Understanding the discourses of partnership: An examination of one school's attempts at parent involvement.

Ashton, Jean ; Cairney, Trevor

Introduction

Partnership between home and school has long been recognised as promoting a sense of collaboration and shared responsibility in children's education (Delgado-Gaitan 1991, Epstein 1986). Research suggests, however, that while partnership rhetoric in primary schools is strong, what actually constitutes home/school partnership is more limited. For example, while parents are invited to help in classrooms and supervise homework using the traditional discourses of the school, far less frequently are they invited to share dialogue about their children's strengths and interests, or their cultural and social practices, which impact on education so significantly (Auerbach 1989, Cairney & Ruge 1998).

Ironically, all social discourse predisposes hearers to relate to an embodied message, which at times may be at odds with the rhetoric being articulated. Ideology is transmitted through language during conversation (Bruner 1990, Rogoff 1990, Vygotsky 1976, 1978). As Bruner (1986) notes, it is this dialogue itself which imposes a point of view. When rhetoric fails to match practice, and dialogue, which is never neutral, communicates a different message, there is a need for negotiation amongst participants. Specifically, what constitutes partnership will need to be mediated and the roles and responsibilities of teachers and parents, clarified by each party.

This paper reports our observations of mismatches between one school's official language of partnership and the extent to which genuine partnership was evident. The data collected was part of an extensive ethnography conducted in one school that sought to understand relationships between home and school.

Conceptions of partnership

Partnership: ideology and practice

The promotion of parent and community partnership in education is a relatively recent phenomenon. The establishment of formal schooling was predicated on an understanding that school and family functions were disparate; the one impacting on education and the other, socialisation (Atkin et al. 1988, Macbeth 1988, Sallis 1988). This dichotomy led in part to the creation of provincial monopolies which have defined ways of thinking, acting and being, relevant to family and school domains.

In schools, teachers traditionally controlled parental engagement, telling parents no more than was essential for them to know, thereby effectively keeping them on the periphery of education (Atkin et al. 1988, Macbeth 1988, Sallis 1988). Until as late as the 1980s most schools engaged in a one-way process of transferring information to students and families alike. Paradoxically, tacit authority for this came from the community itself and was manifest in general approval of school policy and replication of school type behaviours in learning situations at home. Furthermore, there was widespread feeling that the education of children was not really the business of parents (Atkin et al. 1988).

Recently, partnership in education has been the subject of considerable research. For Macbeth (1988), partnership has been about reminding parents of their roles and responsibilities in matters of schooling. Epstein & Sanders (1998) use the term `partnership' synonymously with `involvement', `assistance', `support structures' and `volunteering'. And in recent years economic factors within governments have forced the construction of financial `partnerships' between schools and corporate enterprise (Jones & Maloy 1988, Michel 1997). Other school-initiated partnership ventures have been designed to procure unpaid assistance for staff in the business of teaching. It has been suggested that one covert objective of this support is to modify the home educational environment so that it more closely resembles the school, by giving parents greater understanding of preferred school culture (Cairney et al. 1995).

Of course more far-reaching and equitable definitions of partnership have also been proposed. These have at their foundation trust, mutual regard, care and a sharing and recognition of a diversity of beliefs (Hamilton-Lee 1988, Lueder 1998, Workman & Gage 1997). Even so, many schools still hold a limited conception of what constitutes partnership, despite the current rhetoric. This is illustrated in staff conversations with parents, and in many cases is reflective of entrenched values and beliefs regarding the role of parents in education.

Partnership: rhetoric or reality?

Discourses, according to Gee (1996), are inherently ideological and ultimately contribute to the creation and maintenance of hierarchical structures and the distribution of social power. For example, schools exercise considerable control over educational dialogue, creating `dominant discourses' that privilege those who use them, but at the same time, disadvantage those who do not. As teachers, the chief agents of schools, go about the business of teaching, they act as `gate-keepers', controlling social practices in thought, speech and written work (Au 1993, Cairney 1995, Gee1996). Macedo (1994, p. 14) critiques this activity noting that school-based knowledge is often fashioned from an `intricate and complex web of lies' functioning to reproduce a dominant ideology which serves to `undermine independent thought'.

