Mija Marija Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Olga Poljšak Škraban, PhD The Context-Sensitive Processes of School-Family Partnership Pr ejeto 18.09.2019 / Spr ejeto 10.02.2020 Znanstveni članek UDK 37.064.1-051 KLJUČNE BESEDE : partnerstvo med šolo in druži- no, pr ocesno usmerjeno delo, kontekst, učitelji POVZETEK – Konstruktivno sodelovanje med šolo in družino je pomemben dejavnik otr okovega razvoja in njegove uspešnosti v šoli. Starši in učite lji pr epozna- vajo to sodelovanje kot pomembno, vendar raziskave pogosto kažejo nezadovoljstvo z ene ali druge strani. Namen članka je pojasniti temeljne koncepte znotraj partnerskega modela, ki prispevajo k učinkovitemu sodelovanju med šolo in družino. Omenjeni model pr edstavljava z vidi ka dveh temeljnih teor etičnih iz- hodišč: kontekstualizma in pr ocesno usmerjenega dela. Predstaviva pregled teoretskih konceptov v po- vezavi s podatki, ki sva jih pridobili pri predmetih in usposabljanjih na temo procesnega sodelovanja med šolo in družino. Pr edstavljeni koncepti so: enakovr e- den odnos in predpogoji zanj, vloga otroka v procesu soustvarjanja, r eflektirano ravnanje z močjo in vloga dialoga. V zaključkih pr edlagava, da naj pr evladujo- či instrumentalni pristop nadomesti bolj pr ožen in za kontekst občutljiv pristop tudi že na pr eddiplomski stopnji študijskih pr ogramov , ki izobražujejo študente za pedagoške poklice, in (posledično) v praksi. Received 18.09.2019 / Accepted 10.02.2020 Scientific paper UDC 37.064.1-051 KEYWORDS: school-family partnership, pr ocess- oriented work, context, teachers ABSTRACT – Constructive school-family collabora- tion is an important factor of a child’s development and school achievement. Parents and teachers iden- tify school-family collaboration as significant, but the r esear ch findings often show dissatisfaction on one or both sides. The aim of the paper is to explicate the main concepts that contribute to an efficient school- family collaboration within the partnership model. It is presented from the viewpoint of two basic theoreti- cal foundations: contextualism and pr ocess-oriented collaboration. We present the overview of theoretical concepts linked to the empirical data which we ob- tained in the courses and trainings on the process of collaboration with parents and families. The presented concepts ar e: equal r elationship and its pr econditions, the r ole of the child in the co-cr eation pr ocess, r eflec- tive dealing with power and the role of dialogue. In the conclusions we suggest that the predominant in- strumental approach should be replaced with a more flexible and context-sensitive appr oach alr eady on the undergraduate level of educational study programmes and (consequently) in practice. 1 Introduction “School-family partnership” is a concept in which at least three big spheres of everyday life interact, i.e. school, family and community (Epstein, 2011). Two and a half decades of research into the cooperation between school and family (ibid.) has shown the importance successful cooperation has in a child’s development (Moorman Kim & Sheridan, 2015). During that time, different concepts and models of coopera- tion with parents emerged. In the paper we present the partnership from two basic di- mensions: contextualism and process-oriented collaboration. Our perspective is based on Bronfenbrenner’s theory which takes into account that within and among each of the ecological levels depicted one may conceive of bi-directional relationships existing 88 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) among the people populating the network (Lerner et al., 2002). According to the model, research must focus on relations (processes) among levels, and not on any one level per se. The family-school link is also an integral part of a set of interconnected systems that contribute to a child’s development and his/her school achievement. Therefore, we have to understand this link as a dynamic and constantly changing process. In the next sections, we present the overview of theoretical concepts which are connected to the empirical data that we obtained in the courses on the process of col- laboration with parents and families. These concepts will be explicated through the most common challenges or themes that were reported by students or educators whom we have worked with over the past six years on the topic of collaboration with par- ents and families (workshops for school counsellors and preschool teachers, under- and postgraduate courses and trainings that we have taught at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, between 2012 and 2018 – approximately 100 students a year). 