Abstract
The study aimed to examine to what extent parents participated in their children’s learning. It focused on how the Selam elementary school inspired to involve families in the children’s schooling. To realize this, the researcher used grounded theory as the design of the study. Parents and teachers were involved in the study purposively, and school principals participated in the study comprehensively. The study used an interview and focus group discussion as data gathering tools. The gathered data were analyzed by using open, axial, and selective coding approaches. And the findings indicated how most parents went to school only when their children scored low academically and misbehaved; teachers had discussions with parents of misbehaved and academically weak learners. The outputs also showed that the school was ineffective in mobilizing parents in the school and learners’ learning initiatives. So, parents have to prioritize their children’s instructional process; teachers need to involve caregivers in the instructional process regularly by designing a communication plan with appropriate means of interaction. The school also has to work on how teachers and parents tackle students’ instructional problems by working together regularly.
1. Introduction
In the process of learning, many problems such as parental expectation, peer group influence, socioeconomic status, family structure, and types of parental contribution in children’s schooling, academic self-concept, and school environment can affect learners’ schooling and their behavior [1]. Parent involvement is not something done to children, but it is a way of observing parents as active collaborators in students’ learning and development initiatives. It is also the motive of ensuring the school lives of students [2]. As Tafesse [3] stated, parents are the first decisive individuals who need to responsibly play their part regarding students’ learning. Parental contribution to children’s learning not only improves a child’s morale, attitude, and academic achievement across all subject areas but also promotes better behavior and social adjustment. In all these ways, family attachment in education helps children grow up to be productive and responsible members of society [4].
If pupils need to maximize their potential from schooling, they will require full support from their parents. Accordingly, parents should play a role not only in the promotion of their own children’s achievements but also in school improvement [5]. To do so, as [6] stated, a diversity of educational compensatory and stimulation programs and activities have been developed and implemented, both for educational institutions, such as preschools and primary schools and also for parents at home. Besides, according to Oranga, et al. [7], schools should strive to strike a chord with the parents and create a welcoming and empathetic atmosphere. Furthermore, teachers should be compassionate and understanding toward parents with low educational levels and attempt to create an atmosphere, that is, hospitable to all. Moreover, parents should be encouraged to voice concerns, opinions, and questions without the fear of being judged inferior.
When schools, families, and community groups, in general, work together to support learning, children tend to do better and stay in school longer. Many studies found that students with involved parents, no matter what their income or background looked like, were more likely to achieve high grades and test scores, enroll in higher-level programs, pass their classes, and earn credits. They are also motivated to attend school regularly, have better social skills, show improved behavior, adapt well to school, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education [8]. Thus, children do better in school, both academically and socially, when parents are involved in their education. Inversely, children with conduct problems often do poorly in school; their parents are more likely to have characteristics associated with low levels of involvement (e.g., poverty, single-parent status, or depression) [9].
Family involvement in education forecasts children’s school success. For example, developmental and education research confirms that parental attitudes, styles of interaction, behaviors, and relationships with schools are allied with children’s social development and academic performance [10]. However, the practice of family involvement often falls short of its promise. Schools still struggle to engage caregivers to participate in the children’s learning [9]. Thus, evaluations indicated that many family-centered interventions are successful in changing parenting behaviors. Yet home-school relationships are challenging to change. These relationships are often characterized as centered on school priorities and initiated by the schools at the expense of ignoring families’ concerns and expertise regarding their children.
Epstein et al. [11] draw three conclusions about parental involvement in their children’s learning. First, parental involvement tends to decline across the grades unless schools make conscious efforts to develop and implement partnerships with parents and society. The reasons for the decline are parents’ lack of familiarity with the curriculum at the higher grades, adolescents’ preferences to have their parents stay involved in less visible ways, parents’ decisions to return to the workforce once their children gain more independence, and secondary teachers’ lack of awareness on how to involve parents in students’ learning.
Second, as Epstein et al. [11] revealed, affluent parents tend to be involved in school more often and in positive ways, whereas economically distressed parents have limited contact with schools and usually in situations dealing with students’ achievement or behavior. Schools that seek to create relationships with all parents, on the other hand, can equalize participation across all socioeconomic categories. Finally, single parents, employed parents, fathers, and parents who live far from the school, on average, are less involved in the school unless the school organizes opportunities that consider these parents’ needs and circumstances. Although these patterns are generally observable among schools, they can be overcome if schools develop programs that include families that otherwise would not become involved in their own [12].