Foucault (1980) maintains that frequently-used and preferred actions and discourses generate power. This is evident in the way schools operate and can be observed in their rituals, regulations, rewards and systems of censure (Honneth 1991). Moreover, pedagogic discourses both regulate student (and parent) participation and socialise students (and their parents) into educational and wider social processes (Iedema 1996). In the Foucaultian sense, school-based dialogue affects modes of control, which often minimise, rather than enhance negotiability.

Families, by association with their children and schools, are influenced in a similar manner. The same powerful discourses that regulate student participation and learning impact on families and the community. Moreover, controls over discourses in society not only subordinate some of its members, but serve to create situations that can be viewed as natural for all persons (Bourdieu 1977). In spite of the talk about partnership, developing effective partnerships based on shared understanding within such an environment can be problematic.

Methodology

The study highlighted in this paper draws on material from one school site. Ethnographies within two schools and several families have been conducted for a research project funded by the Australian Research Council (Cairney & Green 1997). Specifically, this research involves an examination of the nature of literacy practices to determine similarities and differences between the literacy discourses of home and school. The project is also concerned with the way shared understanding (intersubjectivity) develops, and how this supports literacy partnerships between teachers, students, parents and other community members.

The data reviewed in this paper have been systematically collected over a period of six months from Royalton Public School(1),in Sydney, Australia. The school has a population of around 600 pupils and draws from a fairly monocultural community with a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The majority of families are in the middle to lower middle income bracket, with many parents holding trade qualifications from technical institutions. Royalton Public School enjoys a good reputation within the surrounding community, which is the result of a number of factors. Although over one hundred years old, the school has been largely rebuilt with modern, purpose-designed buildings. Moreover, there is a perception of open communication between staff and parents and slightly stronger academic results than some other schools in the wider region.

The study was conducted within a qualitative research paradigm. An interpretive analysis was made of over 150 hours of descriptive fieldnotes as the first stage of an in-depth discourse analysis. Data were collected in home, school and community contexts during the last term of the 1998 school year and the first term of the 1999 school year(2), through participant observation supported by video and audio recordings of teacher/teacher and teacher/family interactions. Information from the Parents and Citizens group (P&C), records of discussion with staff and a variety of school-based documents were also gathered.

All fieldnotes and transcriptions were coded using the qualitative data analysis software QSR NUD*IST. NUD*IST supports the management and analysis of data allowing coding, searching and testing, providing an environment for creating and experimenting, questioning and theorising with a range of ideas and categories.

Analysis has taken account of the moment-by-moment interactions amongst staff and between staff and families and the social contexts in which these interactions occur. It draws on both the dialogue and actions of participants to indicate the way partnership is constructed and understood. In the first instance a number of key themes were identified in fieldnotes and transcripts and used for coding. These included "communication", "parent concerns", "teacher conceptions of parents" and "home-school links". A second level of analysis enabled identification of patterns of behaviour indicative of the way partnership was conceived by participants. It indicated that partnership was publicly promoted and in some instances taken for granted, but that a "play safe" attitude prevailed. It demonstrated that many attempts to involve parents were tokenistic and designed to do little more than encourage parents to understand and accept school-based agendas.

Conceptions of partnership -- discourses of power

Analysis suggested that while partnership was conceived differently by different people, at Royalton it was almost always regulated by the school and restrained in its expression. Furthermore, while "partnership" was found to be a consistent theme around which many events were constructed, deeper examination suggests that in many cases effective partnership was limited to dialogue alone.

Taken-for-granted discourses

Talk about partnership was a common element of teachers' discourse at Royalton, and reflected a desire for genuine collaboration between teachers, school executive and the researcher. In the research context it was taken for granted that understanding about education was mutual and that common ideologies and purposes were shared.

The relationship between the researcher and school was illustrated by the way the Deputy Principal, Brian Porter,(3) went out of his way to support the research project. When thanked for his delivery of a document to the University he said, `It's no trouble, I see this project as a partnership.' Equality between Brian and the researcher in terms of academic qualifications and experience was assumed and dialogue was comfortable. There was a sense of reciprocity, a sharing of information using the discourses of education. However, the comfortable, taken-for-granted assumptions inherent in dialogue with the researcher were not as apparent in dialogue with families. For example, collaboration with parents over pedagogical issues relating to their children was not taken for granted. This was exemplified at a parent-teacher meeting held to discuss the introduction of a new teaching strategy. Having been delivered without consultation between parents and staff, one mother summed up family feelings saying, `I would have liked to have heard about classroom planning ... I could have seen the benefits in maybe a little bit of talk before ...'

