Socioeconomic status of the family as a determinant of family-school cooperation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Socioeconomic status of the family as a determinant of family-school cooperation

Eleonora Mendelova,

Libusa Guzkova,

Hana Zelena



Abstract

Many factors on both the family and the school parts determine family-school cooperation. This paper presents the research results aimed at finding the relationship between family socioeconomic status and teacher cooperation at the primary level of education. The research findings present how parents rate their current cooperation with teachers at the primary level of education. The article also highlights whether there is a statistically significant association between parents' education, occupation, income and their satisfaction with the cooperation with the teacher.

The research instrument was a questionnaire addressed to parents of children in primary education.

The research findings were evaluated with mathematical-statistical methods: Pearson's chi-squared test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and Kruskal-Wallis' test. The research has shown that indicators of family socioeconomic status (education, income and occupation) do not differentially affect the evaluation of family-school cooperation, which was demonstrated by statistical analysis of research findings. Parents, regardless of their socioeconomic status (SES), expressed a positive attitude towards the class teacher, their satisfaction with cooperation, and perceived teachers' efforts to develop cooperation with the child's parents. Parent-teacher cooperation impacts the child's functioning in the institutional education setting. It is of particular importance at the primary level of education. It influences the process of adaptation of students to the school environment at the beginning and later their learning success and relationship to the school.

Keywords; parents, teacher, primary school students, family socioeconomic status, cooperation, primary school.

Eleonora Mendelova, Associate Professor, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences (PhD), Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia;

Libusa Gudkova, PhD student of Pedagogical Sciences, Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia;

Hana Zelena: Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences (PhD), Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia;

Address: E. Mendelova, L. Guzikova, H. Zelena, Constantine the Philosopher University, 01 Nitra, Slovakia



Елеонора Менделова, Лібуша Гужикова, Гана Зелена. Соціально-економічний статус сім'ї як детермінанта взаємодії сім'ї та школи

У статті окреслено деякі фактори (зі сторони сім'ї та школи), які є визначальними у забезпеченні співпраці школи з родиною учня. Представлено результати дослідження, які спрямовані на виявлення взаємозв'язку між соціально-економічним статусом сім'ї та співпрацею вчителів на початковому рівні освіти. Результати експерименту дають змогу констатувати, як батьки оцінюють свою поточну співпрацю з вчителями на початковому рівні освіти та чи існує статистично значущий зв'язок між освітою, професією, доходом батьків та їхнім задоволенням від співпраці з педагогом. Інструментом дослідження стала анкета, адресована батькам учнів початкової школи. Результати дослідження оцінено за допомогою математико-статистичних методів: критерію хі-квадрат Пірсона, Колмогорова-Смирнова, Крускала-Уолліса. Дослідження показали, що показники соціально-економічного статусу сім'ї (освіта, дохід і професія) по-різному впливають на оцінку співпраці сім'ї та школи, свідченням чого є статистичний аналіз результатів дослідження. Батьки, незалежно від соціально-економічного статусу (СЕС), висловлювали позитивне ставлення до класного керівника, задоволення від співпраці, сприймали зусилля вчителів розвивати співпрацю з батьками дитини. З'ясовано, що співпраця батьків і вчителів впливає на функціонування дитини в інституційному освітньому середовищі. Така співпраця має особливе значення на початковому рівні освіти, де учні стикаються з проблемами адаптації до шкільного середовища, а згодом впливає на їх успішність у навчанні і ставлення до закладу освіти в цілому. family teachers economic

Ключові слова: батьки, вчитель, соціально-економічний статус сім'ї, співробітництво, початкова школа.



Introduction

School-family cooperation is a well-known topic in the professional pedagogical environment. It is an area of pedagogical interest with its history and broad research and literature base. According to J. Majerakova (2015), the penetration of these qualitatively different environments is possible through the mutual acceptance of their members, building trust and finding appropriate forms of cooperation.

Pedagogical theory uses variable terminology to explain the family and school relationship. In the local literature, we often encounter the concept of family-school collaboration. K. Trnkova (2004, p. 53) characterizes the family-school partnership as a "symmetrical, reciprocal and educational-social" relationship, which means that it focuses on upbringing, education, and the needs of the child however, also on the development of the school as an institution. According to M. Kocor (2018), the term partnership relates to the concepts such as cooperation, collaboration, commitment, cohesion, dialogue, and trust. It implies equal rights and responsibilities, mutual respect and understanding of the other party. In foreign literature, such as S. A. Garbacz et al. (2017), experts often use equivalents to refer to parent and school collaboration. For example, they use the terms family and parental involvement in school activities or family/parental engagement.

