Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue3.1997:
Parental participation in school councils in Victoria,
Australia
Benjamin Y.M . Chan
Chairman, De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Administratio n and Po lic ie s, Fac ulty o f
Educ atio n, The Chine se Unive rsity o f Ho ng Ko ng, Ho ng Ko ng
Hong Sheung Chui
Pre side nt, Hang Se ng Sc ho o l o f Co mme rc e , Ho ng Ko ng
Presents a study which investigated how school councils
operate in the Australian
state of Victoria and how
parent councillors participate
in the affairs of the school
council. Data were collected
through a questionnaire
survey on 172 schools, as
well as visits to schools and
attendance at school council
meetings. Proposes a theoretical model linking personal,
institutional and communityrelated factors to the successful operation of the
school council. Uses data
collected in the survey to test
and confi rm the model by
using structural modelling
analysis. Concludes that most
of the parent councillors are
relatively highly educated and
the working class is underrepresented in school councils. Finds several factors to
be positively associated with
successful operation of
school councils: the readiness of and mutual acceptance between parents and
teachers; commitment of
principal; parents’ satisfaction with their participation;
and parents’ contribution and
donations to the school.
Introduction
Th e 1980s w a s a tu r bu len t er a for sch ools
wor ldw ide. An in ter n a tion a l tr en d em er ged
tow a r ds decen tr a liza tion a n d gr ea ter a u ton om y for sch ools w ith in pu blicly fu n ded system s of edu ca tion (Bea r e, 1991, 1993). In th e
fr en zy to r estr u ctu r e sch ools a n d sch ool system s (Ca ldwell, 1996) m or e decision -m a k in g
pr er oga tives wer e gr a n ted to sch ools th a n
ever befor e, a n d th e settin g u p of sch ool-site
cou n cils seem ed to be on e of th e com m on
pr a ctices for doin g so (Bea r e, 1991). Wh er e
th er e h a d n ot been a n y for m a l str u ctu r es for
sh a r ed decision m a k in g, th ey wer e cr ea ted
(Hess, 1992; Ma len a n d Ogaw a , 1988). Wh er e
su ch str u ctu r es a lr ea dy existed th e str en gth
a n d r epr esen ta tion of lay m em ber s, n a m ely
pa r en ts a n d loca l com m u n ity lea der s, wer e
in cr ea sed (Deem , 1994; F in e, 1993; Ga m a ge,
1993).
Th is stu dy w a s a su r vey r esea r ch
con du cted du r in g 1992-1993. It a ttem pted to
investiga te h ow sch ool cou n cils oper a te in
th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia , h ow pa r en t
cou n cillor s pa r ticipa te in th e a ffa ir s of th e
sch ool cou n cil a n d wh eth er pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e ta k in g pa r t a s equ a l pa r tn er s to th eir
pr ofession a l collea gu es. A th eor etica l m odel
lin k in g per son a l, in stitu tion a l a n d com m u n ity-r ela ted fa ctor s to th e su ccessfu l oper a tion of th e sch ool cou n cil w a s th en pr oposed.
Da ta collected in th e su r vey wer e u sed to test
a n d con fir m th e m odel by u sin g str u ctu r a l
m odellin g a n a lysis.
th e m a n a gem en t of in dividu a l sch ools (Hill et
a l., 1990). P a r en ta l pa r ticipa tion in sch ool
cou n cils a n d sch ool boa r ds w a s th er efor e
com m on in th e Br itish depen den cies a n d
for m er ter r itor ies su ch a s Au str a lia , N ew
Zea la n d, a n d th e tin y colon y city of Hon g
Kon g. It w a s n ot a t a ll a cciden ta l th a t UK,
N ew Zea la n d, a n d som e of th e Au str a lia n
sta tes a ll decided to r estr u ctu r e th eir sch ool
cou n cils a n d boa r ds.
UK a u th or ities be ga n in cr ea sin g th e m em ber sh ip of pa r en ts a n d co-opted loca l com m u n ity lea der s to th e sch ool boa r d a n d en la r gin g
its power fr om 1984 (Hill et a l., 1990). Th e 1988
E du ca tion Refor m Act even a llowed pa r en ts
of a sch ool, a ctin g th r ou gh th e gover n in g
body, to opt ou t of th e con tr ol of th e loca l edu ca tion a u th or ity. In th e Au str a lia n sta te of
Victor ia th e r efor m took on a differ en t dim en sion . In a ddition to sch ool bu ildin gs a n d
gr ou n ds, th e 1984 Min istr y of E du ca tion edict
expa n ded th e decision -m a k in g r ole of th e
sch ool cou n cil to in clu de edu ca tion policy,
cu r r icu lu m , fin a n ce a n d th e selection of
sen ior sch ool per son n el. Sim ila r developm en ts in N ew Zea la n d wer e a lso w itn essed
(Deem , 1994; Ga m a ge, 1993; Ra e, 1992).
Wh ile it w a s believed th a t th e r efor m m ovem en ts in UK, Au str a lia a n d N ew Zea la n d
m igh t h ave been tr igger ed off by politica l a n d
socia l situ a tion s pecu lia r to th eir ow n cou n tr ies (Bea r e, 1991; Deem , 1994), th ese m ovem en ts wer e look ed on a s exem pla r s
elsewh er e. For exa m ple, th e edu ca tion
a u th or ity of Hon g Kon g w a s ca r efu lly stu dyin g th ese r efor m s to h elp th em in th eir ow n
sch ool r estr u ctu r in g in itia tives.
Background of the study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,3 [ 1997] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 102 ]
P a r en ts h a d tr a dition a lly played a r ole in
sch ool a ffa ir s in cou n tr ies su ch a s th e UK a n d
th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia for som e tim e.
E ven if th ey wer e n ot given th e oppor tu n ity to
sh a r e in decision m a k in g, pa r en ts h a d a lw ays
been in volved in som e sch ool a ctivities su ch
a s r a isin g fu n ds for th eir sch ools. It w a s,
h owever, n ot u n til th e m id-1980s th a t th e idea
of pa r en ts a s pa r tn er s in sch ool gover n a n ce,
on a pa r w ith th e pr ofession a l sta ff of th e
sch ool, be ga n to ta k e r oot.
Th e UK h a s a lon g tr a dition of h avin g pa r en ts a n d loca l com m u n ity lea der s in volved in
Literature overview of the parental
role in school governance
Justification for parental participation
P a r en ta l pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce
ca n be ju stified fr om diver se poin ts of view,
in clu din g efficien cy a n d effectiven ess (Min istr y of E du ca tion , 1987), pu blic a ccou n ta bility (Ga m a ge, 1993; Pettit, 1987), a s a m a tter of
r igh t (Bea r e, 1988), a s con du cive to stu den ts’
lea r n in g a ccor din g to on e pa r en t a ssocia tion
in Victor ia , a n en h a n cem en t of sch ool policy
for m u la tion a ccor din g to a n officia l of
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Victor ia n Cou n cil of Sch ool Or ga n iza tion s
(VICCSO), a n d a s a m ea n s to m or e dem ocr a tic gover n a n ce (Deem , 1994).
J oa n Kir n er, a ch a m pion of th e disa dva n ta ged in Au str a lia a n d k n ow n a s a sta u n ch
su ppor ter of pa r en ts’ m ovem en t in Victor ia ,
h a s pr ovided th e follow in g r ea son s a s ju stifica tion for pa r en ta l in volvem en t. F ir st, pa r en ts sh ou ld pa r ticipa te beca u se th ey a r e th e
fir st edu ca tor s of ch ildr en . Secon d, pa r en ts
h ave lon g-ter m r espon sibility for th eir ow n
ch ildr en . Th ir d, pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion ca n
in cr ea se th eir ch ildr en ’s ch a n ce of su ccess in
lea r n in g. Fou r th , it is a pa r en ta l r igh t. An d
fin a lly, pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion is pa r t of th e
pr ocess of dem ocr a tizin g sch ool gover n a n ce
(Kir n er, 1982).
Methodology
Factors affecting parents’ participation in
school governance
Sever a l fa ctor s m ay eith er en cou r a ge or
im pede pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce. On e secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l in
Victor ia m en tion ed th r ee su ch fa ctor s,
n a m ely, pa r en ts’ con cer n for th eir ch ildr en ’s
edu ca tion , sa tisfa ction w ith th e sch ool, a n d
th eir a bility to pa r ticipa te. On th e oth er
h a n d, pa r en ts’ en th u sia sm m ay be da m pen ed
by n e ga tive a ttitu des on th e pa r t of pr ofession a l sta ff of th e sch ool, by la ck of in cen tives, a n d by th eir ow n tim idity (Mu r ph y,
1983). Wor k in g-cla ss pa r en ts, a n d pa r en ts wh o
fin d little tim e for volu n ta r y wor k , seem to be
pa r ticu la r ly discou r a ged fr om pa r ticipa tion
(N F E R, 1980). An oth er r ea son m ay be th e u se
of tech n ica l ter m s a n d ja r gon by th e sch ool
sta ff. Th is m ay discou r a ge pa r en ts fr om ta k in g a n a ctive pa r t (F in e, 1993).
Survey of school councils in Victoria
Th is stu dy w a s con du cted between 1992 a n d
1993 in th e sta te of Victor ia , Au str a lia . A
con sider a ble pa r t of it took pla ce du r in g th e
secon d h a lf of 1992 wh ile th e fir st a u th or w a s
on sa bba tica l leave fr om th e Ch in ese Un iver sity. Visits to sch ools a n d a tten da n ces a t
sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs, h owever, str etch ed
over a m u ch lon ger per iod between 1992 a n d
1993.
At th e in itia l sta ge, sta ff m em ber s of th e
VICCSO a n d th e Sch ool P a r ticipa tion Un it of
th e Victor ia n Min istr y of E du ca tion pr ovided
fir st-h a n d in for m a tion a bou t th e sta te of
a ffa ir s of sch ool cou n cils in th e sta te sch ools
of Victor ia . Follow in g th ese per son a l con fer en ces, visits to som e sta te sch ools a n d even tu a l a tten da n ce a t th eir sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs took pla ce. A br oa der per spective of th e
sch ool cou n cil oper a tion w a s pr ovided by
visitin g sch ools in th e Ca th olic diocese of
Melbou r n e a s well a s in depen den t sch ools in
Victor ia .
Con sequ en tly fou r ba sic qu estion s wh ich
wer e to for m th e ba sis of th e su r vey qu estion n a ir es wer e for m u la ted. Th ese a r e:
1 In wh a t w ay do th e sch ool cou n cils in Victor ia oper a te?
2 How do pa r en t cou n cillor s pa r ticipa te in
th e a ffa ir s of th e sch ool cou n cil?
3 How do pa r en ts, tea ch er s, th e pr in cipa l
sh a r e th e decision -m a k in g power ?
4 Wh a t per son a l, in stitu tion a l, or com m u n ity-r ela ted fa ctor s a ccou n t for th e su ccess
or fa ilu r e of sch ool cou n cils?
Participation in which school spheres?
A cr u cia l poin t of con ten tion a m on g pa r en ts
a n d sch ool sta ff con cer n s defin in g le gitim a te
a r ea s for pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion . Up u n til th e
1970s, th e con cept of pa r tn er sh ip w a s n ot
fu lly a ccepted. For exa m ple, even th ou gh
pa r en ts’ in pu t in to th e sch ool cu r r icu lu m
w a s con sider ed a ccepta ble, tota l con tr ol w a s
n ever a n ticipa ted (Tow n sen d, 1989). Th e
Ka r m el Repor t (Ka r m el, 1973) en dor sed
pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion bu t ca lled on pa r en ts
to r ecogn ize tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l exper tise.
In th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia th e
w iden in g of decision -m a k in g power h a s been
in ter pr eted a s a deliber a te policy of th e Ca in
gover n m en t in th e 1980s (Bea r e, 1988). Gover n m en t pa tr on a ge in th is ca se plays a n
im por ta n t r ole in deter m in in g th e scope of
pa r ticipa tion . In fa ct, th e cou n tr ies in wh ich
pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion w a s r epor ted to be
m ost w idely pr a ctised h a ppen ed to be cou n tr ies wh er e su ch politica l in cen tives existed
(Deem , 1994; Sa llis, 1988).
Data collection
Altogeth er five sta te pr im a r y a n d five sta te
secon da r y sch ools wer e ta r geted a s sa m ple
sch ools; in for m a tion collected fr om th ese
sch ools pr ovided a sou r ce of r esea r ch da ta
fr om wh ich th is stu dy w a s a ble to dr aw.
An oth er sou r ce of in for m a tion ca m e fr om a
m a iled qu estion n a ir e su r vey con du cted
tow a r ds th e en d of 1992.
Th e n a m es a n d a ddr esses of sch ools, pr im a r y a s well a s secon da r y, wer e ta k en fr om
th e m etr opolita n teleph on e dir ector y of Melbou r n e. In or der to cu t th e r ed ta pe, sch ools
wer e a ppr oa ch ed dir ectly w ith ou t goin g
th r ou gh th eir r e gion a l m a n a gem en t office.
Som e sch ools did declin e to offer co-oper a tion
on th e gr ou n ds th a t officia l a ppr ova l ou gh t to
be sou gh t fir st fr om th ese offices. Th e
r espon se w a s con sider ed fa ir ; a tota l of 172
sch ools r etu r n ed th e qu estion n a ir es, r epr esen tin g a bou t 9 per cen t of th e tota l n u m ber of
sch ools in th e en tir e sta te of Victor ia .