2 Preconditions for Establishing Equal Relationships One of the basic elements that are significantly linked to the way family and school collaborate are beliefs (Clarke, Sheridan & Woods, 2010), which reflect the wider social and cultural context of all parties involved (parents, children, teachers and school coun- sellors). Subjective beliefs are shaped by their experiences in the family, with institu- tions, etc., and influence the manner of entering into the collaboration, and affect it in a unique way. We are often not aware of them, at least not of their influence on our points of view and attitudes, and consequently on how we establish collaboration (Marentič Požarnik, 2018). They are most visible when they are concerned with the different cul- tural or social backgrounds of the participants (McWayne, 2015). Inaccurate beliefs often limit a teacher’s actions and lead to a number of problems in communication and relationships. Many authors (e.g. Korthagen, 2009; Valenčič Zuljan, 2004) stress the importance of raising awareness about inaccurate beliefs, and develop various ways to devise different, reflected upon, and higher-quality methods, linked with professional identity development. The ability to reflect is necessary for de- veloping collaborative relationships with families because it facilitates the change and growth of professionals, e.g. the awareness of experiences in their families projected onto their professional relationships. Subjective beliefs determine how the professional will approach the collaboration. Slovenian research (e.g. Kalin et al., 2009; Turnšek, 2008; Turnšek, 2016) shows that most of the implicit, subjective beliefs held by teachers and students are still instru- mental. We are convinced that the instrumental approach restricts collaboration. For example, when students ask about what office hours, parent-teacher meetings, etc. are supposed to look like, we cannot find a suitable response while searching for answers only in terms of instrumentally naming the activities. The question is limiting because it is based only on form – a predetermined form of collaboration that fails to see the uniqueness of each situation. Working with families creates its own, new, and unique context every time, which means that we must consider the context and rethink the pa- rameters of the collaboration every time as well. The methods, techniques, and various 89 Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Poljšak Škraban, PhD: T h e C o n t e x t - S e n s i t i v e P r o c e s s e s o f . . . approaches should only serve as guidelines for how we act and should be used only if suitable within the context. Opposite to the instrumental approach, the process-oriented approach delves into the expectations of everyone involved, which can change continuously and contribute to common meaningful and attainable collaboration goals for everyone involved (Clarke et al., 2010; Jensen & Jensen, 2011). If we understand collaboration as a process, in line with developmental contextualism (Lerner et al., 2002), goals change with the changing individual and the changing environment. The goals should be personally significant for all the participants. Therefore, an effective, comprehensive approach requires that all parties (including the child) are included in the process, and goals need to be updated and even redefined if necessary (Micucci, 2009). Most research exposes the importance of the congruence of the teachers’ and the parents’ view of collaboration (e.g. D’Haem & Griswold, 2017; Dusi, 2012; Epstein, 2011; Moorman Kim & Sheridan, 2015). This is the most frequent challenge profession- als face in practice. Minke, Sheridan, Moorman Kim, Hoon Ryoo and Koziol (2014) find that by exploring the consistency or congruence in the perceptions between mem- bers of the dyad, and understanding the ways in which congruence affects the child’s outcomes, it may be possible to direct interventions more efficaciously. The research in Razpotnik, Turnšek, Rapuš Pavel and Poljšak Škraban (2015), dealing with collabora- tion with vulnerable families, also found that differences in views result in less effective approaches if these are not reflected on. 3 Equal Relationship and the Role of the Child in the Co-Creation Process We understand the role of the child similar to Lerner et al. (2002, p. 320), who defined it as “a source of her or his own development; the child may play a major role in influencing the actions of his or her environment.” Čačinovič V ogrinčič (2008) simi- larly defines the child’s role as an active expert in experience, which is why it is impera- tive that children are equal participants in the processes that concern them. Čačinovič V ogrinčič (2013) highlights how necessary it is to make sure collaboration between adults does not exclude the child or threaten their autonomy or interests. In the process of collaboration, we might come to think we are speaking about the child’s views and opinions, while we are actually talking about a parent’s or a teacher’s construct of the child’s views (Šugman Bohinc, 2013). Jensen and Jensen (2011) emphasize the im- portance of the pedagogue’s ability to “see” the individual child on their own terms, to attune their behaviour accordingly without giving up leadership or the ability to be authentic in their contact with the child. We have found that of all the participants in a school-family collaboration, the child is still the one who is afforded the least power of participation despite the fact that the results of the collaboration will affect the child the most. An equal position of the child in the collaboration is possible when we follow the directions of the so-called co-crea- tion process. Co-creation as a term characterizes shared interests and the possibilities to 90 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) create something that does not yet exist, where all parties collaborate as equals with a clear definition of each party’s responsibilities (Čačinovič V ogrinčič, 2008). In line with the