Generally, parent involvement is the desired issue to minimize educational wastage and maximize the quality of education that further helps in economic growth. Community participation helps school principals and teachers to improve their careers, get promotions from one educational level to the next in the system and develop their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and understandings. All practicing community participation is imperative in answering the issues mentioned above and bringing changes to the whole system [13].
Ethiopia has made remarkable progress in expanding access to education over the past two decades. The budget allocated to education has doubled and expanded primary school facilities greatly and increased parent and student commitment to education. And the country is close to universal primary enrolment, but significant hurdles remain. Dropout rates are high, with only about half of the young people (around the age of 11th) completing grade five, and the enrolment rate in upper-secondary schools is still in the single digits due to lagging investment in secondary schools. Rates are low for students, particularly girls, who face greater time poverty due to care and domestic work responsibilities. Moreover, learning outcomes are generally poor (especially in rural areas), and adolescents with disabilities have limited opportunities to realize their right to education [14].
When we see the early childhood care and education practice in Ethiopia, teachers are not well trained in preschool teaching. They are not working in collaboration with families and other professionals. The existing urban-based modern preprimary schools are limited to children aged four to six and do not include children with special needs [15]. Parental skills in giving better care for their children like nutrition, personal hygiene, follow-up, and support are also very limited in the Ethiopian case. Children’s learning is influenced by their parent’s educational attainment and their parent’s cultural capital as well [16]. For example, the attitude of rural parents toward education affects their motivation to send children to school, specifically daughters. Parents prefer their girls to do indoor tasks such as cooking, fetching water, cleaning house, washing clothes, making coffee, and other related activities [17]. Thus, due to traditional customs and a conventional mindset, many girls are expected to stay home and work “in the kitchen” [18].
Children often work to support their families because, without their help, families would not be able to meet their basic needs. Consequently, often, some intellectual and ambitious children with big dreams cannot continue their education [18]. As a result, students, particularly female students, have scored poor academic performance, and the rise of the repetition rate in the classes was repeatedly reported high by researchers [17].
1.1. Concerning This, Abera Argued as
The National learning assessment of grade 10 and 12 students stated that the academic achievement of students as measured by the mean score of five subjects such as English, Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics was found less than the average (50%) set by the Education Policy of Ethiopia. In grade 10, only 13.8% scored 50% and above; in grade 12, only 34.9% scored 50% and above. Generally, the mean achievement scores in the subject tested were found very low, and most students in both grades were unable to score at least 50% [15 : 7].
Moreover, when researchers ask learners suddenly about parental roles in the school program, they could not remember how their parents attended the biannual award ceremonies of students. Parents are not voluntary in encouraging girls’ learning and are unwilling to visit classrooms regularly [19]. While community participation in contributing money and labor was found at medium-level school-community relationships, its involvement in school management and decision making and parent participation in education were all at low levels [20].
The less participation of the community in school activities, in one or another, can affect the teaching-learning and the education system in general. The literature indicates that effective community participation creates social ownership and promotes educational activities [21]. However, as I had observed the Selam primary school’s teaching-learning initiatives randomly, some students’ academic performance and their conduct, mainly the school teachers’ children, were poor. This means that there are students who could not write their names properly in grades 7 and 8. Some students in grades 2 and 3 could not count 1–10 numbers. Great students’ dropout rates were also observed in the school. Related to this, Muluneh and Gebre [22] argued that the national competency assessment (NCA) is a strategy with the objective of creating a competent, motivated, adaptable, and innovative workforce in Ethiopia. However, of all the students who had taken the NCA, below-average students had passed the assessment in the study settings.
In another way, parent-school collaboration seemed too weak. Thus, parents could not participate actively in the school’s activities; school problems are not solved timely, and the school’s administration status seemed too weak. For example, school teachers could not get career structure (they did not get salary increments) and other consumptions. The school also remained too poor to pay teachers’ salaries timely; it also could not fulfill required instructional materials. As a result, more than 10 teachers have left the school since 2020 and are employed in other districts. Likewise, Ahmed et al. [18] argued that in developing countries, most of the population lives in rural areas where the condition of schools is unsatisfactory, and the vast majority of schools lack necessary facilities.