[ 103 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Th e qu estion n a ir es in clu ded on e for th e
pr in cipa l, on e for tea ch er cou n cillor, a n d on e
for pa r en t cou n cillor. Th e pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e w a s qu ite differ en t fr om th a t of th e
tea ch er a n d th e pa r en t. It sou gh t to pr ovide
in for m a tion on th e sch ool cou n cil oper a tion
a s well a s th e pr in cipa l’s per ception of th e
pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion in th e sch ool cou n cil.
Th e pa r en ts’ a n d th e tea ch er cou n cillor s’
qu estion n a ir es wer e so design ed a s to obta in
a n swer s wh ich r efl ect th eir view s on sim ila r
issu es; th ey cou ld a lso be u sed for m u tu a l
ver ifica tion . On ly on e tea ch er a n d on e pa r en t
wh o ser ved in th e sch ools cou n cil wer e a sk ed
to r espon d to th e qu estion n a ir e.
Data analysis
Da ta collected th r ou gh per son a l con fer en ces
a n d in ter view s a n d im pr ession s ga in ed fr om
visits to sch ools a n d sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs
wer e m a in ly u sed to va lida te fi n din gs fr om
th e qu estion n a ir e su r vey. Qu estion n a ir es
da ta wer e a n a lysed th r ou gh th e u se of sta tistica l tools fou n d in th e com pu ter pa ck a ges of
SP SSP C+ a n d LISRE L in or der to a ddr ess th e
fou r ba sic qu estion s posted a t th e be gin n in g
of th e su r vey. In th is pa per, on ly da ta com in g
fr om th e pa r en t cou n cillor s’ qu estion n a ir e
a r e r epor ted.
Survey findings
The general condition of school councils in
Victoria
All sta te sch ools in Victor ia m u st oper a te
u n der th e con tr ol of a sch ool cou n cil wh ich is
con stitu ted u n der le ga l r equ ir em en ts. Sch ool
cou n cils pr oper ly con stitu ted a r e given decision -m a k in g power over fi n a n ce, bu ildin gs
a n d gr ou n ds, edu ca tion a n d cu r r icu lu m policy, a s well a s selection of th e pr in cipa l a n d
th e vice pr in cipa l (E du ca tion Re gu la tion s,
1988).
A Victor ia n sch ool cou n cil h a s 15 to 20
m em ber s. Th ey a r e m a de u p of pa r en t r epr esen ta tives, tea ch er r epr esen ta tives, stu den t
r epr esen ta tives (on ly in secon da r y sch ools),
a n d co-opted m em ber s dr aw n fr om th e com m u n ity. Un lik e sch ools in th e UK a n d N ew
Zea la n d, wh er e th e pr opor tion of tea ch er
cou n cillor s is m u ch sm a ller th a n eith er th e
pa r en ts or th e co-opted com m u n ity lea der s,
sch ool cou n cils in Victor ia h ave a lm ost th e
sa m e n u m ber of lay a n d pr ofession a l m em ber s.
Sch ool cou n cils a r e r equ ir ed to m eet eigh t
tim es a yea r ; th ey n or m a lly m eet on ce a
m on th du r in g ter m tim e. Sin ce th eir a gen da s
a r e u su a lly la r ge, m ost sch ool cou n cils in
Victor ia or ga n ize th em selves in to su bcom m ittees. Th e su bsta n tive issu es a r e dea lt
[ 104 ]
w ith in th e su b-com m ittees, a n d th eir r esolu tion s a r e en dor sed a s a m a tter of fa ct a t th e
m a in com m ittee m eetin g wh ich is h eld a fter
th e su b-com m ittees h ave m et. Cou n cil m eetin gs a r e h eld a t th e sch ool on week day
even in gs, a n d ta k e u p two to th r ee h ou r s.
Ma n y of th e pa r en t a n d com m u n ity r epr esen ta tives com e str a igh t fr om wor k to th e m eetin gs.
Background of parent councillors
Th e fin din gs fr om th e qu estion n a ir e r evea led
a clea r pictu r e of th e k in d of pa r en ts wh o
h ave been dr aw n in to th e sch ool cou n cil. It
ca n be seen fr om Ta ble I th a t th e la r gest
gr ou p of pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e pr ofession a ls
(23.8 per cen t), followed by h ou sew ives (15.7
per cen t), self-em ployed a n d m a n a ger ia l people (14.0 per cen t), a n d tea ch er s (11.0 per
cen t). Less th a n 9 per cen t a r e sk illed a n d
u n sk illed wor k er s. Th e a bove fin din gs, in lin e
w ith th e fin din gs of th e N F E R (1989), su ggest
th a t wor k in g-cla ss pa r en ts a r e u n der r epr esen ted in th e sch ool cou n cils.
Con cer n in g edu ca tion a l ba ck gr ou n d, th e
su r vey fou n d th a t a m a jor ity (76 per cen t) of
pa r en t cou n cillor s com pleted secon da r y
edu ca tion a n d a lm ost 60 per cen t h ave don e
som e u n iver sity wor k (Ta ble II). It is clea r
fr om th e su r vey th a t a good pr opor tion of
pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e r ea son a bly or h igh ly
edu ca ted people wh o en joy som e socia l sta n din g.
Ma n y of th e r espon den ts to th e qu estion n a ir e su r vey wer e ser vin g on th e execu tive
com m ittee of th eir sch ool cou n cils, in th e
Table I
Bac kgro und o f pare nt c o unc illo rs: distributio n
by o c c upatio n
Occupation
Professional
Home-duty
Self-employed
Teachers
Farmers
Sales/ clerical
Skilled worker
Semi-skilled/ unskilled worker
Percentage
26.1
17.2
15.3
12.1
11.5
8.9
7.0
1.8
Table II
Bac kgro und o f pare nt c o unc illo rs: distributio n
by le ve l o f e duc atio n attaine d
Education
Some secondary education
Completed secondary education
Some university education
Completed university education
Percentage
24.0
17.4
21.5
37.2
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
ca pa city of eith er th e pr esiden t or th e secr eta r y. N on eth eless, on ly sligh tly m or e th a n
on e-th ir d of th em h a d r eceived tr a in in g for
th eir r ole a s sch ool cou n cillor.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Time spent on school council meetings by
parent councillors
On e in dica tor of pa r en t cou n cillor s’ pa r ticipa tion is th e a m ou n t of tim e th ey spen d in
r ela tion to cou n cil a ffa ir s. Th e fin din gs r evea l
a n aver a ge of 7.98 h ou r s per m on th , wh ich is
a ppr oxim a tely th e sa m e a s th e aver a ge tim e
spen t by tea ch er cou n cillor s (7.97 h ou r s per
m on th ). Th is is tim e spen t in pr epa r a tion for,
a n d in a tten din g to, cou n cil bu sin ess a n d
m eetin gs. Th is figu r e is on ly on e h ou r less
th a n th e estim a te m a de by VICCSO (Cr ich ton , 1991). Th e r ecor ded m a xim u m is 200
h ou r s a n d th e m in im u m on e h ou r per m on th .
Th e w ide devia tion r epor ted h er e in Victor ia
is com pa r ed w ith a n equ a lly w ide devia tion
r epor ted in Ma n ch ester by a loca l pa r en t
sch ool gover n or in 1992 in a visit a r r a n ged in
con ju n ction w ith th e In ter n a tion a l In ter visita tion P r ogr a m m e in E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion . Th e m a xim u m w a s 80 h ou r s a n d th e
m in im u m w a s on e h ou r per m on th .
Th e fin din gs a lso sh ow th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s wh o ta k e u p execu tive r oles in cou n cils
spen d sign ifi ca n tly m or e tim e (9.02 h ou r s per
m on th ) in a tten din g a n d pr epa r in g for m eetin gs th a n do th ose wh o do n ot ta k e execu tive
r oles (5.17 h ou r s per m on th ). On th e oth er
h a n d, sch ool cou n cillor s a lso ta k e pa r t in
sch ool fu n ction s wh ich a r e spon sor ed by th e
sch ool cou n cil. Th e m ost popu la r on es a r e
fu n d-r a isin g ca m pa ign s, sch ool im pr ovem en t
pr ojects a n d a n n u a l pa r en t r epor tin g m eetin gs. F r om con ver sa tion s w ith som e pa r en t
cou n cillor s, it a ppea r ed th a t th e tota l a m ou n t
of tim e spen t by pa r en t cou n cillor s on sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs plu s oth er sch ool fu n ction s
m ay fa r exceed th e a bove fi gu r es. On e pr im a r y sch ool cou n cil pr esiden t ca lcu la ted th a t
h e m igh t be spen din g over 40 h ou r s per
m on th in tota l.
Th e pa r ticu la r ca se of on e pa r en t wh o
r epor ted h avin g spen t a bou t 200 h ou r s in on e
m on th on cou n cil a ffa ir s is cer ta in ly ver y
exception a l. Th is is a ca se in volvin g th e
m er ger of sch ools in on e sch ool distr ict, a n d
th e pa r en t cou n cillor in h is r ole a s pr esiden t
w a s bu sy doin g th e lia ison a n d n e gotia tion in
con n ection w ith th is.
How do parent councillors, teachers, and
principal share power in the school
council?
Th e policy docu m en ts on wh ich th e sch ool
cou n cils a r e con stitu ted str ess a pa r tn er sh ip
between pa r en ts, tea ch er s, a n d loca l com m u n ity. Th e stu dy a im ed a t cla r ifyin g wh a t
qu a lity of pa r tn er sh ip existed between lay
a n d pr ofession a l m em ber s.
Ha llin ger et a l. (1993) fou n d th a t sch ool
pr ofession a l sta ff h ave som e r eser va tion s
a bou t pa r en ts’ ca pa bilities in playin g th eir
pa r tn er sh ip r ole in fu ll. Th e r esu lts in th is
stu dy su ppor ted th is fin din g. Accor din g to a
secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l, som e sch ools did
n ot a sk pa r en ts to ser ve in th e edu ca tion su bcom m ittee in or der “to m a k e m a tter s sim ple”. On e pr in cipa l su spected th a t pa r en ts
wer e n ot a ctively in volved in th e pr epa r a tion
of policy docu m en ts “beca u se th ey a r e n ot
con fiden t in doin g so”. A for m er pr esiden t of
VICCSO a ttr ibu ted th is to “fea r of pr in cipa ls
in sh a r in g in for m a tion a n d power ”.
Th e pr esen t stu dy a sk ed th e pr in cipa ls a n d
tea ch er cou n cillor s to r a te, on a 1 to 9 a scen din g sca le, pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess a n d
a bility to ta k e pa r t in cou n cil bu sin ess. Th e
m ea n scor e given by tea ch er cou n cillor s w a s
7.96, su ggestin g th a t tea ch er cou n cillor s in
gen er a l felt th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s wer e
r ea dy to ta k e, a n d ca pa ble of ta k in g, pa r t in
cou n cil bu sin ess. Th e m ea n scor e given by
th e pr in cipa ls w a s 5.63, wh ich sh owed th a t
pr in cipa ls, th ou gh w ith som e r eser va tion s,
wer e a lso qu ite positive on pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess a n d a bility to pa r ticipa te in
cou n cil bu sin ess.
P a r en ts th em selves seem ed to en joy playin g
th eir pa r t a s sch ool cou n cillor s. Of th e th r ee
gr ou ps, n a m ely th e pa r en ts, th e tea ch er s, a n d
th e pr in cipa l, pa r en ts r a ted th eir sa tisfa ction
w ith in volvem en t in sch ool cou n cil a ffa ir s
th e h igh est (Ta ble III). However, th is does n ot
m ea n th ey a r e n ot con cer n ed a bou t th eir
con fiden ce in pa r ticipa tin g in sch ool cou n cil
bu sin ess.
On e pa r ticu la r con cer n w a s pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess to pa r ticipa te in th e for m u la tion of edu ca tion policy. Th e su r vey sh owed
th a t, for th e yea r 1992, 46 per cen t of pa r en t
Table III
Se nse o f satisfac tio n de rive d fro m invo lve me nt
in sc ho o l c o unc il affairs
Sense of
satisfaction
M ean
Standard
deviation
Parent
7.71
1.36
Principal
7.16
1.51
Teacher
7.20
1.33
Note:
The sc ores are based on a 1-9 asc ending sc ale
The differenc e between parents’ and princ ipals’ sc ores
is at 0.01 signific anc e level
The differenc e between parents’ and teac hers’ sc ores
is at 0.01 signific anc e level
There is no signific ant differenc e between princ ipals’
and teac hers’ sc ores
[ 105 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
cou n cillor s wer e n ot in volved in w r itin g th e
edu ca tion a l policy docu m en ts for th eir
sch ools.
Wh en a sk ed a bou t th eir con tr ibu tion to
discu ssion in cou n cil m eetin gs on th e va r iou s
types of sch ool cou n cil bu sin ess, pa r en t cou n cillor s r a ted th em selves sign ifica n tly lower
th a n th e tea ch er cou n cillor s in a ll except on e
of th e fou r sph er es (Ta ble IV). Th e differ en ce
between th e pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r a tin g a n d
th e tea ch er cou n cillor s’ r a tin g on edu ca tion
a n d policy m a tter s w a s th e gr ea test, followed
by th a t on fi n a n ce a n d on selection of sen ior
sta ff. P a r en t cou n cillor s’ r a tin g on th eir con tr ibu tion to discu ssion on m a tter s r ela tin g to
bu ildin gs a n d gr ou n ds w a s sign ifica n tly
h igh er th a n th ose of th e tea ch er cou n cillor s.
What factors account for school council
success?
