- 16 -

Asian societal norms for instance do not place a high value on family-school cooperation. Rather they focus on home-based support for learning (Huntsinger and Jose 2009: 400). In fact, in Asian cultures there appears to be a clear separation of parents and teachers in the family-school cooperation, and the cooperation that does take place is very formal (Sui-Chu 2000). In such cultures the school is part of a ‘culture of hierarchy’, entailing that the role of the teacher is not supposed to be questioned or challenged by parents. Parents can be involved in the learning processes of their children at home, but not at the school. Parents are supposed to have a non-interventionist approach when it comes to the school (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). Teachers are entrusted by the parents specifically and by the society in general to educate the children. This position is associated with societies in which vertical and hierarchical social relations are dominant (ibid.)

These hierarchical relationships between parents and teachers are also actively maintained by the teachers in these contexts, who are further unwilling to share their decision-making powers with parents (ibid.). As a result it is a reinforcing custom in which parents do not think it is appropriate to actively interact with the teachers and the school, and the teachers actively discourage such (in)formal cooperation. The result is a strict and clear separation between the family and the school, where the interaction that does take place is very formal. This is not necessarily detrimental to the educational achievements of students, as the Asian culture for instance, has a large emphasis on home-based

involvement (Huntsinger and Jose 2009: 398), actively monitoring, evaluating and helping their children learn at home. Furthermore, parents tend to place high expectations on their children, which can motivate them even further.

Whether the western model (interventionist) or Asian model (non-interventionist) is more applicable to developing countries depends heavily on the specific case. Education is heavily politicized in Latin America (see for instance Somma 2012), but this is much less the case in Africa and Asia, where deference to the teacher and the school in terms of educating the children seems more prevalent, although of course this can differ among different socio-economic groups in society. Societal hierarchies play an important role in this respect; where socio-economic inequalities are larger, a vertical hierarchical society is more likely, and thus a separation of school and family might be more likely.

(17)

- 17 -

2.2 Outcomes of Family-School Cooperation and Quality of Education

When family-school cooperation is ineffective, sporadic or even absent, the student’s prospects in school, and consequently later in life are seriously diminished (Turney and Kao 2009; Domina 2005). Effective family-school cooperation offer substantial opportunities to improve the learning process of children on the one hand (Berger 1991) and improve the quality of the school in general (Epstein 2001). Effective family-school cooperation has the potential to:

1) Stimulate and encourage students to perform better;

2) Create awareness among teachers to the special needs of students;

3) Create awareness among parents about the special needs of their children in terms of learning, and their role therein;

4) Increase attendance and reduces drop-out rates;

5) Improve the educational achievements of students, and thus quality of education (Turney and Kao 2009; Huntsinger and Jose 2009).

If children experience that both the parents and teachers are actively involved and

interested in the learning process of the students, they are more likely to develop a better motivation of learning themselves (Epstein 2001). On the other hand, disinterested or uninvolved parents and/or teachers might suggest that education is not very important and students will not be motivated. In the extreme cases this can also lead to children dropping out of the school entirely.

Furthermore, learning does not take place in a vacuum and the learning process is dependent on a number of factors that influence children and their learning process, both at home and at school. Some of the aspects require special attention, either from the teachers, the parents or both. This is only possible, however if both parties know what is going on with the children. Together, improved motivation and attendance for children, and extra support for problems students may be facing, either at home or in the school, can lead to better learning outcomes for children. As a result, effective family-school cooperation can improve the overall quality of education (Epstein 2001).

(18)

- 18 -

Another benefit that effective cooperation can yield is in the field of a higher sense of accountability of the teachers and the school toward the parents and the community. This higher sense of accountability of the school towards the family is supposed to improve the quality of the school because the parents have the option to send their children to another school when they feel that the current school is not performing adequately, providing an incentive for teachers and the school to provide better education (Tikly 2011: 15). What is important in this context is that parents and communities get the information about the functioning of the school that their children attend, and more importantly also know how they can act upon this knowledge (ibid.). When parents and communities are enabled to get and use this kind of information, they can monitor school’s effectiveness and act upon the results, leading to greater accountability and responsiveness of schools towards families and communities and thus improve the overall utility of that school for the community (ibid.). One downside of this framework is that the circumstances under which parents can decide to switch schools are again highly dependent on social and economic capital. The

disadvantaged groups in society will likely have little choice in terms of educating their children and only one school may be accessible.

