The Socio-educational Role of Families. Perspectives from Social Pedagogy in

Spain1

Orte, Carmen carmen.orte@uib.es (Full Professor) +349717 3296 Ballester, Lluís lluis.ballester@uib.es (Full Professor) +349717 3337 March, Martí marti.march@uib.es (University Lecturer) +349717 2583 Gomila, Maria Antònia ma.gomila@uib.cat (Assistant Lecturer with a Doctoral Degree) +349717 2483 Pascual, Belén belen.pascual@uib.es (Contract Lecturer with a Doctoral Degree) +349717 3085

Amer, Joan joan.amer@uib.cat (Assistant Lecturer with a Doctoral Degree) +349717 9927 Research and educational and social training (GIFES) Dept. Pedagogy and Didactics University of Balearic Islands Ed.Guillem Cifre Ctra. De Valldemossa km 7,5 07122 Palma de Mallorca Balearic Islands. Spain

Abstract

Processes of family socialization are essential for the educational development of children. In this paper, a panoramic critical review approach is adopted, considering the socio-educational role of the families as one that takes into account the plural and changing reality of families, social contexts, family and parenting education proposals and different school-family relationships in Spain. First, different definitions of the educational and socializing role of the families are revised. Second, family models and their political and socio-economic determinants are analyzed, in the Spanish context. Third, family and parental education proposals in Spain are considered, moving from positive parenting to family competence programs. In the paper we argue that family perspectives are rather further appropriate than just only-parenting approaches. Last, family-school relationships in Spain are discussed, exploring those positive relations models based on cooperation and debating which should be the role of public policies. Keywords: parenting, family-school relationships, family education,

Résumé

Les processus de socialisation familiale sont essentiels pour le développement de l’éducation des enfants. Cet article adopte une approche critique lors qu’in prend en considération le rôle socio-éducationnel des familles et sa réalité changeant, les

1 This work is funded by the Spanish Government, Research Project EDU2010-20336: Analysis of the long term efficacy of a prevention programme of drug consumption and behavior problem. The Family Competence Programme. It is also funded by the Call for support for competitive research groups, Resolution of the Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Universities (Balearic Government, Spain), 16th December 2011. BOIB, 3, 07-01-2012 and with co-funding from FEDER funds.

contextes sociaux, les projets sur l’éducation vers la parentalité et les relations entre l’école et la famille dans le contexte espagnol. D’abord, on fait une révision des définitions du rôle éducatif et socialisateur de la famille. Après, on analyse les modèles familiaux et les déterminants politiques et socio-économiques du contexte espagnol. En troisième lieu, l’article fait une révision aux programmes d’éducation parentale qui embrasent ceux qui ont une orientation vers la parentalité positive et les programmes qui travaillent les compétences familiales. L’article met en discussion l’approche qui se centre exclusivement sur les parents et les formes de parentalité mettent en valeur ceux qui s’orientent vers la famille, comme les plus indiqué. Finalement, les rapports entre la famille et l’école sont mises en discussion, tout en explorant les modèles relationnels positifs basés sur la coopération, qui posent aussi en question le rôle des politiques publiques. Mots clef: éducation des enfants, rapports famille-école, éducation familiale

Resumen Los procesos de socialización familiar son esenciales para el desarrollo de la educación de los niños y jóvenes. Este artículo propone una perspectiva crítica que toma en consideración el papel social y educacional de las familias como el enfoque que permite incorporar la realidad cambiante y plural de las familias, los contextos sociales, las propuestas de educación familiar y parental y las diferentes relaciones entre escuela y familia en el marco español. En primer lugar, se hace una revisión de las definiciones del papel educativo y socializador de la familia. En segundo lugar, se analizan los modelos familiares y los determinantes políticos y socioeconómicos que se dan en el contexto español. En tercer lugar, se analizan las propuestas de educación familia y parental en España, abarcando desde las que se centran en la parentalidad hasta los programas de competencias familiares. En el artículo argumentamos que la perspectiva familiar es más adecuada que los enfoques centrados exclusivamente en los padres y en la parentalidad. Finalmente, se discuten las relaciones entre familia y escuela en el marco español, explorando aquellos modelos positivos basados en la cooperación y situando en el debate, el papel que deben tener las políticas públicas. Palabras clave: educación de los hijos, relaciones familia-escuela, educación familiar The Socio-educational Role of Families. Perspectives from Social Pedagogy in

Spain

1. INTRODUCTION

Different reports by the European Union (European Commission, 2011;

European Commission, 2012) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD, 2011) highlight the importance of the role of parents and families

in children’s relation-related and cognitive development and the consequences in terms

of educational inequalities. In order to promote social and cognitive development of

children, in this paper we underscore the importance of the socio-educational work with

families. Family structures have changed and will continue changing; therefore what

makes sense for us is to interact with (and impact on) family dynamics. Family

dynamics such as the type of relationship between parents and children, parental

attitudes and practices in rearing children, the informal and institutional attitudes and

relations that they forge with their children’s schools and other spheres of non-formal

education, and the parents’ level of involvement in their children’s education, play a

highly influential role (Deslandes, 2010).

