Q & A

Children from low socio-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds have been shown to consistently underperform academically, as demonstrated in international comparisons (OCED 2015). According to OCED, inequality in schools is often driven by the ‘intergenerational transmission of advantage’. In other words, better performing students are more likely to have advantaged parents, in terms of both education and employment. As a result, they are better equipped to support their children’s schooling. (It is also worth pointing out that children of advantaged parents are considerably more likely to go on to tertiary education, while those of less advantaged parents are overrepresented in upper secondary vocational programs.) Moreover, children coming from minority backgrounds often face both language and cultural barriers, which have a significant impact on their schooling. For students attending schools in rural or remote areas, the issue is compounded by limited human and financial resources, and longer commuting times to and from school. And of course, in the case of Roma school children, all of these issues are compounded by racial discrimination, resulting in the separation of Roma children from non-Roma children in segregated education settings (Fox 2021; Farkas 2014). As a result, inequalities of income and ethnicity, besides gender, geography, and disability, are often compounded within schools, thereby undermining social mobility.

Educational institutions, therefore, have an important role to play in addressing the inequalities faced by ethnic minority students. By equipping students with a good education, schools increase the likelihood of employment and thus reduce the likelihood of poverty. In doing so, schools promote social mobility. Schools are also an ideal environment to promote the mixing of students from diverse background, thereby encouraging social cohesiveness and thus reducing barriers to equality.

As noted in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014, Roma children are among the most deprived and discriminated ethnic minorities in Europe. In Hungary, for example 55 percent of Roma students dropped out of school before the age of 16, compared with 32 percent for their non-Roma counterparts (Jarvis 2016). In Croatia, while 90% of Roma children enroll in first grade, only 30% enroll in secondary school (Bedeković 2022, p. 84). And a survey of eleven EU member states similarly showed that only 15 % of Roma adults aged 20–24 completed upper-secondary general or vocational education (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014). The situation has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, with dropout rates increasing by close to 11% at a regional level (Regional Cooperation Council 2021).

In response to growing diversity within classrooms, alongside the importance of mitigating lower levels of educational attainment among minority students, schools have had to adopt new and creative ways to approach education. This has led to the emergence and growing popularity of more student-centered approaches, including culturally relevant pedagogy and collaborative learning approaches, which stress problem-solving.

Culturally relevant pedagogy builds on incorporating the culture of the concerned students into teaching programs, techniques, and communication styles. Highlighting the importance of a student’s sense of belonging at school, culturally relevant pedagogy focuses on nurturing students’ cultural and ethnic identities to promote self-confidence and well-being (Banks 1993; Ladson-Billings 1995). Underpinned by students’ cultural identities, the model stresses the importance of celebrating cultural diversity in the classroom and has been demonstrated to improve academic achievements (Ladson-Billings 1995).

Collaborative learning approaches can be defined as “a pedagogical style which emphasizes cooperative efforts among students, faculty, and administrators” (Whipple 1987). Students work in small groups, encouraging interaction and peer discourse. Underpinned by a constructivist belief (i.e. knowledge is socially situated), the teacher, rather than dictating, works to create a sense of community and environment in which differences serve a productive role. This serves to reframe the teacher as a facilitator, in which learning occurs within a dialogue (Cabrera et. al. 2002). Research has demonstrated that a collaborative approach to learning benefits all students, regardless of race or ethnicity (Tinto 1997).

These collaborative models work in contrast to more traditional, didactic models of education, referred to as a banking model of education in which the teacher is an authority figure and primary source of knowledge (Freire, 1970). The name ‘banker’ model is based on the idea of a teacher as bank clerk depositing information in their students; the onus of this learning method is on students to sit and listen, learning in a traditional lecture style based on memorization. Sometimes also referred to as a ‘frontal model’, such learning formats can often lead to unequal conditions for students, who do not learn in the same manner or at the same pace.

Parental involvement in children’s education is a key determiner of educational success for all children (Jeynes 2007). Studies have suggested that to close the gap in achievement between minority and majority students, it is vital to address the relations between families (communities) and schools. These constitute “overlapping spheres of influence,” and all three are vital to the learning and development of students (Epstein 2018). Research convincingly shows that students perform better at school when they feel supported both at home and at school, being less disruptive, achieving higher grades and are more likely to pursue further education (Henderson and Mapp 2002). Further research suggests that schools and families play important but diverging roles in students’ education, with families encouraging academic aspiration and teachers providing vital support for students’ academic achievement (Syed, Azmitia, and Cooper 2011).

Studies demonstrate that when parents actively participate in their children’s education on both the school and home front, supported by teachers with whom they enjoy respectful and close relations, children demonstrate increased levels of educational aspirations, positive social behaviors, and academic achievement across all grade levels, (Fan 2001; Hill et. al. 2004; Hughes and Kwok 2007; Voorhis et al. 2013; Gutman and McLoyd 2000; Jeynes 2007). Evidence suggests that higher levels of parental engagement in elementary school years is associated with increased chances of completing high school (Barnard, 2004). In addition, higher levels of family involvement in schools positively effects children’s well-being, attitudes toward education and feelings of self-efficacy (Dearing et al. 2004). Research also demonstrates that parental engagement in children’s learning is especially critical for underachieving children (e.g., Henderson and Mapp 2002).

While research shows that children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds would benefit from improved relations between parents and teachers, parents of ethnic minority and low-income children are less likely to experience the same degree of positive parent–teacher relationships as their counterparts (Hughes and Kwok 2007). This is not for a lack of interest in their children’s education. Research demonstrates that both minority and low-income families share high levels of aspirations for their children’s academic success (Boethel 2003). This is perhaps despite common stereotypical assumptions that the achievement gap among minority students is due to low aspirations or expectations among parents (Chrispeels and Rivero 2001). Studies also show minority parents are engaged in their children’s education but in different ways to dominant majorities, with a tendency to engage more in their children’s education outside of the school environment and more so in the home and wider community (Boethel 2003; Henderson and Mapp 2002; McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999).

Educational inequities among Roma communities raise, of course, complex pedagogical, psychological, and social issues which schools cannot, in and of themselves, solve. Studies suggest that Roma parents, as in the case of other ethnic minorities, believe in the importance of education and want their children to succeed (Zachos 2019; Boneta et al. 2022; Dunajeva 2021). Indeed, Roma parents want their children to succeed at school and understand education is critical to encouraging integration and achieving a higher social status (Bedeković 2022). This runs counter to the opinion that Roma believe education to be antithetical to their culture.

Research does exist to support this position, suggesting some Roma believe that education is a threat to their culture (Levinson and Sparkes 2006; Zachos 2019). This is perhaps not surprising when one considers education as a “civilizing” tool used to suppress Romani culture (Matras et al. 2016). Reflecting a similar hesitancy toward formal education institutions, many Roma parents’ own negative education of school leads to fears their children will experience similar discriminatory treatment at the hands of both parents and students (Lloyd and McCluskey 2008). As one author notes, the most important barrier to greater parental involvement in their children's education is that “almost all Roma groups have lived in isolation and on the margins of society for so long” that they have developed a “defense mechanisms against enforced state educational policy and the way it was implemented in schools” (Zachos 2019 p.20).

Of course, it is also critical to note that Roma are not a single homogenous group and differing opinions between diverging groups of Roma do exist. Some Roma parents feel that a vocational education is preferable to desk-based learning (Zachos 2019). Moreover, parents may want to see their children succeed in school but may simultaneously still harbor fears over how Roma students will be treated.

Parents of ethnic minority and low-income children face multiple barriers of engaging with schools, ranging from language differences, parents’ lack of familiarity with the local educational system, parents’ perceptions of discrimination by the school, life demands, especially employment and childcare, health and housing problems and lack of transportation (Levine and Trickett 2000; Henderson and Mapp 2002). In terms of categorizing these barriers, Eccles and Harold (1993) provide a useful model with 8 drivers of drivers of parental involvement:

1. The first is the social and psychological resources available to the parent – from mental health through to time.

2. The second is the parents’ efficacy beliefs – or in other words, their confidence in their ability to help their children with their schoolwork.

3. Parents’ perceptions of their children – this pertains to how parents view their child’s abilities, receptivity, as well as aspirations for their children in the future, and opportunities they feel their child can access.

4. Parents’ beliefs about their role in their children’s education and school, and how important they believe their participation to be. For example, some parents might believe their participation in school benefits their children’s education.

5. Parent’s attitude towards school. For example, what their beliefs are regarding the school’s expectations, and how active they want parents to be; how sympathetic they believe the school is; feeling the school blames them for the problems with their children, and so on. Such attitudes can be shaped by parents’ own previous experiences, whether positive or negative, during their childhood.

6. Parents’ ethnic identity. Here, perceptions about how minority ethnic identities are perceived will shape relations and impact parental involvement. Feelings of hostility can lead to feelings that children will be treated unfairly.

7. Parents’ socialization practices – this related to how well parents can discipline their children and manage their children's expectations.

8. Parents’ experiences of teachers at their child’s elementary schools, where their formal experiences in engaging with schools will be shaped.

Research demonstrated that perceptions of what constitutes good parent-teacher relations can widely vary among parents and teachers. This understanding may be different between teachers and parents: one US-based study found that while teachers understand parental involvement as designed to support the academic achievement of students, parents understood their involvement in terms of at-home activities and in broader terms as supporting the wellbeing of the child, including developing values of respect, cooperation, and good behavior (Smith et al. 2008). This difference can often lead to conflict and apathy, making each side more hesitant in engaging with one another.

We must then think of a multidimensional perspective of parent-teacher engagement, which can be defined in terms of various activities and levels of engagement, with some more effective than others (Fan 2001). Dr. Joyce Epstein of Johns Hopkins University, one of the most prominent authors on the topic of teacher-parent relations, is arguably the most often quoted model for categorizing parent-teacher engagement activities developed six different categories of parental involvement:

1. Partnership to ensure supportive learning environment at home, e.g. family support programs

2. Parenting or engaging in learning in the home, e.g., helping with homework

3. Parent-teacher communication

4. Involvement in activities at school, e.g., volunteering

5. Involvement in school decision-making

6. Involvement in community projects

Banks, James A. 1993. “Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice.” Review of Research in Education 19: 3–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167339. 

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children & Youth Services Review, 26, 39–62. 

Bedeković, Vesna. 2022. “Intercultural Approach to Education of Members of the Roma Minority.” In Intercultural Education: The Position of Roma in Education=. Croatia: University of Osijek, Faculty of Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360917396_Intercultural_Education_The_Position_of_Roma_in_EducationObrazovanje_za_interkulturalizam_Polozaj_Roma_u_odgoju_i_obrazovanju_Vaznost_poludnevnog_boravka_u_odgoju_i_obrazovanju_Roma.  

Boethel, Martha. 2003. “Diversity School, Family, & Community Connections.” SEDL.ORG. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). https://sedl.org/connections/resources/diversity-synthesis.pdf. 

Boneta, Željko, Melita Pergar, and Željka Ivković. 2022. “Roma Parents and Children on Education – a Sociological Analysis ‘They Have to Finish School Because the Rules Are Strongly Changing with Us, Too.’” In Intercultural Education: The Position of Roma in Education=. Croatia: University of Osijek, Faculty of Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360917396_Intercultural_Education_The_Position_of_Roma_in_EducationObrazovanje_za_interkulturalizam_Polozaj_Roma_u_odgoju_i_obrazovanju_Vaznost_poludnevnog_boravka_u_odgoju_i_obrazovanju_Roma.  

Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students' development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20–34. 

Chrispeels, Janet H., and Elvia Rivero. 2001. “Engaging Latino Families for Student Success: How Parent Education Can Reshape Parents’ Sense of Place in the Education of Their Children.” Peabody Journal of Education 76 (2): 119–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7602_7. 

Dearing, Eric, Kathleen McCartney, Heather B. Weiss, Holly Kreider, and Sandra Simpkins. 2004. “The Promotive Effects of Family Educational Involvement for Low-Income Children’s Literacy.” Journal of School Psychology 42 (6): 445–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.07.002. 

Dunajeva, Jekatyerina. 2021. Constructing Identities over Time. "Bad Gypsies" and "Good Roma" in Russia and Hungary. Budapest: CEU Press. 

Eccles, Jacquelynne S., and Rena D. Harold. 1993. “Parent-School Involvement during the Early Adolescent Years.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 94 (3): 568–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819309400311.  

Epstein, Joyce, and Johns Hopkins. 2015. “Epstein’s Six Types of Parent Involvement.” https://cdn5-ss2.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_995699/File/2015-16/Parents/Epstein%20-%20Six%20Keys.pdf.  

Epstein, Joyce L. 2018. School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Routledge. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2014. “Education: The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States.” The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Belgium. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-roma-survey-dif-education-1_en.pdf. 

Fan, Xitao. 2001. “Parental Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: A Growth Modeling Analysis.” The Journal of Experimental Education 70 (1): 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109599497. 