One of the problematic features of this theme is that family-school cooperation can be a part of the social reproduction theorem (Lareau 1987: 83). Families from a lower socio-economic position are less likely to be involved in the educational process because of a lack of time and means, or a lack of awareness about the importance of education. As explained earlier, this can lead to lower educational outcomes, and thus to some extent add to the perpetuation of social and economic inequalities.

These social and economic disadvantages can also be mitigated, however, by

effective family school cooperation, as students from disadvantages families can potentially get more targeted support at school. To achieve this, teachers need more understanding of the backgrounds of their diverse students (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013), which can be achieved by better family-school cooperation. More cooperation between parents and teachers in terms of quantity and quality of education can create this mutual understanding and therefore can mitigate the disadvantages of these students. The argument is that here, a lot can be gained in terms of educational achievement of underprivileged students (ibid.).

(19)

- 19 -

In this context parental and community voice and parental involvement in the school have been embraced by legislatures around the world and are also part of the global agenda for educational reforms (Huntsinger and Jose 2009; Tikly 2011). In the context of developing countries, thorough academic research in the field of family-school relations is largely lacking. One study that does touch upon the subject for instance is a study about the impact of

parental absenteeism on student achievement in Swaziland (Booth 2003), quite an extreme case of (a lack of) parental involvement. In this study parental absence was found to have a negative impact on educational participation and achievement of both boys and girls (Booth 2003: 257). This points to the importance of parental involvement and family-school

cooperation as both a motivator and stimulator for children, and shows that it can have an impact on learning achievements.

2.3 Barriers to effective Family-School Cooperation

There are significant obstacles and barriers to parental involvement and participation in the school as the parents may be unable, or unwilling to be involved, or run into resistance from teachers who feel challenged in their authority. The reach and scope of the involvement of parents in their children’s education is strongly related to the parents’ own education, and economic, social and cultural capital (Lareau 1987). Uneducated parents generally do not perceive themselves as having the competencies to engage fruitfully with teachers and the school. Parents with a low socio-economic standing (SES), are likely to have less time and means to interact with the school. Furthermore, cultural dispositions can also have an impact on the cooperation between families and the schools. For instance, some cultures have a much stronger emphasis on home-based support combined with high expectations, with limited contact with teachers, the schools and other parents (Asian cultures for

instance); other cultures have a higher emphasis on school-based support and family-school cooperation and in decision-making, such as PTAs, school activities, and so on (in most western cultures) (Huntsinger and Jose 2006).

Children do not come to the school as empty sheets ready to be filled with knowledge and skills by teachers. Children take an impressive set of social, cultural and economic contexts imprinted upon them by their home-environment, into the classroom (Sittarak 1988). The school is therefore not a neutral ground and it tends to ‘reproduce’

(20)

- 20 -

these exact social, cultural and economic inequalities (Collins 2009: 33; Lareau 1987). Part of the problem of the reproduction of social, economic and cultural inequalities is based on the extent to which parents are able to create an enabling environment for learning for their children. This includes an effective cooperation with teachers and the school. The ability to do so often depend exactly upon these social, cultural and economic inequalities that the parents face in the first place, as effective family-school cooperation is considered to

improve learning outcomes. The inability to cooperate with the school limits the educational opportunities of their children. A proper education could have potentially lifted them out of these social, economic and cultural inequalities.

There are different views on how and why some parents are more or less able or willing to provide an enabling environment for their children. Supporters of the culture of poverty thesis for instance believe that lower- or working- class parents are unwilling to be involved in their children’s education as a result of their own lack of education (Collins 2009: 37), because they value education less important than higher-class parents (Lareau 1987: 73). A more nuanced perspective to explain the lack of involvement of parents of lower- or

working- class backgrounds is the cultural capital perspective as introduced by Bourdieu (1977). Here it is posited that most parents are not unwilling to be involved but rather unable to be involved because of social and cultural barriers (Lareau 1987: 74), or simply do not know how to be involved. In fact, parents from disadvantaged demographic backgrounds almost invariable report that they face more barriers when it comes to involvement and participation in schools than more privileged parents in terms of education, social and/or cultural capital (Turney and Kao 2009).