Socio-educational work with family dynamics enhances parents and children to

be capable of modifying their practices and styles, according to the changing needs of

their children as they develop (Orte, Ballester and March, 2013). Within this field, the

popularity of parenting programs and specially strengths-based competency-building

interventions is relevant2. Across Europe, educational work with families takes the form

of parenting programs with differences: in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands,

standardised programs are more central, whether in the rest of Europe there is

substantial variation (Boddy et al., 2012; Daly et al., 2012). In this paper, from a social

pedagogy perspective, we revise in which ways parenting programs in Spain enhance

the socio-educational role of families. According to Boddy et al. (2012), in Europe,

social pedagogy has a predominant role as a theoretical base and professional

qualification in parenting programs (except for the English-speaking countries). To

undertake the analysis of family education programs in Spain, we distinguish those

interventions undertaken in school contexts and those developed in community social

2 At international level, recent systematic revisions considering strength of scientific base and empirical evidence of program effectiveness define as best programs STAR Parenting, Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14, Systematic Training for Effective Parenting, and Triple P-Positive Parenting Program (Collins and Fetsch, 2012).

service contexts. In the two types of contexts, we gage the level of introduction of

standardised, manualised and evidence-based programs. Also we consider whether they

focus principally on parents or whether they include more systemic approaches,

incorporating the children as well.

The document is structured in four parts. First, general issues on parenting and

family education are revised, highlighting the relevance acquired by the concept of

positive parenting in recent years. Second, relationships among families, schools and

communities are commented, underlining how a further equal family-school

relationship impacts positively upon better learning capacities of children. Third, family

education programs in Spain are listed, remarking their characteristics in terms of

standardization and focus of the programs. Furthermore, the principal features of the

programs in the context of school interventions and in the context of community social

service interventions are underpinned. On the whole, the analysis of family education

programs in Spain leads the authors to the conclusion that there are few manualised

programs and scarce prioritisation of evidence-based interventions.

2. PARENTING AND FAMILY EDUCATION: GENERAL ISSUES

Parents play a key role in bringing up their children and it is important to analyse

the responsibilities and consequences of parenting. The purpose of parenting is to help

foster a child’s optimum development in a safe and secure environment. It is a task that

requires several qualities: sensitivity toward children’s needs, social communication,

emotional expression and disciplinary control (Centre for Parenting and Research,

2006). Through parent education, mothers and fathers learn to adopt and acquire a

greater awareness of attitudes, values and practises for use in bringing up their children

(Boutin and Durning, 1997).

Parenting takes place in an environment that is mainly dependent on three

factors: the social context, children’s educational needs, and parents’ capacities. About

the first factor, related to the social context, a distinction can be made between risk

factors and protective ones. Risk factors increase the likelihood of the emergence of a

type of behaviour or problem that might compromise a child’s ability to adjust

personally and socially; while protective factors are positive influences on a child’s

behaviour that prevent him or her from acquiring potential risk-type behaviours (Orte

and March, 1996).

About the second factor, children’s educational needs may require special

attention if a number of different conditioning factors come into play (i.e. at certain

ages, if a child falls behind in his or her studies or in the event of behavioural disorders).

These conditioning factors give rise to different educational needs.

About the third factor, parental capacities, according to Rodrigo, Máiquez and

Martín (2010), conditioning factors that influence parenting practices include a parent’s

capacity for observation and reflection, future expectations regarding their children,

conflict-solving skills, and active involvement as a parent.

Patterson and Dishion (1988) distinguish between two types of parenting tasks:

basic tasks and upbringing-related ones. These ideas were later taken up by Cerezo

(1995) in a flow chart that shows requirements needed for competent parenting, as

shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Tasks involved in competent parenting

Source: Cerezo (1995)

Dishion and McMahon (1998) refer to the key role that control (construed as

supervision) plays in parental practices and the functioning of families, as shown in

Figure 1 below, from the point of view of controlling behaviour and the quality of

relations among family members (see figure 2) .