For describing the relationship between family and school, there are consistent terms such as participation, engagement, involvement, and interest. However, the most accurate term is family-school cooperation, which comprehensively includes all these concepts (Orell, M. & Pihlaja, P., 2020).

Family-school cooperation is an essential part of every country's school policy. Therefore, it represents an attractive topic of professional interest whose importance and need for discussion is growing. As evidence, there is an increase in the number of works where authors pay attention to the relationship between parents and teachers in the school environment (Epstein, L. J., et al., 2018; Rabusicova, M., Sedova, K., Trnkova, K. & Cihacek, V., 2004; Jungwirthova, I., 2009; Hornby, G., 2011; Gavora, P. & Majerakova, J., 2012; Slezakova, T., 2012; Hong, S., 2019).



Theoretical background

The family and the school have been crucial units of society since their inception, and their relationship is influenced by the current conditions in society, whether political, economic or sociocultural. According to V. Kurincova (2001), the periodization of the society's history points to the mutual relations of family and school, which have undergone long-term development, and socio-historical determination has left deep traces in this relationship.

According to recent experience, the partnership between family and school is changing. Before 1989, parents perceived the school primarily as an institution where, under the expert guidance of teachers, the child's education was cultivated and developed. Parents did not interfere with the school's running, nor did the school require them to do so. Prhcha (2005, p. 420) aptly characterizes this period, where he points to the cooperation between family and school, based mainly on the authoritarian approach of the school towards parents. Parents were thus placed in a subordinate role and were not entitled to interfere with the educational process.

After 1989, various pedagogical analyses appeared that entered into the dynamics of the school environment. Interest began to centre on the relationships between the members of the teaching process, their democratic nature and the attendant school climate (Kascak, O. & Pupala, B., 2012). At the same time, there has been a growing interest in building relationships between the family and the school. Various specialized research institutions are emerging to investigate family-school collaboration. The International Centre for Family Research in Bratislava opened in 1994 (Kurincova, V., 2001). M. Rabusicova (2004, p. 10) states that "parents stopped being uninterested in how the school treate d their children in the 1990s".

In contemporary educational practice, as U. Beck (2015) emphasized, we saw a significant turn in the approach to collaboration, as the focus was on the parents and their needs in the context of the child's education. As Z. Skvarkova (2010) wrote, family-school relations had shifted towards democratic principles and students' parents were considered the school's main partners, where they were not supposed to be only passive observers but help and cooperate with the school. Majerakova (2012, p. 51) even stated that teachers' activities towards parents should be natural that parents should feel that they were equal "players" alongside teachers in the joint effort. The traditional model perceived as "a parent is a client" (service taker) is changing into a "parent as partner" model.

It is undeniable that family-school cooperation has its merits and brings many positives for pupils, parents and teachers, and school-parent relations are considered a significant part of school life. Many authors from different perspectives have pointed out its importance. The first and the most crucial importance of cooperation is to have a more direct and efficient impact on children, their education and school satisfaction. According to J. L. Epstein et al. (2002, p. 20), the high-quality cooperation between parents and teachers helps children succeed in school today and in the future. S. M. Sheridan, E. Moorman (2015) also highlight the importance of family-school cooperation. An effective family-school partnership facilitates the development of specific learning goals for children and promotes the development of desirable behaviour and their social-emotional growth. At the same time, positive parent-teacher partnerships are a chance for problem-solving - the so-called "window of opportunity".

We also see the importance of cooperation in the positive impact on the teacher. As V. Gulevska (2018) points out, it leads to improved self-esteem, communication, satisfaction with their work, and teacher self-esteem. R. Capek (2013) adds that family-school cooperation is a reflection of the quality of the school. The common goals of parents and teachers create the ground for mutual understanding and a favourable school climate. Teacher-parent cooperation builds trusting relationships based on tolerance and respect, eliminates fear and prejudice in mutual communication, promoting children's learning and motivation. It also helps children, their parents, and teachers overcome adaptive, personal, family and other problems. The goal of family and school coexistence should go beyond cooperation in the range of concern for the child's benefit or behaviour.

The primary determinants of family-school cooperation include the socioeconomic status of the family (SES) in the local literature (Sedova, K., 2004; Frydkova, E., 2010; Majerakova, J., 2011), and more extensively in foreign publications (Hornby, G., 2011; Daniel, G., 2015; Ronka, A. & Perala-Littunen, S., 2021). According to Helus (2015, p. 241), "a family's socioeconomic status determines its social class in society based on occupational prestige, income and wealth, not least the parents' education". K. Sedova (2004) confirmed that the family's socioeconomic status depends on the parents' educational and professional levels.