In Western countries, this framework has often been analyzed within the context of class divisions and the position of (migrant) minorities. Different patterns of cooperation between parents and teachers from the respective demographic groups have been found. Different forms of cooperation between the family and the school are based on the social and cultural capital of the family (Lareau 1987; Smit et al. 2007). The main divide points to a cooperation of partnership between parents and teachers in middle- or upper- class contexts, and an cooperation of dependence of parents on teachers in the context of minority, or lower- or working- class contexts (Lareau 1987). These differences are more due to inability than unwillingness according to Lareau (1987: 74). The result is that not every parent is in

(21)

- 21 -

the same position to have a positive impact. Some families are better positioned than others to make a positive impact on the learning achievements of their children, relating to socio-economic status (SES), own level of education, language skills, time, and money (Turney and Kao 2009).

One of the most profound barriers to parental involvement and participation in the school is socio-economic status (Lareau 1987; Turney and Kao 2009). Working-class parents often do not have the means or the time to be involved in their children’s learning process as the result of an inflexible work-schedule, the necessity to make a living, and a lack of knowledge as to how to be involved constructively in the learning process of their children (Lareau 1987: 74: Turney and Kao 2009). Working hours often overlap with the time during which the school is open, and these families cannot easily or often afford to take a day off to come to the school.

Another important factor is the parent’s own educational attainment (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013; Lareau 1987: 74), which is of course to some extent related to socio-economic status as there is a strong correlation between level of education and later income in life. Many of the parents of disadvantaged children did not enjoy an extensive educational career themselves. As a result they feel that they are not competent enough to be a driving force in their children’s education, or they feel that teachers do not recognize their competency as an educator in their own right (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). Consequently, they often delegate the function of the education of their children entirely to the school, and rely solely on the professionalism and competence of the teachers

(Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013: Lareau 1987: 79).

Better educated parents on the other hand more often view teachers as equals since they are more likely to work jobs with a similar or even higher social standing than that of a teacher, and perceive themselves as competent educators of their children as well (Lareau 1987: 79). Teaching is not wholly delegated to the school, but is rather perceived as a joint enterprise. Language barriers obviously only add to the gap in educational achievements of parents (Turney and Kao 2009: Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). When parents are not fluent in the primary language of the school and the teachers, cooperation with the school and the teachers is inherently problematized. This problem is especially significant in countries where different languages are spoken, but even if parents and teachers speak the

(22)

- 22 -

same language, different forms of comprehension and proficiency, as well as the general way to talk might form a barrier.

One of the obvious pitfalls of assessing these obstacles to parental involvement without taking the personal context in mind is that teachers, in line with the culture of poverty thesis, often assume that parents who are not involved in the school conduct, have a lack of interest in their children’s education. This is not always necessarily the case, as parents may simply not be able to be involved, or do not know how to be involved

(Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013: Collins 2009). This negative view of teachers can be a significant obstacle in itself because it makes it more difficult and less likely that teachers will be able to build up constructive relationships with these parents (Protheroe: 2006). The end result is that both the quantity and the quality of cooperation between parents and teachers differ between disadvantaged and more privileged groups.

Ideally, the principle of equity in education entails that education should be the vehicle for children from disadvantaged parents to move beyond the social and economic status of their parents, and be judged upon their own merit and not on their parent’s. Education is often perceived as a token of hope, and a motor for social and economic

mobility (Altinyelken, Demozzi and Boron 2013). Unfortunately, the opposite is often true as there are significant barriers for disadvantaged parents to effectively support their children to overcome these same barriers.

2.4 Conceptualization of Theoretical Framework

The conceptual scheme as represented in Figure 1 largely reflects the picture that has already been presented in the theoretical framework, though simplified to provide a more orderly idea of the processes that are going on. The main institutions in this scheme are the school, where the formal learning takes place, and the family, where the informal learning takes place. As explicated before, there is the possibility of cooperation between these two spheres, including information-sharing and cooperative decision-making. The main concepts used in this research are:

(23)

- 23 -

 Family-School Cooperation: defined as all contact, formal/informal,

effective/ineffective, at school/elsewhere between the families (e.g. Parents, aunts/uncles, brothers/sisters, etc.) and the school (e.g. Teachers, head teachers, picking up children from school, etc.)