Th e em ph a sis on a pa r tn er sh ip between pa r en ts, tea ch er s a n d th e loca l com m u n ity (Sa llis, 1988; Taylor, 1977) su ggests th a t a good
pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts is
a n im por ta n t fa ctor con tr ibu tin g to th e su ccess of sch ool cou n cils. It seem s th a t th e
r ea din ess of pa r en ts a n d tea ch er s to pa r ticipa te in th e cou n cil, a n d m u tu a l a ccepta n ce
between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts, a r e im por ta n t
a spects of a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts. Th r ee item s in th e pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e wer e design ed to m ea su r e
th e r ea din ess of pa r en ts; th e r ea din ess of
tea ch er s; a n d m u tu a l a ccepta n ce between
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts; th ey a r e tr ea ted a s
in dica tor s of a good pa r tn er sh ip between
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts in th is stu dy.
It is logica l to pr esu ppose th a t if a pa r en t
cou n cillor is sa tisfied w ith th e per for m a n ce
of th e sch ool a n d h is or h er r ole in th e cou n cil, h e or sh e is m or e lik ely to pu t in extr a
effor t in m a k in g th e cou n cil a su ccess. Hen ce,
it is pr oposed th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction w ill be positively a ssocia ted w ith th e
su ccess of th e cou n cil, a n d two item s a r e
design ed to m ea su r e th e a bove two a spects of
pa r en t cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction .
Table IV
A c o mpariso n o f pe rc e ive d c o ntributio n to disc ussio n in sc ho o l c o unc il
be twe e n pare nt and te ac he r c o unc illo rs
Topic
Building and grounds
Education policies
Finance
Selection of senior staff
Note:
* p < 0.05
* * p < 0.001
[ 106 ]
Contribution by
parent councillors
Contribution by
teacher councillors
Significant
difference
5.52
4.61
4.90
4.24
5.03
6.19
5.43
5.05
*
**
**
**
P r in cipa ls’ com m itm en t to th e cou n cils m ay
be a n oth er fa ctor positively r ela ted to th e
su ccess of th e cou n cil. If th e pr in cipa l is com m itted to m a k in g th e cou n cil a su ccess, h e or
sh e m ay ta k e a ction to in flu en ce or m otiva te
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts to pa r ticipa te in th e
cou n cil a n d to cr ea te a n en vir on m en t con du cive to a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts. Th er e is on e item in th e
pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e design ed to m ea su r e th e a bove com m itm en t. It is pr oposed
th a t pr in cipa l com m itm en t m ay lea d to better
pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts,
wh ich in tu r n is positively a ssocia ted w ith
th e su ccess of th e cou n cil.
On e of th e objectives of in volvin g pa r en ts in
th e cou n cil is to solicit su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity (Br ow n et a l., 1987). Th e level of su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity is a n ticipa ted to be
a fa ctor a ssocia ted positively w ith th e su ccess
of th e cou n cil in th is stu dy. Th e follow in g
th r ee in dica tor s a r e u sed to m ea su r e th e level
of su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity: th e con tr ibu tion to sch ool in dolla r ter m s, th e level a t
wh ich pa r en ts a r e ch a r ged w ith edu ca tion a l
levies, a n d th e per cen ta ge of pa r en ts in th e
sch ool wh o r eceive edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce
a llow a n ce. Th e fir st two in dica tor s a r e
expected to be positively r ela ted to, a n d th e
la st in dica tor is a ssu m ed to be n e ga tively
a ssocia ted w ith , th e level of su ppor t fr om th e
com m u n ity.
Apa r t fr om th e level of su ppor t fr om th e
com m u n ity, th e per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds
m ay a lso be r ela ted to th e su ccess of th e cou n cil. It seem s lik ely th a t pa r en ts fr om n on E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds m ay h ave
pr oblem s w ith in te gr a tin g in to th e society
a n d com m u n ica tion w ith th e sch ool. Hen ce it
m ay h elp tow a r ds th e sch ool cou n cil’s su ccess
if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of
su ch stu den ts.
In or der to m ea su r e th e su ccess of th e cou n cil, th e pr in cipa l, a tea ch er cou n cillor a n d a
pa r en t cou n cillor a r e r equ ested to r a te th e
de gr ee of su ccess of th e cou n cil. Th eir r a tin gs
a r e ta k en to be in dica tor s of th e su ccess of th e
cou n cil.
A theoretical model on various
factors leading to the successful
operation of school councils
A th eor etica l m odel w a s pr oposed depictin g
th e r ela tion sh ips in volved in pa r tn er sh ip
(m u tu a l a ccepta n ce) between tea ch er a n d
pa r en t, per cen ta ge of stu den ts fr om n on E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds, com m u n ity
su ppor t, pr in cipa l com m itm en t, pa r en t
cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction a n d th e su ccess of
sch ool cou n cil.
Str u ctu r a l equ a tion m odellin g a n a lysis
u sin g th e LISRE L pr ogr a m m e w a s u sed to
test wh eth er th e da ta fitted th e th eor etica l
m odel. Ma xim u m lik elih ood a n a lysis w a s
u sed w ith cor r ela tion m a tr ix. Th er e wer e 135
ca ses a fter ca sew ise deletion . Hen ce, th e
sa m ple size w a s su ita ble for LISRE L a n a lysis
(Ha ir et a l., 1995). Th e goodn ess of fit in dices
for th e m odel, th e fa ctor loa din g a n d u n iqu en ess of ea ch item a n d th e tota l effect of ea ch
fa ctor on th e su ccess of th e cou n cil a r e sh ow n
in Ta bles V, VI a n d VII r espectively. Th e fa ctor loa din gs, u n iqu en esses, pa th coefficien ts
of th e m odel a r e depicted in F igu r e 1.
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Table V
Go o dne ss o f fit indic e s fo r the mo de l o n
suc c e ss o f sc ho o l c o unc il
Indices
Level
Chi-square with 61 degrees of
freedom
Root mean square residual
Goodness of fit
Non-normed fit index
Comparative fit index
Incremental fit index
Critical N
75.13 ( p = 0.11)
0.072
0.93
0.95
0.96
0.96
160
Table VI
Fac to r lo adings and unique ne ss o f ite ms
Factor
Principal
commitment
Partnership
Community
support
Non-English
speaking
background
Parent
satisfaction
Item
Princ ipal’ s c ommitment to c ounc il
affairs
X2
Teac hers’ ac c eptanc e of parents’
involvement in sc hool c ounc il
X3
Parents’ readiness to be involved in
sc hool c ounc il
X4
Teac hers’ readiness to be involved in
sc hool c ounc il
X8
Educ ation levies c ollec ted
X9
Perc entage of families rec eiving
Educ ation Maintenanc e Allowanc e
X10 Donation to sc hool (exc luding levies)
per family
X5
Perc entage of students from nonEnglish speaking family
X1
X6
X7
Success of
council
Factor
loading Uniqueness
Y1
Y2
Y3
Parents’ satisfac tion with the
sc hool
Parents’ satisfac tion with their
involvement in sc hool c ounc il
Princ ipal’ s rating of the suc c ess
of sc hool c ounc il
Parents’ rating of the suc c ess of
sc hool c ounc il
Teac hers’ rating of the suc c ess of
sc hool c ounc il
1
0
0.58
0.66
0.76
0.42
0.54
0.49
0.70
0.76
0.62
0.61
0.44
0.81
1.00
0.00
0.78
0.40
0.54
0.71
0.90
0.16
0.80
0.33
0.40
0.83
Table VII
To tal e ffe c t o f vario us fac to rs o n the suc c e ss o f
c o unc il
Factor
Partnership
Principal commitment
Community support
Percentage of non-English speaking
background
Parent satisfaction
Notes:
* * * p < 0.05
* * * p < 0.01
* * * p < 0.001
Total effect
0.61* * *
0.40* * *
0.31* *
–0.26* * *
0.21*
It ca n be seen in Ta ble V th a t a ll th e goodn ess
of fit in dices in dica te th a t th e th eor etica l
m odel fi ts th e da ta sa tisfa ctor ily. On e m ay
con clu de, th er efor e, th a t th e th eor etica l
m odel of th is stu dy is con fir m ed by th e da ta
a n d th e fa ctor s pr oposed in th is stu dy a r e a ll
sign ifica n tly a ssocia ted w ith th e su ccess of
th e cou n cil. Th e r esu lts in Ta ble VII su ggest
th a t a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d
pa r en ts h a s th e la r gest tota l a n d dir ect effect
on th e su ccess of th e cou n cil. Th e com m itm en t of th e pr in cipa l a n d com m u n ity su ppor t
a r e two oth er im por ta n t fa ctor s su bsta n tia lly
a ssocia ted w ith th e su ccess of th e cou n cil.
F r om th e a bove r esu lts, th e k ey fa ctor s
a ppea r to be th e th r ee k ey gr ou ps: n a m ely th e
pr in cipa l of th e sch ool, th e tea ch er s in th e
sch ool a n d th e pa r en ts wh o ta k e pa r t in th e
sch ool cou n cil oper a tion . Th e cou n cil is m or e
lik ely to exper ien ce su ccess if th e pr in cipa l is
com m itted to th e sch ool cou n cil, if th e tea ch er s a n d th e pa r en ts a r e r ea dy to ta k e pa r t, a n d
if th ey a r e w illin g to a ccept on e a n oth er in
th eir ser vice to th e sch ool cou n cil. F u r th er m or e, pa r en t cou n cillor s sa tisfied w ith th e
sch ool a n d th eir r oles in th e cou n cil m ay a lso
con tr ibu te tow a r ds th e su ccess of th e sch ool
cou n cil.
An oth er fa ctor is th e com m u n ity wh er e th e
sch ool is loca ted. Con cer n in g th e com m u n ity,
it is to th e a dva n ta ge of th e sch ool cou n cil: if
th e pa r en ts a r e r ea dy to con tr ibu te m or e to
th e sch ools in ter m s of don a tion s; if th ey ca n
a ffor d h igh er edu ca tion a l levies ch a r ged by
th e sch ool; if th ey a r e well off a n d do n ot
r equ ir e edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce a llow a n ce
fr om th e gover n m en t; a n d if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g
fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds.
F igu r e 1 ta k es a ll fa ctor s in to con sider a tion .
Discussion
A n u m ber of cou n tr ies in th e pa st deca de,
n ota bly th e UK, Au str a lia a n d N ew Zea la n d,
[ 107 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Figure 1
A path diagram o f fac to rs re late d to the suc c e ss o f sc ho o l c o unc il
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
h ave been r efor m in g th eir sch ools by givin g
m or e power a n d r espon sibility to th em a n d
en listin g pa r en ts a n d com m u n ity lea der s to
h elp pr in cipa ls a n d pr ofession a l sta ff in
sch ool m a n a gem en t. Ma n y ju stifica tion s h ave
sin ce been a dva n ced to su ppor t th ese gover n m en t m oves, a n d a m on g th em politica l con sider a tion s seem to h ave played a n im por ta n t
r ole (Bea r e, 1993; Ber k eley, 1991; Deem , 1994).
In th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia , for
in sta n ce, th e expa n sion of pa r en t m em ber sh ip in th e sch ool cou n cil togeth er w ith
in cr ea sed decision a l power w a s im plem en ted
wh en th e La bor P a r ty w a s in power (Cr eed,
1991). Th e policy of in cr ea sed pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion w a s clea r ly in step w ith th e pa r ty’s
pla tfor m of equ a lity.
On e of th e tr ite sloga n s of th e La bor P a r ty
w a s em power m en t, r efer r in g to pa r en ts in
[ 108 ]
th e lower socia l str a tu m a s bein g tr a in ed or
en a bled to ta k e pa r t in th e politica l pr ocesses
of sch ool cou n cil election s, becom in g sch ool
cou n cillor s, a n d per h a ps en su r in g th e su ccess of th eir ch ildr en in th e sch ool (Kir n er,
1982). Th e ir on y is th a t qu ite often it is th ese
sa m e pa r en ts wh o a r e den ied th e oppor tu n ity
to pa r ticipa te (F in e, 1993).
Som e pa r en ts, pa r ticu la r ly wom en , wh o
took pa r t in or ga n izin g a n d lea din g th e pa r en t m ovem en t in Victor ia , did becom e ver y
power fu l; som e lik e J oa n Kir n er even tu a lly
a ch ieved th e h igh est politica l a ppoin tm en t in
th e La bor Gover n m en t in th e sta te of Victor ia . Th e em power m en t wh ich J oa n Kir n er
a n ticipa ted did n ot h a ppen except for a few
politica l a ctivists in th e sta te La bor P a r ty.
Th is stu dy h a d a s its a im s to discover h ow
pa r en t cou n cillor s con tr ibu te to sch ool
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
cou n cils in th e sta te of Victor ia , Au str a lia . In
ter m s of con tr ibu tion m a de in tim e, pa r en t
cou n cillor s wh o wer e su r veyed r epor ted a n
aver a ge of eigh t h ou r s per m on th r ela tin g to
pr epa r a tion for, a n d a tten da n ce a t, sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs. It is believed th a t a n
equ a lly sign ifi ca n t n u m ber of h ou r s m ay be
spen t by pa r en t cou n cillor s in r ela tion to
oth er sch ool-r ela ted fu n ction s. Th e m a jor ity
of th ese pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e h igh ly edu ca ted pr ofession a ls or m a n a ger ia l people. It
seem s th a t th e wor k in g cla ss a n d th e disa dva n ta ged r a r ely ser ve on sch ool cou n cils. It is
pr oba ble th a t sch ools loca ted in a socia lly or
cu ltu r a lly disa dva n ta ged com m u n ity m ay
h ave pr oblem s in fi n din g pa r en ts w illin g to
ser ve on sch ool cou n cils. For th ese pa r en ts,
a tten da n ce a t sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs or a t
oth er sch ool-r ela ted fu n ction s r epr esen ts
tr u e sa cr ifice. Th ey m ay a lso la ck con fi den ce
in con tr ibu tin g to th e sch ool a s cou n cillor s.