The parents' education is the first indicator of a family's socioeconomic st atus. According to P. Mares (1999, p. 37), "education is an instrument of inequality because it segregates access to work, to further education, at the same time it indirectly discriminates the individual in the cultural dimension". The educational attainment of parents determines the value of education in the family environment (Cap, J., 1999; Lukac, M., 2015). Concerning the value of education in the family, we distinguish two groups of parents, with the first group attaching great importance to education. According to R. HavHk and J. Kot'a (2002), it is related to their professional life. With achieved education, the child maintains the built social status of the family (the family's status, power, influence, and standard of living). In the second group there are parents who do not attach much importance to education, negatively affecting the child's school performance. Research by L. Bomba and J. Zacharova (2013, p. 67) shows that "more than a fifth of parents do not attach importance to education". In Sl ovak conditions, parents of Roma ethnicity represent a particular group uninterested in education. This fact stems from the low educational level of parents, in synergy with low school aspirations (Lukac, M., 2015) and, ultimately, the lower social status of the family (Klein, V., 2008).

Another index of a family's socioeconomic status that may significantly determine education is the parents' profession. R. M. Hauser, J. R. Warren (1997) wrote about occupational socioeconomic status, which comprises an index of prestige and social status resulting from the occupation. Society's requirements for qualifications and occupation also determine parents' expectations of employment. T. Gasparecz (2018) presents the view that today's parents strongly focus on career success, which is associated with a lack of time for the development and upbringing of children, resulting in their emotional deprivation.

Material security and the family community's overall "economic well-being" play a crucial role in the life of every family. E. Azudova (2000, p. 65) mentions that parents' financial income influences the family's everyday life, material security, spending of leisure time, and last but not least, the position of the family in the structure of social relations. Many families do not have the economic means to fulfil children's desires, dreams, and interests. They live in a reality characterized by fear of the future. Similarly, G. J. Duncan, K. M. Ziol-Guesta, A. Kalila (2010) stated that the family's material security influences the parents' investment in the child's development. However, some families are affected by poverty and cannot provide for even the child's basic needs. This situation represents a significant threat to the child's psychological development.

These characteristics of the family's socioeconomic status influence the family's relationship with the school, equally influenced by socio-historical determination. According to G. Hornby, I. Blackwell (2018, p. 113), economic well-being is no guarantee of successful cooperation. With more affluent parents, we experience helicopter parenting, "parents want more interference and want to know everything". A. E. Lewis and T. A. Forman (2002, p. 82) mention that the family's social class (in conjunction with material, social and cultural conditions) determines cooperation wi th the school. They state that "working class and lower social class parents perceive teachers as a threat to the family, often leading to tensions between parents and teachers".

G. Hornby (2011) developed a comprehensive model of the factors determining family-school collaboration in the context of family involvement in the school environment. The first group consists of individual parental and family factors, including parents' beliefs and attitudes about their activity and involvement in school, the family's current lifestyle, and their gender, education or ethnicity. It is crucial how parents perceive their role and responsibility in their children's education. When parents relinquish their 'claim' to responsibility for their child's development once the child enters the school environment, they will be unwilling to participate in the child's education and upbringing actively. Families face problems of time disproportionality caused by political, economic and historical changes, so parental involvement (especially mothers) is subject to workload. Other factors are on the side of the child or student. These include age, learning difficulties, skills, talent, learning and behavioural disabilities. The following factors are related to the parent-teacher relationship in terms of differences in goals, attitudes, and language used. Differences in the child's educational goals can create conflicts that make it difficult for cooperation to be successful. Each side tries to push its own "agenda" independently of the understanding of the other. The last group is social factors. These include historical, demographic, political and economic issues of today's life. Parents work under pressure and with lower financial rewards, so their workload dissatisfaction may transmit in their school involvement.

It is impossible to see these determinants of family-school cooperation in isolation without interconnection. It is therefore desirable, if not essential, that all the components of cooperation (family, community, school, society) function continuously and thus contribute to the child's success. We agree with J. Majerakova (2011, p. 21) that "the problems and challenges in cooperation are not few, it is a constant effort to approach the ideal of efficient cooperation, but any effort is of fundamental value and importance in the educational process".

Research objective, methodology and data

Background of Research.

The research is focused on finding out parents' views on cooperating with the school. In the research, the influence of individual SES indicators of the family (education, occupation, parental income) on the evaluation of cooperation with the class teacher at the primary level of education is investigated. Based on these indicators, it is outlined how parents evaluate selected aspects of cooperation:

- the relationship of the parent to the class teacher;

- the class teacher's activity in the field of cooperation;

- satisfaction with cooperation;

- communication skills of the teacher.