 Educational Outcomes: As measured by the influence effective cooperation has on learning outcomes and quality of education by means of mutual

understanding, extra support, extra motivation, and improved understanding of the importance of education.

 Barriers to Family-School Cooperation: All obstructions that parents face to effectively cooperate with teachers; social, economic, cultural, linguistic, educational, teacher disposition and so on.

As the arrows indicate, both the school and the family can have a direct impact on the learning outcomes of the students. In addition, unobstructed family-school cooperation can also improve the learning outcomes. Technically this impact is indirect as cooperation

between the family and the school can facilitate better learning at school ánd better learning at home. There are barriers to effective family-school cooperation as the red dashed box indicates.

Improved educational outcomes then increase the overall quality of education of the school. All these processes take place in the local context of the community where the school is based. Finally, the entire process is impacted by the norms and values of the wider society, and the policy positions of the local and federal governments.

(24)

- 24 - Figure 1: Conceptual Scheme

The School

The Family

Barriers to Cooperation

Family School

Cooperation

The Local

community

Educational

Outcomes

Quality of

Education

Cultural Norms and

Policy Environment

(25)

- 25 -

3. Contextual Background

This chapter will introduce the context in which the research project has been implemented. For this purpose the international context of Ethiopia in the region of East Africa will be explained. Then some important and relevant national characteristics and the realities of education in Ethiopia will be overviewed. Finally, the local contexts of the specific schools that were researched in this project will be described, with a focus on the specific

communities within which these schools are located.

3.1 Ethiopia

Concerns about the quality of education in developing countries are most serious in the African continent, where development is lagging behind in many countries (Tikly 2011: 2). Ethiopia furthermore is one of the poorest countries within Africa, and one of the 20 poorest countries in the world (World Bank 2014). This makes Ethiopia on of the frontiers for the struggle against poverty and developmental problems. Ethiopia is located just above the equator in sub-Sahara Africa (see figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Map of Africa Figure 3: Map of Ethiopia

Unlike other countries in Africa, Ethiopia does not have a colonial legacy and is thus less influenced by western culture than some of its neighbors. This has made Ethiopians a proud people; however, as they are the one of the very few countries in Africa never to be

(26)

- 26 -

colonized. The Italian occupation (1936–1941) did not last long enough to leave a lasting impression, unlike the history of Eritrea, where the Italian influences have been much more profound and a colonial administration was installed. Apart from Ethiopia only Liberia can boast to the feat of never having been colonized.

This does not mean that the history of Ethiopia is without turmoil. A civil war that lasted for decades resulted in the independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1991. This made Ethiopia a land-locked state as its access to the Red Sea was cut off. This is now mitigated by good relations with Djibouti, giving Ethiopia access to international trade. Relations with Eritrea have improved somewhat over the years, though occasional skirmishes in the border areas remain. Ethiopia is located in a turbulent part of Africa, bordering Somalia which has been haunted by civil war for decades and South Sudan where recent upheavals have further destabilized the region. Relations with Kenya and Sudan are relatively normal, though tribal clans often clash with each other in the border areas, as the borders still cut across ethnic lines, as in so many other places in Africa.

With a population of roughly 90 million, Ethiopia has the second largest population of the continent, only second to Nigeria. Roughly 50% of the population is under the age of 17, as the pyramid structure of the population distribution shows (figure 4).

Figure 4: Age distribution

(27)

- 27 -

This means that almost half of the population are children with an age for which it is

appropriate to be in school. Medical advancements have made it possible for child mortality rates to be reduced significantly, but this has not trickled back to older generations yet. The skewed age distribution is a large pressure on the educational system and labor market in Ethiopia. As a result, many parents do not send their children to school, or only for a few years, and put them to work to earn additional income for the household, or alleviate their own tasks. This sometimes begins from the age of 5 (Haile and Haile 2010: 14). Around 27% of the children aged 5-14 were involved is some kind of structural labor, either at home, or working the field (DHS 2011).

The population is diverse in terms of ethnicity (34,5% Oromo; 26,9% Amharic; 6,9% Somali; and several other ethnicities), and religion (62,8% Christian and 33,9% Muslim)(CIA Factbook 2014). The ethnic and religious dividing lines overlap sometimes (i.e. almost all Afar or Somali are Muslim), but for the larger ethnic groups, the distribution is more even. Each ethnic group further has its own specific language, with Amharic being the official language and spoken by practically everyone in major cities. This means that language proficiency can be a significant barrier to quality education in rural areas, but less so in large cities.