conditions for co-creating processes where each member is heard, Jensen (2009) pointed out that a relationship being equal means that the points of view, feelings, expe- riences, and self-understanding of all parties is considered equally important for estab- lishing and developing that relationship. This is possible only when the relational values and relational competence of the professionals have been developed (ibid.). Satisfactory relationships enable a personal way of leading the process. As Jensen (2009) explains, “personal leading” means that the professional clearly expresses their impressions, ex- pectations, wishes, etc., which helps their interlocutors become aware of their expecta- tions and needs; this consequently encourages communication. Individuals are prepared to collaborate if they are invited into a dialogue that ensures their inclusion and a feeling of connectedness. Effective dialogue is based on the ability and desire of the adult to respond openly, sensitively, and inclusively to the inner reality and self-understanding of the person in the dialogue (ibid.). The process-oriented approach allows us to develop equal relationships, which, according to Jensen and Jensen (2011), in turn create a space where parents are seen as engaged and productive dialogue partners. The importance of establishing an equal relationship with the parents is also affirmed by McWayne (2015, p. 118), who writes that “seeking to support non-hierarchical and reciprocal dialogue between parents and teachers is always necessary.” In practice, professionals often perceive the parents as part of the problem (e.g. Bequedano-Lopez, Alexander & Hernandez, 2013), which is the consequence of the instrumental approach. A Slovenian study, entitled The Challenges and Guidelines for Quality Coopera- tion between Schools and Parents (Kalin et al., 2009), found that the relational level was the biggest problem when it came to collaboration. This was pointed out by both teachers and parents, and was particularly noted by parents with a lower level of educa- tion and those whose children achieved lower academic results, whom the researchers also saw as being more passive when it came to collaboration. Furthermore, the views concerning mutual expectations showed that the most common type of relationship was one in which the parents were in an inferior position (most parents were critical of that, but some even considered it appropriate). These results are not surprising because the prevalent practice does not include the process-oriented aspect that makes developing a relationship possible. The prevalent approach makes it difficult to understand what is behind the passive attitude of certain parents or the needs of families from diverse cultural and social backgrounds; instead of establishing a dialogue with them, we cat- egorize them, for example, as being passive. Based on this, we conclude the approach was not sufficiently culturally or socially sensitive. One of the obstacles that stands in the way of being prepared to adopt the process- oriented approach is the fear of entering an equal relationship, as both students and teachers often see the relationship as an issue. Teachers are afraid that establishing a relationship weakens their position and that they lose authority. This is consistent with the findings of Dusi (2012) who states that the idea of parental involvement triggers the teachers’ fears of losing their professional autonomy, their educational-didactic man- agement and authority. 91 Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Poljšak Škraban, PhD: T h e C o n t e x t - S e n s i t i v e P r o c e s s e s o f . . . In the discussions with professionals, some of them argue for the standpoint that cooperation with parents can never be equal due to the professional status of the teach- ers as experts in the field of education and their professional autonomy. We disagree with this standpoint and argue for a clear definition of the positions in the dialogue and the responsibilities for it. Having an equal position means professionals and parents are included as human beings, and therefore both have the same competency to engage in the dialogue; they are also both working towards the same aim: to support the child in their development. In terms of responsibilities, the professional is responsible for the quality of the relationship (Jensen, 2009) and for leading the process, while both are responsible for their cooperation. 4 Awareness in Reflective Dealing with Power Establishing an equal relationship opens up the question of power and responsibil- ity of all involved (Juul & Jensen, 2009). In the school system, teachers are holders of authority; they have the institutional power over children and parents. Due to this position of power, it is always the responsibility of the professional (Dusi, 2012; Jens- en & Jensen, 2011) to provide space for and ensure the realization of a partnership. Dec- ades ago, Bronfenbrenner (1979) stated that most families are doing their best under the circumstances and that it is important for the professional to understand the families and their circumstances and try to affect, first and foremost, those circumstances that will make it possible for the families to change as well. Otherwise, parents often develop a tough attitude towards institutions