Th e a bove is r ela ted to a n a spect of pa r en t’s
pa r ticipa tion in sch ool cou n cils wh ich w a s
pr eviou sly discu ssed by th e Taylor Com m ittee (F ield, 1993). P a r en ts in lower socioecon om ic com m u n ities m ay n ot be a ble to
a ffor d th e tim e a n d m on ey r equ ir ed for pa r ticipa tion . Th er e is th e qu estion of oppor tu n ity cost wh ich is r ea l to pa r en ts wh o n eed to
ea r n a livin g. Th e idea of pr ovidin g a fi n a n cia l loss a llow a n ce w a s r ecom m en ded by th e
Taylor Com m ittee, bu t even tu a lly w a s n ot
ta k en u p by th e Gover n m en t in th e UK. Th er e
is a lso th e qu estion of a ddition a l expen ses
in cu r r ed in a tten din g cou n cil m eetin gs a n d
fu n ction s, a n d a lso con tr ibu tion s in k in d a n d
in m on ey to fu n d-r a isin g ca m pa ign s.
P a r en t cou n cillor s in N ew Zea la n d sch ools
a r e pa id to a tten d cou n cil m eetin gs. N oth in g
is pa id to pa r en t cou n cillor s in Victor ia . Bu t
if pa r en ts sh ou ld be pa id to a tten d sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs, h ow m u ch sh ou ld th ey be
pa id? We m u st a lso bea r in m in d th a t wh a tever th e a m ou n t of su bsidies spen t on pa r en t
cou n cillor s, a n equ a l a m ou n t is ta k en aw ay
fr om ava ila ble sch ool fu n ds.
Th is stu dy a lso a ttem pted to con fir m
wh eth er or n ot pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e ta k in g
pa r t in sch ool cou n cil a ffa ir s a s equ a l pa r tn er s to th eir pr ofession a l collea gu es, th e
tea ch er s a n d th e pr in cipa l. Th e fin din gs sh ow
th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s, th ou gh sa tisfied w ith
th eir pa r ticipa tion , wer e n ot en tir ely con fiden t in con tr ibu tin g to cou n cil discu ssion s on
m a tter s su ch a s edu ca tion policy a n d cu r r icu lu m , a n d selection of sen ior sch ool per son n el.
Per h a ps m or e m u st be don e in pr ovidin g
tr a in in g a n d edu ca tion for th ese lay cou n cillor s wh o, in on e exper t’s view, “m ay pr ove to
be u n equ a l for th eir ta sk ” (Deem , 1990).
Tea ch er s, too, m ay n eed tr a in in g a n d pr ior
exper ien ce in or der to be con vin ced th a t
pa r en ts a r e ju st a s ca pa ble of deter m in in g
edu ca tion a l policies (E pstein , 1993).
Th er e is, on th e oth er h a n d, eviden ce to
in dica te th a t th e pr ofession a l sta ff in th e
sch ool a r e lik ely to m a in ta in a cer ta in de gr ee
of m istr u st of th e pa r en t cou n cillor s, to th e
exten t th a t som etim es n ot a ll aven u es of pa r ticipa tion a r e open (Won g, 1994). In com pa r ison , pr in cipa ls seem ed to be m or e r elu cta n t
to give fu ll r ein to th e pa r en ts th a n a r e th eir
tea ch in g sta ff. As on e pa r en t in a US sch ool
sa id “… th ey [th e tea ch er s a n d th e pr in cipa l]
don ’t see m e a s a n equ a l …” (F in e,1993).
It is con ceiva ble th a t pa r en ts m ay becom e
m or e con fiden t a n d ta k e a m or e a ctive pa r t if
th e pr in cipa l is pa r ticu la r ly en cou r a gin g.
Lik ew ise, pa r en ts m igh t dem on str a te a
gr ea ter de gr ee of com m itm en t if th e tea ch in g
sta ff r ea dily a ccept th em . Sin ce pa r en ts a r e
still n ot con fi den t a bou t th eir r ole in edu ca tion a l a n d cu r r icu la r m a tter s (F ield, 1993), it
is pr efer a ble th a t in itia tive sh ou ld fir st com e
fr om th e pr ofession a l sta ff.
A sta tistica l a n a lysis w a s con du cted to
explor e fa ctor s wh ich wer e r espon sible for
sch ool cou n cil su ccess. Th e k ey fa ctor s
a ppea r to be th e th r ee gr ou ps of in dividu a ls,
n a m ely th e pr in cipa l of th e sch ool, th e tea ch er s in th e sch ool, a n d th e pa r en ts wh o ta k e
pa r t in th e sch ool cou n cil oper a tion . Th e
pr in cipa l m u st be com m itted to th e sch ool
cou n cil. Tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts m u st be r ea dy
to ta k e pa r t, a n d th ey m u st be w illin g to
a ccept ea ch oth er in th eir ser vice to th e
sch ool cou n cil for it to be su ccessfu l.
An oth er fa ctor for pa r ticipa tion is th e com m u n ity wh er e th e sch ool is loca ted. In th is
r e ga r d, pa r en ts m u st be r ea dy to con tr ibu te
to th e sch ool in ter m s of don a tion s, th ey m u st
be a ble to a ffor d th e edu ca tion a l levies
ch a r ged by th e sch ool, a n d th ey m u st be well
off a n d n ot r equ ir e edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce
a llow a n ce fr om th e gover n m en t.
An oth er fa ctor r ela ted to pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion is th e per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g
fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds
en r olled in th e sch ool. It is to th e a dva n ta ge of
th e sch ool cou n cil ‘s su ccess if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of su ch stu den ts.
Concluding remarks
Recen t r estr u ctu r in g of sch ool gover n a n ce in
wester n cou n tr ies a s a m ea n s of im pr ovin g
edu ca tion h a s k in dled in ter est is r esea r ch in g
th e oper a tion of sch ool cou n cils. Cu r r en tly,
th e im por ta n ce of th e sch ool cou n cil a s a
le gitim a te pa r t of th e m ech a n ism of sch ool
gover n a n ce, a s well a s th e vita l r ole of pa r en ts, m u st both be r ecogn ized. In cr ea sin gly, it
a ppea r s th a t th e r ea l test of th e sch ool cou n cil
is n ot wh eth er it sh ou ld be per m itted to exist,
bu t r a th er wh eth er su ch existen ce ca n be
ju stifi ed edu ca tion a lly.
[ 109 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
[ 110 ]
References
Au str a lia n Sch ools Com m ission (1973), S ch ools in
A u stra lia , Au str a lia n Gover n m en t P u blish in g
Ser vice, Ca n ber r a .
Bea r e, H. (1988), “Con fl icts in sch ool gover n a n ce”,
in Ra n dell, S. (E d.), T u r bu len ce a n d Ch a n ge in
th e A d m in istra tor ’s World, Un iver sity of N ew
E n gla n d, Ar m ida le.
Bea r e, H. (1991), “Th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ools a n d
sch ool system s: a com pa r a tive per spective”,
in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H. a n d Ber k eley, G.F.
(E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool M a n a gem en t:
A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion of Pu blic
S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia, Au str a lia n
Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Bea r e, H. (1993), “Differ en t w ays of view in g
sch ool-site cou n cils: wh ose pa r a digm is in u se
h er e?”, in Bea r e, H. a n d Boyd, W.L. (E ds),
R estru ctu r in g S ch ools: A n In ter n a tion a l Per spectiv e on th e M ov em en t to T ra n sfor m th e
Con trol a n d Per for m a n ce of S ch ools, Th e
F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Ber k eley, G.F. (1991), “Restr u ctu r in g edu ca tion in
Au str a lia ”, in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H. a n d
Ber k er ley, G.F. (E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool
M a n a gem en t: A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion
of Pu blic S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia,
Au str a lia n Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Br ow n , J ., Ca h ir, P. a n d Reeve, P. (1987), “Th e
edu ca tion a l r a tion a le for pa r en t pa r ticipa tion ”, Un icor n , Vol. 13 N o. 4, pp. 195-201.
Ca ldwell, B. (1996), In ter n a tion a l Perspectiv es on
th e Im pa ct of S ch ool-b a sed M a n a gem en t, Th e
Ch in ese Un iver sity of Hon g Kon g, Wei Lu n
Lectu r e Ser ies VI.
Cr eed, P. (1991), “Betw ixt a n d between ch a n ges: a
Victor ia n ga m e”, in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H.
a n d Ber k eley, G.F. (E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool
M a n a gem en t: A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion
of Pu blic S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia,
Au str a lia n Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Cr ich ton (1991), per son a l cor r espon den ce, 5 Septem ber.
Deem , R. (1990), “Th e r efor m of sch ool gover n in g
bodies: th e power of th e con su m er over th e
pr odu cer ?”, in F lu de, M. a n d Ha m m er, M.
(E ds), T h e ER A 1988. Its Or igin s a n d Im plica tion s, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Deem , R. (1994), “F r ee m a r k eteer s or good citizen s: edu ca tion a l policy a n d lay pa r ticipa tion
in th e a dm in istr a tion of sch ools”, B ritish
J ou r n al of Ed u ca tion a l S tu d ies, Vol. 42 N o.1,
pp. 23-37.
E du ca tion Re gu la tion s (1988), Victor ia .
E pstein (1993), “A r espon se”, T ea ch ers’ College
R ecord , Vol. 94 N o. 4, Su m m er, pp. 710-17.
F ield, L. (1993), “Sch ool gover n in g bodies: th e laypr ofession a l r ela tion sh ips”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 13 N o. 2, pp. 165-74.
F in e, M. (1993), “Appa r en t in volvem en t: r efl ection s on pa r en ts, power, a n d u r ba n pu blic
sch ools”, T ea ch ers College R ecord, Vol. 94
N o. 4, pp. 682-717.
Ga m a ge, D.T. (1993), “A r eview of com m u n ity
pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce: a n em er gin g cu ltu r e in Au str a lia n edu ca tion ”, B r itish
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l S tu d ies, Vol. 41 N o.2,
pp. 134-49.
Ha ir, J .F., An der son , R.E ., Ta th a m , R.L. a n d Bla ck ,
W.C. (1995), M u ltiva r ia te Da ta A n a lysis w ith
R ea d in gs (4th ed.), P r en tice-Ha ll In ter n a tion a l, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Ha llin ger, P., Mu r ph y, J . a n d Ha u sm a n , C. (1993),
“Con ceptu a lizin g sch ool r estr u ctu r in g: pr in cipa ls’ a n d tea ch er s’ per ception ”, in Dim m ock , C. (E d.), S ch ool-b a sed M a n a gem en t a n d
S ch ool Effectiv en ess, Rou tledge, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Hess, G.A. (1992), “Ch ica go a n d Br ita in : exper im en ts in em power in g pa r en ts”, J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l Policy, Vol. 7 N o. 2, pp. 155-71.
Hill, D., Oa k ley-Sm ith , B. a n d Spin k , J . (1990),
L oca l M a n a gem en t of S ch ools, P a u l Ch a pm a n ,
Lon don .
Ka r m el (1973), S ch ools in A u stra lia : R epor t of th e
In ter im Com m ittee to th e A u stra lia n S ch ools
Com m ission , Au str a lia n Gover n m en t P u blish in g Ser vice, Ca n ber r a .
Kir n er, J . (1982), “P a r en t pa r ticipa tion in th e
in ter ests of ever y ch ild”, Ed u ca tion M a ga z in e,
Vol. 39, pp. 16-17.
Ma len , B. a n d Ogaw a , R. (1988), “P r ofession a lpa r en t in fl u en ce in site-ba sed gover n a n ce
cou n cils: a con fou n din g ca se stu dy”, Ed u ca tion a l Eva lu a tion a n d Policy A n a lysis, Vol. 10
N o. 4, pp. 251-70.
Min istr y of E du ca tion (1987), Pa r tn ersh ip a n d
Ch a n ge. S ch ool Im prov em en t Pla n ,
Melbou r n e.
Mu r ph y, J .T. (1983), “Possible expla n a tion s for
lim ited pa r en ta l in volvem en t in sch ool gover n a n ce”, in Ha n cock , G., Kir st, M.W. a n d Gr ossm a n , D.L. (E ds), Con tem pora r y Issu es in Ed u ca tion a l Policy, Cu r r icu lu m Developm en t
Cou n cil, Ca n ber r a .
N F E R (1989), T h e R ecru itm en t of S ch ool Gov er n ors
follow in g th e R econ stitu tion of S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies u n d er th e Ed u ca tion (N o. 2) A ct
1986, N a tion a l Fou n da tion for E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch .
Pettit (1987), S ch oolin g a t a Crossroa d s. In Pa ren t
Pa r ticipa tion in V ictor ia n S ch ools, Min istr y of
E du ca tion , Victor ia .
Ra e, K.A. (1992), “Th e r edesign of edu ca tion a l
a dm in istr a tion in N ew Zea la n d: tom or r ow ’s
sch ools in th e secon d yea r ”, pa per pr esen ted
a t N ZE AS con fer en ce, P a lm er ston N or th , 1215 N ovem ber.
Sa llis
Australia
Benjamin Y.M . Chan
Chairman, De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Administratio n and Po lic ie s, Fac ulty o f
Educ atio n, The Chine se Unive rsity o f Ho ng Ko ng, Ho ng Ko ng
Hong Sheung Chui
Pre side nt, Hang Se ng Sc ho o l o f Co mme rc e , Ho ng Ko ng
Presents a study which investigated how school councils
operate in the Australian
state of Victoria and how
parent councillors participate
in the affairs of the school
council. Data were collected
through a questionnaire
survey on 172 schools, as
well as visits to schools and
attendance at school council
meetings. Proposes a theoretical model linking personal,
institutional and communityrelated factors to the successful operation of the
school council. Uses data
collected in the survey to test
and confi rm the model by
using structural modelling
analysis. Concludes that most
of the parent councillors are
relatively highly educated and
the working class is underrepresented in school councils. Finds several factors to
be positively associated with
successful operation of
school councils: the readiness of and mutual acceptance between parents and
teachers; commitment of
principal; parents’ satisfaction with their participation;
and parents’ contribution and
donations to the school.
