Keywords

Introduction

Early childhood education settings represent communities where children from different family cultures and different stimulating environments are gathered. With an individual approach to each child, and indirectly to each family, teachers and other educational professionals should meet the different needs of each individual child and create a stimulating environment for each of them. A stimulating environment in an early childhood education setting is adapted to the different needs and interests of different children who come from diverse backgrounds as opposed to the family environment where everything is focused on one or several children.

Early childhood education settings should be seen as complementary to a family’s care and education. This presupposes respect for family diversity, respect for family culture and understanding of different educational values. The responsibility for the care and education of the child is divided between the family and early childhood education setting. As the child is under the daily influence of the family and early childhood education setting, the issue of ensuring continuity in educational activity arises. Achieving this continuity requires cooperation between families and settings. Therefore, cooperation is imposed as an imperative for both parents and teachers. Various programs of early childhood education emphasized the role of partnership with parents (i.e. Steiner education, the Reggio Emilia approach, Te Whāriki). The roles of parents differ from the roles of those who create educational policies and those who are the founders of educational institutions. Given the age of children attending early childhood education settings, family-school cooperation is imperative as young children are almost entirely dependent on family support and cannot take responsibility for their (children’s) own education.

The rise of ideas of cooperation consequently forced the development of different models of family-school cooperation. Models of cooperation between teachers and parents represent strategies developed from scientific theories. Joyce et al. (2008) define models as a series of procedures or activities whose purpose is to achieve a given goal. Different approaches to families result in different models of collaboration between family and educational institution. Models are mainly founded on respect for the individual perspectives of all participants involved in collaborative relationships. In this chapter I will try to explain the (possible) blind spots of three, similar yet opposite models – Susan McAllister Swap’s Conceptual framework of home-school interactions (McAllister Swap, 1993), Joyce Epstein’s Six Types of Parental Involvement (Epstein, 1990, 2001) and Hornby’s Model of Parental Involvement (1989, 2000).

Conceptual Framework of Home-School Interactions

McAllister Swap (1993) describes four models for the development of the relationship between parents and professionals:

  1. 1.

    Protective model

  2. 2.

    Transmission model

  3. 3.

    Model of curriculum enrichment

  4. 4.

    Partnership model

These models are based on conscious and unconscious beliefs, expectations, and strategies within interactions between parents and professionals.

The McAllister Swap (1993) protective model describes the power relationship between families and institutions. The goal pursued in this model is the prevention of conflict between parents and professionals. Parents are expected to transfer the responsibility for their children’s education to the educational institution and take on the position of non-interference in educational goals. It is understandable that the protective model is a separation model in which each participant is responsible for his own aspect of action. The consequence of such a relationship is the discontinuity of educational efforts towards the child. If to examine this form of relationship in light of the well-being of all participants involved, as the goal of cooperation, it does not lead to the achievement of a common goal. It is possible that the lack of communication between parents and educators resulted in the absence of a perception of the existence of a common goal.

It is well known that family environment is important for a child’s overall development. As a result, educational institutions took on the role of a corrective to family education, which is considered deficient and therefore, requires correction. The institution imposes itself as an educational authority on parents due to parental ignorance and, consequently, the need for teaching. According to McAllister Swap (1993), this approach is visible in the transmission model. Although it includes parents, this model is based on respect for educational goals prescribed by educational institutions. Parents are considered incompetent; therefore, they need to be educated in order to promote the values represented by the educational institution. Maleš (2015) states that this approach does not respect the differences between families, but that the relationship goes in the direction of equal expectations towards all parents. This model emphasizes the need for communication between teachers and parents; however, the communication itself is one-way, i.e. from teachers to parents. Furthermore, although this model assumed contacts between the family and the institution, it is still not a collaboration.