and are afraid to show vulnerability. Understanding collaboration as a process is thus always contextualized. Dusi (2012) writes that a decontextualized understanding of processes and the transformation of social problems into individual or educational problems reduces the parents and children to the objects of an intervention. Based on an analysis of working with vulnerable families, Razpotnik, Turnšek, Rapuš Pavel and Poljšak Škraban (2016) come to similar conclu- sions. This is more often the case in the instrumental approach where not all participants have a chance to express their viewpoints. Instead of creating new, flexible approaches of working with these families and revealing systemic social injustice, individualization pathologizes the families, frequently ones that are facing poverty, are of a different race, or are immigrants (Bequedano-Lopez et al., 2013). The individualization of systemic inequalities and injustices, and the resulting pathologizing manifests as tension in the school-family collaboration. Unresolved tension in the collaboration with families is often the consequence of an unequal distribution of resources and structures of power (ibid.). 5 The Role of Dialogue in Flexible Responses Dusi’s (2012) and Jensen and Jensen’s (2011) concept of promoting dialogue is a suitable point of view for fully understanding the complexity of everyday reality in the classroom. “Promoting dialogue with parents does not mean merely looking for con- 92 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) sensus; it means allowing for confrontation, reflecting on various points of view and creating a dialogue with perspectives that are often in contrast.” (Dusi, 2012, p. 15). Therefore, an open dialogue is accompanied by insecurity and discomfort because this kind of dialogue is not necessarily predictable (Jensen & Jensen, 2011). Not knowing where the conversation may lead us is often experienced as a threat. Good dialogue is equal, although the participants are not in equal roles, and is not meant to reveal a truth that already existed, but to create a new truth (ibid.). The glue that holds everything together in the collaboration is the language used, as many authors emphasize (e.g. Clarke et al., 2010; Verbnik Dobnikar, 2002). The essence is the manner of communication and not just the content, thereby signalling an important shift from what needs to be said to how it needs to be said in order to be comprehended. Beside the language aspect, Čačinovič V ogrinčič (2013) also notes the importance of leading the conversation from talking about problems to talking about solutions that are based on the strengths perspectives of those involved. The language used by the professionals shows the constructs or preconceived no- tions they have when establishing cooperation with the family. By being process-orient- ed, we are able to give ourselves the space for changing, and for changing our language and actions as well. Personal and professional development (Jensen, 2009; Korthagen, 2009) is an ongoing process in which we examine, acknowledge, and engage the pat- terns of thought and behaviour that impede and obstruct our way to fulfilling our pro- fessional commitment and potential in relation to others (Jensen, 2009), which are also important aspects of the processual approach to collaborating with families. Reflec- tion is an important element of professional and personal development and needs to be trained systematically (Korthagen, 2009). This was also confirmed by findings in the research conducted among Slovenian teachers and head teachers (Erčulj & Škodnik, 2013). Klobučar, Ajdukovič and Šincek (2011) stress not only the importance of a pro- fessional’s development, but also the development of the institution, with supervision playing an important role; both would merit some consideration in the Slovenian educa- tion system as well. The current lack of a system of supervision represents an untapped resource for empowering the teaching staff. 6 Conclusion The context-sensitive and process-oriented approach offers some new aspects of collaboration. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), it focuses on the processes on each level of the system and among them (micro, mezzo, exo, macro, and chrono) and al- lows us to consider the historical and cultural diversity of families, which requires new forms of collaboration. In our view, this approach makes it possible to reach diverse families more easily because an entire spectrum of variability and its dynamic nature are taken into account. Hence, it does not favour any of the existing family forms and family functioning. The paradigm of the process-oriented approach leads us to answer the question of how we do our work rather than what we do. In order to achieve that, we need to de- scribe what each party involved is doing instead of characterizing or labelling all parties 93 Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Poljšak Škraban, PhD: T h e C o n t e x t - S e n s i t i v e P r o c e s s e s o f . . . (persons) involved; therefore, we have to be careful about the language we use. We are compelled to provide the possibility to comprehend changes in a timeline, including an understanding of the developmental nature of all persons involved. The person who is responsible for leading a process is the