3.2 Education in Ethiopia

Net enrollment to primary education at the first grade (age 4-6) has improved significantly over the past years, from less than 50% in 2004 to around 87% in 2012 (World Bank 2014; UNICEF 2014). This is however still lower than the sub-Saharan average and only about 50% of the children actually finish primary education (World Bank 2014). Primary education consists of eight grades for the ages 7 to 14. Education at the secondary schools continues the grade system and adds grade 9-12, for the ages of 15 to 18. After the 12th grade a national exam takes place which determines whether students can continue to college or university (Ministry of Education 2014).

Only 15% of the children continue to secondary education (UNICEF 2014). As many families regard it as important for children to work and to add to the income of the

household, education is not everywhere perceived as essential for child development, but rather as an impediment for livelihood strategies of the family. This is particularly prevalent

(28)

- 28 -

in rural areas, where awareness about the importance of education is lagging behind and less so in urban areas. As 83% of the population still lives in rural areas, the absolute numbers of out-of-school children is enormous. In total around 3 million children do not attend primary school in Ethiopia (World Bank 2014).

The education level of the general population is not very high as universal primary education has only recently been adopted by the federal government as a policy objective. As a result, the literacy rate in the general population is around 39% and many parents from children who would now be going to school are thus themselves uneducated (CIA Factbook 2014). Uneducated parents are less likely to view education as an important factor, and will less likely be willing to make sacrifices in terms of their household income to send children to school. The government on the other hand does recognize the importance of education and spent around 25% of its total budget on education in 2010 (World Bank 2014). Although in gross terms this still is not a lot, as the Ethiopian government is still rather inadequate in raising taxes, the commitment appears to be present. The government is also responsible for most education at the primary and secondary level as 83% of the children attend

government schools, while 17% of the children attend private schools (17%) (CSA 2014). Government schools are chronically underfunded, understaffed and teachers overworked for a meager salary. Private schools in contrast are better funded, attract more and better qualified teachers, but are only accessible only for the upper layers of society.

As the high illiteracy among the adult population, and the high drop-out rates of students during primary education, as well as between primary and secondary education indicates, the quality of education in Ethiopia is still not of the level that stakeholders would like. This is also part of the reason why many parents do not think it is very useful for their children to go to school, and put them to work instead, especially in the rural areas.

3.3 Addis Ababa City Administration and Afar Region

The selected schools under study in this project are in Addis Ababa City Administration and Asaita in the Afar region (See figure 5). Addis Ababa with roughly 3.5 million inhabitants is by far the largest city in Ethiopia and is still growing rapidly. For all intents and purposes, this is the central focus point of the country and the government. Heavily urbanized, this is one of the newest cities of Africa, only being founded in the 19th century. Logistics and

(29)

- 29 -

infrastructure are still lagging behind the growth of the city, and numerous projects are undertaken to deal with the rapid expansion, dubbing the city ‘under construction’ by locals and travelers alike. The city is predominantly inhabited by Amhara’s (48%), but is more or less an amalgam of all other ethnicities in Ethiopia. The majority of the population is

Orthodox Christian (82%)(CSA 2004), but there are also numerous mosques in Addis Ababa.

Figure 5: Map of Ethiopia with Research Locations

Afar region, on the other hand is a thinly populated area, with just over 1.5 million residents. Only a small percentage of that population live in cities and the majority are pastoralists and farmers. The region lies in the lowlands, and the climate is not very hospitable for large populations, as most of the area consists of vast deserts. The population is mainly centered around the Awash river delta, providing the much needed water. The majority of the population (around 90%) belong to the Afar ethnic group and are predominantly Muslim

(30)

- 30 -

(95%)(CSA 2004). The region is known to be a backward region, or more eloquently put; a developing and growing region, as much of the economy of Ethiopia is based on the fertile highlands, of which Afar is not a part.