Public promotion of partnership

Royalton Public School made much of its `open door' policy. At numerous functions (for example, P&C, parent/teacher and review meetings), the Principal, Stuart Beatty spoke proudly about the `open door' as a metaphor for the spirit of partnership in the school. Comments such as, `I think we run a pretty good open door policy here' and `I don't think there'd be many rooms where the parents would feel that they couldn't just come in and ask ...' were frequent reminders to families of the contemporary approach to the presence of parents. Stuart noted that the school had a `commitment to the children' and that `we are always willing to hear from parents who are always free to ring with concerns'.

The results of a Parent Survey, showed some support for Stuart's perception of open and free communication between families and the school. Indeed 90% of the parents who responded (40% of total school population) affirmed their satisfaction. One or two respondents noted that `[teachers] are always very happy to talk with you' and `teachers are always approachable'.

There can be no question that there was a genuine desire on the part of the school to form worthwhile relationships with families as the survey results suggest. However, while the `open door' offered an invitation to parents and families to visit, communication was not always so `open', as some of the following responses suggest. Even amongst the high percentage of generally satisfied respondents, problems were identified. Some telling comments included, `no correspondence or follow up is ever entered into' and `I feel the teacher has not passed on the correct information to me about my child'. This suggests that decisions about when the door was open rested very firmly with members of staff and that not all inquiry was treated in such an open manner.

If the effectiveness of the `open door' were to be measured by parent participation, Royalton would have achieved success. Parent `participation' was seen as a feature of the school, as around 95 parents each week offered support with reading and craft activities. Moreover, parents `assisted' in the canteen and clothing store and others `helped out' with maintenance days or `working bees'. Royalton also had an active P&C group, which was supportive of the school and successful in its fundraising activities each year. Of concern to the school however, was the relatively limited patronage given to its monthly parent meetings. In particular, there appeared to be only low level interest in governance and decision making. While this was a matter questioned and discussed by the school and there were efforts to enlist parents into the decision-making process, attempts were somewhat frustrated.

Parent involvement in planning

The school Principal and other staff were open in their request for parent participation in school planning. However, in practice there was limited involvement. For example, it was a requirement of the NSW Department of Education and Training (DET), that parents be part of the process of reporting for the Annual Review, along with staff and P&C executive. While Stuart Beatty commented that `it is important to have parents here contributing to the planning of goals for their children,' what potentially was a valuable forum for genuine home-school collaboration ended up excluding all but eight mothers (representing less than 2% of the school). Moreover, the meetings were scheduled directly after school, which was convenient for the staff, but precluded all working parents and many other families whose children participated in after-school activities. The parent/staff imbalance this created gave teachers a monopoly on debate regarding curriculum, review of targets and setting learning goals. Much of this type of discussion assumed complex prior knowledge for which parents had not been prepared, resulting in feelings of exclusion and marginalisation.

Interestingly, the limited involvement in school activities was at times used as a reason for not exploring other partnership options. On one occasion the possibility of holding training sessions on a range of topics for parents was discussed and mooted as an appropriate `partnership' activity linking families with the school. This idea was quickly discarded, however, as staff recalled a previous technology workshop which had drawn only five parents. In defence, a parent in the group noted that `families require plenty of warning beforehand before things like that ... and choices between day or night'. The response from staff, which also served as a firm closure to the discussion was, `it's just too hard to hold info sessions for parents during the day ... it's much better at night'.

Ironically, following the meeting staff expressed satisfaction that obligations regarding policy about parent representation had been met. Indeed it was felt that parents had given legitimacy to the decisions made and the targets set. However, while the presence of parents was applauded, real collaborative interchange was negligible, rendering this episode little more than tokenistic, a phenomenon noted by Cairney and Munsie (1995).

`Playing safe' as a barrier to partnership

On a number of occasions during our time at Royalton we observed a form of discourse which was framed by parent requests for information which were cautiously avoided rather than used to enhance discourse and share understanding. A number of such incidents occurred at Parents and Citizens meetings. At one such meeting Stuart Beatty concluded his monthly report in the normal way by asking, `Is there anything else you would like to ask of your school principal'?