professional, whereas the responsibility to cooperate on an equal level lies on all sides. The professional creates the space for each participant to have a chance to express their views and share them, instead of implement- ing different schemas of work. When working in a process-oriented way, we co-create new solutions, ideas, and outcomes together, instead of just informing, organizing, and working one-way. This is the case when the instrumental approach is implemented. The teachers or other professional workers in school often come up with ideas or organize ac- tivities, etc. which is a one-way offer of services or a set of demands imposed by schools on families (Klemenčič Rozman, 2017). In the process-oriented approach it is rather the opposite: the professionals ask and listen to what the children and parents in each classroom are dealing with, what their needs and conditions are, and how all of them (in- cluding the teacher) can learn from each other. To sum up, the process-oriented approach of the school-family partnership primarily focuses on how the process unfolds in an ongoing partnership when activities and relationships are a function of the process itself. The process-oriented approach, where an important element is building and main- taining relationships between equal participants, is often criticized as having the el- ements of a therapy. We would argue against this as the process-oriented approach, along with the equal position of all participants, also requires assigning responsibility to everyone, formulating common goals, finding solutions, and respecting the autonomy of the subsystems. Collaborating does not mean losing autonomy because autonomy does not mean the inability to collaborate. Last but not least, a process-oriented and context-sensitive school-family partnership does not focus on (psycho)therapeutic work but focuses on the agreement of all participants with the aim of the child’s well-being in the school system. In order to develop and establish a process-based understanding of family-insti- tution collaboration, a comprehensive shift of the pedagogical process into a context- based, processual-response orientation is required beforehand. Unfortunately, the in- strumental approach is still predominant on all levels of education in Slovenia; it is the simplest and easy to prepare for, but at the same time it has the highest probability of unsatisfactory results. Studying and training for the process-oriented approach requires experiential process learning. We conclude that the paradigm of the context-sensitive process-oriented approach needs to be developed among teachers and school counsellors in order to empower pro- fessionals in an important area of their work, i.e. collaborating with families. Fear of the latter is highly correlated to a lack of education in this area from university courses on- wards. In a study conducted in Slovenia (Rizman Herga & Šrot, 2013), a large percent- age of teachers (especially younger teachers) expressed the need for additional train- ing on cooperating with parents. At this point in time, Bogdan Zupančič and Krajnčan (2019) stress the role of the development of relational and general social-emotional competency. It would help if university courses for pedagogues and school counsellors put more focus on it and included the required courses on this subject. Education in this area is developing, but it is nowhere near where it needs to be. We aim at creating a 94 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) model that would be as inclusive, culturally and socially sensitive, and empowering as possible with the notion that it would change dynamically according to context. Dr . Mija Marija Klemenčič Rozman, dr . Olga Poljšak Škraban Kontekstualno občutljivi procesi partnerstva med šolo in družino Partnerstvo med družino in šolo je koncept, znotraj kater ega se pr epletajo in sov- plivajo vsaj tri velike sfer e vsakdanjega življenja, tj. šole, družine in skupnosti (Epstein, 201 1). Dve desetletji in pol raziskovanja tega pojava je pokazalo pomen uspešnega sodelovanja za otr okov razvoj (Moorman Kim in Sheridan, 2015). V tem času so se po- rajali različni koncepti in iz njih nastali modeli sodelovanja. V prispevku pr edstavljava partnerstvo z vidika dveh temeljnih teor etičnih izhodišč: kontekstualizma in pr ocesno usmerjenega sodelovanja. Najino razumevanje sloni na Bronfenbrennerjevi teoriji, iz katere sledi, da se morajo raziskave osredinjati na odnose (procese) med posamezinimi ravnmi sistema in ne na posamezne ravni per se. Prispevek nudi pr egled posameznih teor etičnih konceptov , povezanih z empiričnimi podatki, ki sva jih avtorici v obdobju med letoma 2012–2018 pridobili od slušateljev pri izvajanju predmetov na Pedagoški fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani in strokovnih delavk na drugih str okovnih usposabljanjih o pr ocesih sodelovanja med šolo in družino (približno 100 študentov v študijskem letu). Koncepti so pr edstavljeni skozi najpogosteje artikuli- rane izzive ali teme, izpostavljene na omenjenih oblikah izobraževanj in usposabljanj. Prvi izstopajoči koncept so subjektivna pr epričanja, ki pr edstavljajo pr edpogoj za osnovanje enakopravnega partnerstva. Najbolj opazna postanejo pri soočenju z drugim kulturnim ali socialnim ozadjem udeleženih (McW ayne, 2015). Določajo, kako bodo