The paradigm of cooperation, which has been present in the relations between parents and educators since the 1980s, is based on a relationship of partnership, cooperation and respect. The paradigm is grounded in the thesis that children are the responsibility of both parents and society, and that educational institutions should support and help parents in their parenting efforts. The approach is based on respect, appreciation, and acceptance of parents (Wilson, 2016). The relationship acknowledges an individual approach to each family, respect for different educational efforts and different cultures (family and institutional). The contribution of all participants to this relationship is visible in the quality of communication, clearly defined expectations, and mutual support. Two models proposed by McAllister Swap (1993) respond to described interactions: the curriculum enrichment model and the partnership model. With the curriculum enrichment model, emphasis is placed on the cooperation of parents and professionals to improve the goals and content of the curriculum – there is respect and equality among all participants in the process. The partnership model relies almost entirely on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory according to which different communities directly or indirectly affect the child, so their interaction is important. Although, just like in the curriculum enrichment model, emphasis in this model is on mutual appreciation, respect, and support, it differs in the expansion of partner culture in all communities that surround the child (McAllister Swap, 1993). In this way, a new culture is built that unites the family, peer, and social culture in which the child grows up.

Six Types of Parental Involvement

Epstein (1990, 2001) contributed to the determination of parental involvement in children’s education. Her typology of parental involvement provides a theoretical framework for much research in this area. According to Epstein (1990, 2001), parents can be involved in six areas:

  • Type 1: Parenting

  • Type 2: Communication

  • Type 3: Volunteering

  • Type 4: Support for children’s learning at home

  • Type 5: Decision-making

  • Type 6: Cooperation with the community

At first glance, parenting has little to do with the relationship between parents and settings, given that it is a relationship between parents or guardians with one or more children (Ribbens McCarthy & Edwards, 2011) where intentional activities are used in order to care for and encourage the child. By providing a stimulating environment, parents influence the child’s well-being, which indirectly affects the child’s functioning in early childhood education settings (further in text ECE). However, from Epstein’s perspective, parenting as involvement refers to the characteristics of parents. So, it is about the kind of involvement that is present in most parents by the very fact that they are parents. Knowledge about the importance of quality parenting is not explicitly described. Nevertheless, teachers can contribute to parenting by strengthening parental competences.

Along with Epstein, other studies (Hornby, 2011; Bleach, 2015) highlight two-way communication as the most important characteristic of cooperation between parents and teachers. Two-way communication is important because both, parents and teachers, have information that is important to share with each other in order to reach the set goals in relation to the child, the parents, and the teachers. Parental information is usually related to the context in which the child is growing up. Having insight into the family context gives teachers the opportunity to get closer to the child and understand the child’s behaviour. Lack of parental information influences teachers’ perceptions of children functioning in a different social environment, and therefore, teachers base their perceptions on their own experiences. Parents also have little or no insight into children’s functioning in communities which differ from their own family. Complete information about a child’s development can help parents better understand the child’s behaviour in new situations. The teacher has the obligation to inform parents about the developmental characteristics of the child with special emphasis on the socialization process, possible deviations in development – positive or negative, the goals for the child’s development and the ways to encourage the child to reach them. Fritzell Hanhan (2008) problematizes the concept of two-way communication because he states that, despite the appearance of two-way communication, communication is most often one-way, i.e. teachers communicate with parents in different ways, but it usually looks as if educators describe activities, talk about educational policy of the institution, children’s progress, the curriculum. The content of communication is focused on the instructions intended for the parent (Amatea, 2013). Therefore, communication between teachers and parents is usually one-way and led by the teachers.

Volunteering is one of the ways parents can directly get involved in the work of ECE settings. However, there is a culturally different understanding of what parents can do in ECE settings. Considering that these are additional responsibilities for parents, the question is whether all parents can be equally involved in them. Bower and Griffin (2011) point out that volunteering presupposes an investment of time and money, so it is questionable how this type of involvement affects parents who cannot afford it. Despite this, Epstein et al. (2009) state that it is still one of the key activities for assessing the quality of parental involvement. Volunteering can be manifested as staying in educational groups and participating in educational work (by presenting one’s occupation or family/cultural customs). Parents who are involved in such activities are often well educated, of higher socio-economic status, and, most often, members of the majority population (Freeman, 2010). Consequently, inclusion through this form becomes exclusive to only one group of parents.