A parent asked whether the school was disappointed that its rank in a series of statewide standardised literacy and numeracy tests had been maintained at only a consistently `average' level for the past two years and questioned how this might be improved. Stuart avoided a direct response saying, `The fifth and sixth classes will be grouped according to ability, across the grades next year ... and we think that will make a big difference'. As parents began to display concern, another suggested that staff consider less extra-curricula activity and return to the `basics', saying, `Everyone was literate at the end of school [in the past] which certainly does not happen today.' While Stuart attended carefully to all remarks he skilfully drew a halt to further questioning, remarking, `I am really pleased that parents want to discuss these things'. However no further discussion was permitted as he quickly proceeded to other matters.

A further example occurred two weeks into the new school year, at a parent-teacher meeting held to discuss across-grade streaming into ability groups for literacy and mathematics. The deputy, Brian Porter, opened the meeting attended by an unprecedented 250 parents with the comment, `Good to see such a terrific turnout ... we've come to expect that of Royalton who are always so supportive'. Brian knew that many of these parents had come to vent their concerns and express anger about their exclusion from and subsequent confusion over this new school initiative. He knew too that their anger was justified given the fact that, while mentioned briefly at a previous P&C meeting (at which approximately 15 parents had been present), the initiative had been discussed in no other forum.

Jim O'Reilly, a member of the senior executive, had been invited to explain the rationale, the process and the objectives of the new teaching approach. Having avoided debate prior to introduction of the initiative, Jim, along with the other school executive, now found himself under attack, and before he had finished speaking a father said, `Are you saying that they're grouped in levels ... in ... you know ... their abilities. What do you mean ... each of their classes are at different levels'? Another parent said, `Why weren't we told of this before this year ... why do you wait till it's all happened?' And yet a third said, `Try to convince us! ... why didn't it happen last year, rather than wait until the children were here this year?' Further conversation ensued. `This is a concern some of us have ... and perhaps it is a reflection of the way the system works but then again we're not always ... often made aware of how the system does work[ You know ... so that's what's worrying a lot of parents'. Having been excluded from any consultative process, this large group of parents now took the opportunity to share their concerns with staff. They were aggrieved that they had not been consulted about this strategic event.

Avoiding wide consultation and collaboration with parents concerning a pedagogical approach of such significance exemplifies how at this school the talk of partnership was not always matched by action. This was made clear when a father continued the dialogue about the covert way the new teaching approached was introduced. He asked, `But why are we the last to know ... why weren't we told this last year'? Jim O'Reilly summed up staff opinions saying, `Well ... to that I must be honest ... that if you and five other people had said ... we don't like the idea, how do we respond to that?'

Jim openly admitted that parents were not informed of the new class arrangements to avoid negative discussion, which may have (in a spirit of democracy) prevented their establishment. Suffering parental wrath when arrangements were a fait accompli was preferred to having predetermined outcomes thwarted at the planning stage!

Such episodes highlight the power inherent in position, authority and discourse and its potential to enhance or stifle debate. Ideas and comments offered by parents may not always fit well with current educational ideology or philosophy, however they demonstrate a genuine desire on the part of parents to have their views heard and become partners in their children's education. Staff responses may have been pragmatic, given that there is often little time for discussion before implementation must take place, however avoiding parental engagement was not without cost to the integrity of the school, a fact evident in the continued muttering of the discontent parents.

Conforming partners to school agendas

Another theme identified in the data was the tendency of staff to use parent involvement and educational support as an indirect means to align parents' views with their own. For example, in a discussion between staff members about the need for training for parent helpers, the support teacher said, `I actually think it's a really good idea for parents to do some sort of training. Some teachers have actually come to me this year and said "Oh look, you know, I'm getting some parents in, can you actually go through some basic procedures with them"?' Conversation about the merits of such a program continued and Stuart, the Principal, said, `and I think that parents understood that after [the last occasion such a program was run] ... how school worked ... a tot better ... they started to think like teachers ... which they never do ... or almost never do ... but they started to think like teachers and they started to have expectations and the confidence ...'

Parent education is unquestionably an effective way of developing shared understanding as Cairney and his colleagues' considerable research in this area attests (Cairney & Munsie 1992, Cairney et al. 1995). Stuart Beatty's comments however, suggest that parents have significant deficits in their understanding about educational matters and that training, if nothing else, can offer to make them `more like teachers' and give them `expectations and confidence'.

Inherent in this discourse is the belief that teachers' knowledge and practices are superior to parents', and that parents would do well to follow teachers' procedures. Stuart Beatty appears to believe that without effective training, parents' expectations for their children are likely to be incongruent with those held by the school. While espousing support for parent participation, Stuart's conversation suggests that only with training to help parents conform to dominant school-based practices, can there be any real partnership.