Generally, the barriers to parental involvement in their children’s learning are diverse and include low level of parental education, teachers’ negative attitude toward parental participation in education, parental economic constraints, lack of support, parental perceptions of the teachers-school staff, absence of clear channels of home-school communication, mismatched expectations (between parents and teachers), and the number of siblings in the family. [7].
Therefore, this study tries to assess the extent of parental involvement in their children’s learning in the Selam primary school of Woldia Town-North Wollo Zone. Specifically, it tried to examine parental participation in the students’ instructional processes and the types of issues emphasized by the parents. The study also evaluates how the school motivates and attracts parents toward their children’s learning. To do this, the researcher developed the following leading questions based on the review literature:(i)How do parents partake in their children’s learning?(ii)How the school helps parents to involve in their children’s schooling?
The findings of the study may help parents to treat their children and indicate to what extent the school motivates parents to involve in the instructional process. Thus, it may inspire parents to partake in school-related activities and initiate the students to read, do, and facilitate their home or other instructional exercises. The study also assists schools in improving school-community relationships. Specifically, the findings of the study:(i)May assist schools and parents to solve instructional problems cooperatively;(ii)May develop experience-sharing opportunities among parents in their school interaction;(iii)May develop a sense of school ownership among parents.
1.2. Conceptual Framework of the Study
The family makes critical contributions to student achievement from the earliest childhood across their school lives. Efforts to improve children’s outcomes are much more effective if they encompass their families. When schools engage parents and students, there are significant effects happened in instructional activities. For example, when parents are involved at school, not just at home, children do better and stay longer in school. Thus, the most accurate predictor of a student’s achievement in school is not income or social status, but the extent to which that student’s family can create a home environment to be suitable for encouraging learning; express high (but not unrealistic) expectations for their children’s achievement and future careers, and become involved in their children’s education at school and in the community [4].
To check how parents involve in their children’s learning, the researcher was inspired to take Epstein’s parental model as a conceptual framework. As Goshin and Mertsalova [23] argued, one of the most popular theories on parental involvement existing today is Joyce Epstein’s model that defined the six types of interactions enabling school-family-community partnerships. The six types of parental involvement initiatives in the students’ learning, according to Epstein [24], are the following (see the elements in Figure 1): Parenting: Assist families with parenting skills, family support, understanding child and adolescent development, and setting home conditions to support learning at each age and grade level. It also assists schools in understanding families’ backgrounds, cultures, and goals for children [6, 24]. Communicating: The basic obligations of schools include school-to-home communication (such as memos, notices, newsletters, report cards, conferences, and phone calls) and information (on schools, courses, programs, and activities). Parents provide home-to-school communication, making a two-way channel for interaction and exchange [24]. Volunteering: Improve recruitment, training, work, and schedules to involve families as volunteers and audiences at the school or in other locations to support students and school programs [6]. Learning at home: Parents are required to involve families with their children in academic learning at home, including homework, goal setting, and other curriculum-related activities [24]. Decision making: Includes families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy activities through school councils or improvement teams, committees, and parent organizations [6, 24]. Collaborating with the community: Coordinate resources and services for families, students, and the school with community groups, including businesses, agencies, cultural and civic organizations, and colleges or universities which enable all to contribute service to the community [6, 24].
As stated above, the involvement of parents in their children’s teaching-learning process should be, as much as possible, comprehensive. Thus, parents need to furnish their children with the services related to shelter and food supply and create a suitable environment for them. They need to interact with the school about the instructional process. Parents need to support the school by contributing the required resources that enhance the school to facilitate teaching-learning activities. Parents also need to show their participation by forwarding their point of view and experience to the school about the policy of education, weak and strong sides of the school leadership, and they need to show their alliances to the school practically [23, 24].
Based on this perception, the researcher displayed the conceptual framework as follows by considering the elements of Epstein’s parental involvement model.
Generally, the conceptual framework shows how domains of parental involvement need to be interwoven with each other. Thus, at the core of the abovementioned six types of involvement are two central notions of caring: trusting and respecting among students, schools, and parents. However, if parents were involved in the particular matter, their activities would be reflected in the essence of the one size fits all that resulted in incomplete learners’ development [6]. Therefore, parents should participate in diversified school matters if they need to get world-minded individuals.
2. Materials and Methods
To achieve the intended objectives of the study, grounded theory was used as a research design because it provides explicit tools for studying processes, promotes openness to all possible theoretical understandings, and develops tentative interpretations of the data through coding and categorizing. The design also builds systematic checks and refinements of the researcher’s major theoretical categories [25].