Introduction
Th e 1980s w a s a tu r bu len t er a for sch ools
wor ldw ide. An in ter n a tion a l tr en d em er ged
tow a r ds decen tr a liza tion a n d gr ea ter a u ton om y for sch ools w ith in pu blicly fu n ded system s of edu ca tion (Bea r e, 1991, 1993). In th e
fr en zy to r estr u ctu r e sch ools a n d sch ool system s (Ca ldwell, 1996) m or e decision -m a k in g
pr er oga tives wer e gr a n ted to sch ools th a n
ever befor e, a n d th e settin g u p of sch ool-site
cou n cils seem ed to be on e of th e com m on
pr a ctices for doin g so (Bea r e, 1991). Wh er e
th er e h a d n ot been a n y for m a l str u ctu r es for
sh a r ed decision m a k in g, th ey wer e cr ea ted
(Hess, 1992; Ma len a n d Ogaw a , 1988). Wh er e
su ch str u ctu r es a lr ea dy existed th e str en gth
a n d r epr esen ta tion of lay m em ber s, n a m ely
pa r en ts a n d loca l com m u n ity lea der s, wer e
in cr ea sed (Deem , 1994; F in e, 1993; Ga m a ge,
1993).
Th is stu dy w a s a su r vey r esea r ch
con du cted du r in g 1992-1993. It a ttem pted to
investiga te h ow sch ool cou n cils oper a te in
th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia , h ow pa r en t
cou n cillor s pa r ticipa te in th e a ffa ir s of th e
sch ool cou n cil a n d wh eth er pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e ta k in g pa r t a s equ a l pa r tn er s to th eir
pr ofession a l collea gu es. A th eor etica l m odel
lin k in g per son a l, in stitu tion a l a n d com m u n ity-r ela ted fa ctor s to th e su ccessfu l oper a tion of th e sch ool cou n cil w a s th en pr oposed.
Da ta collected in th e su r vey wer e u sed to test
a n d con fir m th e m odel by u sin g str u ctu r a l
m odellin g a n a lysis.
th e m a n a gem en t of in dividu a l sch ools (Hill et
a l., 1990). P a r en ta l pa r ticipa tion in sch ool
cou n cils a n d sch ool boa r ds w a s th er efor e
com m on in th e Br itish depen den cies a n d
for m er ter r itor ies su ch a s Au str a lia , N ew
Zea la n d, a n d th e tin y colon y city of Hon g
Kon g. It w a s n ot a t a ll a cciden ta l th a t UK,
N ew Zea la n d, a n d som e of th e Au str a lia n
sta tes a ll decided to r estr u ctu r e th eir sch ool
cou n cils a n d boa r ds.
UK a u th or ities be ga n in cr ea sin g th e m em ber sh ip of pa r en ts a n d co-opted loca l com m u n ity lea der s to th e sch ool boa r d a n d en la r gin g
its power fr om 1984 (Hill et a l., 1990). Th e 1988
E du ca tion Refor m Act even a llowed pa r en ts
of a sch ool, a ctin g th r ou gh th e gover n in g
body, to opt ou t of th e con tr ol of th e loca l edu ca tion a u th or ity. In th e Au str a lia n sta te of
Victor ia th e r efor m took on a differ en t dim en sion . In a ddition to sch ool bu ildin gs a n d
gr ou n ds, th e 1984 Min istr y of E du ca tion edict
expa n ded th e decision -m a k in g r ole of th e
sch ool cou n cil to in clu de edu ca tion policy,
cu r r icu lu m , fin a n ce a n d th e selection of
sen ior sch ool per son n el. Sim ila r developm en ts in N ew Zea la n d wer e a lso w itn essed
(Deem , 1994; Ga m a ge, 1993; Ra e, 1992).
Wh ile it w a s believed th a t th e r efor m m ovem en ts in UK, Au str a lia a n d N ew Zea la n d
m igh t h ave been tr igger ed off by politica l a n d
socia l situ a tion s pecu lia r to th eir ow n cou n tr ies (Bea r e, 1991; Deem , 1994), th ese m ovem en ts wer e look ed on a s exem pla r s
elsewh er e. For exa m ple, th e edu ca tion
a u th or ity of Hon g Kon g w a s ca r efu lly stu dyin g th ese r efor m s to h elp th em in th eir ow n
sch ool r estr u ctu r in g in itia tives.
Background of the study
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 ,3 [ 1997] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 102 ]
P a r en ts h a d tr a dition a lly played a r ole in
sch ool a ffa ir s in cou n tr ies su ch a s th e UK a n d
th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia for som e tim e.
E ven if th ey wer e n ot given th e oppor tu n ity to
sh a r e in decision m a k in g, pa r en ts h a d a lw ays
been in volved in som e sch ool a ctivities su ch
a s r a isin g fu n ds for th eir sch ools. It w a s,
h owever, n ot u n til th e m id-1980s th a t th e idea
of pa r en ts a s pa r tn er s in sch ool gover n a n ce,
on a pa r w ith th e pr ofession a l sta ff of th e
sch ool, be ga n to ta k e r oot.
Th e UK h a s a lon g tr a dition of h avin g pa r en ts a n d loca l com m u n ity lea der s in volved in
Literature overview of the parental
role in school governance
Justification for parental participation
P a r en ta l pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce
ca n be ju stified fr om diver se poin ts of view,
in clu din g efficien cy a n d effectiven ess (Min istr y of E du ca tion , 1987), pu blic a ccou n ta bility (Ga m a ge, 1993; Pettit, 1987), a s a m a tter of
r igh t (Bea r e, 1988), a s con du cive to stu den ts’
lea r n in g a ccor din g to on e pa r en t a ssocia tion
in Victor ia , a n en h a n cem en t of sch ool policy
for m u la tion a ccor din g to a n officia l of
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Victor ia n Cou n cil of Sch ool Or ga n iza tion s
(VICCSO), a n d a s a m ea n s to m or e dem ocr a tic gover n a n ce (Deem , 1994).
J oa n Kir n er, a ch a m pion of th e disa dva n ta ged in Au str a lia a n d k n ow n a s a sta u n ch
su ppor ter of pa r en ts’ m ovem en t in Victor ia ,
h a s pr ovided th e follow in g r ea son s a s ju stifica tion for pa r en ta l in volvem en t. F ir st, pa r en ts sh ou ld pa r ticipa te beca u se th ey a r e th e
fir st edu ca tor s of ch ildr en . Secon d, pa r en ts
h ave lon g-ter m r espon sibility for th eir ow n
ch ildr en . Th ir d, pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion ca n
in cr ea se th eir ch ildr en ’s ch a n ce of su ccess in
lea r n in g. Fou r th , it is a pa r en ta l r igh t. An d
fin a lly, pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion is pa r t of th e
pr ocess of dem ocr a tizin g sch ool gover n a n ce
(Kir n er, 1982).
Methodology
Factors affecting parents’ participation in
school governance
Sever a l fa ctor s m ay eith er en cou r a ge or
im pede pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce. On e secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l in
Victor ia m en tion ed th r ee su ch fa ctor s,
n a m ely, pa r en ts’ con cer n for th eir ch ildr en ’s
edu ca tion , sa tisfa ction w ith th e sch ool, a n d
th eir a bility to pa r ticipa te. On th e oth er
h a n d, pa r en ts’ en th u sia sm m ay be da m pen ed
by n e ga tive a ttitu des on th e pa r t of pr ofession a l sta ff of th e sch ool, by la ck of in cen tives, a n d by th eir ow n tim idity (Mu r ph y,
1983). Wor k in g-cla ss pa r en ts, a n d pa r en ts wh o
fin d little tim e for volu n ta r y wor k , seem to be
pa r ticu la r ly discou r a ged fr om pa r ticipa tion
(N F E R, 1980). An oth er r ea son m ay be th e u se
of tech n ica l ter m s a n d ja r gon by th e sch ool
sta ff. Th is m ay discou r a ge pa r en ts fr om ta k in g a n a ctive pa r t (F in e, 1993).
Survey of school councils in Victoria
Th is stu dy w a s con du cted between 1992 a n d
1993 in th e sta te of Victor ia , Au str a lia . A
con sider a ble pa r t of it took pla ce du r in g th e
secon d h a lf of 1992 wh ile th e fir st a u th or w a s
on sa bba tica l leave fr om th e Ch in ese Un iver sity. Visits to sch ools a n d a tten da n ces a t
sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs, h owever, str etch ed
over a m u ch lon ger per iod between 1992 a n d
1993.
At th e in itia l sta ge, sta ff m em ber s of th e
VICCSO a n d th e Sch ool P a r ticipa tion Un it of
th e Victor ia n Min istr y of E du ca tion pr ovided
fir st-h a n d in for m a tion a bou t th e sta te of
a ffa ir s of sch ool cou n cils in th e sta te sch ools
of Victor ia . Follow in g th ese per son a l con fer en ces, visits to som e sta te sch ools a n d even tu a l a tten da n ce a t th eir sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs took pla ce. A br oa der per spective of th e
sch ool cou n cil oper a tion w a s pr ovided by
visitin g sch ools in th e Ca th olic diocese of
Melbou r n e a s well a s in depen den t sch ools in
Victor ia .
Con sequ en tly fou r ba sic qu estion s wh ich
wer e to for m th e ba sis of th e su r vey qu estion n a ir es wer e for m u la ted. Th ese a r e:
1 In wh a t w ay do th e sch ool cou n cils in Victor ia oper a te?
2 How do pa r en t cou n cillor s pa r ticipa te in
th e a ffa ir s of th e sch ool cou n cil?
3 How do pa r en ts, tea ch er s, th e pr in cipa l
sh a r e th e decision -m a k in g power ?
4 Wh a t per son a l, in stitu tion a l, or com m u n ity-r ela ted fa ctor s a ccou n t for th e su ccess
or fa ilu r e of sch ool cou n cils?
Participation in which school spheres?
A cr u cia l poin t of con ten tion a m on g pa r en ts
a n d sch ool sta ff con cer n s defin in g le gitim a te
a r ea s for pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion . Up u n til th e
1970s, th e con cept of pa r tn er sh ip w a s n ot
fu lly a ccepted. For exa m ple, even th ou gh
pa r en ts’ in pu t in to th e sch ool cu r r icu lu m
w a s con sider ed a ccepta ble, tota l con tr ol w a s
n ever a n ticipa ted (Tow n sen d, 1989). Th e
Ka r m el Repor t (Ka r m el, 1973) en dor sed
pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion bu t ca lled on pa r en ts
to r ecogn ize tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l exper tise.
In th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia th e
w iden in g of decision -m a k in g power h a s been
in ter pr eted a s a deliber a te policy of th e Ca in
gover n m en t in th e 1980s (Bea r e, 1988). Gover n m en t pa tr on a ge in th is ca se plays a n
im por ta n t r ole in deter m in in g th e scope of
pa r ticipa tion . In fa ct, th e cou n tr ies in wh ich
pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion w a s r epor ted to be
m ost w idely pr a ctised h a ppen ed to be cou n tr ies wh er e su ch politica l in cen tives existed
(Deem , 1994; Sa llis, 1988).
Data collection
Altogeth er five sta te pr im a r y a n d five sta te
secon da r y sch ools wer e ta r geted a s sa m ple
sch ools; in for m a tion collected fr om th ese
sch ools pr ovided a sou r ce of r esea r ch da ta
fr om wh ich th is stu dy w a s a ble to dr aw.
An oth er sou r ce of in for m a tion ca m e fr om a
m a iled qu estion n a ir e su r vey con du cted
tow a r ds th e en d of 1992.
Th e n a m es a n d a ddr esses of sch ools, pr im a r y a s well a s secon da r y, wer e ta k en fr om
th e m etr opolita n teleph on e dir ector y of Melbou r n e. In or der to cu t th e r ed ta pe, sch ools
wer e a ppr oa ch ed dir ectly w ith ou t goin g
th r ou gh th eir r e gion a l m a n a gem en t office.
Som e sch ools did declin e to offer co-oper a tion
on th e gr ou n ds th a t officia l a ppr ova l ou gh t to
be sou gh t fir st fr om th ese offices. Th e
r espon se w a s con sider ed fa ir ; a tota l of 172
sch ools r etu r n ed th e qu estion n a ir es, r epr esen tin g a bou t 9 per cen t of th e tota l n u m ber of
sch ools in th e en tir e sta te of Victor ia .
[ 103 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Th e qu estion n a ir es in clu ded on e for th e
pr in cipa l, on e for tea ch er cou n cillor, a n d on e
for pa r en t cou n cillor. Th e pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e w a s qu ite differ en t fr om th a t of th e
tea ch er a n d th e pa r en t. It sou gh t to pr ovide
in for m a tion on th e sch ool cou n cil oper a tion
a s well a s th e pr in cipa l’s per ception of th e
pa r en ts’ pa r ticipa tion in th e sch ool cou n cil.
Th e pa r en ts’ a n d th e tea ch er cou n cillor s’
qu estion n a ir es wer e so design ed a s to obta in
a n swer s wh ich r efl ect th eir view s on sim ila r
issu es; th ey cou ld a lso be u sed for m u tu a l
ver ifica tion . On ly on e tea ch er a n d on e pa r en t
wh o ser ved in th e sch ools cou n cil wer e a sk ed
to r espon d to th e qu estion n a ir e.