When asked hypothetically how the school might have responded if the results of the Parent survey had been less affirming, Stuart said, `Well ... I think the staff are mature enough to say ... right we've got some negatives here to try and make positive!' Other teachers nodded agreement saying, `There'd be a change to our management plans', `and we'd have had ... probably we'd have had ... well ... staff meetings and grade meetings and addressed those [negatives].' It is pertinent to note that even discussing hypothetically an issue that relates so strongly to perceptions held by parents and families, no mention was made of conferring with them, to ascertain their feelings or enlist their support.

Conclusion

The data discussed in this paper show how specific discourse practices have the potential to inadvertently disempower parents in relation to school. Underlying much school discourse is an ideology born out of the social and cultural experiences of teachers, which when examined are often at odds with school policy. In this instance, talk about partnership has been found to be not well matched to staff actions and practices.

The staff at Royalton School used the discourses of partnership to encourage parents to support them as classroom readers and the like. In many cases, however, these were rendered meaningless when the ensuing dialogue, which is always value laden (Bruner, 1986), was shown to support a different ideology. Furthermore, that the power inherent in teacher discourses at Royalton was tacit rather than intended suggests that many teachers echo the preferred ideals of the dominant culture, of which they are a part. As Fairclough (1992) notes, teachers are frequently unaware of the ideological underpinnings and implications of their practice. Reflecting the values and principles negotiated within their own social milieu, their discourse can serve as a means of social control rather than as a liberating force.

O'Loughlin (1992) refers to dialogue which is imbued with an embedded ideology as `taken-for-granted' discourse. Such discourses resonate with uncontested power. Not only does this help to establish and maintain structural equalities or, conversely, inequalities between individuals, but it stifles negotiability. The deeply embedded values and practices of societies and cultures, which are reflected in everyday dialogue, are immensely powerful (O'Loughlin 1992). Lankshear (1997, p. 71) speaks of this as `powerful literacy', while Gee (1996) defines it as `meta-language', comprised of `meta-words', `meta-values' and `meta-beliefs' (p. 144), the essential aspects of humanity, defining individuals as persons, situating them in society and moderating their interactions. Ironically, support for partnership was negated by those who most strongly claimed to support it.

Limiting partnership to `involvement', `support' or `help' suggests that parental opinion is not to be trusted and that parents are looked upon as mere subsidiaries in the educational process. In reality, parents and teachers share a dual role in shaping minds, transmitting values and passing on cultural mores to successive generations (Bruner 1986, Hamilton-Lee 1988, Rogoff 1990). Moreover, the messages embedded within teacher conversations reflect the power inherent in position and education; power to control behaviour and limit opportunity for more equitable and constructive partnerships. As seen in the vignettes in this paper, teacher discourse can serve to maintain rather than interrupt societal inequality (O'Loughlin 1992). Bernstein (1990) suggested that for too long schools have talked about equity without attending to their day by day discourses, within which a different ideology is often embedded.

Effective home-school relationships are contingent on recognising that no discourse is value-neutral, but rather contains embodied messages reflective of the values and thoughts acquired by parents and teachers within their social and cultural environments. Furthermore, talk about partnership needs to be congruent with practice to avoid appearing counterfeit. If home-school partnerships are to advantage the students they are intended to serve, collaborative exchanges exploring the way meaning is developed and expressed must become a characteristic of schools.

The dialogic exchanges currently evident in many schools frequently do more to maintain unequal relationships between families and teachers than to promote equity. By virtue of their position and power, teachers can significantly define what is acceptable in terms of practice and behaviour. When this occurs, the dominance of the teacher's voice is often heard at the expense of the voices of students and parents (O'Loughlin 1992).

What is important, therefore, is that partnership discourses and practices be matched. Parents must be given opportunities to contribute to policies, management and governance as well as offer support for reading and fundraising. Moreover, for effective partnership, the different discourses emerging from other than mainstream social, cultural and political groups must be recognised if social justice and academic equity is to be a feature of schooling for all children and their families.

(1) The name of the school discussed in this paper has been changed in accordance with ethics requirements to assure anonymity for individuals and the families concerned.

(2) The academic school year in Australia runs from February to December.

(3) The names of all staff have been changed to maintain anonymity.