In order to collect data, Selam elementary school teachers, school principals, and parents were targeted. Selam primary school had 27 teachers (M = 18, and F = 9), and of these, the researcher selected three purposively (considering their willingness and experience sharing capacity) as a participant in the study. The researcher also selected three parents as respondents of the study purposively by considering their participation motives. There were also two school principals (principal and vice-principal), and both of them were selected as respondents to the study comprehensively.
To collect data from respondents, the researcher used interviews and focused group discussions as the major data gathering tools for the study:
2.1. Interview
The researcher administered an interview in the present study because it supported him get exhaustive information. It allowed the researcher to discover issues that might be complex to investigate through a questionnaire and permitted better flexibility for the interviewer and interviewee. Thus, the tool would provide the participants with better prospects to clarify what they experienced in parent-school interaction. Accordingly, the researcher developed four semistructured interview questions for parents (Have you go to school about your child’s issues? Do you have asked your child about what he/she has been learned? Have you discussed this with the child? Has the school called you about your child’s schooling?).
In addition to this, the researcher designed one major and five sub semi-structured interview questions for teachers (Have you discussed with parents? If so, by what issues you called upon them? For how many times you discussed within a year? What types of parents you discussed with? Did you make a discussion with high, low achievers, misbehave, or others? Is there any strategy that you have to communicate with parents? And, is there any plan to communicate with parents?).
2.2. Focus Group Discussion
FGD, as a data collection mechanism, is critical because respondents can acquire an opportunity to share their experiences concerning parent involvement in their children’s learning. Accordingly, the researcher used the FGD and collected the required information from school principals. To do this, he designed five semistructured interview questions (Have you discussed with parents? If so, by what issues you called upon them? For how many times you discuss in a year? What types of parents considered in your discussion? Having children with high/low achievers, misbehave, or others? Is there any strategy that you communicate with parents? Is there any plan to communicate with parents?).
To validate the study, the researcher would get feedback from participants about the emerging findings—it is a member-checked or sought-feedback activity. Member-checking is a vital practice in ruling out misconceptions and misunderstandings from the participants’ responses [26].
In addition to member-checking, the researcher also have protected participants and conserving their identities by informing them about the purpose of this study, the requirements for participation, each participant’s right to discontinue his or her participation at any time, and the timeline associated with this study; bracketing researcher’s own experiences. Bracketing is a method used in qualitative research to diminish the potentially harmful effects of preconceptions that may spoil the research process [26] and minimize the impact of the supervisory power relationships that existed between the participants and the researcher. Thus, the researcher has recognized that his position as a supervisor could hinder participant comfort and honesty.
As stated before, the purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent parents have participated in their children’s learning and how the school motivates parents to involve in the students’ learning. Accordingly, the collected data was analyzed qualitatively. Thus, the researcher used grounded theory approach to analyze data collected through interviews and FGD. Specifically, the researcher applied the open coding technique to analyze, sort, and categorize each of the responses given by the participants [25]. On several occasions, the participant responses conveyed more than one phenomenon, and as a result, those responses received more than one label in the open coding process.
After analyzing the data and identifying various phenomena within it, the researcher grouped and categorized similar concepts that allow him to glean an objective picture of participants related to parents’ involvement in educational matters. After labeling and categorizing the obtained data, the relationship found among categories was conceptualized using axial coding. This coding helped the researcher place one topic at the center to see how the other themes are related to a specific topic. Finally, based on the interrelationships of analyzed data at the axial coding stage, the researcher developed a theory about parents’ involvement in their instructional process via selective coding [25].
2.3. Data Analysis and Interpretation
The objective of this study was to examine to what extent parents contribute to their children’s learning and how the school prompts parents to involve in the schooling issues. To do so, the researcher formulated two basic research questions (How parents partake in the instructional process? How the school helps parents to involve in their children’s learning?) The collected data related to the questions were analyzed and interpreted as follows:
2.4. Parents’ Involvement in Their Children’s Instructional Process
To scrutinize parents’ educational participation, the researcher conducted an interview and FGD upon teachers, parents, and school directors, and the output is stated in the following ways:
In the interview session, three parents were involved: the 1st mother had two children, 2nd mother had three children, and 3rd mother also had a child. To examine their motives toward children’s learning, I asked them as Have you go to school concerning your children’s education?” And they all responded in the same way as “yes.” The researcher forwarded further questions as “If so, by what matters you discussed with the school?” As a result, the 1st mother reacted in this manner: “I had a meeting with the school concerning pupils’ academic engagement status and their behavior since my children were getting poor marks and misbehaving-these were the main topics of discussion.” The 2nd mother said that the talk had focused on concerns of discipline and academics. And, the 3rd mother, on the other hand, reacted differently than the other two moms since the primary topics of the discussion were kid feeding and transportation to and from school.