Asaita used to be the capital of the region until the federal government decided to move that seat to Semara, more conveniently located on the Djibouti – Addis Ababa road. With around 20.000 inhabitants, Asaita is one of the larger cities in the area, but still feels distinctly rural, as the main road is occupied more by goats, cows, camels and donkeys, than by cars. Most of the inhabitants also rely on farming or cattle in their livelihoods. Most of the adult population in Afar is uneducated and illiterate. Recently, the government has devoted more effort to establish universal education for children in this region as well, and many new schools have been built. Staffing these schools with a sufficient number of qualified teachers has been difficult and classes structurally exceed the 50 students per class limit.

These two regions offer an interesting contrast between developed and heavily urbanized Addis Ababa, and underdeveloped and distinctly rural, Asaita. Ethiopia is a country of contrasts, and many more contrasts could have been chosen for the purpose of this research, but time limited the possibilities, and this contrast offers quite some interesting viewpoints; urban versus rural; predominantly Christian versus predominantly Muslim; highlands versus lowlands; city dwellers versus farmers and nomads.

(31)

- 31 -

4. Methodological Choices and Research Methods

This chapter will elaborate on the methodological considerations that were made for this research project and why these were made. The approach to the project and manner of data collection will be discussed. Subsequently, the case selection and sampling methods are explained, as well as the means of data analysis. Finally, the limitations of this research project and the ethical considerations that were encountered will be reported.

4.1 Ontology and Epistemology

This research project is focused on the perception of teachers and parents toward the

benefits and barriers of family-school cooperation, and the impact of this cooperation on the educational outcomes and consequently on the quality of education in general. Because the perception of the stakeholders involved toward such an abstract concept is not something that is easy to measure in a survey, a qualitative methodology of interviews was deemed more appropriate for this project.

Because the localized context of the participants is very important in relation to their perception, in-depth knowledge is necessary to respond to the research questions of this project. Essentially, this project is an interpretative study that aims to explore how family-school cooperation takes place in Ethiopia, how they are perceived, and how they impact the process of learning for children. This research will illuminate to what extent the existing framework, which has largely been developed in a western context, is helpful to understand the processes and interactions that take place in the local context of a low-income

developing country like Ethiopia.

4.2 Approach, Procedure and Data

The primary aim of this research is to get an insight in the local perspectives of parents and teachers about the obstacles and benefits that are associated with family-school

cooperation. As there is relatively little known about this theme in the context of developing countries, this research will be explorative in nature. The data-selection has been split in three parts, to assess the underlying processes from different perspectives.

Firstly, in-depth semi-structured interviews have been held with teachers and parents, in order to get an understanding about how each evaluates the potential benefits of

(32)

- 32 -

effective family-school cooperation, the obstacles that they perceive that hinder effective cooperation, and to assess how they believe this influences the quality of education. As parents and teachers are the main stakeholders in the education of the students, and both the primary actors in the cooperation between the family and the school, these interviews form the analytical core of this research project. I am interested in their perception of the school, the learning of the children and their specific role therein. Do we find similar patterns of family-school-community cooperation as in western contexts of diversity, or do we find new and context-specific cooperation? Furthermore, what cultural norms about learning impact the family-school-community cooperation?

Secondly, since this study is directly focused on the cooperation between parents and teachers it is an ideal setting to conduct focus groups. In these focus groups parents and teachers are both present, so that the mode of interaction between the parents and teachers can be directly observed and discussed among the participants. Moreover, the parents and teachers can exchange their ideas about how they think cooperation can, or should influence the learning process and also the quality of education. Reserved or

restrained parents’ responses vis-à-vis the teachers are obviously possible in such a situation, but if observed are a unique form of observation and data in its own right.

Thirdly, this research employed unstructured observation during the focus groups, in-depth interviews and while walking around the school compounds. These observations include non-verbal interaction between parents and teachers, such as how they compose themselves when they are talking with teachers, as well as how they verbally interact. The focus groups are a part of this process of observation. Essentially the focus groups become two-pronged. First of all, the answers and discussions that are provided are useful data, but furthermore, the way in which answers are given and discussions conducted is very valuable data, because this interaction is precisely the focus of this research project.

4.3 School Sites and Case Selection

Because this research also aims to illuminate to what extent these perspectives differ in a developing country on the basis of socio-economic standing, schools with a diverse

environment have been selected, with a mix between relatively well-off families and poorer families. By this selection procedure, the really wealthy are excluded, because they are more

(33)

- 33 -

likely to send their children to private schools, which are not under investigation in this project.

