The development of a child as a whole is dependent from his or her learning environments, particularly the home, the school and the community which include both parents and teachers (Brofenbrenner,1994; Kohlberg and Hersh, 1977). These two role models critically influence the child not only on cognitive development but also on the social, emotional, and physical aspects. It demands partnership between parents and teachers to complement the learning and other needs of a child. At home, for instance, the child needs sleep, nutrition, socio-emotional development, and learning support. Correspondingly, the school fosters educational development and wider socio-emotional skills of the child. (Nierva, 2009; OECD,2007; Arriero, 2006).
Accordingly, parent support and participation are well defined if the principal, teachers and parents go hand in hand in achieving the progress of the pupils and of the total school community (Evangelista, 2008). However, such partnership does not always happen since communication opportunities between parents and teachers are limited by certain factors including availability of time, demands of work, and other related responsibilities(Finders & Lewis, 1994).
Teachers have tried to use various types of methods to reach out to parents, but it has been difficult to find a way that is effective in involving all parents in their child’s learning (Mazza, 2013). Fortunately, technological advancements have taken us into a higher level of easier access to communication such as the use of text messaging, phone calls, social media, email, websites, and the like (Barrera & Warner, 2006). However, not all digital devices are advantageous in the communication medium, as other parents make them feel uneasy such that of the study of Flynn & Nolan (2008) where parents were found to be wary of receiving phone calls from teachers as they were widely considered to be negative, while others prefer the use of text messaging or thru e-mail (Thompson, Mazer, & Flood, 2015).
Although text messaging or the use of e-mail is an efficient way to interact and a very common form of communication in the 21st Century (Lazaros, 2016), teachers and parents should use this tool cautiously since it is difficult to let the recipient know what emotion or what tone the sender is trying to convey in a text or email message (Flynn & Nolan, 2008). All in all, incorporating digital tools, such as smartphone use and private social media channels (Thompson et al., 2015), have made communication between parents and teachers more timely, efficient, productive and satisfying (Palts & Kalmus, 2015; Merkley, Schmidt, Dirksen & Fuhler, 2006).
The use of technology, since the outbreak of COVID-19, has been massively patronized and became the major means of communication in all private and government sectors including educational institutions. Communication between parents and teachers towards the welfare of the learners has shifted to meet the demands of the new normal by accepting the use of information and communication technology. Despite the changes, partnership between parents and teachers is enhanced through technological means. Parents are easily updated on the performances of their children (Graham-Clay, 2005; Olmstead, 2013; Patrikakou, 2016) and the activities to be tackled in the Self- Learning Modules of the learners. Teachers, on the other hand, receive feedbacks and queries from parents or guardians on the progress of the learners in their Self-Learning Modules.
Apart from active communication between parents and teachers, parent involvement in the school policy, curriculum, assessment, programs and activities (Sharan, et.al, 1999) has also been required by law through Batas Pambansa 232 and the Department of education order number 23, series of 2016. Examples of these are the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), which is guided by Memorandum No. 74 series of 1999 and the Brigada Eskwela which is the implementation of Republic Act 8525 or the Adopt A-School program (ASP).
Parent involvement enhances learning across all grade levels. Parent involvement includes the relationship between parent and child, parent and teacher, and parent and parent (Kilgore, 2010; McNeal, 2015; Ogletree, 2010). When parents are involved in their child’s education, this has a positive effect on children’s motivation, well-being, and learning outcomes at school (Jerome, 2006; Kilgore, 2010; Oostdam & Hooge, 2013). In this era of evolving digital communication, various means to establish productive partnerships between teachers and parents exist.
While communication and involvement are the two main ingredients in building partnership between teachers and parents in the welfare of learners, cultural values must also be considered as these have great impact on effective parent-teacher partnership (Rodríguez-Castro, Salas, & Murray, 2016). Therefore, understanding the diverse culture in the community that directly involves the school, teachers, and parents should be seriously taken into consideration for better implementation of said partnership (Graham-Clay, 2005).
Another factor to consider is the educational background of parents and their socio-economic status, as these likewise play crucial roles in understanding relationships of parents to their children, the teachers, and the school (Jerome, 2006).
These dimensions: communication, involvement, cultural values, educational background, and socio-economic status of parents, when they are used as binoculars, it can create a better teacher-parent partnership which will lead to more parental engagement in student learning where teachers cannot supplement thereby resulting to learner’s (1) higher academic achievement (Butler, Uline, & Notar, 2008; Haynes, Comer & Hamilton-Lee, 1989; Henderson, 1987); (2) increased attendance rates (Butler, Uline, & Notar, 2008; Haynes et al, 1989); (3) positive student attitudes and behaviors (Becher, 1984; Henderson, Marburger & Ooms, 1986); (4) increased student readiness and interest in their work (Rich, 1988; Tobolka, 2006); (5) increased parent satisfaction with teachers (Rich, 1988; cf., Greenwood & Hickman, 1991), and (6) higher teacher satisfaction ratings (Metlife, 2012).
.png)