str okovnjaki pristopili k sodelovanju. Slovenske raziskave (Kalin in sod., 2009; T urnšek, 2008; T urnšek, 2016) kažejo, da je večina implicitnih, subjektivnih pr epričanj učiteljev in študentov še vedno instrumentalno naravnanih. Osr edinjajo se na to, kaj početi, in ne na to, kako ravnati pri strokovnem delovanju. Instrumentalna usmerjenost na formo oz. shemo delovanja ne zmore zaobjeti kompleksnosti vsakokrat novega in edinstvenega konteksta. Forme, sheme, metode in tehnike so lahko zgolj smernice za ravnanje, ki jih je smotrno izvajati zgolj v primeru, če so konstruktivne znotraj posameznega konteksta. Če razumemo sodelovanje kot pr oces, se skladno z razvojnim kontekstualizmom (Lerner in sod., 2002) cilji sodelovanja spr eminjajo s spr eminjajočim se posameznikom in spr eminjajočim se okoljem. Cilji sodelovanja naj bi bili za vse udeležene osebno pomembni (Jensen in Jensen, 201 1) in naj bi se jih v pr ocesu sodelovanja posodabljalo in ponovno opr edeljevalo, v kolikor se to izkaže za potr ebno (Micucci, 2009). V ečina raziskav prikazuje pomen skladnosti med pogledi učiteljev in staršev na sodelovanje (npr . D’Haem & Griswold, 2017; Dusi, 2012; Epstein, 201 1; Moorman Kim & Sheri- dan, 2015) za uspešne izide. Čeprav sodelovanje med šolo in družino najbolj zadeva otr oka, je temu dodeljena najmanjša participatorna vloga, na kar opozarja Čačinovič V ogrinčič (2013), ko opr ede- ljuje otroka kot eksperta iz izkušenj in izpostavlja, da sodelovanje med odraslimi ne sme izključevati otr oka ali ogr oziti njegove avtonomije in inter esov . V pr ocesih sodelovanja 95 Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Poljšak Škraban, PhD: T h e C o n t e x t - S e n s i t i v e P r o c e s s e s o f . . . se lahko zgodi, da mislimo, da govorimo o otrokovih pogledih in mnenjih, a dejansko go- vorimo o konstruktih staršev ali učiteljev o otr okovih pogledih (Šugman Bohinc, 2013). Enakopravni položaj otr oka v pr ocesu sodelovanja se vzpostavi, ko sledimo smernicam t. i. pr ocesa soustvarjanja, kjer nastaja izid, pri kater em vsi udeleženi sodelujejo enako- pravno z jasno opr edeljenimi odgovornostmi vsake strani (Čačinovič V ogrinčič, 2008). Jensen (2009) izpostavlja, da se enakopravni odnos vzpostavi šele takrat, ko so pogledi, občutja, izkušnje in samorazumevanje vseh udeleženih enako pomembni. Slovenska študija Izzivi in smernice kakovostnega sodelovanja med šolo in star- ši (Kalin in sod., 2009) je pokazala, da je ravno odnosna raven največji pr oblem pri sodelovanju. Učitelji tudi na usposabljanjih izražajo strah, da bo vzpostavljanje odno- sa oslabilo njihovo pozicijo in bodo tako izgubili avtoriteto. Podobno ugotavlja Dusi (2012), da ideja vključenosti staršev naslavlja strahove učiteljev , da bodo izgubili str o- kovno avtonomijo, svoj izobraževalno-didaktični menedžment in avtoriteto. A vtorici zagovarjava stališče, da so tovrstni strahovi odveč in da je za omogočanje enakopravnega odnosa nujno potr ebno jasno opr edeliti pozicijo udeleženih v dialogu in odgovornosti zanj. Imeti enakopravno pozicijo pomeni, da smo strokovnjaki in starši vključeni kot človeška bitja in imamo zato enake kompetence za udeleženost v dialogu; oboji tudi delujemo z istim namenom – podpr eti otr oka in njegov razvoj. Če pa govori- mo o odgovornostih, pa je str okovnjak odgovor en za kakovost odnosa (Jensen, 2009) in za vodenje procesa, medtem ko sta obe strani odgovorni za sodelovanje. Vzpostavljanje enakopravnega položaja odpira vprašanje moči in odgovornosti vseh udeleženih (Juul in Jensen, 2009). V šolskem sistemu imajo učitelji institucionalno moč nad otr oki in starši. Zaradi te pozicije moči je vedno odgovornost str okovnjaka (Dusi, 2012; Jensen in Jensen, 201 1), da omogoča pr ostor in zagotavlja udejanjenje partnerstva. Gr e tor ej za zavedanje pomena r eflektirajočega ravnanja z močjo. Že pr ed desetletji je Br onfenbr enner (1979) navedel, da je pomembno, da se str okovnjak zave- da, da v danih okoliščinah večina družin deluje najbolje kakor lahko in da je potr ebno vplivati na te okoliščine, kar bo omogočilo spr emembe v družini oz. v njenem delovanju. Razumevanje partnerstva kot pr ocesa je tor ej vedno kontekstualno. Dusi (2012) meni, da de-kontekstualizirano razumevanje procesa in spreminjanje socialnih proble- mov v individualne ali izobraževalne pr obleme zr educira starše in otr oke na objekt intervencij. To je še toliko bolj verjetno pri instrumentalnem pristopu, kjer nimajo vsi udeleženi možnosti izraziti svojih pogledov . Namesto ustvarjanja novih, pr ožnih pristo- pov pri sodelovanju s temi družinami in razkrivanja socialne nepravičnosti individuali- ziranje patologizira družine, najpogosteje te, ki se soočajo z r evščino, so druge rase ali so priseljeni (Bequedano-Lopez in sod., 2013). Individualizacija sistemskih neenakosti in nepravičnosti in iz tega izhajajoče patologiziranje se izkazuje v napetostih v sodelo- vanju med šolo in družino (prav tam). Kompleksnost življenjskih okoliščin vpliva tudi na kompleksnost vsakodnevnega ži- vljenja v razr edu. Da bi tega zmogli v polnosti razumeti, nam služi koncept pr omoviranja dialoga (Dusi, 2012; Jensen in Jensen, 201 1), pri čemer pr omoviranje dialoga ne po- meni “iskanja konsenza, temveč dovoljuje konfr ontacijo, r eflektira različna gledišča in ustvarja dialog s pogledi, ki so si pogosto v naspr otju” (Dusi, 2012, str . 