Theoretical Perspectives and Conceptual Framework

A literature search on the concept of community participation in schooling prompted my exploration of the theories and models that I could apply in this study. My conceptual framework draws on the theoretical perspectives of Epstein‟s (1995) overlapping spheres of influence that stress on the role of the family, school and community in their children‟s

education and the Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler‟s (1997) theory of parental involvement in education.

2.5.1 Epstein's Overlapping Spheres of Influence

Epstein‟s (1995) theory of overlapping spheres of influence identifies schools, families and communities as the major institutions that socialise and educate children. A central principle of this theory is that certain goals, such as academic success, are of interest to each of these institutions and are best achieved through co-operative action and support (Epstein et al., 2002). I draw on this hypothesis to develop some aspects of my conceptual framework, as illustrated in Figure 3, p.34.

The model locates the pupil at the centre of this construct. To give effect to her overlapping spheres of influence, Epstein et al., (2002), suggested six types of family involvement. These are parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making and community collaboration.

2.5.2 Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Theory of Parental Involvement

in Education

In their research into how and why parents become involved in their children‟s learning, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) developed a theoretical model to explain parental involvement in children‟s education. The Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) model suggests that decisions and choices that parents make are based on several constructs, including firstly, their personal construction of the parenting role, i.e. what they believe they are supposed to do in relation to their children‟s education. Secondly, there is parents‟ personal sense of efficacy in helping their children succeed in school, i.e. whether they believe in and are confident about their ability to be helpful to their children. Thirdly, decisions parents make about their involvement are derived from general invitations, demands and opportunities for family co-operation.

According to Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (ibid), once parents decide to become involved, their choices about how they are involved are shaped by three additional constructs: their perceptions of their own skills, interests and abilities; their experiences of other demands

on their time and energy; and their experiences of specific suggestions and invitations for involvement from children, teachers, and schools.

Fry (1983) also argues that children learn more effectively when parents and community play an active part in the life of the school and that this kind of engagement cannot and will not take place unless the community has enough power over its school to feel responsible for it. Henderson & Mapp (2002) suggest further that when the school‟s efforts reflect a sincere desire to engage parents and community members as partners in their children‟s education they respond positively.

Opening up the school and creating a friendly atmosphere would make parents feel welcome at any time considered necessary rather than the school being viewed as an alien environment. This would enable parents to have a better understanding of schooling; serve as motivation to follow up on their children‟s development; enhance their active participation; and improve their relationship with the school.

Based on these concepts and practices, Figure 3 is used to illustrate the conceptual framework for this study.

2.5.3 Framework for Conceptualising Community – School Relations

Figure 3:

Source: The author.

Figure 3 depicts my conceptualisation of community–school relations, based on the review of relevant literature which informed partly how this study was designed. It identifies the various actors in the community that relate to the school. For clarity, each box or triangle in Figure 3 represents a particular stakeholder group.

The large triangle represents official actors (i.e. SMC, PTA, school and education management – EDU MGT.), whilst the smaller triangle outside the large one (on the right) – W.COM – represents wider community members who have no official role prescription. Often in the international literature on education decentralisation this group does not receive as much empirical interest as the officially designated groups such as the SMC.

The two-way arrows are intended to demonstrate the „back and forth‟ relationships and tensions between the school and the various actors who are at different „distances‟ from the school. The two-way broken arrow between the school and the W.COM depicts the possible influences through informal relationship between W.COM and the school. The W.COM represents families, community members, the municipal assembly,, community leaders, and opinion leaders who may have a stake or show some interest in the school.

Education management (EDU MGT) represents the totality of the municipal directorate of education and all its agents, such as, circuit supervisors, education officers and the Municipal Education Planning Team (MEPT).

The framework anticipates that where participation between the wider community and the school increases, in other words where there is greater engagement, the gap - the zone of interaction - between it and the official actors (big triangle), decreases, bringing them closer together until it moves towards a higher degree of congruence, where the school, the PTA, SMC and the wider community see through a common lens and collaborate for school improvement.

This occurs when school and community see each other as genuine partners. It assumes an exchange of skills, abilities and interests between parents, teachers and the community based on mutual respect and the sharing of common goals for the benefit of the children and the school‟s development. This study will test this assumption to see if and how it applies in the Ghanaian context.

What this model suggests further, is that participation is underpinned by the degree of the capacity of stakeholders, accountability and leadership at both school and community levels. The degree of strength of these „concepts‟ in practice, determines the strength and

growth of the relationship i.e. participation, and shapes the environment that support effective community-school relations.

It should be noted – as indicated above – that education management in this instance determines the framework for policy implementation. It is included here to emphasise their role in the relationship between community (SMC/PTA/PARENTS, etc.) and school, which is the subject of investigation.

In this regard, this study‟s model seems to converge in a way with Epstein‟s overlapping spheres of influence that emphasises the relationship between school, families and communities and the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler‟s theory of parental involvement in education. All three postulate a relationship that suggests the need for collaboration among parents, community and school for school improvement.