Support for children’s learning at home may be considered as more appropriate for the context of primary and secondary education and there are numerous examples of inclusion activities in this area. In ECE settings, support for learning is in activities that include all stakeholders of the collaborative relationship (children, parents, and educators). Parents can participate in setting and achieving educational goals and learning strategies by designing and organizing curriculum activities (Keyser, 2006). The area of creating a multicultural curriculum and the area of special knowledge and skills are the areas where parents can contribute the most. Lines et al. (2011) point out that in the field of learning about culture, parents contribute their own values, customs, traditions, rituals, and expectations. Preston et al. (2018) discussed it as family vibrancy and they see this attribute as a fund of knowledge. Hornby and Lafaele (2011) find that parents whose first language is different from the language of instruction do not feel comfortable in helping their children in learning. Support for children’s learning at home in early childhood can be associated with providing a stimulating environment in which the child develops positive attitudes towards knowledge and learning and has the opportunity to learn and to develop. Given that the same tasks constitute quality parenting, it is possible to conclude that child support and quality parenting are intertwined and connected. Bleach (2015) clarifies that it is necessary to separate parental involvement in the upbringing and education of one’s own child from involvement in the work of early childhood education settings. This emphasizes the multiplicity of parental roles: the creation of a home/family curriculum that consists of encouraging the child’s cognitive, social, and cultural development, transferring values, and shaping children’s attitudes towards education. By acting on shaping values and, especially, attitudes towards education, parents shape the social community and educational institutions. In this way, they influence educators, who in turn influence society through their actions.

Decision-making by parents and teachers can take place within educational groups or at the institution level. Group-level decision-making most often refers to participation in curriculum creation, socializing, and celebrations (Shen et al., 2014). Examples of joint decision-making at the level of institutions can be seen in the participation of parents in the management of educational institutions (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Višnjić Jevtić, 2018). Parents can participate in the work of schools through parents’ councils, class councils, and governing bodies of educational institutions. Unlike schools, ECE settings do not have the obligation to establish parent councils, therefore, at the level of educational institutions, parents can only participate in the work of administrative councils. Certain European countries are working on programs to strengthen parental involvement in such activities (Spajić-Vrkaš, 2014). Despite legal provisions on parental participation in decision-making, the European document Citizenship Education in Europe (2012) shows that parents have no influence on actual decision-making. This kind of parental participation can be problematic from the aspect of the opportunity to participate in decision-making. Given that only few parents participate in the governing bodies of educational institutions, the question is whether the decisions represented by the selected parents are truly in the interest of most parents. Investigating parental perception of participation in decision-making in schools, authors Pahić et al. (2010) concluded that there is a difference in the perception of influence on decision-making between parents who participate in governing bodies and those who do not. These results confirm the ambivalence of one parent deciding on behalf of the group. Unlike parents in schools, parents in settings have fewer opportunities to participate in decision-making (Visković & Višnjić Jevtić, 2017). Despite this, it is possible that, due to more frequent (almost daily) interactions between parents and teachers, parents still have the opportunity to participate in group-related decision-making.

Cooperation with the community may be seen through the prism of parents’ social capital. Parents do not have the same position within networks and therefore they have different social practices (Calabrese Barton et al., 2004). Like other cooperation relationships, it is possible that parents who represent a minority group in the community have fewer opportunities to cooperate and be active in it. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that families at risk of social exclusion cannot contribute to this area of involvement.

Epstein’s typology provides an overview of the different ways in which parents can contribute to children’s learning and development. This way of inclusion can be problematic from the aspect of parental passiveness in taking real initiative and responsibility, because all the mentioned activities were organized by teachers for parents. Although one of the activities is the involvement of parents in children’s learning at home and assumes parental initiative, this type of activity is also led by teachers. Teachers have expectations from parents about the tasks that parents should perform, and in this way, they organize the way in which parents will encourage children’s learning (Weiss et al., 2013).

The Joyce Epstein model is based on cooperation as a means of achieving educational goals, therefore it is more appropriate to the context of school education than to an early childhood education institution. Although this model is also applied in the context of early childhood education, it is possible that it applies to differences in the curricula intended for children of early and preschool age, i.e. it is possible that it is a question of focusing on academic achievements from an early age.

Although the very idea of involving parents represents an inclusive practice, it very often ignores the real differences between parents (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). The expectations of teachers and educational institutions that parents will feel good in the activities that are organized for them represent an unequal distribution of power in which there is no real cooperation. Instead of partnership or cooperative relations, we have a hierarchy in which educational institutions involve parents, which implies the passiveness of parents and the absence of real engagement and participation (Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). Therefore, involvement means dominance of the educational institution, therefore it does not represent a relationship of equal participants.