Figure 2: Control in the Functioning of Families

Source: Dishion and McMahon, 1998

As a result of EU Recommendation Rec (2006) 19 on positive parenting, the

term positive parenting has become popularly used. This alludes to a series of activities

that foster and form part of parent education. From indications of EU Recommendation

Rec (2006) 19, we highlight here those directly referred to the action of parents. These

are recommendations about the importance of applying the principles of positive

parenting, the implication of families in the socio-educational work, parental concern in

children’s rights protection and recognition of autonomy and responsibility of families.

According to Sanders, Markie-Dadds and Turner (2003), five principles directed

at parents contribute toward positive parenting:

1) To guarantee a safe, secure and interesting environment in which children can

explore, experiment and develop their skills.

2) To create a positive learning environment, and to be available when the

children need help, care or attention.

3) To use assertive forms of discipline, and to be consistent and act swiftly when

a child behaves inappropriately.

4) To have realistic expectations with regard to your children and yourself as a

mother or father.

Quality of

rela ons Se ng limits

Problem solving Posi ve

reinforcement

Control

5) To care for yourself as a father or mother and to meet your personal needs.

On the whole, even bearing in mind the advantages of parent education and

positive parenting, we uphold the most appropriate approaches of family education

(Bernal, Rivas and Urpí, 2012) and family-based programmes (Orte, Touza, Ballester

and March, 2008), since they consider the entire family and not only the parents.

Systemic perspectives allow understanding families as a whole, promoting a more

encompassing and fruitful comprehension and intervention. In a multi-component

family programme, positive changes - optimizing protective factors and minimizing risk

ones - have a greater lasting impact if the family comes under focus rather than just the

parents (Orte, Ballester and March, 2013).

3. TOWARD A FAMILY EDUCATION MODEL BASED ON THE

PARTNERSHIP SCHOOL-FAMILY-COMMUNITY

Relations between families and schools are important, due to their impact on

academic success of children in school3, and in their training and occupational

development (Epstein, 2001, Adams, 2004). In this respect, it is less known the

importance of the relationship between family and school in the educative role of

families. Within a framework of relationship between the school and the family, not

only involvement, participation and support of the parents to the school have to be

demanded. It has also to be asked how schools support families (Powell, 1991), and

more specifically, how both benefit from this relationship.

As Deslandes (2010) states, proper ongoing supervision of tasks and assistance with

children’s homework, good communication between parents and children, involving

3 In this respect, the OECD emphasizes families’ important influence through the impact of their active involvement during a child’s early years at primary school on later results at school. (OECD, 2011).

children in family decision-making, and providing adequate emotional support (which

implies remembering to admire, reward, encourage and praise children more than they

are reprimanded or punished) leads to:

- better chances of a child continuing their education after the compulsory stage.

- improved development in a child of strategies for controlling his or her emotions

- better self-management of time

- a better capacity for concentration

- more self-confidence in a child and reliance on his or her own capacities

Good relations between parents and children and positive parenting end up by

benefitting schools through the acquisition of more social skills (and thus less violent or

problematical behaviour), better motivation and a greater interest in learning, and other

attitude and behaviour-related skills that necessarily lead to a positive atmosphere in

school and higher level of satisfaction among teachers (Adams, 2004). Therefore,

families may benefit from a fluent and collaborative relation with the school enhancing

their parental competences and family dynamics.

Society demands that parents take an increasing responsibility and involvement in

the task of educating their children. Teachers complain that parents have little

implication in their children’s education and academic development, demanding greater

participation by parents (Feito, 2012). Nevertheless, different authors point to schools as

being responsible for hindering a positive relationship among families, the school and

the community (Fernández Enguita, 1993, Feito, 2012, Gomila and Pascual, 2012,

Garreta, 2008, Adams, 2004). In addition to a lack of training on the part of teachers

(Garreta, 2008) and a lack of time for working with families (Feito, 2012), they cite

negative attitudes and rejection of some families that are identified as problematical

since they are considered to be incapable and uninterested (Adams, 2004).

As a result, it is hard for teachers to regard families (at least some of them) and the

community as valid collaborative agents. Hence communication patterns between

families and schools continue to reflect those of traditional society, based on a

relationship of inequality (and, to an extent, subordination) in knowledge terms, with

each agent being responsible for different realms of the children’s upbringing and

education (Gomila and Pascual, 2012). This relationship between families and schools

is still based on a dual and antagonistic conception of society, where schools are seen as

the professional domain, with expert knowledge on how to deal with children, and

families are seen as the private domain, providing emotional support but not necessarily

having the capacity and skills to exert a positive influence on children (Powell, 1991).

The challenge that Powell (1991) raised for American schools in the 1980s and 90s

which most current authors now echo, whether they are Spanish (Fernández Enguita

2007; Feito, 2012; Garreta, 2008), American (Epstein, 2001, Deslandes, 2010) or

European (Denis, 1999, Gruere and Jeammet, 1998, Dubet and Martuccelli, 1996,

Pamart, 2002), is to move toward a relationship model that entails working with

families rather than just for families or simply without their participation. According to

Powell (1991), the existing model of school must be restructured so that it can adapt to a

diverse society and diverse families, facilitating the establishment of mutual supportive

links among schools, families and the community. Formulae or strategies that can help

forge positive relations between schools and families are contingent on schools

undergoing a change at both an institutional level (in terms of the organization and

functioning of the school) and at an individual level.

Epstein’s proposals (Epstein, 2001, 2009) revolve around models/structures that

contemplate numerous types of relationships between schools, families and the

community, leading to a process of evolution in schools from a “professional learning

community”, focused on professionals, to a “school learning community”, focused on

the whole educational community (students, parents, professionals, the community,

institutions). This type of proposal contributes to the implementation of global

programmes that fit in with schools’ educational mission (Deslandes, 2010). Epstein’s

model (2009) advocates that students should be seen as the central node between

families, schools and the community. Her model facilitates ways of involving parents in

working toward the success of their children in school, proposing collaborative

activities that require the participation of families, professionals and the community. It

includes six types of relationships and participation: parenting, communication,

volunteer work, learning at home, decision-making and collaboration with the

community. For the purposes of this paper, of these six types of relationships, we focus

on those emphasising the education of parents as a way to support a higher involvement

of them both in the education of their children and in the dynamics of the school. Those

are the first one, parenting, since it is based on helping parents to improve their

parenting skills and capacities, and the fourth one, learning at home, which is based on

teaching families to provide educational assistance and support for their children at

home.

4. FAMILY EDUCATION PROGRAMMES IN SPAIN: THE SCHOOL AND

THE COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICE CONTEXTS

In this section we undertake a bibliographic revision about family education

programs in Spain, and we classify them according to their fields of actions: on the one

hand, those undertaken in a school context; and, on the other hand, those developed in a

Community Social Service context. In both contexts, we especially underpin those

programs that are evidence-based. In order to do the revision, ISI, Academic Search

Premier and Dialnet search databases have been looked up. Also we have checked the

available information of the year event of the Jornadas de Parentalidad Positiva held

by the Health and Social Policy Department of the Spanish Government (Ministerio de

Sanidad y Política Social), where different experiences of socio-educational work with

families and parental education are presented.

A specific mention has to be done on the Schools of parents as a one of the most

extended initiatives on family education (Romero, 2005; Elorza & Rubio, 2010). The

philosophy of the schools of parents links somehow with the Epstein’s model in which

school is a space to teach families to improve/enhance their parental competences.

These schools are normally driven by the parent’s associations and Community Social

Services, and they are framed in the actions leading to a better

collaboration/involvement of the families in the school. However, they are normally

very open and non-structured models that allow multiple ways of operation that

normally remain with no assessment of their efficiency. That is why we do not include

these experiences in the tables.

First, related to school based programmes, these address principally normalised

families, without taking into specific consideration those families that present social

difficulties. Their goal is the promotion of positive parenting skills and better family

relations throughout the training of parents in strategies and resources enhancing their

competences and community integration. In some cases, these programs are evidence

based, including an evaluation system through qualitative and quantitative tools.

Parenting programs in school contexts are usually for universal population. Of all

the programs included in Table 1, only two of them are addressed at vulnerable families,

more specifically for drug prevention of teenagers at risk (Larriba et al, 2004; Regueira

et al., 2006). All the programs included in the table are oriented to parents, and three of

them incorporate also training for teachers (Regueira and Cardona, 2006); Oliva et al,

2007; Forest and García Bacete, 2006; Flecha et al., 2003). There is only a program

with direct intervention with students, Familias que funcionan (Families that work),

where parents and children participate in parallel training sessions (Errasti et al., 2009).

Two programs have been selected as the ones that involve more the families and that

follow Epstein’s criteria (2009):

• Programa Comunicación cooperativa entre la familia y la escuela (Program of

cooperative communication between family and school): parent training

integrates empowerment and implication in the decision-making process.

Teachers and families are together in the training.

• Comunidades de Aprendizaje (Learning Communities): parental training is a

part of a community development project with different agents and aims at

increasing cultural capital of families through a participative focus. They have

developed the model under the principles of the partnership family-school-

community, and it is carried out through a methodology involving the presence

of voluntaries in the classrooms, intense collaboration, interactive groups of

work (involving parents-teachers-students-community volunteers), and

dialogical activities (Flecha, 2009). In this model, education/formation extends

not only to students but also to parents, other kin members and not teachers.

Parents education is designed from its own demands and through training

actions based in interaction and in the share of knowledge among equals (see

table 1).

TABLE 1. School-based parenting programs

Name and description Agents Entities Reference

Pa

ren

ts

Alu

mn

i

Tea

cher

s

Ag

e (2

)

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

Pri

va

te e

nti

ties

Un

iver

sity

La Corresponsabilidad Familiar (COFAMI) (Family Co responsibility) The program aims at improving family shared responsibility, educating in the values of respect and equality.

x 6-17 x x Maganto, J.M. and Bartau, I. (2004).

Entrenamiento familiar en habilidades

educativas para la prevención de la

drogodependencia (PROTEGO) (1) (Family training in educational skills for drug prevention) Community programs of drug prevention in social services, health centers and schools

x 9-13 x x Larriba, J.; Durán, A.M. and Suelves, J. M. (2004).

Familias que funcionan (Families that work) Family-based drug prevention program. Spanish adaptation of the“Strengthening Families Program 10- 14”.

x x 10-14 x x Errasti,, J.M., Al-Halabi, S., Secades, R., Fernández, J.R., Carballo, J.L., García, O. (2009).

“A tiempo” programa de prevención selectiva familiar (1) (“On time” family selective prevention program). Drug prevention program oriented to families with children at risk.

x x (2) x x Regueira, A., Cardona, J.A. (2006).

Programa de Apoyo a Madres y Padres de Adolescentes (Support program to teenage parents). Family support training for improvement of their educational competences and responsibilities.

x x (2) x x Oliva, A.; Hidalgo, M.V.; Martín, D.; Parra, A.; Ríos, M. and Vallejo, R. (2007).

Programa Comunicación cooperativa entre la familia y la escuela (Program Cooperative communication between family and school) (Family Matters-Cornell University). This program consists of a parents’ workshop, a teachers’ seminar and a gathered session of parents, teachers and the school board. It promotes empowerment and joint decision making.

x x 6-15 x x Forest, C. and García Bacete, F. J. (2006).

Comunidades de Aprendizaje (Learning communities) Community project that mixes non-government, government and prívate resources.

x x x 0-18 x x x Flecha, R.; Padrós, M.; Puigdellívol, I. (2003)

• Selective prevention, • Adolescence

Second, related to the Community Social Service based programs (see Table 2),

these have been promoted for families at social risk. Contrasting with universal school-

based programs, parenting programs in community social services are selective. Of the

listed programs, only two include training for parents and children. First one is oriented

to train family competence skills with children aged 8-12 (Orte et al., 2013): The

Programa de Competencia Familiar (PCF) (Family Competence Program) is an

adaptation of the Strengthening Families Program (SFP) (Kumpfer and DeMarsh, 1985;

Kumpfer, De Marsh and Child, 1989), which is a selective multicomponent risk factor

prevention program whose original design was developed with the purpose of

increasing children’s resilience to substance abuse and other possible problems. Second

one is a family support program named Espacios Familiares (Family Spaces), oriented

to enhance family co responsibility and bonds, empowering families and promoting

social networking.

TABLE 2. Parent training programs (community social services)

Name and description Age Entities Reference

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

(1)

Pri

va

te e

nti

tite

s

Un

iver

sity

Construir lo cotidiano. Un programa de educación

parental (Daily life building. Parental education program) Education for co responsibility and family organization (gender equality).

0-12 x x Torío, S. et al. (2010)

Programa de Competencia Familiar (PCF) (2) (Family Competence Program) Spanish Adaptation of Strengthening Families Program (K.Kumpfer).

8-12 x x x Orte, C. et al. (2013)

Crecer Felices en Familia (Growing up happily in families) Psycho-educational support for promoting child development and family competence.

0-6 x x x Rodrigo, M.J. et al. (2008).

Vivir la Adolescencia en Familia (Living Adolescence in 12-17 x x x Rodrigo, M.J. et al.

Family) Psycho-educational support for promoting family convivence (also in day care centers).

(2010).

Programas de Orientación Educativa Familiar (POEF)

para la capacitación parental: “Creciendo en el afecto”. (Family educational orienteering programs for parental training: “Growing up in bonds”).

0-17 x García, M.A. (2012)

Programa de Formación y Apoyo Familiar (FAF) (Family support and training program). Psycho-Social intervention with families that aims at optimizing personal relationships and family daily life.

0-17 x x Hidalgo, M.V. et al. (2007)

Programa-Guía para el desarrollo de competencias emocionales, educativas y parentales (Guide-program for the development of emotional, educational and parental competences). Family support program for positive parenting.

2-17 x x Martínez-González, R.A. (2009).

Programa de Prevención Familiar en Drogodependencias (Family drug prevention program) Families at risk of drug consumption.