The respondents’ response abovementioned indicates to what extent teachers as a parent were involved in their children’s learning mainly in the academic issues, students’ demeanor, and taking in and out of learners from school.
To triangulate the data, the researcher interviewed three teachers (the 1st teacher had 41 students, 2nd teacher had 30 students, and the 3rd one also had 40 students in their class) as “Have you discussed with parents?” And all three responded as “yes.” Concerning this point, the school leaders in their FGD suggested that a discussion was administered with the parents even though there has been a poor relationship between the school and parents. In addition to this, I asked them as “With what types of parents you made a discussion with?” They contend that a discussion was conducted holistically though parents have a poor outlook toward their child’s instructional process. They were not eager to discuss this with the school because parents had a shortage of time (which led them to ignore the teaching-learning practice).
To make it brief, I forwarded additional questions as “If so, by what issues you called upon them?” Related to this, the 1st teacher contends as “I discussed with parents about issues related to students with low achievers, absentees; latecomers, class punishers, and misbehaved ones.” “In the discussion, the reasons why children became poor in their learning, food supply, health condition, material and facility deficiencies were considered,” the second instructor added. The 3rd teacher on her side argued that students’ academic performance and their behavioral status such as latecomer, terminating class, etc., emphasized in the discussion. Similarly, according to FGD respondents, the debate was centered on accidental problems—gender issues, students’ learning, or schooling.
Besides, I asked the parent respondents as “How many discussions you made with the school per year?” Related to this, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd mothers replied that five or six times, two times, and more than twenty times per semester, respectively. According to the explanations, it is possible to understand how the discussion rate varied from 2 to 20 times among the parents in the academic year. In line with this, the 1st teacher responded as “I made a discussion with five to six parents per semester via calling them individually. The 2nd teacher also argued that the discussion is conducted with more than fifteen parents two or three times per semester. Finally, the 3rd teacher argued as “I have conducted discussions with ten to fifteen parents within a specific time.” Equally, the school principals responded that the chat is conducted quarterly, in a semester, or a year.
To continue the discussion, the researcher asked the three mothers as “Which body argued with you, Teachers or others?” Based on this question, the 1st and 2nd mothers replied about how teachers dealt with them. In another way, as the 3rd mother stated, teachers and school leaders discussed with her about the children’s learning.
By prolonging the interview, I asked parents as “Have you asked your children about what they learned?” Parents suggested the raised question in the same manner as “yes, although it lacks continuity” To brief, I asked them further as “Have you evaluated your child’s instructional activities?” All the participants replied “yes” To know specifically, I asked them as “If so, which issues are focused on by you?” The 2nd mother contends that I have observed exercise books whether students perform their homework or class work as intended or not. Related to this, the 1st mother shared her experience in this way: I visited their exercise books, and I prized them money as motivation based on their activity (number of corrected and uncorrected answers scored by them). However, the reward was not given to them in their hand rather than put it in the CASSAFORT (small locked box used as holding money) via their fathers’ hand.
Equally, the 3rd mother argued as “I have checked how my daughter understood the issues that she has learned”. In addition to this, I continued the interview by saying as“Have you made a discussion with the child based on the observed matters?” Consequently, the 2nd mother responded as “yes, I did by giving additional activities to check whether they improve their mistakes or not”. The 3rd mother also suggested the raised question as “yes I have done, for example, I evaluated to what extent my daughter can sing songs which discussed in the classroom, and I helped her to do the given class works and assignments accordingly.”
In sum, the data showed that parents, teachers, and school leaders had weak initiatives toward students’ learning. Thus, parents did not communicate with the school regularly because they visited it when their children scored poorly and misbehaved. Teachers also remained weak to initiate parents by setting teacher-parent meeting programs, and they were not committed to partaking in parent-school agendas. Moreover, the school interacted poorly with parents and society; it lacks means of school-parent relationships since it communicated with parents only when some problems occurred to their children.
