Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 771–777 | Cite as

Parent Involvement in Rural Elementary Schools in New Zealand: A Survey

  • Garry Hornby
  • Chrystal Witte
Original Paper


We surveyed rural elementary schools in New Zealand regarding their practice of parent involvement (PI). Interviews were conducted at 22 schools using a schedule which focused on eleven aspects of PI: policy formation, acting as a resource, collaborating with teachers, sharing information on children, channels of communication, liaison with school staff, parent education, parent support, encouraging parents into school, involving diverse parents, and professional development for teachers. Analysis of data from the interviews identified several common weaknesses in PI provision: a lack of written school policies on PI; the ad hoc nature of the organization of PI; minimal parent education organized by schools; minimal focus on parent support; minimal use of home visits; limited ideas to involve diverse parents; a minimal focus on involving parents of children with special needs; and, limited professional development for teachers on working with parents. Implications for improving the practice of PI in rural elementary schools are discussed.


Parent involvement Elementary schools Parents Teachers 


  1. Bauch, P. A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 204–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J., & Biddulph, C. (2003). The complexity of community and family influences on children’s achievement in New Zealand: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bull, A., Brooking, K., & Campbell, R. (2008). Successful home-school partnerships: Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: MoE.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 473–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: Research Report 433. London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  6. Education Review Office. (2008). Partners in learning: Schools’ engagement with parents, whanau and communities. Wellington: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12–18.Google Scholar
  9. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parent involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flanigan, C. B. (2007). Preparing pre-service teachers to partner with parents and communities: An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. School Community Journal, 17, 89–109.Google Scholar
  11. Grant, K. B., & Ray, J. A. (2010). Home, school and community collaboration: Culturally responsive family involvement. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 91, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  16. Herzog, M. J. R., & Pittman, R. B. (1995). Home, family and community: Ingredients in the rural education equation. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 113–118.Google Scholar
  17. Hornby, G. (2000). Improving parental involvement. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  18. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MoE. (2005). The schooling strategy 2005–2010. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, S., & deOnis, A. (1997). Parent involvement in rural schools: Implications for educators. Rural Educator, 19(2), 20–25, 29.Google Scholar
  22. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seligman, M., & Darling, R. (2007). Ordinary families: Special children: A systems approach to childhood disability (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations