Parent accountability as widening inequity? by William C. Smith

The process of raising and educating the next generation is a joint responsibility of parents and educators. Recently, there has been a push by policymakers to expand accountability measures to include parenting practices. Parent accountability legislation makes parents responsible for the educational outcomes of their children. To encourage parental involvement and direct their behavior, some states have passed laws mandating parent report cards[i], service hours at their child’s school[ii], home visits to ensure school readiness[iii], or even jail time[iv]. Proponents of such measures suggest that as parents are “the most powerful force on earth”[v], they must be incorporated into our accountability system if education in the U.S. is going to thrive. However, as parent accountability legislation gains momentum nationally, we must be mindful of the potential equity implications. Which parents are able to comply with the mandate of more involvement in their child’s school? What activities do parent volunteers participate in?How are these activities valued by the teachers and larger school community? And finally, what do the answers to these questions tell us about which groups will benefit and which will be harmed by more rigid parent accountability measures?

To investigate the potential issues surrounding stringent accountability policy I reflect on the work of Kathryn Nakagawa and Linn Posey-Maddox, the latter recently published in the American Journal of Education. Both authors start by recognizing that the role of parents in schools is place and time specific[vi]; a role that adapts to the needs and characteristics of a given school. Nakagawa[vii] recognizes that the construction of parent accountability is represented through the conversations that define appropriate parent-school relationships; “this discourse does not merely herald the importance of parents; it also creates particular representations of parents”[viii]. Discourse that is institutionalized within an organization as normative or socially acceptable is given power[ix]. In schools, this means that parents that do not act in a socially acceptable manner are not easily accepted in the school community, and their children receive less attention than those of more “appropriate” parents[x]. Parents, of course, have the choice to align their behavior with these expectations or disregard them. However, often times the social pressure is so great that parents feel as if they must “act in ways validated by the school system, or their participation is not recognized or may be resented”[xi].

Nakagawa identifies two common messages used in the discourse of parent-school relations (1) parent as protector and (2) parent as problem. Parent as protector discourse suggests that parents are the best decision makers for their children and therefore should be given more authority in the schools. These discourses are often directed at minority parents that are seen as “unable to support their children’s education properly”[xii]. Parent as problem discourse suggests that schools are struggling because parents are not doing enough to support their children in and outside of the classroom. To encourage parents to become more involved and remedy the impact of disengaged parents, California, in the mid-1990s, became the first state to require school boards to create parent involvement programs. Included in the state’s effort was the Family-School Partnership Law which gave employees the ability to use their vacation leave, personal leave, or leave without pay to volunteer in their child’s school 40 hours per year[xiii].

Although not specified by Posey-Maddox[xiv], her work identifies a third common message in parent-school relations, one I call parent as provider. Parent as provider discourse suggests parent involvement has the ability to offset problems in government funding. In her ethnographic case study of a Northern California public elementary school, Posey-Maddox recognized first-hand the differing value placed on parents that acted as provider and parents that acted as protector. She spent two years doing fieldwork in a school that was going through demographic changes, where the student body was becoming increasingly white and middle class. This transformation was more evident at earlier grades where only 18% of kindergarteners were African-American, compared to 62% of fifth graders. These new demographics have the potential to change the way parents engage with schools, as white middle class parents are more likely to be involved in parent organizations and take on leadership roles[xv]. In addition to the shifts in demographics, the economic context of education within California changed in the early 21^st century. The existing context is one of persistent funding shortages in which parents are often looked at to fill the financial gaps.

The Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) plays a significant role in the reconstruction of parent-school relations for Posey-Maddox. In the Northern California elementary school, the budget of the PTO increased from $15,000 in 2001 to $129,000 in 2007, largely due to parental fundraising efforts. As the PTO became more central to the financial sustainability of the school the organization went through a process of professionalization and specialization. As a result parents that did not regularly attend meetings felt deterred by the “structure, culture, and content of meetings”[xvi]. Additionally, the increased specialization left some parents feeling like they lacked the credentials to effectively participate. In the end, the demographic shifts and between-grade race and class differences limited the potential collective benefits of PTO activities, as leadership was concentrated in early grade parents, and the first priority of these parents was to look out for the well-being of their children. Thus the professionalization and specialization of the PTO reinforced class and race inequality and further segmented middle income parents as providers from lower income parent as protectors.

Within this context, racial and class-based segmentation is exacerbated. Research has shown that working class parents are directed toward different activities than middle class parents[xvii]. In her Northern California elementary school, Posey-Maddox found that African-American and low income parents were more likely to volunteer within their child’s classroom while white middle class parents were more likely to interact with administrators and district officials and were disproportionately represented within the parent-teacher organization (PTO). As activities with greater visibility were granted greater value, the volunteering efforts of African-Americans and low income parents was valued less by the community. Additional value was also given to activities that demonstrated, or appeared to demonstrate, a ‘collective orientation’, such activities “appear to serve the larger student population” instead of “a particular classroom, group of students, or child”[xviii]. Essentially the school community placed greater value on the predominately white, middle class parent as provider over the minority parent, who commonly acted as a protector. Placing positive value on parental activities that provide visibility as well as work that occurs from a ‘collective orientation’ compounds the advantage of parents that participate in the PTO, and thus disproportionately benefits the white, middle class parent.

Essentially the school community placed greater value on the predominately white, middle class parent as provider over the minority parent, who commonly acted as a protector.

As parent involvement morphs into parent accountability we can expect to see an increased desire to measure parental engagement. Easily measurable factors may include parental donations or fundraising efforts, hours devoted to volunteerism, and number of school activities attended. Such measurable factors have been suggested by proponents, such as Catherine Robinson, who believes that parents who attend monthly conferences, communicate regularly with their child’s teacher, and actively participate in the school’s PTO should be rewarded[xix]. As the push towards accountability reconstructs what is valued in parent-school relations, low income parents are likely to be at a disadvantage as they are less able to take time away from work or provide the requisite financial support. Additionally, when low income parents do participate in school activities, they are often implicitly viewed in the parent as protector role, solely interested in the well-being of their own child.

Finally, I expect the worrisome trend, in which the greatest value is placed on parents that act as providers, to continue. In addition to equity concerns, using parents in lieu of government funds shifts the blame from lack of funding to the parents. This may lead to stagnation in the state and federal policy arena, as Posey-Maddox notes: “Instead of making changes in state and federal education policy that would reflect a greater commitment to public education, the onus is placed heavily on parents and teachers to provide the educational opportunities and material resources needed to create and sustain high-quality educational experiences for students”[xx]. Furthermore, the assumption of parental support, when combined with government restraint in resource allocation, would disproportionately affect schools whose majority lower income parent base is unable to fill the resource void and increase inequality between low income and higher income schools.