The Socio-educational Role of Families. Perspectives from Social Pedagogy in
Spain1
Orte, Carmen [email protected] (Full Professor) +349717 3296 Ballester, Lluís [email protected] (Full Professor) +349717 3337 March, Martí [email protected] (University Lecturer) +349717 2583 Gomila, Maria Antònia [email protected] (Assistant Lecturer with a Doctoral Degree) +349717 2483 Pascual, Belén [email protected] (Contract Lecturer with a Doctoral Degree) +349717 3085
Amer, Joan [email protected] (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.
Top Related