The aim of the research

The research aimed to determine how children's parents rate their cooperation with the class teacher at the primary level of education. We wanted to find whether there is a statistically significant association between family SES indicators and ratings of cooperation with the class teacher at the primary level of education. For the purpose of the research, the following research question was set: is there a statistically significant association between educational attainment, occupation, and total monthly income of the parent of a primary school student in the first grade and the evaluation of cooperation with the classroom teacher?

Research methods.

We used a non-standardized questionnaire (a self-designed questionnaire) to collect the research data. We carried out the analysis of the answers and the processing of the results using mathematical- statistical methods and computer programs. Statistical analysis of the research data was carried out using the program R 4.1.3. The statistical analysis aimed to determine whether there is a statistically significant association between the SES indicators of the family and the evaluation of cooperation with the class teacher. The statistical analysis focused on Cronbach's alpha (a) to reveal the questionnaire's reliability and validity (internal consistency). The value of Cronbach's a for the questionnaire is 0.6941 = 0.7, and this decimal value indicates sufficient internal consistency of the questionnaire (or determines its sufficient reliability).

Pearson's chi-squared test was the central method of statistical analysis of the results. This inductive statistical method is based on detecting the difference between observed and expected frequencies. For goodness-of-fit tests, Cochran's Rule, which is essential for the operation of normality of approximation, must be strictly followed, and confidence intervals are the main principle. We used the following methods for statistical analysis: the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S test) and the Kruskal- Wallis' test.

Sample of Research.

The research sample consisted of 320 parents (n = 320) from different Slovak regions with at least one child of younger school age. The respondents were mostly (62.5%) in middle adulthood (32-42 years), most of the respondents (68.4%) were married, and most of the respondents were mothers (70%).

The research sample was differentiated according to individual indicators of family socioeconomic status (education, occupation and income). Based on respondents' education, respondents with complete secondary education had the highest representation (37.2%), respondents with 2nd-degree university education had a similar representation (31.9%), and parents with incomplete secondary education represented 17.8%. In terms of parents' profession, respondents were equally represented in different occupational areas: education and allied professions (25%), administration and management (19.40%), manual and blue-collar professions (18.43%), professions in services (17.18%), highly-skilled professions (14.68%) and 5.31% were uncategorised professions. Based on the parents' total monthly income, the research sample is dominated by parents with a monthly income of 1501 EUR - 2000 EUR (32.8%) and 1001-1500 EUR (27.2%). The income categories of 501 EUR - 1000 EUR (17.8%) and 2001 EUR and more (20.3%) were also relatively evenly represented.

Results of research

In the context of the above research aims and questions, we investigated how parents of younger school-age students rate their collaboration with the class teacher in several aspects. The research were data analyzed differentially concerning the socioeconomic characteristics of the family (parents' education, income, and profession) to identify statistically significant differences in the respondents' responses.

In the first area of investigation, we investigated how parents rate their relationship with the class teacher on a five-point scale (1-very positive, 2-rather positive, 3-neutral, 4-rather negative, 5negative). At the same time, we intended to determine whether parents rate their relationship with the teacher statistically differently based on individual family SES indicators. We present the results in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c.

Tab. 1a

Relationship with the class teacher by education of respondents

education/scale	negative	rather negative	neutral	rather positive	very positive	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
incomplete secondary education	0	0,00	3	0,94	19	5,94	17	5,31	18	5,63
complete secondary education	0	0,00	1	0,31	34	10,63	43	13,44	41	12,81
university education 1st degree	0	0,00	1	0,31	6	1,88	11	3,44	11	3,44	p =
university education 2nd degree	2	0,63	3	0,94	17	5,31	39	12,19	41	12,81	0,5437
university education 3rd degree	0	0,00	1	0,31	1	0,31	4	1,25	4	1,25
basic education	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	1	0,31	2	0,63
TOTAL	2	0,63	9	2,81	77	24,06	115	35,94	117	36,56

Source: Own research



Tab. 1b

Relationship with the class teacher by income of respondents

income/scale	negative	ra neg	ther ative	neutral	rather positive	very positive
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	Sig.
below 500 EUR	0	0,00	0	0,00	1	0,31	3	0,94	2	0,63
501 EUR - 1000 EUR	0	0,00	2	0,63	13	4,06	17	5,31	25	7,81	p - 0,9854
1001 EUR - 1500 EUR	1	0,31	1	0,31	22	6,88	34	10,63	29	9,06
1501 EUR - 2000 EUR	1	0,31	3	0,94	27	8,44	38	11,88	36	11,25
2001 EUR and more	0	0,00	3	0,94	14	4,38	23	7,19	25	7,81
TOTAL	2	0,63	9	2,81	77	24,06	115	35,94	117	36,56

