Rethinking ‘hard-to-reach’: power, participation and parent-school partnerships.
- Euan
- May 28
- 6 min read
The phrase “hard-to-reach parents” appears often in educational discourse, typically used to describe families who do not attend school functions, fail to respond to messages, or do not participate in expected ways. This language implies parental disinterest or resistance. However, this interpretation deflects attention from the institutional conditions that might contribute to this dynamic.
Rather than framing parents as disengaged, the more critical question is whether schools have created accessible and inclusive environments for all families.
Framing the issue as a deficit on the part of parents obscures structural and cultural obstacles that limit engagement. Frameworks of barriers to parental involvement appear in varying formats across the literature, with barriers operating across different levels, including: the characteristics of parents and children, family context, institutional practices, and broader societal conditions (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Institutional focus tends to remain fixed on individual or familial shortcomings, often neglecting how school systems themselves contribute to exclusion.
Authentic parental engagement is relational and reciprocal. It requires trust, mutual respect, and space for families to contribute meaningfully to the life of the school (Harris & Goodall, 2020). When schools dictate the terms of engagement through top-down communication and tightly controlled decision-making, parents may reasonably disengage. This is mirrored in research from Switzerland, where principals affirmed parental participation in the form of being informed, heard, or volunteering, but resisted models where laypeople had decision-making power (Quesel, Näpfli, and Buser, 2017). This highlights how professional discretion is often protected through structural boundaries within governance.
Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969) provides a conceptual framework for examining these dynamics. The ladder consists of eight rungs that represent increasing levels of citizen influence, from manipulation and therapy at the lowest levels, through consultation and placation, up to partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. The central principle is that genuine participation only occurs when power is shared.
This model has been applied across various sectors and adapted for educational contexts. Yet most educational institutions still operate at the lower or middle rungs of the ladder—possibly with the perception that they do have authentic partnerships with parents. Students, and by extension, parents, are frequently invited to share feedback but rarely empowered to shape decision-making (Bovill & Bulley, 2011; Buckley, 2018; Carey, 2013). Indeed, it can be the case that schools invite feedback from parents through surveys and focus groups; however, final decision-making continues to lie with school leadership, resulting in participation limited to tokenism (rungs four or five) at best.
When parent-school partnerships are narrowly defined by visible involvement, such as attending events, responding to emails, or showing up at scheduled times, it reflects a narrow, middle-class ideal. Schools are miniature replications of society which reproduce an “institutional habitus” that privileges specific behaviours, communication styles, and cultural assumptions (Reay, 2010). Parents who do not align with these expectations are too often perceived as uninterested or deficient. This perception is further entrenched by deficit discourses that frame families, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as inherently lacking or failing from the outset. Such narratives position these parents as starting from a disadvantaged point, requiring 'fixing' through interventions aimed at instilling middle-class parenting norms (Goodall, 2019). Consequently, the responsibility for educational outcomes is shifted onto individual families, absolving systemic structures from addressing broader inequalities.
The reality is more complex. Some parents work nights and cannot attend evening events. Others may have experienced exclusion or discrimination in their own schooling, leading to mistrust. Language barriers, digital inequities, and lack of familiarity with school culture all play a role. These are not failures of character; they are mismatches between institutional practices and diverse family realities.
Quantitative research supports this view. Parents with lower levels of formal education report being just as committed to their children’s learning but feel less confident engaging with schools (DfE, 2021). Nearly 40% of parents who avoid school events cite feeling unwelcome (Parentkind, 2023). Evidence shows that engagement increases when communication is culturally responsive and framed around family strengths (EEF, 2020).
Despite these findings, schools often define partnerships in narrow terms. Arnstein’s ladder reminds us that consultation alone is insufficient. For parent-school interactions to be meaningful, schools must shift toward partnership and shared authority. This means involving families early and substantively in designing policies, practices, and events that affect them.
Critics argue that Arnstein’s model oversimplifies complex realities, suggesting that full citizen control may not always be appropriate, as highlighted in the aforementioned views of Swiss principals. Yet removing the top and bottom rungs from our mental models sanitises the spectrum of power relations. Even if maximum delegation is not always feasible, the absence of meaningful power-sharing is itself a problem (Stewart, 2012).