7-17 x x Carcelén, R., Senabre, I., Morales, J.L. and Romero, F.J. (2010)

Preescolar Na Casa (Pre-School or education nursery at home) Parental training based on reflection about daily life (mostly directed at rural environments).

0-6 x x Equipo de Preescolar Na Casa (1996).

Primera Alianza (First Alliance) Program for the promotion of healthy early bonds.

0-6 x x Pitillas, C. (2012)

Espacios familiares (2) (Family spaces) Array of services directed at families (principally vulnerable ones) to promote family bonds, co responsibility, family empowerment and social networking.

0-6 x x Barcelona (1989), based on “Maison Vert” de F. Dolto (Paris, 1979)

(1) (1) Information about the funding institutions not always available. (2) (2) Multi-component program: parent training, children training and family training.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The analysis of the family education programmes in Spain listed in the tables has

led us to some thoughts and critiques on their design and implementation. Regarding

programmes in school context, some common problems arise with their model. First,

the fact that they address to normalized families implies that differences of the families

in their competence skills and family dynamics are not taken into account. Some

families might not be in position to take advantage of the education programmes

without specific support addressed to minimize the negative effects of their

circumstances (those families at social risk or in vulnerable situation). Therefore, the

efficiency of the education received has to be questioned. Furthermore, these families

might not be in the position to participate in activities aiming the collaboration with the

school in the decision making process or volunteer participation.

Second, most of the education programmes for parents at the school context

sustain on a hierarchical basis, in which professionals “teach” parents how to provide

support to their children and to their school education, based on the school directives.

Furthermore, none of them take into consideration the relation with the other (whether

parents or school professionals) in their methodology as a mechanism to ensure positive

family dynamics and positive family and school relationships. To do so, the

multicomponent factor should be a key element, in order to transform internal family

dynamics, and school-family dynamics. The analysed family education programmes

carried out at schools reproduce the division of the educative spheres: the

training/formation is exclusively oriented to the parents (with their own

formation/information needs) excluding their own children and the school (the

teachers).

Regarding the programmes involving the community social services, they focus

on families presenting specific difficulties. Although theoretically they are based on a

systemic model, when put into practice the deficit-intervention model predominates.

Most of these programmes address just to parents, excluding the children and the

school. In this sense, we have identified a lack of initiatives of community development

including schools as active stakeholders in parenting programmes. The majority of the

programmes consider children as passive beneficiaries and they are not included in the

training sessions. As we have mentioned in the previous section, we have found only

two exceptions to this pattern: the Programa de Competencia Familiar and the

Espacios Familiares.

On the whole, there is a clear-cut division between a group of programmes

following a “technological” or “academic” model, evidence based and with structured

contents; and a second group of programmes based on a less systematic intervention

with a psychosocial/therapeutic model of intervention, oriented towards family support.

Our statement is that the efficiency of family/parental training programmes should go to

the combination with other socio-educative actions that allow a comprehensive

conception of the education. This could consist on a major cooperation of both spheres

of family education programmes: those social services based and those based on the

school-family partnership.

6. REFERENCES

• Adams, J. (2004). From good to great: improving school, family and community

partnerships. Working together. Washington: The Washington Alliance for

Better Schools.

• Bernal, A., Rivas, S. & Urpí, C. (2012) Educación familiar. Infancia y

adolescencia. Madrid: Pirámide.

• Boddy, J., Statham, J., Smith, M., Ghate, D., Wigfall, V. and Hauari, H. (2009).

International Perspectives on Parenting Support Non-English Language

Sources. Institute of Education, University of London. Research Report.

• Boutin, G & Durning, P. (1997). Intervenciones socioeducativas en el medio

familiar. Madrid: Narcea.

• Carcelén, R., Senabre, I., Morales, J.L. & Romero, F.J. (2010) ¿Cómo puedo

proteger a mis hijos de las drogas?: una experiencia de prevención de drogas en

familia. Revista española de drogodependencias, 92-97.

• Centre for parenting and research (2006). Effective parenting capacity

assessment: key issues. Research to practice notes. Available at:

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/ [Last access 5th November 2012].

• Cerezo, M.A (1995). El impacto psicológico del maltrato: primera infancia y

edad escolar. Revista Infancia y Aprendizaje, 71, 135-158.

• Collins, C.L. and Fetsch, R.J. (2012). A Review and Critique of 16 Major Parent

Education Programs. Journal of Extension, 50, 4.

• Daly, M., Knijn, T., Lewis, J., Martin, C. and Ostner, I. (2012). Parenting

support in four European countries: Element for a comparison. ESPAnet

conference, provisional paper.