References

Atkin, J., Bastiani, J. & Goode, J. 1988, Listening to Parents: An Approach to the Improvement of Home/school Relations, Croom Helm, London.

Au, K.H. 1993, Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings, HBJ, Fort Worth.

Auerbach, E. 1989, `Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy', Harvard Educational Review, vol. 59, pp. 165-181.

Bernstein, B. 1990, The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse: Volume IV. Class, Codes and Control, Routledge, London.

Bourdieu, P. 1977, `Cultural reproduction and social reproduction', in Power and Ideology in Education, eds. J. Karabel & A.H. Halsey, Oxford University Press, New York. PAGES?

Bruner, J.S. 1986, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bruner, J.S. 1990, Acts of Meaning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cairney, T.H. 1995, Pathways to Literacy, Cassell, London

Cairney, T.H. & Green, J. 1997, Home-school Partnerships: The Development of Shared Understandings, Australian Research Council Grant.

Cairney, T.H. & Munsie, L. 1992, Talk to a Literacy Learner. UWS Press, Sydney.

Cairney, T.H. & Munsie, L. 1995, Beyond Tokenism: Parents as Partners in Literacy. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Cairney, T.H., Ruge, J., Buchanan, J., Lowe, K. & Munsie, L. 1995, Developing Partnerships: The Home, School and Community interface. DEET Australia.

Cairney, T.H. & Ruge, J. 1998, Community Literacy Practices and Schooling: Towards Effective Supports for Students, DEETYA, Australia.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. 1991, `Involving parents in schools: A process of empowerment', American Journal of Education, vol. 100, pp. 20-45.

Epstein, J.L. 1986, `Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement', Elementary School Journal, vol. 86, pp. 277-294.

Epstein, J.L. & Sanders, M.G. 1998, `What we learn from international studies of school-family-community partnerships', Childhood Education: International Focus Issue, vol. 74 no. 6, pp. 392-394.

Fairclough, N. 1992, Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, London.

Foucault, M. 1980, Power-knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Harvester Press, Brighton.

Gee, J.P. 1996, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, Taylor and Francis, Exeter.

Hamilton-Lee, M. 1988, `Home-school partnerships: The school development program model', paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia, August 12-16.

Honneth, A. 1991, The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Iedema, R. 1996, ` "Save the talk for after the listening": The realisation of regulative discourses in teacher talk', Language and Education, vol. 10, nos. 2&3, pp. 82-102.

Jones, B.L. & Maloy, R.W. 1988, Partnerships for Improving Schools, Greenwood Press, New York.

Lankshear, C. 1997, Changing Literacies, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Lueder, D.C. 1998, Creating Partnerships with Parents: An Educator's Guide, Technomic Publishing Company, Lancaster.

Macbeth, A. 1988, `Parent-Teacher liaison: A minimum programme and a signed understanding', in Family, school and society, eds. M. Woodhead & A. McGrath, Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Macedo, D. 1994, Literacies of Power, Westview Press, San Francisco.

Michel, G.J. 1997, Building Schools: The New School and Community Relations, Technomic Publishing, Lancaster.

O'Loughlin, M. 1992, `The discourse of pedagogy and the possibility of change', paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, April 20-24.

Rogoff, B. 1990, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, New York.

Sallis, J. 1988, `The listening school: Parents and the public', in esds. M. Woodhead & A. McGrath, Family, School and Society, Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1976, Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Workman, S.H. & Gage, J.A. 1997, `Family-school partnerships: A family strengths approach', Young Children, vol. 52 no. 4, pp. 10-14.

Jean Ashton is a lecturer in the School of Education and Early Child hood Studies at the University of Western Sydney. Most of her research has focused on literacy and sociocultural contexts for learning in the early years, both in prior to school settings and in the first years of school.

Address: School of Education and Early Childhood Studies, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, South Penrith Distribution Centre NSW 1797

Email: j.ashton@uws.edu.au

Trevor Cairney is Professor of Education and Director of the Centre for Regional Research and Innovation (CRRI) at UWS. He is a past President of ALEA and has 30 years' experience as an educator and literacy researcher. His many publications on literacy include books and articles on reading comprehension, children's literature, and the social contexts of literacy. For the past 10 years he has been exploring the relationship between the language and literacy of home, school and community with a number of colleagues and students.

Address: Centre for Regional Research & Innovation (CRRI), University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, South Penrith Distribution Centre NSW 1797

Email: t.cairney@uws.edu.au