Data analysis
Da ta collected th r ou gh per son a l con fer en ces
a n d in ter view s a n d im pr ession s ga in ed fr om
visits to sch ools a n d sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs
wer e m a in ly u sed to va lida te fi n din gs fr om
th e qu estion n a ir e su r vey. Qu estion n a ir es
da ta wer e a n a lysed th r ou gh th e u se of sta tistica l tools fou n d in th e com pu ter pa ck a ges of
SP SSP C+ a n d LISRE L in or der to a ddr ess th e
fou r ba sic qu estion s posted a t th e be gin n in g
of th e su r vey. In th is pa per, on ly da ta com in g
fr om th e pa r en t cou n cillor s’ qu estion n a ir e
a r e r epor ted.
Survey findings
The general condition of school councils in
Victoria
All sta te sch ools in Victor ia m u st oper a te
u n der th e con tr ol of a sch ool cou n cil wh ich is
con stitu ted u n der le ga l r equ ir em en ts. Sch ool
cou n cils pr oper ly con stitu ted a r e given decision -m a k in g power over fi n a n ce, bu ildin gs
a n d gr ou n ds, edu ca tion a n d cu r r icu lu m policy, a s well a s selection of th e pr in cipa l a n d
th e vice pr in cipa l (E du ca tion Re gu la tion s,
1988).
A Victor ia n sch ool cou n cil h a s 15 to 20
m em ber s. Th ey a r e m a de u p of pa r en t r epr esen ta tives, tea ch er r epr esen ta tives, stu den t
r epr esen ta tives (on ly in secon da r y sch ools),
a n d co-opted m em ber s dr aw n fr om th e com m u n ity. Un lik e sch ools in th e UK a n d N ew
Zea la n d, wh er e th e pr opor tion of tea ch er
cou n cillor s is m u ch sm a ller th a n eith er th e
pa r en ts or th e co-opted com m u n ity lea der s,
sch ool cou n cils in Victor ia h ave a lm ost th e
sa m e n u m ber of lay a n d pr ofession a l m em ber s.
Sch ool cou n cils a r e r equ ir ed to m eet eigh t
tim es a yea r ; th ey n or m a lly m eet on ce a
m on th du r in g ter m tim e. Sin ce th eir a gen da s
a r e u su a lly la r ge, m ost sch ool cou n cils in
Victor ia or ga n ize th em selves in to su bcom m ittees. Th e su bsta n tive issu es a r e dea lt
[ 104 ]
w ith in th e su b-com m ittees, a n d th eir r esolu tion s a r e en dor sed a s a m a tter of fa ct a t th e
m a in com m ittee m eetin g wh ich is h eld a fter
th e su b-com m ittees h ave m et. Cou n cil m eetin gs a r e h eld a t th e sch ool on week day
even in gs, a n d ta k e u p two to th r ee h ou r s.
Ma n y of th e pa r en t a n d com m u n ity r epr esen ta tives com e str a igh t fr om wor k to th e m eetin gs.
Background of parent councillors
Th e fin din gs fr om th e qu estion n a ir e r evea led
a clea r pictu r e of th e k in d of pa r en ts wh o
h ave been dr aw n in to th e sch ool cou n cil. It
ca n be seen fr om Ta ble I th a t th e la r gest
gr ou p of pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e pr ofession a ls
(23.8 per cen t), followed by h ou sew ives (15.7
per cen t), self-em ployed a n d m a n a ger ia l people (14.0 per cen t), a n d tea ch er s (11.0 per
cen t). Less th a n 9 per cen t a r e sk illed a n d
u n sk illed wor k er s. Th e a bove fin din gs, in lin e
w ith th e fin din gs of th e N F E R (1989), su ggest
th a t wor k in g-cla ss pa r en ts a r e u n der r epr esen ted in th e sch ool cou n cils.
Con cer n in g edu ca tion a l ba ck gr ou n d, th e
su r vey fou n d th a t a m a jor ity (76 per cen t) of
pa r en t cou n cillor s com pleted secon da r y
edu ca tion a n d a lm ost 60 per cen t h ave don e
som e u n iver sity wor k (Ta ble II). It is clea r
fr om th e su r vey th a t a good pr opor tion of
pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e r ea son a bly or h igh ly
edu ca ted people wh o en joy som e socia l sta n din g.
Ma n y of th e r espon den ts to th e qu estion n a ir e su r vey wer e ser vin g on th e execu tive
com m ittee of th eir sch ool cou n cils, in th e
Table I
Bac kgro und o f pare nt c o unc illo rs: distributio n
by o c c upatio n
Occupation
Professional
Home-duty
Self-employed
Teachers
Farmers
Sales/ clerical
Skilled worker
Semi-skilled/ unskilled worker
Percentage
26.1
17.2
15.3
12.1
11.5
8.9
7.0
1.8
Table II
Bac kgro und o f pare nt c o unc illo rs: distributio n
by le ve l o f e duc atio n attaine d
Education
Some secondary education
Completed secondary education
Some university education
Completed university education
Percentage
24.0
17.4
21.5
37.2
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
ca pa city of eith er th e pr esiden t or th e secr eta r y. N on eth eless, on ly sligh tly m or e th a n
on e-th ir d of th em h a d r eceived tr a in in g for
th eir r ole a s sch ool cou n cillor.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Time spent on school council meetings by
parent councillors
On e in dica tor of pa r en t cou n cillor s’ pa r ticipa tion is th e a m ou n t of tim e th ey spen d in
r ela tion to cou n cil a ffa ir s. Th e fin din gs r evea l
a n aver a ge of 7.98 h ou r s per m on th , wh ich is
a ppr oxim a tely th e sa m e a s th e aver a ge tim e
spen t by tea ch er cou n cillor s (7.97 h ou r s per
m on th ). Th is is tim e spen t in pr epa r a tion for,
a n d in a tten din g to, cou n cil bu sin ess a n d
m eetin gs. Th is figu r e is on ly on e h ou r less
th a n th e estim a te m a de by VICCSO (Cr ich ton , 1991). Th e r ecor ded m a xim u m is 200
h ou r s a n d th e m in im u m on e h ou r per m on th .
Th e w ide devia tion r epor ted h er e in Victor ia
is com pa r ed w ith a n equ a lly w ide devia tion
r epor ted in Ma n ch ester by a loca l pa r en t
sch ool gover n or in 1992 in a visit a r r a n ged in
con ju n ction w ith th e In ter n a tion a l In ter visita tion P r ogr a m m e in E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion . Th e m a xim u m w a s 80 h ou r s a n d th e
m in im u m w a s on e h ou r per m on th .
Th e fin din gs a lso sh ow th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s wh o ta k e u p execu tive r oles in cou n cils
spen d sign ifi ca n tly m or e tim e (9.02 h ou r s per
m on th ) in a tten din g a n d pr epa r in g for m eetin gs th a n do th ose wh o do n ot ta k e execu tive
r oles (5.17 h ou r s per m on th ). On th e oth er
h a n d, sch ool cou n cillor s a lso ta k e pa r t in
sch ool fu n ction s wh ich a r e spon sor ed by th e
sch ool cou n cil. Th e m ost popu la r on es a r e
fu n d-r a isin g ca m pa ign s, sch ool im pr ovem en t
pr ojects a n d a n n u a l pa r en t r epor tin g m eetin gs. F r om con ver sa tion s w ith som e pa r en t
cou n cillor s, it a ppea r ed th a t th e tota l a m ou n t
of tim e spen t by pa r en t cou n cillor s on sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs plu s oth er sch ool fu n ction s
m ay fa r exceed th e a bove fi gu r es. On e pr im a r y sch ool cou n cil pr esiden t ca lcu la ted th a t
h e m igh t be spen din g over 40 h ou r s per
m on th in tota l.
Th e pa r ticu la r ca se of on e pa r en t wh o
r epor ted h avin g spen t a bou t 200 h ou r s in on e
m on th on cou n cil a ffa ir s is cer ta in ly ver y
exception a l. Th is is a ca se in volvin g th e
m er ger of sch ools in on e sch ool distr ict, a n d
th e pa r en t cou n cillor in h is r ole a s pr esiden t
w a s bu sy doin g th e lia ison a n d n e gotia tion in
con n ection w ith th is.
How do parent councillors, teachers, and
principal share power in the school
council?
Th e policy docu m en ts on wh ich th e sch ool
cou n cils a r e con stitu ted str ess a pa r tn er sh ip
between pa r en ts, tea ch er s, a n d loca l com m u n ity. Th e stu dy a im ed a t cla r ifyin g wh a t
qu a lity of pa r tn er sh ip existed between lay
a n d pr ofession a l m em ber s.
Ha llin ger et a l. (1993) fou n d th a t sch ool
pr ofession a l sta ff h ave som e r eser va tion s
a bou t pa r en ts’ ca pa bilities in playin g th eir
pa r tn er sh ip r ole in fu ll. Th e r esu lts in th is
stu dy su ppor ted th is fin din g. Accor din g to a
secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l, som e sch ools did
n ot a sk pa r en ts to ser ve in th e edu ca tion su bcom m ittee in or der “to m a k e m a tter s sim ple”. On e pr in cipa l su spected th a t pa r en ts
wer e n ot a ctively in volved in th e pr epa r a tion
of policy docu m en ts “beca u se th ey a r e n ot
con fiden t in doin g so”. A for m er pr esiden t of
VICCSO a ttr ibu ted th is to “fea r of pr in cipa ls
in sh a r in g in for m a tion a n d power ”.
Th e pr esen t stu dy a sk ed th e pr in cipa ls a n d
tea ch er cou n cillor s to r a te, on a 1 to 9 a scen din g sca le, pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess a n d
a bility to ta k e pa r t in cou n cil bu sin ess. Th e
m ea n scor e given by tea ch er cou n cillor s w a s
7.96, su ggestin g th a t tea ch er cou n cillor s in
gen er a l felt th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s wer e
r ea dy to ta k e, a n d ca pa ble of ta k in g, pa r t in
cou n cil bu sin ess. Th e m ea n scor e given by
th e pr in cipa ls w a s 5.63, wh ich sh owed th a t
pr in cipa ls, th ou gh w ith som e r eser va tion s,
wer e a lso qu ite positive on pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess a n d a bility to pa r ticipa te in
cou n cil bu sin ess.
P a r en ts th em selves seem ed to en joy playin g
th eir pa r t a s sch ool cou n cillor s. Of th e th r ee
gr ou ps, n a m ely th e pa r en ts, th e tea ch er s, a n d
th e pr in cipa l, pa r en ts r a ted th eir sa tisfa ction
w ith in volvem en t in sch ool cou n cil a ffa ir s
th e h igh est (Ta ble III). However, th is does n ot
m ea n th ey a r e n ot con cer n ed a bou t th eir
con fiden ce in pa r ticipa tin g in sch ool cou n cil
bu sin ess.
On e pa r ticu la r con cer n w a s pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r ea din ess to pa r ticipa te in th e for m u la tion of edu ca tion policy. Th e su r vey sh owed
th a t, for th e yea r 1992, 46 per cen t of pa r en t
Table III
Se nse o f satisfac tio n de rive d fro m invo lve me nt
in sc ho o l c o unc il affairs
Sense of
satisfaction
M ean
Standard
deviation
Parent
7.71
1.36
Principal
7.16
1.51
Teacher
7.20
1.33
Note:
The sc ores are based on a 1-9 asc ending sc ale
The differenc e between parents’ and princ ipals’ sc ores
is at 0.01 signific anc e level
The differenc e between parents’ and teac hers’ sc ores
is at 0.01 signific anc e level
There is no signific ant differenc e between princ ipals’
and teac hers’ sc ores
[ 105 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
cou n cillor s wer e n ot in volved in w r itin g th e
edu ca tion a l policy docu m en ts for th eir
sch ools.
Wh en a sk ed a bou t th eir con tr ibu tion to
discu ssion in cou n cil m eetin gs on th e va r iou s
types of sch ool cou n cil bu sin ess, pa r en t cou n cillor s r a ted th em selves sign ifica n tly lower
th a n th e tea ch er cou n cillor s in a ll except on e
of th e fou r sph er es (Ta ble IV). Th e differ en ce
between th e pa r en t cou n cillor s’ r a tin g a n d
th e tea ch er cou n cillor s’ r a tin g on edu ca tion
a n d policy m a tter s w a s th e gr ea test, followed
by th a t on fi n a n ce a n d on selection of sen ior
sta ff. P a r en t cou n cillor s’ r a tin g on th eir con tr ibu tion to discu ssion on m a tter s r ela tin g to
bu ildin gs a n d gr ou n ds w a s sign ifica n tly
h igh er th a n th ose of th e tea ch er cou n cillor s.
What factors account for school council
success?
Th e em ph a sis on a pa r tn er sh ip between pa r en ts, tea ch er s a n d th e loca l com m u n ity (Sa llis, 1988; Taylor, 1977) su ggests th a t a good
pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts is
a n im por ta n t fa ctor con tr ibu tin g to th e su ccess of sch ool cou n cils. It seem s th a t th e
r ea din ess of pa r en ts a n d tea ch er s to pa r ticipa te in th e cou n cil, a n d m u tu a l a ccepta n ce
between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts, a r e im por ta n t
a spects of a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts. Th r ee item s in th e pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e wer e design ed to m ea su r e
th e r ea din ess of pa r en ts; th e r ea din ess of
tea ch er s; a n d m u tu a l a ccepta n ce between
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts; th ey a r e tr ea ted a s
in dica tor s of a good pa r tn er sh ip between
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts in th is stu dy.