These insights are especially relevant in international school contexts, where families may live across time zones, speak multiple languages, and face additional barriers to digital access. Expecting these families to participate on the school’s terms overlooks the institutional shifts needed to create more equitable systems.
Providing information does not equal involvement. Parental attendance at events does not necessarily signify engagement. Gathering feedback does not automatically equate to participation.
Inclusive practice begins with listening. Schools must ask families what they need and how they prefer to engage. Engagement should be recognised in forms beyond physical attendance, including home-based learning support, digital interaction, or informal conversations with children. Communications should be multilingual, mobile-accessible, and genuinely dialogic. Staff at all levels need training in culturally responsive practices and relational work.
Above all, authentic parent-school partnership requires a redistribution of power. Schools must go beyond consulting families after decisions have been made. Families must be active participants in shaping decisions from the beginning. This does not mean school leadership relinquishing all decision-making power to please parents. What it does mean is a setting of boundaries, a managing of expectations, a commitment to follow through on promises and plans, and being consistent. We have all experienced disappointment when someone or an organisation does not hold up their side of the bargain. To avoid the erosion of trust and the disenfranchisement of parents, schools must build relational accountability into their processes. This means making interactions meaningful, not performative; ensuring parents see how their input influences outcomes; and being transparent when change is not possible. Trust grows when communication is honest, when actions match words, and when parents feel respected as equal stakeholders in their child’s education. Without this, even well-intentioned initiatives risk reinforcing the very disengagement they aim to overcome.
Using the label “hard to reach” allows institutions to avoid reflecting on their own structures. School leaders are invited to cease asking colleagues and direct reports to use this term. When families fall silent or step back, it may be because they have repeatedly been asked for input without real follow-through. They may have been consulted but never heard.
Rather than labelling families as “hard to reach,” schools can use more accurate and accountable language. Terms like "high priority", “under-served,” “historically excluded,” or “currently marginalised” shift the focus onto the systems that have failed to engage equitably. For example, instead of stating that an initiative will target “hard-to-reach parents,” schools might say: “We are prioritising families who have been historically under-served by school communication and decision-making processes due to structural barriers, limited cultural responsiveness, and a lack of trusted relationships.” This allows schools to take a positive step towards meaningful partnerships with their parent communities.
The challenge for schools is to move from placation to partnership. This means asking: are we creating the conditions for genuine collaboration, or are we maintaining control under the guise of partnership? Are we serving our communities representatively, or only those who fit the majority demographic, or who make our lives easiest?
True engagement starts not with outreach but with introspection. When schools redesign their practices around listening, mutual respect, and shared influence, the gap between home and school begins to close. This is not because parents try harder, but because the system finally meets them where they are.
"Rethinking ‘hard-to-reach’: power, participation
and parent-school partnerships."
&Parents is a social enterprise committed to transforming the way schools
and partner with parents.
&Parents encourages schools around the world to transform parent-school collaboration.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: exploring desirability and possibility. Enhancing Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 5–19.
Buckley, A. (2018). Developing a student engagement framework: Consultation findings. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Carey, P. (2013). Student engagement: stakeholder perspectives on course representation in university governance. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1290–1304.
Department for Education. (2021). Parent engagement and outcomes report. London: DfE.
Education Endowment Foundation. (2020). Working with Parents to Support Children’s Learning. London: EEF.
Goodall, J. (2019). Parental engagement and deficit discourses: absolving the system and solving parents. Educational Review, 73(1), 98-110.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2020). Engaging Parents in Education: Lessons from Five Parental Engagement Projects. Educational Review, 72(4), 460–476.
Parentkind. (2023). Parent Voice Report 2023. Tonbridge: Parentkind.
Quesel, C., Näpfli, J., & Buser, P. A. (2017). Principals’ Views on Civic and Parental Participation in School Governance in Switzerland. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(4), 585-615.
Reay, D. (2010). Finding or losing yourself? Working-class relationships to education. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 71–80.
Stewart, E. (2012). Exploring the public health role of local authorities in England: The case of health scrutiny. PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh.
Comments