2.5. The School’s Initiatives to Help Parents to Involve in Their Children’s Learning
To evaluate how the school motivated parents to participate in the instructional process, I asked them as “Do the school called you about your learner’s matters?” Accordingly, the 1st mother reported as “no, it could not call me about the students’ issue because my sons have not any misconduct or behavior, but teachers did it when the children were weak in their instructional processes.” The 2nd mother also responded that the school did not involve her, but homeroom teachers have called parents for the students’ learning matters. However, the 3rd mother argued that the school had involved her in the schooling.
According to the respondents’ extraction, except for the 3rd mother, the two parents pointed out how the school was not involved them to participate in their children’s teaching-learning issues.
To justify the extent of how the school initiates parents in their child’s instructional process, the researcher continued the interview by forwarding a question to the teacher respondents as “Is there any strategy that you have communicated with parents?” Related to this, the 1st teacher argued as “I have interacted with parents via phone cell by collaborating with the school.” The 2nd teacher responded as “I have various strategies to correspond to parents: in the village, on the highway, in the market, telephone calling, etc.” The 3rd teacher shared her experiences as follows: Yes, a strategy like PSTC (parent, student, and teacher coalition or union) coordinated by me, and it has worked toward students’ academic performance improvement and behavioral change. Moreover, telephone calls, checking exercise books, etc., used to communicate with parents.
To examine the parent mobilization status of the school, the researcher raised similar questions for the school leaders (Is there any strategy that you have communicated with parents?), and they disclosed that the school has strategies to communicate with parents. Thus, homeroom teachers registered all student parents’ phone numbers and could communicate with parents accordingly. Moreover, according to them, the meeting is another mechanism employed by the school to interact with parents.
To brief, I requested the teacher respondents as “Do you have any plan to converse with parents?” Concerning this, the 1st teacher argued as “I did not have any discussion plan with parents. I facilitated the interaction with parents when the problems emerge accidently.” The 2nd teacher also disclosed as “I have a plan that shows when and how the discussion is conducted with the parents.” Finally, the 3rd teacher argued that there was a plan designed by the body of PSTC and has been put it into practice.
Regarding the point, the school principals shared their experiences that the school had monthly and annual plans to interact with parents, but it was ineffective because of the declared state of emergency for six months by the nation.
Generally, the data indicated that the school has a weak interaction with parents because it had not regular meetings and other means of communication except for phone calls. Moreover, teachers’ unintended means of interaction such as in the market, on the way, and checking exercise books are not enough to solve learners’ instructional problems. And the used strategies do not create a safe and suitable environment to facilitate the discussion among parents and teachers.
3. Discussion of the Findings
As stated before, the data were gathered from the three bodies: parents, teachers, and school principals, by employing interviews and focus group discussions. Based on the data collected, the researcher tried to brief it by considering the three analysis phases of the grounded theory.
The collected data showed that, more often, parents made discussions with the school in line with students’ academic status, behavior, and feeding; taking in and out the siblings irregularly-the contact hour of families with the school was very poor. Respondents indicated that teachers discussed with parents that have students with absenteeism, latecomer, and class punisher. Moreover, the provisions of food, learning materials, and healthcare conditions were considered.
The school leaders also argued that discussions conducted with teachers and families of students focused on issues created accidently. Students’ misconduct, academic performance, gender issues, etc., were raised in the discussion session. Respondents argued that parents communicated with children concerning their exercise books (counting the given wrong and right marks by subject teachers were the main emphasis). Telephone calls, PSTC (parent, student, and teacher coalition or union), and accidental meetings (in the village, on the road, and in the market) were the interaction mechanisms employed by teachers to communicate with parents.
The data also indicates how the school has facilitated the instructional process by departing it from society because the bond between teachers and parents was too weak, and teachers had not a notable communication plan with parents. If they have an actual plan, teachers might not employ unintentional means of communication to intermingle with parents. Generally, according to the data, the interaction of teachers with parents was very poor since they make one or two discussions per year with ten parents on average (6 + 10 + 15/3 = 10).
By applying open coding, the researcher clustered the themes of the discussions into five major groups: academic (low and high achiever), discipline (absentee, latecomer, and class punisher), basic needs (food supply, health condition, and furnishing of learning materials), evaluation (checking exercise book–monitor how learners facilitated their homework, class work, assignment, etc.), and means of interaction (telephone calls, meeting in the market, in the village and road, etc.).