• Council of Europe (2006). Recomendación Rec (2006)19 del Comité de

Ministros a los Estados Miembros sobre políticas de apoyo al ejercicio positivo

de la parentalidad.

Available at: http://www.msc.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/docs/recomendacion.pdf

[last access 7th June 2013].

• Denis, L. (1999) Rapprocher les parents de l’école : bilan d’actions menées

auprès des familles. Informations sociales, 75.

• Deslandes, R. (2010). Le difficile équilibre entre la collaboration et l’adaptation

dans les relations école-famille. En G. Pronovost & C Legault (dirs.). Familles

et réussite educative. Actes du 10èm symposium quebecois de recherche sur la

famille. Montreal: Presses Universitaires de Quebec.

• Dishion, T.J. & McMahon, R.J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention

of child and adolescent problem behavior: a conceptual and empirical

formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61-75.

• Dubet F. & Martuccelli D. (1996) A l’école: sociologie de l’expérience

scolaire. Paris: Seuil, l’épreuve des faits.

• Elorza, C. i Rubio, T.. 2010) Servicios educativos para padres noveles, Cuadernos de

Pedagogía, 282, 31-34

• Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: preparing

educators and improving schools. Boulder, Westview press.

• Epstein J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: your handbook

for action. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

• Equipo de Preescolar Na Casa (1996). Programa Preesco- lar Na Casa.

Fundación Meniños.

• European Commission (2011). Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution

to the Europe 2020 Agenda. Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Bruselas, 31.1.2011. COM(2011)

18 final. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-

education/doc/earlycom_en.pdf [last accessed 7th June 2013].

• European Commission (2012). Education and Training for a smart, sustainable

and inclusive Europe. Analysis of the implementation of the Strategic

Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020) at the

European and national levels. Commission Staff Working Document. Available

at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/progress-

reports_en.htm[last access 7th June 2013].

• Feito, R. (2012). Les raons d’un distanciament. En Collet y Tort (coord.).

Famílies, escola i èxit. Millorar els vincles per millorar els resultats. Barcelona:

Fundació Jaume Bofill.

• Fernández Enguita, M (1993). La profesión docente y la comunidad escolar:

crónica de un desencuentro. A Coruña: Fundación Paideia.

• Fernández Enguita, M. (2007). Educar es cosa de todos: escuela, familia y

comunidad en Garreta, J. (ed.) La relación familia y escuela. Lleida: Edicions de

la Universitat de Lleida.

• Flecha, R.; Padrós, M.; Puigdellívol, I. 2003. Comunidades de Aprendizaje:

transformar la organización escolar al servicio de la comunidad. Organización y

gestión educativa, nº 5septiembre-octubre 2003, pp.4-8. Bilbao: Fórum Europeo

de Administradores de la Educación y CISSPRAXIS, S.A.

• Flecha, R., (2009) Cambio, inclusión y calidad en las comunidades de

aprendizaje. Cultura y Educación, 21, 2, 157-169

• Forest, C. y García Bacete, F. J. (2006). Comunicación cooperativa entre la

familia y la escuela. Valencia: Nau Llibres (Ed)

• García, M.A. (2012). Programas de Orientación Educativa Familiar para

capacitación parental. Póster presentado en IV Jornadas Parentalidad Positiva

(octubre 2012). Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Disponible

en:

http://www.msssi.gob.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/documentacion.htm (last retrieved:

31st May 2013)

• Garreta, J. (2008). La participación de las familias en la escuela pública. Las

asociaciones de madres y padres del alumnado. Madrid: Centro de Investigador

y Documentación Educativa (CIDE).

• Gomila, M.A. & Pascual, B. (2012). Padrins que fan de pares. La doble

dependència dels padrins a les Illes Balears. En Anuari de l’envelliment a les

Illes Balears 2012. Palma, Universitat de les Illes Balears.

• Gruere M., Jeammet P.(dir.). (1998). Construire un adulte: pour un partenariat

entre parents et professionnels. Paris: Bayard Editions, Paidos adolescence.

• Hidalgo, M.V.; Menéndez, S.; Sánchez, J.; Lorence, B. y Jiménez, L. (2007).

Programa de Formación y Apoyo Familiar. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.

(Non-published document).

• Kumpfer, K.L., & Demarsh, J. (1985). Genetic and family environmental

influences on children of drug abusers. Journal of Children in Contemporary

Society , 3/4 (Fa11).

• Kumpfer, K. L., Demarsh, J. P., & Child, W. (1989). Strengthening Families

Program: Children’s Skills Training Curriculum Manual (Prevention Services to

Children of Substance abusing Parents).Utah: Social Research Institute,Graduate

School of SocialWork, University of Utah.

