Advertisement

Parental Involvement in All-Day Special Schools for Learning Disabilities

  • Michael UrbanEmail author
  • Kapriel Meser
  • Rolf Werning
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 5)

Abstract

One important dimension of the relation between families and schools can be found in parental involvement. Relatively neglected in wide parts of the German school system as well as in the discourses of the German educational sciences, it is a topic receiving greater attention in the international context. Conceptualizing the family–school relation primarily from the side of the school, it focuses on ways of involving the parents in the processes of education and participation in school. A lot of research has confirmed the importance of parental involvement, particularly with regard to its relation to educational success (Ferguson 2008; Jeynes 2011; Jordan et al. 2002).

Keywords

School System Parental Involvement Family System Learn Disability Special School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, B. (1971). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity: School, family, and community connections. Annual synthesis 2003. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/diversity-synthesis.pdf
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches, kulturelles, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten (pp. 183–198). Göttingen: Schwartz.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their relations to culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Büchner, P., & Brake, A. (2006). Bildungsort Familie. Transmission von Bildung und Kultur im Alltag von Mehrgenerationenfamilien. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  9. Crozier, G. (2005). “There’s a war against our children”: Black educational underachievement revisited. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crozier, G., & Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion of home-school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diefenbach, H. (2007). Kinder und Jugendliche aus Migrantenfamilien im deutschen Bildungssystem. Erklärungen und empirische Befunde. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712.Google Scholar
  13. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social research. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 285–306). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson, C. (2008). The schoolfamily connection: Looking at the larger picture. A review of current literature. Austin: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Retrieved from URL: http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/sfclitrev.pdf
  15. Flick, U. (1997). The episodic interview: Discussion papers in qualitative research 5. London: LSE Methodology. Retrieved from www2.lse.ac.uk/methodologyInstitute/pdf/QualPapers/Flick-episodic.pdf
  16. Flick, U. (2004). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  17. Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2002). Institutionelle Diskriminierung – die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  18. Helsper, W. (2006). Elite und Bildung im Schulsystem – Schule als Institutionen-Milieu-Komplexe in der ausdifferenzierten höheren Bildungslandschaft. In J. Ecarius & L. Wigger (Eds.), Elitebildung – Bildungselite. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Diskussionen und Befunde über Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit (pp. 162–187). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis 2002. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from URL: http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
  20. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school. A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holtappels, H.-G. (1994). Ganztagsschule und Schulöffnung. Perspektiven für die Schulentwicklung. Weinheim/München: Juventa.Google Scholar
  22. Holtappels, H.-G., Klieme, E., Rauschenbach, T., & Stecher, L. (2007). Ganztagsschule in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Ausgangserhebung der „Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen“(StEG). Weinheim/München: Juventa.Google Scholar
  23. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2002). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections: Annual synthesis 2001. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/emergingissues.pdf
  28. Kolbe, F.-U., Reh, S., Idel, T.-S., Fritzsche, B., & Rabenstein, K. (2009). Ganztagsschule als symbolische Konstruktion. Analysen und Falldarstellungen zu Legitimationsdiskursen in schultheoretischer Perspektive. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kornmann, R. (2006). Die Überrepräsentation ausländischer Kinder und Jugendlicher in Sonderschulen mit dem Schwerpunkt Lernen. In G. Auernheimer (Ed.), Schieflagen im Bildungssystem. Die Benachteiligung der Migrantenkinder (pp. 71–85). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kramer, R.-T., & Helsper, W. (2010). Kulturelle Passung und Bildungsungleichheit – Potenziale einer an Bourdieu orientierten Analyse der Bildungsungleichheit. In H.-H. Krüger, U. Rabe-Kleberg, R.-T. Kramer, & J. Budde (Eds.), Bildungsungleichheit revisited. Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit vom Kindergarten bis zur Hochschule. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  31. Lamnek, S. (1998). Gruppendiskussion: Theorie und Praxis. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  32. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  35. Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  37. Meser, K., Urban, M., & Werning, R. (2010). Konstruktionen von kultureller Differenz, Bildungsorientierungen und genderspezifischen Erziehungshaltungen. Dimensionen der Darstellung von Familien mit Migrationshintergrund durch Lehrkräfte und SozialpädagogInnen an Förderschulen mit dem Schwerpunkt Lernen. In U. Schildmann (Ed.), Umgang mit Verschiedenheit in der Lebensspanne. Behinderung – Geschlecht – kultureller Hintergrund – Alter/Lebensphasen (pp. 335–345). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  38. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E., & 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(3), 373–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soremski, R., Urban, M., & Lange, A. (Eds.). (2011). Familie, Peers und Ganztagsschule. Weinheim/München: Juventa.Google Scholar
  40. Strauss, A. L. (1994). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Vester, M. (2006). Die ständische Kanalisierung der Bildungschancen: Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit zwischen Boudon und Bourdieu. In G. Werner (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheit im Bildungssystem: Eine empirisch-theoretische Bestandsaufnahme (pp. 13–54). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, S., & Powell, J. (2003). Ethnisch-kulturelle Ungleichheit im deutschen Bildungssystem. Zur Überrepräsentanz von Migrantenjugendlichen an Sonderschulen. In G. Cloerkes (Ed.), Wie man behindert wird: Texte zur Konstruktion einer sozialen Rolle und zur Lebenssituation betroffener Menschen (pp. 183–208). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  44. Werning, R., Loeser, J. M., & Urban, M. (2008). Cultural and social diversity: An analysis of minority groups in German schools. The Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Familienfragen. (2006). Ganztagsschule: Eine Chance für Familien. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  46. Wocken, H. (2000). Leistung, Intelligenz und Soziallage von Schülern mit Lernbehinderungen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Förderschulen in Hamburg. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 51, 492–503.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Educational Science, Working Group 3: School Theory with a Focus on Primary and Special Needs SchoolsBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Department of Education for Learning Difficulties, Institute for Special EducationLeibniz University HanoverHanoverGermany

Personalised recommendations