It is logica l to pr esu ppose th a t if a pa r en t
cou n cillor is sa tisfied w ith th e per for m a n ce
of th e sch ool a n d h is or h er r ole in th e cou n cil, h e or sh e is m or e lik ely to pu t in extr a
effor t in m a k in g th e cou n cil a su ccess. Hen ce,
it is pr oposed th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction w ill be positively a ssocia ted w ith th e
su ccess of th e cou n cil, a n d two item s a r e
design ed to m ea su r e th e a bove two a spects of
pa r en t cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction .
Table IV
A c o mpariso n o f pe rc e ive d c o ntributio n to disc ussio n in sc ho o l c o unc il
be twe e n pare nt and te ac he r c o unc illo rs
Topic
Building and grounds
Education policies
Finance
Selection of senior staff
Note:
* p < 0.05
* * p < 0.001
[ 106 ]
Contribution by
parent councillors
Contribution by
teacher councillors
Significant
difference
5.52
4.61
4.90
4.24
5.03
6.19
5.43
5.05
*
**
**
**
P r in cipa ls’ com m itm en t to th e cou n cils m ay
be a n oth er fa ctor positively r ela ted to th e
su ccess of th e cou n cil. If th e pr in cipa l is com m itted to m a k in g th e cou n cil a su ccess, h e or
sh e m ay ta k e a ction to in flu en ce or m otiva te
tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts to pa r ticipa te in th e
cou n cil a n d to cr ea te a n en vir on m en t con du cive to a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts. Th er e is on e item in th e
pr in cipa l’s qu estion n a ir e design ed to m ea su r e th e a bove com m itm en t. It is pr oposed
th a t pr in cipa l com m itm en t m ay lea d to better
pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts,
wh ich in tu r n is positively a ssocia ted w ith
th e su ccess of th e cou n cil.
On e of th e objectives of in volvin g pa r en ts in
th e cou n cil is to solicit su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity (Br ow n et a l., 1987). Th e level of su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity is a n ticipa ted to be
a fa ctor a ssocia ted positively w ith th e su ccess
of th e cou n cil in th is stu dy. Th e follow in g
th r ee in dica tor s a r e u sed to m ea su r e th e level
of su ppor t fr om th e com m u n ity: th e con tr ibu tion to sch ool in dolla r ter m s, th e level a t
wh ich pa r en ts a r e ch a r ged w ith edu ca tion a l
levies, a n d th e per cen ta ge of pa r en ts in th e
sch ool wh o r eceive edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce
a llow a n ce. Th e fir st two in dica tor s a r e
expected to be positively r ela ted to, a n d th e
la st in dica tor is a ssu m ed to be n e ga tively
a ssocia ted w ith , th e level of su ppor t fr om th e
com m u n ity.
Apa r t fr om th e level of su ppor t fr om th e
com m u n ity, th e per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds
m ay a lso be r ela ted to th e su ccess of th e cou n cil. It seem s lik ely th a t pa r en ts fr om n on E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds m ay h ave
pr oblem s w ith in te gr a tin g in to th e society
a n d com m u n ica tion w ith th e sch ool. Hen ce it
m ay h elp tow a r ds th e sch ool cou n cil’s su ccess
if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of
su ch stu den ts.
In or der to m ea su r e th e su ccess of th e cou n cil, th e pr in cipa l, a tea ch er cou n cillor a n d a
pa r en t cou n cillor a r e r equ ested to r a te th e
de gr ee of su ccess of th e cou n cil. Th eir r a tin gs
a r e ta k en to be in dica tor s of th e su ccess of th e
cou n cil.
A theoretical model on various
factors leading to the successful
operation of school councils
A th eor etica l m odel w a s pr oposed depictin g
th e r ela tion sh ips in volved in pa r tn er sh ip
(m u tu a l a ccepta n ce) between tea ch er a n d
pa r en t, per cen ta ge of stu den ts fr om n on E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds, com m u n ity
su ppor t, pr in cipa l com m itm en t, pa r en t
cou n cillor s’ sa tisfa ction a n d th e su ccess of
sch ool cou n cil.
Str u ctu r a l equ a tion m odellin g a n a lysis
u sin g th e LISRE L pr ogr a m m e w a s u sed to
test wh eth er th e da ta fitted th e th eor etica l
m odel. Ma xim u m lik elih ood a n a lysis w a s
u sed w ith cor r ela tion m a tr ix. Th er e wer e 135
ca ses a fter ca sew ise deletion . Hen ce, th e
sa m ple size w a s su ita ble for LISRE L a n a lysis
(Ha ir et a l., 1995). Th e goodn ess of fit in dices
for th e m odel, th e fa ctor loa din g a n d u n iqu en ess of ea ch item a n d th e tota l effect of ea ch
fa ctor on th e su ccess of th e cou n cil a r e sh ow n
in Ta bles V, VI a n d VII r espectively. Th e fa ctor loa din gs, u n iqu en esses, pa th coefficien ts
of th e m odel a r e depicted in F igu r e 1.
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
Table V
Go o dne ss o f fit indic e s fo r the mo de l o n
suc c e ss o f sc ho o l c o unc il
Indices
Level
Chi-square with 61 degrees of
freedom
Root mean square residual
Goodness of fit
Non-normed fit index
Comparative fit index
Incremental fit index
Critical N
75.13 ( p = 0.11)
0.072
0.93
0.95
0.96
0.96
160
Table VI
Fac to r lo adings and unique ne ss o f ite ms
Factor
Principal
commitment
Partnership
Community
support
Non-English
speaking
background
Parent
satisfaction
Item
Princ ipal’ s c ommitment to c ounc il
affairs
X2
Teac hers’ ac c eptanc e of parents’
involvement in sc hool c ounc il
X3
Parents’ readiness to be involved in
sc hool c ounc il
X4
Teac hers’ readiness to be involved in
sc hool c ounc il
X8
Educ ation levies c ollec ted
X9
Perc entage of families rec eiving
Educ ation Maintenanc e Allowanc e
X10 Donation to sc hool (exc luding levies)
per family
X5
Perc entage of students from nonEnglish speaking family
X1
X6
X7
Success of
council
Factor
loading Uniqueness
Y1
Y2
Y3
Parents’ satisfac tion with the
sc hool
Parents’ satisfac tion with their
involvement in sc hool c ounc il
Princ ipal’ s rating of the suc c ess
of sc hool c ounc il
Parents’ rating of the suc c ess of
sc hool c ounc il
Teac hers’ rating of the suc c ess of
sc hool c ounc il
1
0
0.58
0.66
0.76
0.42
0.54
0.49
0.70
0.76
0.62
0.61
0.44
0.81
1.00
0.00
0.78
0.40
0.54
0.71
0.90
0.16
0.80
0.33
0.40
0.83
Table VII
To tal e ffe c t o f vario us fac to rs o n the suc c e ss o f
c o unc il
Factor
Partnership
Principal commitment
Community support
Percentage of non-English speaking
background
Parent satisfaction
Notes:
* * * p < 0.05
* * * p < 0.01
* * * p < 0.001
Total effect
0.61* * *
0.40* * *
0.31* *
–0.26* * *
0.21*
It ca n be seen in Ta ble V th a t a ll th e goodn ess
of fit in dices in dica te th a t th e th eor etica l
m odel fi ts th e da ta sa tisfa ctor ily. On e m ay
con clu de, th er efor e, th a t th e th eor etica l
m odel of th is stu dy is con fir m ed by th e da ta
a n d th e fa ctor s pr oposed in th is stu dy a r e a ll
sign ifica n tly a ssocia ted w ith th e su ccess of
th e cou n cil. Th e r esu lts in Ta ble VII su ggest
th a t a good pa r tn er sh ip between tea ch er s a n d
pa r en ts h a s th e la r gest tota l a n d dir ect effect
on th e su ccess of th e cou n cil. Th e com m itm en t of th e pr in cipa l a n d com m u n ity su ppor t
a r e two oth er im por ta n t fa ctor s su bsta n tia lly
a ssocia ted w ith th e su ccess of th e cou n cil.
F r om th e a bove r esu lts, th e k ey fa ctor s
a ppea r to be th e th r ee k ey gr ou ps: n a m ely th e
pr in cipa l of th e sch ool, th e tea ch er s in th e
sch ool a n d th e pa r en ts wh o ta k e pa r t in th e
sch ool cou n cil oper a tion . Th e cou n cil is m or e
lik ely to exper ien ce su ccess if th e pr in cipa l is
com m itted to th e sch ool cou n cil, if th e tea ch er s a n d th e pa r en ts a r e r ea dy to ta k e pa r t, a n d
if th ey a r e w illin g to a ccept on e a n oth er in
th eir ser vice to th e sch ool cou n cil. F u r th er m or e, pa r en t cou n cillor s sa tisfied w ith th e
sch ool a n d th eir r oles in th e cou n cil m ay a lso
con tr ibu te tow a r ds th e su ccess of th e sch ool
cou n cil.
An oth er fa ctor is th e com m u n ity wh er e th e
sch ool is loca ted. Con cer n in g th e com m u n ity,
it is to th e a dva n ta ge of th e sch ool cou n cil: if
th e pa r en ts a r e r ea dy to con tr ibu te m or e to
th e sch ools in ter m s of don a tion s; if th ey ca n
a ffor d h igh er edu ca tion a l levies ch a r ged by
th e sch ool; if th ey a r e well off a n d do n ot
r equ ir e edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce a llow a n ce
fr om th e gover n m en t; a n d if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g
fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds.
F igu r e 1 ta k es a ll fa ctor s in to con sider a tion .
Discussion
A n u m ber of cou n tr ies in th e pa st deca de,
n ota bly th e UK, Au str a lia a n d N ew Zea la n d,
[ 107 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Figure 1
A path diagram o f fac to rs re late d to the suc c e ss o f sc ho o l c o unc il
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
h ave been r efor m in g th eir sch ools by givin g
m or e power a n d r espon sibility to th em a n d
en listin g pa r en ts a n d com m u n ity lea der s to
h elp pr in cipa ls a n d pr ofession a l sta ff in
sch ool m a n a gem en t. Ma n y ju stifica tion s h ave
sin ce been a dva n ced to su ppor t th ese gover n m en t m oves, a n d a m on g th em politica l con sider a tion s seem to h ave played a n im por ta n t
r ole (Bea r e, 1993; Ber k eley, 1991; Deem , 1994).
In th e Au str a lia n sta te of Victor ia , for
in sta n ce, th e expa n sion of pa r en t m em ber sh ip in th e sch ool cou n cil togeth er w ith
in cr ea sed decision a l power w a s im plem en ted
wh en th e La bor P a r ty w a s in power (Cr eed,
1991). Th e policy of in cr ea sed pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion w a s clea r ly in step w ith th e pa r ty’s
pla tfor m of equ a lity.
On e of th e tr ite sloga n s of th e La bor P a r ty
w a s em power m en t, r efer r in g to pa r en ts in
[ 108 ]
th e lower socia l str a tu m a s bein g tr a in ed or
en a bled to ta k e pa r t in th e politica l pr ocesses
of sch ool cou n cil election s, becom in g sch ool
cou n cillor s, a n d per h a ps en su r in g th e su ccess of th eir ch ildr en in th e sch ool (Kir n er,
1982). Th e ir on y is th a t qu ite often it is th ese
sa m e pa r en ts wh o a r e den ied th e oppor tu n ity
to pa r ticipa te (F in e, 1993).
Som e pa r en ts, pa r ticu la r ly wom en , wh o
took pa r t in or ga n izin g a n d lea din g th e pa r en t m ovem en t in Victor ia , did becom e ver y
power fu l; som e lik e J oa n Kir n er even tu a lly
a ch ieved th e h igh est politica l a ppoin tm en t in
th e La bor Gover n m en t in th e sta te of Victor ia . Th e em power m en t wh ich J oa n Kir n er
a n ticipa ted did n ot h a ppen except for a few
politica l a ctivists in th e sta te La bor P a r ty.
Th is stu dy h a d a s its a im s to discover h ow
pa r en t cou n cillor s con tr ibu te to sch ool
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
cou n cils in th e sta te of Victor ia , Au str a lia . In
ter m s of con tr ibu tion m a de in tim e, pa r en t
cou n cillor s wh o wer e su r veyed r epor ted a n
aver a ge of eigh t h ou r s per m on th r ela tin g to
pr epa r a tion for, a n d a tten da n ce a t, sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs. It is believed th a t a n
equ a lly sign ifi ca n t n u m ber of h ou r s m ay be
spen t by pa r en t cou n cillor s in r ela tion to
oth er sch ool-r ela ted fu n ction s. Th e m a jor ity
of th ese pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e h igh ly edu ca ted pr ofession a ls or m a n a ger ia l people. It
seem s th a t th e wor k in g cla ss a n d th e disa dva n ta ged r a r ely ser ve on sch ool cou n cils. It is
pr oba ble th a t sch ools loca ted in a socia lly or
cu ltu r a lly disa dva n ta ged com m u n ity m ay
h ave pr oblem s in fi n din g pa r en ts w illin g to
ser ve on sch ool cou n cils. For th ese pa r en ts,
a tten da n ce a t sch ool cou n cil m eetin gs or a t
oth er sch ool-r ela ted fu n ction s r epr esen ts
tr u e sa cr ifice. Th ey m ay a lso la ck con fi den ce
in con tr ibu tin g to th e sch ool a s cou n cillor s.