Source: Own research

Relationship with the class teacher by respondents' profession

profession/scale	negative	rather negative	neutral	rather positive	very positive	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	p = 0,242
administration/management	1	0,31	1	0,31	14	4,38	23	7,19	23	7,19
uncategorised	0	0,00	1	0,31	6	1,88	3	0,94	8	2,50
blue-collar/manual work	0	0,00	2	0,63	21	6,56	25	7,81	11	3,44
services	0	0,00	1	0,31	14	4,38	16	5,00	24	7,50
education and facilities	1	0,31	2	0,63	10	3,13	34	10,63	32	10,00
high-skilled professions (services)	0	0,00	2	0,63	12	3,75	14	4,38	19	5,94
TOTAL	2	0,63	9	2,81	77	24,06	115	35,94	117	36,56

Source: Own research Tab. 1c

Based on our findings in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c, most respondents rate their relationship with their class teacher positively (72.5%: rather positive 35.94%; very positive 36.56%). For all three indicators of family SES, the parents' positive relationship with the teacher was evident. The most positive attitude towards the teacher is seen in parents with complete secondary education (26.25%: rather positive 13, 44%; very positive 12.81%), in parents working in education and institutions (20.63%: rather positive 10.63%; very positive 10.00%) and in parents with an income of 1501 EUR - 2000 EUR (23.13%: rather positive 11.88%; very positive 11.25%). However, based on the statistical analysis of the impact of SES indicators on satisfaction with cooperation, it was concluded that Pearson's Chi-square test did not confirm significant differences in respondents' answers based on their education, profession and income.

Regardless of family SES indicators, parents expressed positive attitudes towards the class teacher.

As the previous results showed, parents evaluated their relationship with the class teacher rather positively, regardless of the SES indicators of the family (education, profession, income). In a deeper analysis of parent-teacher cooperation, we found it necessary to explore parents' views on the role of the teacher in creating cooperation. We investigated how the respondents evaluate the activity of the class teacher in cooperation with parents. We ascertained the respondents' opinions through a set of statements (No. 1-3) on a five-point scale from 1 to 5 (1-agree, 2-rather agree, 3-undecided, 4-rather disagree, 5-disagree). The statistical significance of differences in respondents' opinions concerning family SES indicators on the following statements was tested:

• No. 1 Teachers are active, and they motivate parents to cooperate.

• No. 2 Teachers strive for efficient cooperation, but this still needs to change in many areas.

With the first statement, "Teachers are active, and they motivate parents to cooperate", we intended to determine whether parents perceive teachers as initiators motivating them to cooperate. In the context of the research objectives, we analyzed our findings based on the SES indicators of the family. We present the research data by SES indicators in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c.

Tab. 2a

Respondents' answers by education to statement No. 1

education/scale	I disagree	I rather disagree	unc	ecided	I rather agree	I a	gree	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	p = 0,44 89
incomplete secondary education	2	0,63	6	1,88	10	3,13	18	5,63	21	6,56
complete secondary education	3	0,94	8	2,50	21	6,56	41	12,81	46	14,38
university education 1st degree	2	0,63	0	0,00	2	0,63	14	4,38	11	3,44
university education 2nd degree	8	2,50	7	2,19	16	5,00	39	12,19	32	10,00
university education 3rd degree	0	0,00	2	0,63	2	0,63	2	0,63	4	1,25
basic education	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	3	0,94
TOTAL	15	4,69	23	7,19	51	15,94	114	35,63	117	36,56

Source: Own research

Tab. 2b

Respondents' answers by profession to statement No. 1

profession/ scale	I disagree	I rather disagree	und	ecided	I r a	ather ^ree	I agree	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	p = 0,5606
administration/ management	3	0,94	4	1,25	8	2,50	25	7,81	22	6,88
uncategorised	2	0,63	0	0,00	3	0,94	5	1,56	8	2,50
blue-collar/manual work	2	0,63	9	2,81	10	3,13	19	5,94	19	5,94
services	0	0,00	2	0,63	9	2,81	18	5,63	26	8,13
education and facilities	6	1,88	4	1,25	13	4,06	30	9,38	26	8,13
high-skilled professions (services)	2	0,63	4	1,25	8	2,50	17	5,31	16	5,00
TOTAL	15	4,69	23	7,19	51	15,94	114	35,63	117	36,56

Source: Own research

Tab. 2c

Respondents' answers by income to statement No. 1

Income/scale	I disagree	I rat disa	ther gree	unc	ecided	I rather agree	I a	gree	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
below 500 EUR	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	1	0,31	5	1,56	p = 0,6988
501 EUR - 1000 EUR	2	0,63	2	0,63	7	2,19	22	6,88	24	7,50
1001 EUR - 1500 EUR	3	0,94	5	1,56	15	4,69	32	10,00	32	10,00
1501 EUR - 2000 EUR	7	2,19	9	2,81	17	5,31	35	10,94	37	11,56
2001 EUR and more	3	0,94	7	2,19	12	3,75	24	7,50	19	5,94
TOTAL	15	4,69	23	7,19	51	15,94	114	35,63	117	36,56

