Institutional Opportunities and Practices for the Participation of American Parents in the School System

The article analyses the institutional possibilities and practices of parent participation in the school system of the United States of America. Education is an area where today the civic subjectivity of parents is most clearly manifested both in foreign countries and in Russia. Therefore, the author believes that the experience of American parents, that reflects a long and controversial process of implementing the principles of civil society in the field of educational relations, is of interest both in scientific and applied aspects.

The methodological basis of the study is the concept of D. Epstein. The author studied the content of legal documents regulating the participation of American parents in the education of their schoolchildren; a secondary analysis of statistical information and sociological research data was carried out.

The study showed: 1) the dependence of the institutional possibilities for the realisation by American parents of the needs and interests in the field of school education on the characteristics of the school education system of the region (state); 2) persistent social disparities in access to quality schooling among different sub-communities of American parents; 3) the impact of social inequality of American parents on the possibilities of protecting child-parental rights and interests in the field of school education; 4) difficulties in implementing the participatory model of interaction between the school and the American parent community; 5) the influence of economic and social resources of American parents (income, time, cultural and educational capital) on the nature of their involvement in the intra-school life of children; 6) a crisis of confidence of the American parent community in mass (national) parent public organisations and the functions they perform.

It is concluded that, despite the differences in the institutional landscape of civic activity in the United States and Russia, both in general and in the field of school education, in both countries there are similar problems of interaction between parents and the school. In this regard, the author comes to the conclusion about the importance of taking into account some of the constructive practices that have developed in American society when developing the activities of the parents of Russian schoolchildren.

parental community, civil society, institutional opportunities for parents to participate in school education, practices of social and civic engagement of parents

1. Belousov K. Yu., Matyushkina M. D. Participation of parents in the education of their children and in the educational policy of the school. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2020: 5(47): 222–245 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32744/pse.2020.5.16
2. Vlasova T. A., Makarova M. N. How are parents included in intra-school forms of interaction? Zhurnal sociologii i social'noj antropologii, 2016: 19(2): 74–87 (in Russ.).
3. Goshin M. E., Pinskaya M. A., Grigoriev D. S. Forms of participation of parents in the education of children in schools of different types. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2021: 5: 70–83. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250012685-6
4. Kananykina E. S. History of the educational legislation of America. Aktual'nye voprosy sovremennoj nauki, 2012: 22: 190–245 (in Russ.).
5. Klyachko T. L., Semionova E. A., Tokareva G. S. Success and failure of schoolchildren: parents 'expectations, teachers' assessment. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, 2019: 4: 71–92 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-4-71-92
6. Ozornina N. Yu., Lyubitskaya K. A., Bochaver A. A. On the Problems of the Conceptual Apparatus in Research on Parenting in Education. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny, 2022: 2: 42–65 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2022.2.1997
7. Osipov A. M. Sociology of education. Ed. by A. M. Osipov. Moscow, Yurayt, 2018: 367 (in Russ.).
8. Pol R. Revolution in school. A new solution for a broken education system. St. Petersburg, Piter, 2015: 208 (in Russ.).
9. Potekhina I. P., Mikhaleva M. N. Parents on the quality of school education: dynamics of opinions. Education and Science in Russia: state and potential of development. Coll. of scient. papers. Iss. 2. Moscow, ISPI RAN, 2017: 448 (in Russ.).
10. Rogach O. V., Frolova E. V., Ryabova T. M. Modernization of school education reflected in assessments of parents’ associations. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania, 2019: 4(40): 183–193 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32744/pse.2019.4.15
11. Sveshnikova O. Russian parents: new in behavior and perception of the world. Pro et Contra, 2010: January–April: 61–77 (in Russ.).
12. Frolova E. V., Ryabova T. M., Rogach O. V., Zuikina A. V. Conflicts in the school education system: key problems, specifics, and development factors. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2019: 3(39): 227–239 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32744/pse.2019.3.17
13. Shimutina E. N., Ivanov I. Yu. Research of parents ' involvement in the educational process in the context of improving the effectiveness of education management. Vestnik MGPU. Seriya «Ekonomika», 2017: 4 (14): 8–20 (in Russ.).
14. Shpakovskaya L. Educational claims of parents as a mechanism of reproduction of social inequality. Zhurnal issledovanij social'noj politiki, 2015: 13(2): 211–224 (in Russ.).
15. Erlich O. V. Interaction of family and school in new socio-pedagogical conditions. Chelovek i obrazovanie, 2017: 2(51): 34–37 (in Russ.).
16. Ball S. J., Bowe R., Gewirtz S. Circuits of Schooling: A Sociological Exploration of Parental Choice of School in Social Class Contexts. The Sociological Review, 1995: 43(1): 52–78.
17. Bowe R., Gewirtz S., Ball S. J. Captured by the Discourse? Issues and concerns in researching "parental choice". British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1994: 15(1): 63–78. DOI: 10.1080/0142569940150104
18. Cucchiara M. B., Horvat E. M. Perils and Promises: Middle-Class Parental Involvement in Urban Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 2009: 46(4): 974–1004. DOI: 10.3102/0002831209345791
19. Derrick-Lewis S. M. Parental Involvement Typologies as Related to Student Achievement. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2001. Paper 71. Accessed 20.11.2020. URL: http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/71
20. Epstein J. L., Salinas K. C. Partnering with Families and Communities. Education Leadership, 2004: 61(8): 12–18.
21. Evans Sh. А. When Schools Choose: Evaluation and Educational Inequality. The Sociological Quarterly, 2020: 61(4): 727–747. DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2019.1711248
22. Holme J. J. Buying Homes, Buying Schools: School Choice and the Social Construction of School Quality. Harvard Educational Review, 2002: 72(2): 177–206. DOI: 10.17763/HAER.72.2.U6272X676823788R
23. Lareau A., Muñoz V. L. “You’re Not Going to Call the Shots”: Structural Conflicts between the Principal and the PTO at a Suburban Public Elementary School. Sociology of Education, 2012: 85(3): 201–218. DOI: 10.1177/0038040711435855
24. Murray B., Domina T., Petts A., Renzulli L., Boylan R. “We’re in This Together”: Bridging and Bonding Social Capital in Elementary School PTOs. American Educational Research Journal, 2020: 57(5): 2210–2244. DOI: 10.3102/0002831220908848
25. Murray B., Domina T., Renzulli L., Boylan R. Civil society goes to school: Parent-teacher associations and the equality of educational opportunity. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2019: 5(3): 41–63. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2019.5.3.03
26. Posey-Maddox L., Haley-Lock A. One Size Does Not Fit All: Understanding Parent Engagement in the Contexts of Work, Family, and Public Schooling. Urban Education, 2020: 55(5): 671–698. DOI: 10.1177/0042085916660348
27. Schroeder S., Currin E. & McCardle T. Mother tongues: the Opt Out movement’s vocal response to patriarchal, neoliberal education reform. Gender and Education, 2018: 30(8): 1001–1018. DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1270422
28. Sohoni D., Saporito S. Mapping School Segregation: Using GIS to Explore Racial Segregation between Schools and their Corresponding Attendance Areas. American Journal of Education, 2009: 115(4): 569–600. DOI: 10.1086/599782