15). Zato odprt dialog vedno spremljata negotovost in nelagodje, saj take vrste dialog ni nujno pred- vidljiv (Jensen in Jensen, 201 1). Zanj je bistveno, da sogovorniki zmor ejo pr eobrat od 96 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) osr edinjenosti na vsebino k osr edinjenosti na način komunikacije, tj. ne zgolj kaj govori- mo, temveč kako govorimo, da bo druga stran zmogla razumeti spor očilo. Poleg vidika jezika Čačinovič V ogrinčič (2013) izpostavlja tudi pomen vodenja pogovora, in sicer od govora o pr oblemih h govoru o r ešitvah, ki temelji na perspektivi moči udeleženih. Jezik, ki ga str okovnjaki uporabljajo, kaže konstrukte ali pr edsodke, ki jih imajo do vzpostavljanja sodelovanja z družino. Pr ocesna usmerjenost omogoča pr ostor za str o- kovnjakovo spr eminjanje; za spr eminjanje rabe jezika in delovanja. Spr eminjanje pa je gonilo osebnega in str okovnega razvoja (Jensen, 2009) in je po svoji naravi pr oces, ki nima končne točke. Če strnemo, kontekstualno občutljiv in pr ocesno usmerjen pristop ponuja nekater e nove vidike sodelovanja. Po Bronfenbrennerju postavlja v ospredje procese na vsaki ravni sistema in med njimi (mikro-, mezo-, ekso-, makro- in krono-) in nam dovoljuje pr emislek o zgodovinskih in kulturnih raznolikostih družin. A vtorici meniva, da tak pri- stop omogoča lažji dostop do raznolikih družin, ker upošteva celoten spekter raznoliko- sti in njene dinamične narave, vendar pa ne pr otežira nobene od obstoječih družinskih oblik ali oblik družinskega delovanja. Paradigma procesno usmerjenega pristopa vodi do odgovora na vprašanje, kako delujemo, namesto kaj počnemo. Pri tem pristopu soustvarjamo nove r ešitve, ideje in iz- ide skupaj in ne samo zgolj informiramo, organiziramo in enosmerno delujemo. Slednje je značilno za instrumentalni pristop. Pr ocesno usmerjen pristop, kjer je pomemben element grajenje in vzdrževanje odnosov med enakopravnimi člani (ki pa nimajo enakih vlog!), je pogosto deležen kritike v smislu, da ima elemente terapije in kot tak zato ne sodi v šolo. Avtorici se ne strinjava s tem, saj ta pristop ob upoštevanju enakopravnih pozicij vseh udeleženih zahteva dogovor o odgovornostih vsakega udeleženega, formu- liranje skupnih ciljev, iskanje rešitev in spoštovanje avtonomije podsistemov. Enakovre- dno sodelovanje ne pomeni izgube avtonomije str okovnjaka, česar jih je pogosto strah, saj tudi avtonomija ne pomeni nezmožnosti sodelovanja. Gr e tor ej bolj za drugače raz- por ejeno moč sodelujočih. Nenazadnje, pr ocesno usmerjeno in kontekstualno občutlji- vo sodelovanje med šolo in družino se usmerja na udejanjanje dogovor ov udeleženih v dobrobit otrokovega delovanja v šolskem sistemu. Pogoj, da se lahko vzpostavi in razvija procesno usmerjeno razumevanje sodelo- vanja med družino in institucijo, je celovit obrat pedagoškega pr ocesa v usmerjenost, ki temelji na upoštevanju vsakokratnega konteksta in pr ocesnega odzivanja. Na žalost je instrumentalni pristop še vedno pr evladujoč pristop na vseh ravneh izobraževanja v Sloveniji. Res je, da je najbolj pr epr ost in se nanj zlahka pripravimo (se naučimo tehnik, metod), a hkrati najbolj verjetno vodi do nezadovoljivih r ezultatov . Izobraže- vanje in usposabljanje za pr ocesno usmerjen pristop terja izkustveno učenje o pr ocesu delovanja. Strah str okovnjakov pr ed sodelovanjem z družino je v močni zvezi z umanjkanjem izobraževanja na tem podr očju vse od univerze dalje. V pomoč bi bilo, če bi univerzi- tetni študijski pr ogrami za (bodoče) str okovnjake, delujoče na pedagoškem str okovnem polju (učitelji, šolska svetovalna služba), temu posvečali več pozornosti in ponujali ob- vezne pr edmete o tej tematiki. Izobraževanje na tem podr očju se spr eminja, a ni niti blizu temu, kjer bi moralo biti. Stremiva k razvoju takega modela sodelovanja, ki bi bil kar najbolj vključujoč, kulturno in socialno občuljiv in bi v največji možni meri spod- 97 Klemenčič Rozman, PhD, Poljšak Škraban, PhD: T h e C o n t e x t - S e n s i t i v e P r o c e s s e s o f . . . bujal opolnomočenje udeleženih ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se tudi ta model dinamično spreminja glede na kontekst. REFERENCES 1. Bequedano-Lopez, P., Alexander, R., Hernandez, S. (2013). Equity Issues in Parental and Com- munity Involvement in Schools: What Teacher Educators Need to Know. Review of Research in Education, 37, pp. 149–182. 2. Bogdan Zupančič, A., Krajnčan, M. (2019). Odnosna kompetenca strokovnih delavcev v osnov- ni šoli. Pedagoška obzorja–Didactica Slovenica, 34 (1), pp. 58–72. 3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 4. Clarke, B.L., Sheridan, S.M., Woods, K.E. (2010). Elements of Healthy Family-School Relati- onships. In: Christenson S. & Reschly A. L. (Eds.) Handbook of School-Family Partnerships. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 61–79. 5. Čačinovič V ogrinčič, G. (2008). Soustvarjanje v šoli: učenje kot pogovor. Ljubljana: Zavod Re- publike Slovenije za šolstvo. 6. Čačinovič V ogrinčič, G. (2013). Spoštovanje otroštva. In: Kodele T. & Mešl N. (Eds.) Otrokov glas v procesu učenja in pomoči. Priročnik za vrtce, šole in starše. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo, pp. 11–40. 7. D’Haem, J., Griswold, P. (2017). Teacher Educators’ and Student Teachers’ Beliefs About Pre- paration for Working with Families Including those from Diverse Socioeconomic and Cultural Backgrounds. Education and Urban Society, 49 (1), pp. 81–109. 