Source: Own research

The data in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c show parents' agreement with the statement, "Teachers are active, and they motivate parents to cooperate". When we analyzed the data by Pearson Chi-Square test, there were no significant differences in responses based on family SES characteristics (concerning education, occupation, income). Respondents perceive the teacher as the initiator of cooperation, which is presented by a higher level of agreement than disagreement with the statement, i.e., the class teacher is evaluated as active and motivates parents to cooperate. The data analysis shows that the strongest level of agreement is among parents with complete secondary education (27.19%: rather agree 12.81%, agree 14.38%), parents working in education and institutions (17.51%: rather agree 9.38%, agree 8.13%) and parents with a household income of 1501 EUR - 2000 EUR (22.50%: rather agree 10.94%, agree 11.56%).

In the second statement, "Teachers strive for efficient coopera tion, but this still needs to change in many areas", it was investigated whether family-school cooperation from the parents' point of view has some shortcomings, despite the activity and efforts of the class teacher to cooperate. In the first part of the analysis of the responses, we identified an association with parents' education (Table 3a).

Tab. 3a

Respondents' answers by education to statement No. 2

education/scale	I disagree	I rather disagree	undecided	I rather agree	I agree	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	P = 0,01 35
incomplete secondary education	4	1,25	7	2,19	17	5,31	15	4,69	14	4,38
complete secondary education	5	1,56	13	4,06	33	10,31	42	13,13	26	8,13
university education 1st degree	2	0,63	4	1,25	7	2,19	10	3,13	6	1,88
university education 2nd degree	9	2,81	19	5,94	29	9,06	34	10,63	11	3,44
university education 3rd degree	0	0,00	1	0,31	2	0,63	6	1,88	1	0,31
basic education	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	3	0,94
TOTAL	20	6,25	44	13,75	88	27,50	107	33,44	61	19,06

Source: Own research

The results from Table 3a show that more than half of the respondents (52.5%: rather agree 33.44%, agree 19.06%) appreciate the teacher's cooperative efforts but also present a view of the need for change in many areas of cooperation. The highest level of agreement with statement No. 2 is among parents with a complete secondary education (21.26%: rather agree 13.13%, agree 8.13%). Parents with a university education 2nd degree showed the highest disagreement rate with the statement (8.75% rather disagree 5.94%, disagree 2.81%), i.e., they have the most critical attitude towards the teacher. Pearson's Chi-square test confirmed the significant difference in the respondents' answers based on their educational attainment (p = 0, 0135; X-squared = 27.01), which implies that parents' education determines the evaluation of the teacher and his/her efforts for efficient cooperation.

As in the analysis of statement No. 1, we also study the respondents' answers to statement No. 2 regarding parents' occupation and income (Tab 3b, 3c).

Tab. 3b

Respondents' answers by profession to statement No. 2

profession/ scale	I disagree	I rather disagree	undecided	I rather agree	I agree	Sig.
	N	%	N	0/ %	N	%	N	%	N	%	p = 0,3221
administration/management	4	1,25	12	3,75	18	5,63	21	6,56	7	2,19
uncategorised	1	0,31	1	0,31	5	1,56	3	0,94	8	2,50
blue-collar/manual work	3	0,94	9	2,81	16	5,00	17	5,31	14	4,38
services	3	0,94	4	1,25	18	5,63	17	5,31	13	4,06
education and facilities	7	2,19	10	3,13	18	5,63	34	10,63	10	3,13
high-skilled professions (services)	2	0,63	8	2,50	13	4,06	15	4,69	9	2,81
TOTAL	20	6,25	44	13,75	88	27,50	107	33,44	61	19,06

Source: Own research

The data in Tables 3b and 3c show parental agreement with the statement, "Teachers strive for efficient cooperation, but this still needs to change in many areas". When the data by Pearson Chi - Square test were analyzed, no significant differences were found in responses based on family SES characteristics (occupation and income). Although respondents perceive teachers as agile in collaborating with parents, they also agree that family-school cooperation needs to change in many ways. This attitude is evident from the higher level of agreement with the statement analyzed. Parents employed in the field of education (13.76%: agree 3.13%, rather agree 10.63%) and parents with an income of 1501 EUR - 2000 EUR (16.26%: agree 5.63%, rather agree 10.63%) agree with the statement.