Hornby’s Model of Parental Participation

Hornby’s model of parental participation represents a paradigmatic shift in collaborative relations between parents and teachers. Appreciating the importance of the relationship between educators and parents, Hornby (1989) places the parent – his needs and his strengths – in the centre of interest. Given that parents are the child’s primary educators, it is assumed that they have knowledge that can help teachers understand the child’s current developmental status as well as its interests and capabilities. Hornby (1989, 2000) defines parental experience as parental strengths (see Fig. 6.1). He states that parents have information and therefore, they can provide support to teachers. The prerequisites for support are teachers’ appreciation and respect towards parents and vice versa. Even though this is a model based on reciprocity, mutual respect and sharing of responsibilities, Hornby (2011) emphasizes the responsibility of educators for establishing a collaborative relationship between parents and educators. Responsibility is based on the professional competence of the educator.

Fig. 6.1
A pyramid diagram of model of parental strengths. It has 4 tiers ranging from less to a lot of parents' time and knowledge from bottom to top. The tiers from bottom to top are information, cooperation, support, and management.

Model of parental strengths/contribution. (Source: Horbny, 1989, p. 161)

Full size image

Discussing parental needs, as visualized in Fig. 6.2, Hornby (1989, 2000) points out that parents need clear and open communication, regular contacts, pedagogical education, and parenting support. It is assumed that teachers have the competence to provide parents with this type of support, that is, to recognize the different needs of different parents.

Fig. 6.2
A pyramid diagram of model of parental needs. It has 4 tiers ranging from less to a lot of teachers' time and knowledge from bottom to top. The tiers from bottom to top are communication, connection, education, and support.

Model of parental needs. (Source: Hornby, 1989, p. 161)

Full size image

Hornby’s model of parental participation (2000, 2011) presumes that all parents need information, most parents need a connection with the institution, some of them need education, and only a few of them need support. The time and expertise of teachers are factors related to the needs of parents. Teachers need more knowledge and time for the needs of a smaller number of parents, that is, they need less time and knowledge for the needs of a larger number of parents. In addition to parental needs, Hornby (2000, 2011) also considers the possible contribution of parents. Thus, he points out that all parents can provide information about the child, most can cooperate with educators, and many can collect funds for the institution. Only some of the parents are ready to get involved in the management of the institution. The time and knowledge required for parents’ participation also depend on the form.

Communication skills are a prerequisite for achieving reciprocal relationships. Dialogue and active listening help to understand expectations, which contributes to the appreciation and understanding of participants in a collaborative relationship (Kultti & Pramling-Samuelsson, 2016). Unverbalized expectations and assessments are barriers that lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of given information. Without clear and open communication, both parents and teachers may misunderstand the behaviour of others and perceive them as a lack of interest and/or desire for cooperation, i.e. give up cooperation. In this way, the difficulty or absence of communication leads to challenges in their cooperation.

Mutual support of parents and teachers is a prerequisite for successful cooperation. However, most often this support is one-way, i.e. support provided to parents by teachers. Teachers provide support to parents in ​​strengthening their parental competence, holding educational workshops and lectures, and supporting parental involvement in the work of the educational institution (Višnjić Jevtić, 2018). McAllister Swap (1993) points out that there are roles in which parents can support educational professionals. In that respect, parents can be an audience at events in an educational institution, helpers in activities, representatives of the best interests of children, decision-makers and problem solvers (if they are involved committees that operate at educational institutions and within the social community). Hornby (2000) sees parents as receivers of information, management, helpers, donors, (co)experts, clients, and consultants. The highlighted roles may be seen as parents’ contribution in the support of teachers. Support does not only refer to material (helpers, donors, clients) but also to professional help. By recognizing and respecting parental competences, not only in the field of parenting but also in the areas of their professional domain, we give parents the space to take on the roles of (co)experts and consultants and expand the area in which they can provide support to teachers. Comparing the roles described by McAllister Swap (1993) and Hornby (2000), it is evident that they almost entirely overlap. Exceptions are the roles of parents as (experts) and consultants (Hornby, 2000). Although McAllister Swap (1993) did not specifically emphasize the roles of (co)experts and consultants, it is possible to recognize them in the roles of helpers and representatives.