• Larriba, J.; Durán, A.M. y Suelves, J. M. (2004). Entrenamiento familiar en

habilidades educativas para la prevención de las drogodependencias. Barcelona:

Promocio i desenvolupament social.

• Maganto, J.M. y Bartau, I. (2004). Corresponsabilidad familiar (COFAMI):

Fomentar la cooperación y responsabilidad de los hijos. Madrid: Pirámide.

• Martínez-González, R.A. (2009). Programa-Guía para el desarrollo de

competencias emocionales, educativas y parentales. Madrid: Ministerio de

Sanidad y Política Social e Igualdad

• Monceau, G. (2012) La complexitat de les implicacions dels pares a l’escola o

per què la participació dels pares no millora necessàriament els resultats

acadèmics dels nens. En Collet y Tort (coord.) Famílies, escola i èxit. Millorar

els vincles per millorar els resultats. Barcelona: Fundació Jaume Bofill.

• OCDE (2011). What can parents do to help their children succeed in school? En

Pisa in Focus, 10 (Noviembre).

• Oliva, A.; Hidalgo, M.V.; Martín, D.; Parra, A.; Ríos, M. y Vallejo, R. (2007).

Programa de apoyo a padres y madres de adolescentes. Sevilla: Consejería de

Salud de la Junta de Andalucía.

• Orte, C. & March, M.X. (1996). Pedagogía de la inadaptación social. Valencia:

Nau Libres.

• Orte, C., Touza, C., Ballester, Ll. & March, M. (2008). Children of drug-

dependent parents: prevention programme outcomes. Educational Research, 50,

3, 249-260.

• Orte, C., Ballester, Ll., March, M. (2013). El enfoque de la competencia

familiar: una experiencia de trabajo socioeducativo con familias. Pedagogía

social: revista interuniversitaria, ISSN-e 1989-9742, Nº. 21, 2013

• Patterson G.R. & Dishion T.J. (1988). Multilevel family process models: Traits,

interactions, and relationships. En R. Hinde, J. Stevenson-Hinde (eds.).

Relationships and families: Mutual influences. (pp. 283-310), Oxford, UK:

Clarendon.

• Pamart, M-F. (ed.). (2002). Les parents et l'école. Revue internationale

d'éducation Sèvres, n° 31, novembre http://www.ciep.fr/bibliographie/ries31.php

• Pitillas, C. (2012). Primera Alianza. Programa para la promoción de

vinculaciones tempranas saludables con familias en riesgo de exclusión social.

Póster presentado en IV Jornadas Parentalidad Positiva (octubre 2012).

Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Disponible en:

http://www.msssi.gob.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/documentacion.htm (última consulta: 31

mayo 2013).

• Powell, D., (1991). How schools support families. Critical policy tensions. The

Elementary School Journal, 91, 3.

• Regueira, A., Cardona, J.A. (2006). “A tiempo” programa de prevención

selectiva familiar. Proyecto Hombre: revista de la Asociación Proyecto Hombre,

58, 2006 , pàg. 64-67

• Rodrigo, M.J.; Máiquez, M.L.; Byrne, S.; Rodríguez, B.; Martín, J.C.;

Rodríguez, G. y Pérez, L. (2008). Programa Crecer Felices en Familia. Programa

de apoyo psicoeducativo para promover el desarrollo infantil. Valladolid: Junta

de Castilla y León.

• Rodrigo, M.J., Máiquez, M.L. & Martín, J.C. (2010). La parentalidad positiva y

sus necesidades de apoyo. Madrid: Federación Española de Municipios y

Provincias y Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social.

• Rodrigo, M.J.; Martín, J.C.; Máiquez, M.L.; Álvarez, M.; Byrne, S.; González,

A.; Guerra, M.; Montesdeoca, M.A. y Rodríguez, B. (2010). Programa Vivir la

adolescencia en familia. Programa de apoyo psicoeducativo para promover la

convivencia familiar. Toledo: Junta de Comunidades de Castilla La Mancha.

• Romero Gallego, María Mercedes (2005) Las escuelas de madres y padres de

Madrid capital : estudio comparado. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Complutense de

Madrid

• Sanders, M., Markie-Dadds., Turner, K. (2003). Theoretical, Scientific and

Clinical Foundations of the Triple-P Positive Parenting Program. A population

approach to the promotion of parenting competence. Parenting Research and

Practice Monograph, núm. 1. University of Queensland, Australia: Parenting

and Family Support Centre.

• Torío, S.; Peña, J.V.; Rodríguez, M.C.; Molina, S. (2010) Hacia la

corresponsabilidad familiar: “Construir lo cotidiano. Un programa de educación

parental”. En Educatio Siglo XXI, Vol. 28 nº 1 · 2010, pp. 85-108.