Th e a bove is r ela ted to a n a spect of pa r en t’s
pa r ticipa tion in sch ool cou n cils wh ich w a s
pr eviou sly discu ssed by th e Taylor Com m ittee (F ield, 1993). P a r en ts in lower socioecon om ic com m u n ities m ay n ot be a ble to
a ffor d th e tim e a n d m on ey r equ ir ed for pa r ticipa tion . Th er e is th e qu estion of oppor tu n ity cost wh ich is r ea l to pa r en ts wh o n eed to
ea r n a livin g. Th e idea of pr ovidin g a fi n a n cia l loss a llow a n ce w a s r ecom m en ded by th e
Taylor Com m ittee, bu t even tu a lly w a s n ot
ta k en u p by th e Gover n m en t in th e UK. Th er e
is a lso th e qu estion of a ddition a l expen ses
in cu r r ed in a tten din g cou n cil m eetin gs a n d
fu n ction s, a n d a lso con tr ibu tion s in k in d a n d
in m on ey to fu n d-r a isin g ca m pa ign s.
P a r en t cou n cillor s in N ew Zea la n d sch ools
a r e pa id to a tten d cou n cil m eetin gs. N oth in g
is pa id to pa r en t cou n cillor s in Victor ia . Bu t
if pa r en ts sh ou ld be pa id to a tten d sch ool
cou n cil m eetin gs, h ow m u ch sh ou ld th ey be
pa id? We m u st a lso bea r in m in d th a t wh a tever th e a m ou n t of su bsidies spen t on pa r en t
cou n cillor s, a n equ a l a m ou n t is ta k en aw ay
fr om ava ila ble sch ool fu n ds.
Th is stu dy a lso a ttem pted to con fir m
wh eth er or n ot pa r en t cou n cillor s a r e ta k in g
pa r t in sch ool cou n cil a ffa ir s a s equ a l pa r tn er s to th eir pr ofession a l collea gu es, th e
tea ch er s a n d th e pr in cipa l. Th e fin din gs sh ow
th a t pa r en t cou n cillor s, th ou gh sa tisfied w ith
th eir pa r ticipa tion , wer e n ot en tir ely con fiden t in con tr ibu tin g to cou n cil discu ssion s on
m a tter s su ch a s edu ca tion policy a n d cu r r icu lu m , a n d selection of sen ior sch ool per son n el.
Per h a ps m or e m u st be don e in pr ovidin g
tr a in in g a n d edu ca tion for th ese lay cou n cillor s wh o, in on e exper t’s view, “m ay pr ove to
be u n equ a l for th eir ta sk ” (Deem , 1990).
Tea ch er s, too, m ay n eed tr a in in g a n d pr ior
exper ien ce in or der to be con vin ced th a t
pa r en ts a r e ju st a s ca pa ble of deter m in in g
edu ca tion a l policies (E pstein , 1993).
Th er e is, on th e oth er h a n d, eviden ce to
in dica te th a t th e pr ofession a l sta ff in th e
sch ool a r e lik ely to m a in ta in a cer ta in de gr ee
of m istr u st of th e pa r en t cou n cillor s, to th e
exten t th a t som etim es n ot a ll aven u es of pa r ticipa tion a r e open (Won g, 1994). In com pa r ison , pr in cipa ls seem ed to be m or e r elu cta n t
to give fu ll r ein to th e pa r en ts th a n a r e th eir
tea ch in g sta ff. As on e pa r en t in a US sch ool
sa id “… th ey [th e tea ch er s a n d th e pr in cipa l]
don ’t see m e a s a n equ a l …” (F in e,1993).
It is con ceiva ble th a t pa r en ts m ay becom e
m or e con fiden t a n d ta k e a m or e a ctive pa r t if
th e pr in cipa l is pa r ticu la r ly en cou r a gin g.
Lik ew ise, pa r en ts m igh t dem on str a te a
gr ea ter de gr ee of com m itm en t if th e tea ch in g
sta ff r ea dily a ccept th em . Sin ce pa r en ts a r e
still n ot con fi den t a bou t th eir r ole in edu ca tion a l a n d cu r r icu la r m a tter s (F ield, 1993), it
is pr efer a ble th a t in itia tive sh ou ld fir st com e
fr om th e pr ofession a l sta ff.
A sta tistica l a n a lysis w a s con du cted to
explor e fa ctor s wh ich wer e r espon sible for
sch ool cou n cil su ccess. Th e k ey fa ctor s
a ppea r to be th e th r ee gr ou ps of in dividu a ls,
n a m ely th e pr in cipa l of th e sch ool, th e tea ch er s in th e sch ool, a n d th e pa r en ts wh o ta k e
pa r t in th e sch ool cou n cil oper a tion . Th e
pr in cipa l m u st be com m itted to th e sch ool
cou n cil. Tea ch er s a n d pa r en ts m u st be r ea dy
to ta k e pa r t, a n d th ey m u st be w illin g to
a ccept ea ch oth er in th eir ser vice to th e
sch ool cou n cil for it to be su ccessfu l.
An oth er fa ctor for pa r ticipa tion is th e com m u n ity wh er e th e sch ool is loca ted. In th is
r e ga r d, pa r en ts m u st be r ea dy to con tr ibu te
to th e sch ool in ter m s of don a tion s, th ey m u st
be a ble to a ffor d th e edu ca tion a l levies
ch a r ged by th e sch ool, a n d th ey m u st be well
off a n d n ot r equ ir e edu ca tion a l m a in ten a n ce
a llow a n ce fr om th e gover n m en t.
An oth er fa ctor r ela ted to pa r en ta l pa r ticipa tion is th e per cen ta ge of stu den ts com in g
fr om n on -E n glish spea k in g ba ck gr ou n ds
en r olled in th e sch ool. It is to th e a dva n ta ge of
th e sch ool cou n cil ‘s su ccess if th er e is a r ela tively lower per cen ta ge of su ch stu den ts.
Concluding remarks
Recen t r estr u ctu r in g of sch ool gover n a n ce in
wester n cou n tr ies a s a m ea n s of im pr ovin g
edu ca tion h a s k in dled in ter est is r esea r ch in g
th e oper a tion of sch ool cou n cils. Cu r r en tly,
th e im por ta n ce of th e sch ool cou n cil a s a
le gitim a te pa r t of th e m ech a n ism of sch ool
gover n a n ce, a s well a s th e vita l r ole of pa r en ts, m u st both be r ecogn ized. In cr ea sin gly, it
a ppea r s th a t th e r ea l test of th e sch ool cou n cil
is n ot wh eth er it sh ou ld be per m itted to exist,
bu t r a th er wh eth er su ch existen ce ca n be
ju stifi ed edu ca tion a lly.
[ 109 ]
Be njamin Y.M. Chan and
Ho ng She ung Chui
Pare ntal partic ipatio n in
sc ho o l c o unc ils in Vic to ria,
Australia
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 3 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 0 2 –1 1 0
[ 110 ]
References
Au str a lia n Sch ools Com m ission (1973), S ch ools in
A u stra lia , Au str a lia n Gover n m en t P u blish in g
Ser vice, Ca n ber r a .
Bea r e, H. (1988), “Con fl icts in sch ool gover n a n ce”,
in Ra n dell, S. (E d.), T u r bu len ce a n d Ch a n ge in
th e A d m in istra tor ’s World, Un iver sity of N ew
E n gla n d, Ar m ida le.
Bea r e, H. (1991), “Th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ools a n d
sch ool system s: a com pa r a tive per spective”,
in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H. a n d Ber k eley, G.F.
(E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool M a n a gem en t:
A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion of Pu blic
S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia, Au str a lia n
Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Bea r e, H. (1993), “Differ en t w ays of view in g
sch ool-site cou n cils: wh ose pa r a digm is in u se
h er e?”, in Bea r e, H. a n d Boyd, W.L. (E ds),
R estru ctu r in g S ch ools: A n In ter n a tion a l Per spectiv e on th e M ov em en t to T ra n sfor m th e
Con trol a n d Per for m a n ce of S ch ools, Th e
F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Ber k eley, G.F. (1991), “Restr u ctu r in g edu ca tion in
Au str a lia ”, in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H. a n d
Ber k er ley, G.F. (E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool
M a n a gem en t: A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion
of Pu blic S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia,
Au str a lia n Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Br ow n , J ., Ca h ir, P. a n d Reeve, P. (1987), “Th e
edu ca tion a l r a tion a le for pa r en t pa r ticipa tion ”, Un icor n , Vol. 13 N o. 4, pp. 195-201.
Ca ldwell, B. (1996), In ter n a tion a l Perspectiv es on
th e Im pa ct of S ch ool-b a sed M a n a gem en t, Th e
Ch in ese Un iver sity of Hon g Kon g, Wei Lu n
Lectu r e Ser ies VI.
Cr eed, P. (1991), “Betw ixt a n d between ch a n ges: a
Victor ia n ga m e”, in Ha r m a n , G., Bea r e, H.
a n d Ber k eley, G.F. (E ds), R estru ctu r in g S ch ool
M a n a gem en t: A d m in istra tiv e R eorga n isa tion
of Pu blic S ch ool Gov er n a n ce in A u stra lia,
Au str a lia n Colle ge of E du ca tion , Ca n ber r a .
Cr ich ton (1991), per son a l cor r espon den ce, 5 Septem ber.
Deem , R. (1990), “Th e r efor m of sch ool gover n in g
bodies: th e power of th e con su m er over th e
pr odu cer ?”, in F lu de, M. a n d Ha m m er, M.
(E ds), T h e ER A 1988. Its Or igin s a n d Im plica tion s, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Deem , R. (1994), “F r ee m a r k eteer s or good citizen s: edu ca tion a l policy a n d lay pa r ticipa tion
in th e a dm in istr a tion of sch ools”, B ritish
J ou r n al of Ed u ca tion a l S tu d ies, Vol. 42 N o.1,
pp. 23-37.
E du ca tion Re gu la tion s (1988), Victor ia .
E pstein (1993), “A r espon se”, T ea ch ers’ College
R ecord , Vol. 94 N o. 4, Su m m er, pp. 710-17.
F ield, L. (1993), “Sch ool gover n in g bodies: th e laypr ofession a l r ela tion sh ips”, S ch ool Orga n iz a tion , Vol. 13 N o. 2, pp. 165-74.
F in e, M. (1993), “Appa r en t in volvem en t: r efl ection s on pa r en ts, power, a n d u r ba n pu blic
sch ools”, T ea ch ers College R ecord, Vol. 94
N o. 4, pp. 682-717.
Ga m a ge, D.T. (1993), “A r eview of com m u n ity
pa r ticipa tion in sch ool gover n a n ce: a n em er gin g cu ltu r e in Au str a lia n edu ca tion ”, B r itish
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l S tu d ies, Vol. 41 N o.2,
pp. 134-49.
Ha ir, J .F., An der son , R.E ., Ta th a m , R.L. a n d Bla ck ,
W.C. (1995), M u ltiva r ia te Da ta A n a lysis w ith
R ea d in gs (4th ed.), P r en tice-Ha ll In ter n a tion a l, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .
Ha llin ger, P., Mu r ph y, J . a n d Ha u sm a n , C. (1993),
“Con ceptu a lizin g sch ool r estr u ctu r in g: pr in cipa ls’ a n d tea ch er s’ per ception ”, in Dim m ock , C. (E d.), S ch ool-b a sed M a n a gem en t a n d
S ch ool Effectiv en ess, Rou tledge, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Hess, G.A. (1992), “Ch ica go a n d Br ita in : exper im en ts in em power in g pa r en ts”, J ou r n a l of
Ed u ca tion a l Policy, Vol. 7 N o. 2, pp. 155-71.
Hill, D., Oa k ley-Sm ith , B. a n d Spin k , J . (1990),
L oca l M a n a gem en t of S ch ools, P a u l Ch a pm a n ,
Lon don .
Ka r m el (1973), S ch ools in A u stra lia : R epor t of th e
In ter im Com m ittee to th e A u stra lia n S ch ools
Com m ission , Au str a lia n Gover n m en t P u blish in g Ser vice, Ca n ber r a .
Kir n er, J . (1982), “P a r en t pa r ticipa tion in th e
in ter ests of ever y ch ild”, Ed u ca tion M a ga z in e,
Vol. 39, pp. 16-17.
Ma len , B. a n d Ogaw a , R. (1988), “P r ofession a lpa r en t in fl u en ce in site-ba sed gover n a n ce
cou n cils: a con fou n din g ca se stu dy”, Ed u ca tion a l Eva lu a tion a n d Policy A n a lysis, Vol. 10
N o. 4, pp. 251-70.
Min istr y of E du ca tion (1987), Pa r tn ersh ip a n d
Ch a n ge. S ch ool Im prov em en t Pla n ,
Melbou r n e.
Mu r ph y, J .T. (1983), “Possible expla n a tion s for
lim ited pa r en ta l in volvem en t in sch ool gover n a n ce”, in Ha n cock , G., Kir st, M.W. a n d Gr ossm a n , D.L. (E ds), Con tem pora r y Issu es in Ed u ca tion a l Policy, Cu r r icu lu m Developm en t
Cou n cil, Ca n ber r a .
N F E R (1989), T h e R ecru itm en t of S ch ool Gov er n ors
follow in g th e R econ stitu tion of S ch ool Gov er n in g B od ies u n d er th e Ed u ca tion (N o. 2) A ct
1986, N a tion a l Fou n da tion for E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch .
Pettit (1987), S ch oolin g a t a Crossroa d s. In Pa ren t
Pa r ticipa tion in V ictor ia n S ch ools, Min istr y of
E du ca tion , Victor ia .
Ra e, K.A. (1992), “Th e r edesign of edu ca tion a l
a dm in istr a tion in N ew Zea la n d: tom or r ow ’s
sch ools in th e secon d yea r ”, pa per pr esen ted
a t N ZE AS con fer en ce, P a lm er ston N or th , 1215 N ovem ber.
Sa llis