In discussing support for parents, some authors (i.e. Leithwood, 2009; Morgan, 2017; Sandberg & Vuorinen, 2008) focus on the empowerment of parents. Sandberg and Vuorinen (2008) see support for parents as empowering parents to take responsibility in situations where parental and child interests are confronted. In the long run, empowering parents contributes to better parenting, which ultimately has positive outcomes for child development. In this interaction, teachers and parents find models of mutual sharing of knowledge and skills, influence the learning environment and improve the involvement of parents and teachers in the child’s learning and development. The quality of the parent-teacher relationship depends on the frequency and type of contacts. Research (Weiss et al., 2006) showed that parents who more frequently participated in activities in educational groups, regularly communicated with teachers and, consequently, developed better relationships. It can be assumed that parents’ tendency to participate contributed to the quality of relationship. The frequency of the participation was in correlation with parents’ social skills, i.e. those parents who easily establish new relationships participated more frequently in the life of ECE settings. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that quality relationships would develop with all parents if they participated more often in ECE settings. It is possible that parents who have obstacles in achieving communication and establishing relationships consciously avoid these situations. Therefore, they do not even have the opportunity to participate in these forms of activities. Equally, parents who have objective obstacles, such as language issues, are not able to participate in the activities where language knowledge is needed. According to Hornby’s model, teachers can find the kind of activity that will enable equal participation of all parents, but in different ways and in different activities.

Hornby’s model of parental participation (2000, 2011) is a model that gives both teachers and parents the right to choose the forms of participation and contribution to mutual relations. This model respects the diversity of family cultures and parents’ personalities and departs from the traditional model in which all activities are intended for all parents, while experts place them in a passive role. This model sees parents as equal, active partners of educational professionals who may need support, but can also provide it.

How Do We Involve Parents and How Do They Participate in Making Decisions About ECE Settings? Cases from Brazil, Croatia, France, and Spain

Cooperation between the family and the educational institution assumes a process based on mutual communication, support, sharing of responsibilities and joint activities to achieve the optimal development of the child (Višnjić Jevtić, 2018). Of all the characteristics of a collaborative relationship, it is easiest to approach the analysis of the activities carried out within the framework of that relationship. Although it is possible (and necessary) to analyse all aspects of the two previously described models (Six Types of Parental Involvement and Hornby’s Model of Parental Involvement), examples of parental involvement/participation in decision-making in educational institutions in four countries – Brazil, Croatia, France and Spain – will be presented. These examples will be presented because participation in decision-making are activities that enable a proactive parental role. Also, I am talking about activities that are the least determined by the influence of teachers.

Brazil

The existence of the School Councils is protected by the Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education of Brazil, created in 1996. The Council is the highest decision-making body within the school and has consultative, fiscal, and mobilizing functions. All the decisions are taken collectively. It promotes a democratic participation of all groups involved within the school organization, including parents and teachers. The definition of its members depends on the organization for election and should be chaired by the school principal. The Council can have between 20 and 40 members Each school has a statute that defines all the determinations of the School Council, however, some points are not negotiable, such as the participation of all groups (teachers, education specialists, employees, parents, and students). The responsibilities of the Council are to ensure the maintenance of the school and monitor the actions of school leaders to guarantee the quality of education. The counsellors must monitor the application of resources destined for the school and discuss the pedagogical project with the director and teachers.

Croatia

The Administrative Council is the body that manages ECE settings in the Republic of Croatia. It consists of five to seven members, and one of the members is a parent representative. The Administrative Council has a wide range of powers – it decides on the employment of workers, referral to a medical examination in case of reduced working capacity, and termination of employment. The Administrative Council adopts the annual plan and curriculum of the kindergarten, decides on the enrolment of children in the institution and decides on the economic operations of ECE settings.

A parent who is a member of the Administrative Council is elected at a joint parents’ meeting and is most often a parent whom the teachers (!) think would do well in that task, so the teachers motivate other parents or that parent, to put forward a candidacy. Given that ECE settings can have up to 600 children, this means that the parent representative is chosen from at least 600 parents. Of course, it is not possible for all parents to attend the election, so it is questionable how representative the selected representative truly is of all parents. Also, it is questionable whether he shares the information needed to vote on decisions at the sessions and whether he then votes in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the 600 parents, or whether the decision is left to his/her personal judgment. In the case of topics that are of special interest to parents, the assumption is that they can inform the parent representative about it, but it remains questionable whether there is room for a democratic discussion so that everyone is familiar with the issue. The idea, which aims to ensure that parents have an influence on the organization of work and the curriculum that ensures the well-being of children, cannot be implemented.