Because the student drop-out rate between primary and secondary schools is high (though 50% finish primary education, only 35% percent continue to secondary education (World Bank 2014), selecting a secondary school would result in a significant selection bias against families and students who are in fact of most interest for this study. Therefore, primary schools are more suitable for this research. One downside of this approach is that is not possible to directly talk to students in this situation as the students are mostly too young or unaware of the processes of family-school cooperation.

Two primary schools have been selected for this research, one in the Addis Ababa City Administration (School A), and one in Asaita in the Afar region (School B). Both are

government schools and are thus primarily funded by the federal and the state governments. The selection was partly based on convenience, i.e. both schools were partner schools of the Development Expertise Centre (DEC), a local NGO with an affiliation with the Dutch-based Edukans. DEC is active in the field of improving access and quality of education. Through DEC I was able to locate and contact them. DEC has 92 different partner schools across the country, however. These two schools were selected because by all appearances they were ordinary schools, in a regular neighborhood, with a normal mix of students from both relatively well-off families and very poor families. The communities in general were neither particularly well-off, nor specifically destitute, though School B in Asaita was located in a community which even by local residents was considered backward in relation to the rest of the country.

School A

The first school under investigation was located in a neighborhood relatively close to the city center, and relatively well accessible. The school compound itself was somewhat removed from the main road, and separated from the neighborhood by a fence. The school

compound was relatively spacious with a large grass field, where the students could eat lunch, play and where physical education was conducted. The school building was the standard three-story concrete block that has been built all around Ethiopia.

(34)

- 34 -

The school has about 2000 students and some 60 teachers. That would yield a 30 student per class ratio, but because of subject- grade- and other limitations classes in reality comprise of around 60 students.

School B

School B was located just off the main road in Asaita. Like school A, the compound was rather spacious. Unlike school A, the playing area was not on a grass field, but rather in dirt and dust, something that the people in Asaita are rather used to. The classrooms are spread around the compound and there is ample space in between.

The school has about 2700 students and some 52 teachers. That would yield a 50 student per class ratio, but because of subject- grade- and other limitations classes in reality comprise of 85 students per class and sometimes even top to a 100 students per class.

4.4 Unit of analysis and Sample

The unit of analysis for this research is the perspectives of the individual participants in the in-depth interviews and the discussions that stem from the focus groups. The aim of the project was to conduct 16 interviews and 1 focus group in each school. The interviews were no problem, though some more resistance was found in the rural area than in the city. This resistance was further evident when it proved impossible to get enough parents and

teachers to sit down for a focus group in school B. A focus group was conducted in School A. The comparative advantage is lost, but the focus group still yielded interesting insights about the school where it was conducted.

The distribution of parents and teachers for the interviews was determined on 10 parents and 6 teachers per school. The higher emphasis was on parents, because the variance of opinion might vary more among parents, because they are likely to come from more diverse backgrounds in socio-economic terms. The parents and teachers were selected by way of availability. This was facilitated by the schools themselves, who were very willing to assist in this research project after I had been introduced by DEC. In each school, I had one contact person who I would inform when I was coming to the school, and what kind of people I would want to interview. Some of these appointments were cancelled last-minute

(35)

- 35 -

as there were not enough respondents present, but in general this method worked rather well and the interviews were completed well within the timeframe of the research project.

My contact persons in the school were able to get parents from diverse backgrounds to sit down with me. The easiest were the members of the PTA, because they are walking around the school compound regularly. Regular parents were somewhat more difficult to reach, but most the time there were parents present at the school, who were called on by the school, some to discuss the behavior of their children, but some also to talk to me. One obvious downside of this approach is that parents that are completely absent from the school and the learning process as such would not be reached. This was a drawback that could not be helped with the time- and cost- constraints of this research project, however. As long as this is kept in mind when analyzing the data, this problem can be overcome. The specifics of the respondents in the sample can be found in table 1.

Table 1: Sample Interviews

Total School Role Gender PTA

32 Interviews 16 School A 6 Teachers 1 Female - 5 Male - 10 Parents 6 Female 1 PTA

4 Male 2 PTA 16 School B 6 Teachers 1 Female -

5 Male - 10 Parents 6 Female -

4 Male 2 PTA

The focus group that was held in School A comprised of four participants, two teachers and two parents, neither of whom had been interviewed in the previous phase. None of them were seated on the PTA. The focus group was conducted with the help of a translator but the discussion was translated afterward, so I had little control over the direction of the discussion. This was sacrificed compared to having to translate every sentence of a discussion, losing all relation with an actual group discussion.