Tab. 3c

Respondents' answers by income to statement No. 2

Income/scale	I disagree	I rather disagree	undecided	I rather agree	I agree	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
below 500 EUR	0	0,00	0	0,00	2	0,63	1	0,31	3	0,94	p = 0,6123
501 EUR - 1000 EUR	2	0,63	7	2,19	14	4,38	19	5,94	15	4,69
1001 EUR - 1500 EUR	7	2,19	8	2,50	25	7,81	30	9,38	17	5,31
1501 EUR - 2000 EUR	6	1,88	20	6,25	27	8,44	34	10,63	18	5,63
2001 EUR and more	5	1,56	9	2,81	20	6,25	23	7,19	8	2,50
TOTAL	20	6,25	44	13,75	88	27,50	107	33,44	61	19,06

Source: Own research

The cooperation between parents and the class teacher depends on their mutual relationship and the resulting satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the cooperation. For this reason, we surveyed parents' satisfaction with the cooperation with the class teacher. Parents rated their satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 - satisfied, 2 - rather satisfied, 3 - undecided, 4 - rather dissatisfied, 5 - dissatisfied). We wanted to find out the level of parents' satisfaction with the level of cooperation with the class teacher or whether the SES indicators of the family determine their opinion about cooperation. We tested the statistical significance of the differences in respondents' opinions on satisfaction with the cooperation concerning their education, profession and income. The results are presented in Tables 4a, 4b and 4c.

Tab. 4a

Satisfaction with cooperation by respondents' education

question/education	dissatisfied	rather dissatisfied	undecid ed	rather satisfied	satisfied	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
incomplete secondary education	0	0,00	3	0,94	7	2,19	15	4,69	32	10,00	p - 0,2498
complete secondary education	0	0,00	2	0,63	11	3,44	43	13,44	63	19,69
university education 1st degree	0	0,00	3	0,94	2	0,63	9	2,81	15	4,69
university education 2nd degree	5	1,56	6	1,88	9	2,81	27	8,44	55	17,19
university education 3rd degree	0	0,00	1	0,31	2	0,63	4	1,25	3	0,94
basic education	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	0	0,00	3	0,94
TOTAL	5	1,56	15	4,69	31	9,69	98	30,63	171	53,44

Source: Own research

Tab. 4b

According to the findings in Tables 4a, 4b and 4c, most respondents are satisfied with their cooperation with the class teacher. For all three indicators of family SES, the parents' satisfaction with the cooperation was shown (84.04%: rather satisfied 30.63%, satisfied 53.44%). Parents with complete secondary education (33.12%: rather satisfied 13.44%, satisfied 19.69%), parents working in education and facilities (20.32%: rather satisfied 8.13%, satisfied 12.19%), parents with income 1501 EUR -2000 EUR (28.13%: rather satisfied 13.13%, satisfied 15.00%) expressed the highest level of satisfaction. However, based on the statistical analysis of the impact of SES indicators on satisfaction with cooperation, we have to conclude that Pearson's Chi-square test did not confirm significant differences in respondents' answers by their education, profession and income. Regardless of family SES, parents expressed satisfaction with cooperation with their child's classroom teacher.

Satisfaction with cooperation by respondents' profession

question/profession	dissatisfied	rather dissatisfied	undecided	rather satisfied	satisfied	Sig.
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
administration/management	2	0,63	1	0,31	5	1,56	17	5,31	37	11,56	p - 0,9471
uncategorised	0	0,00	1	0,31	2	0,63	6	1,88	9	2,81
blue-collar/manual work	0	0,00	3	0,94	8	2,50	16	5,00	32

Подобные документы

• The American system of school education

  History of school education system in the USA. The role of school education in the USA. Organisation of educational process in American schools. Reforms and innovations in education that enable children to develop their potential as individuals.
  
  курсовая работа [326,6 K], добавлен 12.01.2016
  

• Education in Italy

  Italy - the beginner of European education. Five stages of education in Italy: kindergarten, primary school, lower secondary school, upper secondary school, university. The ceremony of dedication to students - one of the brightest celebrations in Italy.
  
  презентация [3,8 M], добавлен 04.04.2013
  

• Education in the U.S.

  The education system in the United States of America. Pre-school education. Senior high school. The best universities of national importance. Education of the last level of training within the system of higher education. System assessment of Knowledge.
  
  презентация [1,4 M], добавлен 06.02.2014
  

• Edcation system in the USA

  School attendance and types of schools. Pre-school and elementary education. Nursery schools and kindergartens which are for children at the age of 4 - 6. The ideal of mass education with equal opportunity for all. Higher education, tuition fees.
  