Farkas, L. 2014. “Report on discrimination of Roma children in education”. European Commission. Available at: https://tandis.odihr.pl/bitstream/20.500.12389/21933/1/08101.pdf  

Fox, B. 2021. “EU race relations bill lacks teeth, twenty years on”. EUROACTIV. Available at: https://en.euractiv.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/special-report/Discrimination-in-Europes-schools-Special-Report-2021-1.pdf  

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 

Gutman, Leslie Morrison, and Vonnie C. McLoyd. 2000. “Parents’ Management of Their Children’s Education within the Home, at School, and in the Community: An Examination of African-American Families Living in Poverty.” The Urban Review 32 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005112300726. 

Henderson, Anne T., and Karen L. Mapp. 2002. A New Wave of Evidence the Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). 

Hill, Nancy E., Domini R. Castellino, Jennifer E. Lansford, Patrick Nowlin, Kenneth A. Dodge, John E. Bates, and Gregory S. Pettit. 2004. “Parent Academic Involvement as Related to School Behavior, Achievement, and Aspirations: Demographic Variations across Adolescence.” Child Development 75 (5): 1491–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x. 

Hughes, Jan, and Oi-man Kwok. 2007. “Influence of Student-Teacher and Parent-Teacher Relationships on Lower Achieving Readers’ Engagement and Achievement in the Primary Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (1): 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39. 

Jarvis, Sarah. 2016. “High Drop-out Rate Is a Vicious Cycle for the Roma.” Cronkitenews.azpbs.org. Cronkite Borderlands Project. July 11, 2016. https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/buffett/hungary/roma-education/. 

Jeynes, William H. 2007. “The Relationship between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Academic Achievement.” Urban Education 42 (1): 82–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818. 

Lloyd, Gwynedd & Mccluskey, Gillean. (2008). Education and Gypsies/Travellers: 'Contradictions and significant silences'. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 12. 331-345. 10.1080/13603110601183065.  

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal 32 (3): 465–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465. 

Levine, Eliot B., and Edison J. Trickett. "Toward a model of Latino parent advocacy for educational change." In Diverse families, competent families: Innovations in research and preventive intervention practice, pp. 121-137. Routledge, 2014. 

Levinson, Martin P., and Andrew C. Sparkes (2006) Conflicting value systems: Gypsy females and the home‐school interface, Research Papers in Education, 21:1, 79-97, DOI: 10.1080/02671520500335907 

Mapp, K. L. 1999. “Making the Connection between Families and Schools: Why and How Parents Are Involved in Their Children’s Education.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. https://www.proquest.com/openview/37f6610097a53675b18423f3cc3919c2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.  

Matras, Yaron; Leggio, Daniele Viktor; Steel, Mirela. 'Roma education' as a lucrative niche. Ideologies and representations. ZEP : Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik 38 (2015) 1, S. 11-17 

McGrath, D. J., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1999). “They’re going to tear the doors off this place”: Upper-middle-class parent school involvement and the educational opportunities of other people’s children. Educational Policy, 13 (5), 603–629.  

OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en 

Regional Cooperation Council. 2021. “Regional Cooperation Council | Usein: The School Dropout Rate of Roma Children Increased by 11%, While Every Second Roma Reported Reduced Income due to the Impact of Covid-19.” Www.rcc.int. December 13, 2021. https://www.rcc.int/news/742/usein-the-school-dropout-rate-of-roma-children-increased-by-11-while-every-second-roma-reported-reduced-income-due-to-the-impact-of-covid-19.  

Smith, Jay, Kenneth Stern, and Zhanna Shatrova. 2018. “Factors Inhibiting Hispanic Parents’ School Involvement.” The Rural Educator 29 (2). https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v29i2.468. 

Syed, Moin, Margarita Azmitia, and Catherine R. Cooper. 2011. “Identity and Academic Success among Underrepresented Ethnic Minorities: An Interdisciplinary Review and Integration.” Journal of Social Issues 67 (3): 442–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01709.x.  

Tinto, Vincent. 1997. “Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of Student Persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education 68 (6): 599–623. https://doi.org/10.2307/2959965. 

Whipple, William R. “Collaborative Learning: Recognizing It When We See It.” (1987) https://www.cwis.org/document/collaborative-learning-recognizing-it-when-we-see-it/  

Van Voorhis, Frances L., Joyce L. Epstein, Michelle F. Maier, Chrishana M. Lloyd, and Therese Leung. 2013. “The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8.” ERIC. MDRC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545474.  

Zachos, Dimitris T., and Antigoni Panagiotidou. 2019. “Roma Parents’ Perceptions on Education.” Journal of Advances in Education Research 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.22606/jaer.2019.41002.