8. Dusi, P. (2012). The Family-School Relationships in Europe: A Research Review. CEPS Jour- nal, 2 (1), pp. 13–33. 9. Epstein, J.L. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools (2 nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, cop. 10. Erčulj, J., Škodnik, R. (2013). Spodbujanje refleksije pri učiteljih. Pedagoška obzorja–Didactica Slovenica, 28 (3–4), pp. 17–31. 11. Jensen, H. (2009). Razvijanje odnosnih kompetenc. Workshop, Familylab Ljubljana: Ljubljana, 20.–22.11.2009. 12. Jensen, E., Jensen, H. (2011). Dialog s starši. Ljubljana: Inštitut za sodobno družino Manami. 13. Juul, J., Jensen, H. (2009). Od poslušnosti do odgovornosti. Ljubljana: Didakta. 14. Kalin, J, Resman, M., Šteh, B., Mrvar, P., Govekar-Okoliš, M., Mažgon, J. (2009). Izzivi in smernice kakovostnega sodelovanja med šolo in starši. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filo- zofska fakulteta. 15. Klemenčič Rozman, M.M. (2017). Process-oriented Approach in School-Family Partnership. In: Saqipi, B. & V ogrinc J. (Eds.) The Prospects of Reforming Teacher Education. Prishtinë: Shtëpia Botuese Libri Shkollor, pp. 260–280. 16. Klobučar, J., Ajdukovič, M., Šincek, D. (2011). Očekivanja, percepcija potrebe i poteškoća pri uvođenju supervizije iz perspektive ravnatelja centara za socijalnu skrb. Ljetopis socijalnog rada, 18 (2), pp. 281–303. 17. Korthagen, F. (2009). Praksa, teorija in osebnost v vseživljenjskem učenju. Vzgoja in izobraže- vanje, 40 (4), pp. 4–14. 18. Lerner, M.R., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S., Castellino, D.R. (2002). Developmental Systems Per- spective on Parenting. In: Bornstein M.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Parenting, V ol. 2: Biology and Ecology of Parenting (2 nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers, pp. 315–344. 19. Marentič Požarnik, B. (2018). Psihologija učenja in pouka: od poučevanja k učenju. Ljubljana: DZS. 20. McWayne, C.M. (2015). Family-School Partnerships in a Context of Urgent Engagement: Rethin- king Models, Measurement, and Meaningfulness. In: Sheridan S. M. & Moorman Kim E. (Eds.) Foundational Aspects of Family-School Partnership Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 103–124. 98 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (1, 2020) 21. Micucci, J.A. (2009). The Adolescent in Family Therapy: Harnessing the Power of Relation- ships. New York: Guilford Press. 22. Minke, K.M., Sheridan, S.M., Moorman Kim, E., Hoon Ryoo, J., Koziol, N.A. (2014). Congru- ence in Parent-Teacher Relationships. In: Faculty Publications from CYFS (Paper 98, pp. 527– 546). Retrieved on 20.05.2019 from world wide web: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3dc8/96 22957504ce60b691b3eb6605b956a379d4.pdf. 23. Moorman Kim, E., Sheridan S.M. (2015). Foundational Aspects of Family-School Connecti- ons: Definitions, Conceptual Frameworks, and Research Needs. In: Sheridan S. M. & Moorman Kim E. (Eds.) Foundational Aspects of Family-School Partnership Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–14. 24. Razpotnik, Š., Turnšek, N., Rapuš Pavel, J., Poljšak Škraban, O. (2015). Potrebe ranljivih dru- žin in odzivi vzgojno-izobraževalnega sistema. In: Devjak T. (Ed.) Vpliv družbenih sprememb na vzgojo in izobraževanje. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta v Ljubljani, pp. 309–324. 25. Razpotnik, Š., Turnšek, N., Rapuš Pavel, J., Poljšak Škraban, O. (2016). Lifeworld-oriented Fa- mily Support. CEPS Journal, 6 (4), pp. 115–139. 26. Rizman Herga, N., Šrot, K. (2013). Mnenje osnovnošolskih učiteljev o usposobljenosti za sode- lovanje s starši. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje, 2/3 (6), pp. 223–239. 27. Turnšek, N. (2008). Subjektivne teorije o otroštvu in vzgoji. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta v Ljubljani. 28. Turnšek, N. (2016). Teachers’ Implicit Theories on Child Participation in Preschool. Athens Journal of Education, 3, pp. 7–18. 29. Šugman Bohinc, L. (2013). Otroštvo in otrokov glas v starih in novih raziskavah o otrocih. In: Kodele, T. & Mešl, N. (Eds.) Otrokov glas v procesu učenja in pomoči. Priročnik za vrtce, šole in starše. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo, pp. 65–78. 30. Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2004). Pojmovanja učiteljeve in učenčeve vloge pri pouku kot del učitelje- ve profesionalne opreme. In: Marentič Požarnik B. (Ed.) Konstruktivizem v šoli in izobraževa- nje učiteljev. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Center za pedagoško izobraževanje, pp. 527–544. 31. Verbnik Dobnikar, T. (2002). Razrednik na stičišču vlog. Socialna pedagogika, 6 (1), pp. 47–66. Mija Marija Klemenčič Rozman, PhD (1979), Assistant Pr ofessor for Social Pedagogy at Univer- sity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education. Addr ess: Kar deljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana; T elephone: (+386) 01 589 22 00 E-mail: mija-marija.klemencic@pef.uni-lj.si Olga Polj šak Škraban, PhD (1957), Assistant Pr ofessor for Development al Psychology at University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education. Addr ess: Kar deljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana; T elephone: (+386) 01 589 22 00 E-mail: olga.poljsak-skraban@pef.uni-lj.si