Under axial coding, the researcher administered an exhaustive analysis to determine similar features of the five themes found in the open coding stage. Thus, these five clusters were grouped again into three major phases: learning at home (incorporates all academic, discipline, and evaluation-related issues), because Epstein [24] argued that parents help their children with homework and with setting educational goals in the learning at home approach. Food delivery, health care, and the supply of learning materials can make learners are healthy and physical well-being. And the issues are situated in the parenting phase. Finally, telephone calls; meetings: in the market, on the road, and in the village are grouped under the communication mechanism. As stated below, the researcher developed a theory in the selective coding phases of grounded theory by integrating the findings with the conceptual framework of the study.
The researcher under selective coding saw how the parental involvement in the Selam primary school was partial or incomplete because, of the required six parental attachments, only the three (parenting, learning at home, and communicating) were emphasized by parents via ignoring Epstein’s three elements of the parenting model such as volunteering (parents volunteer to exert out their time and talents for school), decision making (parents participate in school leadership, support, councils, etc.), and collaborating with the community (parents encourage partnerships with community resources and services).
Likewise, the study conducted by Goshin and Mertsalova [23] showed that most parents are involved in their children’s learning concerning the parenting, communicating, and learning at home approaches of Epstein’s model. Unless the six parenting roles are used in the instructional activities, students would be scored poor academic performance and develop misbehaver [24].
Equally, Bereda [20] revealed that lack of leadership skills, poor communication, lack of community services, and ineffective roles of the school-community (principals, teachers, etc.) toward empowering their students’ schooling affected the instructional processes. Most schools conduct at least a few activities to involve families in their children’s education, but most of them did not have well-organized, goal-linked, and sustainable partnership programs.
Therefore, educators, parents, and other partners are required to work together to systematically strengthen and maintain their family and community involvement programs over time. Interpersonally, these partners recognize that they all have roles to play in helping students succeed academically, and together with students, they are also the learning community of schools. If parents participate in schooling, their children will perform better academically, regardless of their financial status. The more parental involvement in education, the higher their children’s school performance indices are.
Generally, multidimensional parental engagements are the most significant instrument for enhancing and effecting an increasing achievement in school activities while parents and teachers work together to improve students’ learning [23, 24, 27]. Therefore, in educational disadvantage policies and programs, all sorts of parental involvement activities receive warm attention [6].
4. Conclusion
The analyzed data related to the school’s effort to involve parents in their teaching-learning process indicated that the school was poor in mobilizing parents in their children’s schooling. Parents have perceived their participation roles in the child’s schooling process wrongly. Thus, they were involved in the instructional issues only when their children misbehaved and scored poor grades. The school’s weak awaking of parents about how they have to engage in the students’ matters may lead them to misperceive the parental responsibilities in children’s learning.
In general, the parental attachment in the Selam primary school was ineffective since the parenting roles such as parenting, learning at home, and communicating were emphasized via paying no attention to the other three responsibilities: volunteering, decision making, and collaborating with the community.
4.1. Recommendation
Based on the analyzed data and findings of the study, the researcher forwarded the following recommendations to parents, teachers, and the school in the following ways:
4.1.1. Parents
Since parents are the primary supporter of their children, they need to prioritize their children’s instructional process because it is difficult to expect good academic achievement from students without parental participation.
4.1.2. Teachers
Laterally, teachers are the responsible individuals for students learning. They are also supposed to be the academic parents of learners since they played great roles in getting behavioral changes in them. Therefore, they need to work toward school-community relationships by designing a communication plan with appropriate strategies.
4.1.3. School
The responsibility of the given school is planning, organizing, leading, implementing, and controlling students learning. Thus, the school needs to work on how teachers and parents solve students’ instructional problems by interacting regularly and help both parents and teachers to develop their interaction by designing different strategies such as meetings, training, panel discussions, etc.
Data Availability
No data were used to support the findings of the study.
Ethical Approval
To achieve the stated objectives of the study, the researcher used range of sources and references, and these were acknowledged accordingly. Moreover, the researcher kindly requests the journal to waive the required charges if the article will be accepted and published.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declare no possible conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The researcher acknowledged both the interview and FGD respondents of the study.