(36)

- 36 - 4.5 Content Analysis

The mode of data-analysis for this research is content analysis of the transcripts of the interviews and focus groups, field notes, as well as unstructured observations during the interviews and the focus groups. This content analysis is conducted with the software Atlas.ti. A preliminary coding scheme has been constructed on the basis of the theoretical

framework and operationalization table (see Appendix A). As an indication, some codes that were used are: formal contact, shared decision-making and PTA role for family-school cooperation in general; information-sharing, attendance, behavior and learning outcomes for outcomes of family-school cooperation; and time-availability, willingness, level of education and capacity teacher for barriers to family-school cooperation.

When new or unexpected relations between the concepts appeared in the field, or if new themes were introduced or others found to be of little importance, this coding scheme was modified. For instance, the codes of time-availability and capacity teacher were

introduced in the field, while drop-outs from the schools was dropped as an indicator. In the content analysis, the perspectives of the parents and teachers were compared, as well as the different perspectives among parents and teachers. As the sub-questions of this research each point to different points of emphasis in this research, the data-collection and

subsequently data-analysis has been conducted with this rough framework in mind. These are also presented below in separate chapters as can be found in the outline in the

introduction.

4.6 Limitations

The first difficulties that this research project had to overcome were cultural and linguistic barriers between the participants and me. Especially the latter proved problematic at times, as interviews and focus groups could not be conducted in English. Some of the teachers spoke some English, but even some teachers who taught English were uncomfortable to talk to me in English. From the beginning I conducted all the interviews with translators, but sometimes even with the translators some misunderstandings could not be overcome. The translators that I was able to find in Addis Ababa were also more proficient in English than the ones that I managed to find in Asaita.

(37)

- 37 -

As most of the parents that I sat down with were relatively poor and had to work hard to earn a living, it was sometimes difficult to get parents to sit down for an interview, or stay for the envisaged duration of the interview. I informed them beforehand how long the interview would take, some agreed, but others walked away. For teachers, this problem was not as profound, but some teachers were limited to the amount of time they had until their next class. In all, I positioned myself flexibly and would hang around the school and play with the children, until a parent or a teacher had the time to talk with me. As this flexibility was not possible with the focus group discussion, I was only able to conduct a focus group in the first school, and not in the second school, as the available time of teachers and parents simply did not overlap.

Another limitation of this explorative research project is that it will not be able to draw inferences that can be generalized to the wider context of Ethiopia, or other developing countries. This is an explorative research with the aim to improve our

understanding of the processes and interactions that take place between the family and the school and how this is perceived to influence education quality, in the specific cases under study. Any conclusions drawn from this research project are thus somewhat limited to the local contexts where this research was conducted.

4.7 Ethical considerations

One of the considerations this research has to deal with is who you can talk to. Because primary schools were selected to avoid to selection bias due to massive drop-out rates between primary and secondary schools, it is for instance not very fruitful to directly interview the students as their ages range between 4 and 12, and they only second-hand witness the cooperation between the family and the school.

Another consideration is that the parents, students and teachers interact with each other in a pre-defined manner, originating long before the arrival of the researcher.

Therefore, the researcher should beware not to upset these patterns of behavior, as that may have an unintended impact after the departure of the researcher. To protect the privacy of the respondents and to honor their openness and frankness in their discussions with me, the quotations uses for this research have anonymized. Likewise, the schools where the research has been conducted are not named. As this research project will also be

(38)

- 38 -

send around to some relevant ngo’s and organizations in Ethiopia, confidentiality has to be upheld. As such, respondents have been numbered and will be references to in that way.

Finally, as the researcher had no comprehension of the local language, Amharic, a translator has been used for every interview. The Translator in Addis was entirely

independent of the school and rewarded appropriately to local standards. This luxury was absent in Asaita, where I had to rely on trainers from the College Teacher Education (CTE), Development Expertise Centre (DEC), or even employees of the school itself. As neither of these translators was entirely independent from the processes in the school, I clearly instructed them to simply translate the answers of the respondents directly.

Family-school cooperation and quality of education : a case study of primary schools in Ethiopia