France

Parents in France also participate in the management of ECE settings. However, in France, they are organized as a kind of council of parents. Each group elects its parent representative, and then the selected representatives mutually agree on the way to be included in the governing bodies. The contacts of parents’ representatives (together with their photos) are clearly displayed in the lobby of the institutions. This type of organization enables interested parents to reach their representative and information that interests them in a relatively easy way. Due to the specific organization of ECE settings in France, all parents come to pick up their child at the same time, which gives the possibility of mutual meetings and agreements. On this occasion, parents’ representatives can arrange additional meetings and inform other parents about important decisions related to ECE settings as well as ways to exercise parental rights, needs, and wishes.

Spain

In Spain, parents may influence school management through the parents’ association of the school’s pupils Asociación de Madres y Padres de Alumnos (AMPA). AMPA has an important part in the functioning of the schools, as it is one of the ways in which families participate in the development of the school’s activities. AMPA oversee training, courses, talks, educational, cultural, sporting, recreational, and leisure activities in schools to ensure information and interaction between families and the school. The activities organized by the AMPA aim to improve the quality of education and training of pupils, but also their personal development within the school itself.

AMPA has three main roles. The informative role provides information between the school and the families. The information provided is related to the organization and legislation. The association’s formative role provides training families regarding educational criteria, the progress of their children and projects that are developed both in the centre and at that educational stage in general. In other words, the AMPA tries to involve parents in everything related to the education of pupils. The third role is representational. AMPA can take place in the school council of the school and occasional meetings with the management. Therefore, parents may participate, through the association, in the financial management of the school, supervise that the school is in good condition and that the appropriate preventive measures are taken, be informed about school’s Educational Project and the Annual General Programme, make and supervise important decisions, propose training courses for both parents and pupils and be informed of the activities carried out in the school and to be able to participate in them.

Despite the professional awareness of the importance of involving parents in all aspects of the work of educational institutions, practice very often differs from theory. Extensive research in Finnish early and preschool education institutions (Venninen & Purola, 2013) aimed to determine how educators perceive parental involvement in ECE settings. Although awareness of parents’ participation as a predictor of complete child development is highly valued teachers reported on activities in which they do not want parents’ participation. They showed that these are organizational activities in which parents would decide on employment, activities that children engage in during their stay in institutions, the age appropriateness of stimulating materials and the organization of the daily routine. Teachers explained this by parents’ lack of knowledge and understanding of the professional field of activity. These results indicate that educators do not always cope well with parental suggestions and involvement, therefore they want to retain part of their professional independence and right to expertise. It is interesting that some parents support the view that teachers are competent professionals, which implies that teachers and not parents should take responsibility in certain activities (Niikko & Havu-Nuutinen, 2009).

Conclusions

Despite the widespread use of Joyce Epstein’s model, the model was developed in the context of North American culture with a special emphasis on the contribution of parents to educational institutions. If this approach is compared with the historical development of ideas about cooperation between educators and parents, it is evident that it corresponds to compensatory models in which parents are involved, in contrast to the contemporary approach that emphasizes relationship reciprocity. Modern pedagogical science starts from individual needs and possibilities, which does not fully correspond to this model because it starts from parents as a group from which the educational institution has expectations and bases its requirements towards inclusion on them. Parents’ expectations are not the subject of this model, so it can be concluded that it is not a reciprocal relationship.

Reflecting on the McAllister Swap models in the relationship between parents and educators, it would be wrong to conclude that curriculum enrichment models and the partnership model are the most desirable in all institutions. In this way, they are once again trying to come up with one approach that should suit everyone, which is contrary to the appreciation of different family and institutional cultures. Although it is possible that in some institutions it is a question of a development approach, in which one approach follows another, it is justified to assume that there are institutions in which all of the above models are in force at the same time.

Hornby’s model of parental participation is a model based on respect for the individual differences of parents and educators. This model deviates from traditional approaches in which one model fits all and finds multiple ways of parental and educational participation, depending on their possibilities and abilities. In modern society, he emphasizes the need to respect family (social) cultures to ensure the respect of each individual. This approach gives everyone equal opportunities to participate regardless of differences in interests or needs. The inclusiveness of this model corresponds to the greatest extent to an approach that respects both parents and educators in the process of cooperation.