  реферат [20,5 K], добавлен 01.04.2013
  

• Education system of Great Britain

  Studying the system of education in Britain and looking at from an objective point of view. Descriptions of English school syllabus, features of infant and junior schools. Analyzes the categories of comprehensive schools, private and higher education.
  
  презентация [886,2 K], добавлен 22.02.2012
  

• The use of Total Physical Response techniques in teaching English language school

  Investigation of the main reasons English language jelly. Characteristics of the expansion content Total Physical Response; consideration of the basic pedagogical principles of its use in teaching language inostannomu junior and senior school age.
  
  курсовая работа [40,2 K], добавлен 21.02.2012
  

• University of Oxford

  About University of Oxford. The University consists of 38 faculties and colleges, as well as the so-called six dormitories - private schools that do not have the status of college and belonging, as a rule, religious orders. Structure of the University.
  
  презентация [2,1 M], добавлен 11.11.2014
  

• Education in Britain

  Study the history of opening of the first grammar and boarding-schools. Description of monitorial system of education, when teacher teaches the monitors who then pass on their knowledge to the pupils. Analysis the most famous Universities in Britain.
  
  презентация [394,4 K], добавлен 29.11.2011
  

• Education in the UK

  Modern education system in the UK. Preschool education. The national curriculum. Theoretical and practical assignments. The possible scenarios for post-secondary education. Diploma of higher professional education. English schools and parents' committees.
  
  презентация [3,3 M], добавлен 05.06.2015
  

• The significance of using interactive whiteboard in teaching English at primary school

  The history of the use of the interactive whiteboard in the learning. The use of IWB to study of the English, the advantages and disadvantages of the method. Perfect pronunciation, vocabulary. The development of reading, writing, listening and speaking.
  
  презентация [1,3 M], добавлен 23.02.2016
  

• The development of profile education in Kazakhstan

  Transfer to profile training of pupils of 11–12 classes of 12-year comprehensive school its a stage in implementation of differentiation of training. Approaches to organization of profile education and their characteristic, evaluation of effectiveness.
  
  курсовая работа [39,4 K], добавлен 26.05.2015
  

• The comparative analysis of an education system in Finland and Kazakhstan

  The impact of the course Education in Finland on my own pedagogical thinking and comparison of the Finnish school system and pedagogy with my own country. Similarities and differences of secondary and higher education in Kazakhstan and Finland.
  
  реферат [15,2 K], добавлен 01.04.2012
  

• Games activity at the foreign language lesson as one of the basic ways of learning English at primary school

  Disclosure of the concept of the game. Groups of games, developing intelligence, cognitive activity of the child. The classification of educational games in a foreign language. The use of games in the classroom teaching English as a means of improving.
  
  курсовая работа [88,5 K], добавлен 23.04.2012
  

• Manual for doing an educational research

  Planning a research study. Explanation, as an ability to give a good theoretical background of the problem, foresee what can happen later and introduce a way of solution. Identifying a significant research problem. Conducting a pilot and the main study.
  
  реферат [26,5 K], добавлен 01.04.2012
  

• Internet in teaching Foreign Languages

  The employment of Internet in teaching Foreign Languages. The modern methods of teaching 4 basic skills. The usage of Internet technologies for effective Foreign Languages acquisition. Analysis of experience: my and teachers of Foreign Languages.
  
  курсовая работа [2,3 M], добавлен 30.03.2016
  

• Methods and approaches in vocabulary teaching and their influence on students’ acquisition

  The development in language teaching methodology. Dilemma in language teaching process. Linguistic research. Techniques in language teaching. Principles of learning vocabulary. How words are remembered. Other factors in language learning process.
  
  учебное пособие [221,2 K], добавлен 27.05.2015
  

• The motivation as training to foreign language

  Motivation to learn a foreign language in Kazakhstan. Motivation in the classroom. The role of games on language lessons. Examples of some games and activities which had approbated on English language lessons. Various factors of student motivation.
  
  курсовая работа [25,0 K], добавлен 16.01.2013
  

• Family relations

  The word "family" is connected with warm relations between members. Family relations. Both the husband and the wife create their future together. Children should love and respect the parents. A family role in children's formation of individuality.
  
  топик [11,2 K], добавлен 04.02.2009
  

• Differentiation of family incomes

  Priority for the importance of Economy of Ukraine. Sources, functions, structure of income Household as a politico-economic category. Family income - the economic basis of reproduction. Levels of income of the population. The structure of family income.
  
  реферат [22,5 K], добавлен 28.10.2011
  

• Family and relatives

  The topic of the lesson - families and relatives. All people have families, big or small. Why do we really need to have a family? The guests of the lesson tell a lot about family, because one of them has a big family, but another one has no family at all.
  
  контрольная работа [19,2 K], добавлен 29.01.2010
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам