Reimagining Teacher Education for Authentic Parent Engagement

Abstract

Despite widespread recognition of the critical role that family–school partnerships play in student learning, preservice teacher programs globally still provide only limited preparation for authentic parent engagement. This article synthesizes thirty years of international research, policy analysis, and accreditation standards to identify persistent gaps in teacher education. A review of legislation and professional frameworks from the United States, Europe, and Ireland, shows that although most jurisdictions now mandate family–school collaboration competencies, implementation remains uneven. A practical framework for reimagining teacher education is presented, centered on relational skills, cultural competence, experiential learning, and reflective practice. Authentic parent partnership must be treated as a core professional competency—on par with subject expertise—and systemic alignment among accreditation bodies, teacher education institutions, and school leadership is essential for translating policy into practice. Recommendations target policymakers and educators committed to preparing all teachers to collaborate effectively with the families they serve.

1. Introduction

Despite clear evidence that family–school partnerships boost student outcomes (Epstein, 2013, 2018; Willemse et al., 2018), preservice teacher education programs rarely equip candidates to partner effectively with parents (Weiss et al., 2005; de Bruïne et al., 2014; Willemse et al., 2016). Recent re-accreditation in Ireland now names “Professional relationships and working with parents” as a required standard (Teaching Council, 2020), but policy mandates often fail to translate into program change. This paper synthesizes international research, policy, and practice regarding teacher accreditation and professional development requirements for school–family partnerships and proposes a comprehensive framework to embed authentic parent partnership as a core teacher competency.

2. The Imperative for Parent Engagement in Teacher Professional Development

Researchers have flagged the need for teacher professional development in school–home collaboration for over two decades (Shartrand et al., 1997). In the United States, Joyce Epstein has led this work with colleagues for more than forty years (Epstein et al., 2019; Epstein, 2013; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Evans, 2013). Researchers in Canada (Pushor, 2014; Anthony-Newman, 2025), Australasia (Saltmarsh et al., 2014), and several European countries, including Ireland (Ryan & Lannin, 2021; Ryan, 2021), Scotland (Education Scotland, 2022), England (Jones et al., 2025), the Netherlands, and Belgium (Willemse et al., 2016, 2018), have also identified this critical need.

In the United States, although most deans and department leaders in teacher education acknowledged the importance of proficiency in family engagement, their programs largely failed to prepare graduates for this work (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Though recent years have seen increased coverage of family engagement in U.S. teacher education programs, Epstein (2018) argues that school–family collaboration must be recognized as a core component of teachers’ professional practice and “an essential component of good school organization for student success” (p. 398).

Limited research exists on teacher preparation for family engagement in European countries (Ryan & Lannin, 2021; Willemse et al., 2016), but existing studies confirm that teacher education programs give minimal attention to family engagement (de Bruïne et al., 2014; Mutton et al., 2018; Willemse et al., 2016). European studies also indicate that partnership-focused courses are typically linked to individual faculty members rather than being systematically integrated into programs (Epstein, 2018; Anthony-Newman, 2025).

Epstein’s (2018) review of studies from England, Finland, Spain, and Switzerland found consensus among college officials about the importance of teacher competence in family and community engagement. However, teacher education requirements varied significantly between countries, ranging from mandatory courses in Finland to “marginal” coverage in Spain. Lehmann (2018) noted that although the German-speaking region of Switzerland appeared to emphasize family–school cooperation more than other countries, preparation focused primarily on the teachers’ role as communicators with families rather than on empowering parents to support children’s learning. In England, Mutton et al. (2018) found that many newly qualified teachers felt inadequately prepared for communicating with parents, with the issue receiving little attention in the national framework of core content for initial teacher training.

3. Legislative and Policy Developments

Globally, education policy increasingly emphasizes teacher–family collaboration. In the United States, for example, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act mandated written policies, plans, and professional development to support school–family partnerships (Epstein, 2005). Since then, more than 40 states have enacted laws promoting professional development in family engagement, and some now require completion of a parent-engagement course for teacher licensure (Ferrara, 2017). In addition, major non-governmental organizations have provided guidelines. Over 20 years ago, the U.S. National Parent Teacher Association [PTA] (2012) introduced the National Standards for Family–School Partnerships. More recently, the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE, n.d.) developed core competencies for family-facing professionals, in addition to a policy brief for states (NAFSCE, n.d.). The establishment of a State Department Office with responsibility for family, school, and community partnerships by the Colorado State Department of Education and the Ohio Statewide Family Engagement Center hosted at Ohio State University highlights the priority given to this work at the state level.

Other jurisdictions have implemented similar policy measures. Scotland’s 2006 Schools (Parental Involvement) Act requires educators to involve parents actively in children’s learning, supported by a strategic implementation framework (Education Scotland, 2022). In Canada, Anthony-Newman (2025) advocates for a national parent-engagement policy that would include explicit requirements for family involvement in teacher education and certification.

Ireland’s legal framework emphasizes parents’ roles in education: its 1937 Constitution declares parents to be the “primary educators,” and the 1998 Education Act highlights the importance of partnership with families. Parent engagement is integrated into multiple Irish initiatives (Home School Community Liaison¹, Early Start preschool program), and action plans (DEIS², Department of Education and Skills, 2005, 2017a) and is referenced in key education policies (EPSEN Act (Department of Education and Science, 2004), Literacy/Numeracy Strategy (Department of Education and Skills, 2011), Aistear (Department of Education and Skills, 2009), Síolta (Department of Education and Skills, 2017b)). Research, however, suggests that policy mandates alone are insufficient without school-level leadership and resources to implement effective family–school partnerships (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016).

4. Teacher Accreditation Frameworks and Standards

As teacher accreditation systems have evolved, many now explicitly include family engagement as a core competency (see Table 1). Ireland’s Teaching Council, for example, published its Céim standards for initial teacher education, which require every program to address “Professional relationships and working with parents” (p. 14) as a field of study. Similarly, in the United States, major accreditation and licensure bodies—National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002), Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)—encourage teacher education programs to incorporate knowledge of family engagement as an essential component of teacher and administrator professional preparation (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Australia’s national professional standards developed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL, 2022) similarly require teachers to use a broad range of strategies for involving parents and communities in student learning.

Despite these frameworks, research highlights considerable variation in implementation. In Norway, Westergård (2013) documented a significant gap between national goals for teacher competency in parent involvement and the actual preparation that teachers receive. Similarly, international comparisons reveal inconsistencies: Epstein (2018) notes that Finland mandates parent-engagement coursework for student teachers, whereas Spain covers the topic only marginally, and Swiss programs (German-speaking region) focus on teachers’ communication with families rather than parent empowerment. In England, many newly qualified teachers report feeling unprepared to engage parents, reflecting the limited emphasis on family partnerships in national training guidelines. Scholars in Canada have similarly called for explicit parent-engagement requirements in teacher education and certification standards. Taken together, these accreditation standards and analyses underscore a growing consensus that effective teacher preparation should include family–school partnership competencies, even as support for these competencies varies across jurisdictions.

5. Existing Programs of Teacher Education

Despite increased legislation and teacher accreditation requirements internationally, teacher education programs have been slow to adopt changes (Epstein, 2001; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Graue, 2005; Patte, 2011; Pushor, 2011; Pushor & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013; Shartrand et al., 1997; Weiss et al., 2005), but more recent legislative requirements have stimulated the emergence of new courses in several U.S. states (including Florida, Illinois, Texas, and Maryland). The focus of such courses tends to be limited to reporting to parents or sharing student progress (Anthony-Newman, 2025). There is also significant inconsistency across jurisdictions and institutions, with parent engagement content typically depending on individual faculty interest rather than system mandates (Anthony-Newman, 2025).

Programs that integrate substantive family engagement instruction report positive outcomes: teachers demonstrate not only improved confidence and attitudes toward parents but also enhanced skills for planning and implementing family involvement activities (Uludag, 2008; Morris & Taylor, 1998). Similarly, research in Ireland shows that even a single elective course can shift teacher candidates’ attitudes and equip them with concrete strategies for classroom-based parent collaboration (Ryan, 2024; Ryan et al., 2025). These findings underscore that quality training matters: without it, prospective teachers emerge underprepared for authentic partnership with families.

6. Teacher Competencies for Parent Engagement

Increasingly, researchers have identified key competencies that teachers must cultivate to engage families confidently and competently in children’s learning (Abrego et al., 2006; Graue, 2005). Swick (2004) identified three foundational skills for teachers that require ongoing development:

Positive Attitudes Towards Families: Teachers must value and respect family diversity, holding a genuinely affirming view of parents’ contributions.

Effective Two-Way communication: Teachers need skills in respectful, open, two-way dialogue with parents, including active listening, empathy, and assertive yet collaborative communication.

Family Partnership Orientation: Teachers should view families as partners in education and empower them to support their children’s learning, rather than seeing parental involvement as an optional extra.

These competencies align closely with the principles of the HSCL scheme in Ireland, which, since 1990, has emphasized mutual respect and partnership (Ryan & Lannin, 2021).

6.1. Understanding of Family, Community, and Culture

Effective engagement demands deep cultural competence. Preservice teachers often enter the profession with limited exposure to the socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds present in their future classrooms (Bleicher, 2011; de Acosta, 1996; Silverman, 2010; Taylor & Sobel, 2001). Kidd et al. (2008) warn that unexamined cultural assumptions and a limited grasp of both their own cultural background and those of others can distort preservice teachers’ interpretations of family behaviors. Indeed, studies have found that teachers may unconsciously adopt a deficit lens: expecting less from or blaming families who differ from the dominant cultural norm. For example, Noguera (2011) noted bias toward parents who were poor, non-white, or non-English-speaking, often misinterpreting their norms as a lack of interest or ability. These misperceptions can hinder student achievement by impairing trust and cooperation. As Bleicher (2011) and colleagues report, many preservice teachers even express anxiety about relating to families “not like me”, and tend to hold lower expectations for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thus, teacher education must intentionally broaden candidates’ cultural horizons, helping them recognize and counteract prejudices. Coursework should include content on diverse family structures, poverty, and privilege, as well as direct interaction with different communities, so that teachers learn to value each family’s unique background.

6.2. Communication and Relational Skills

Strong interpersonal skills are essential for daily parent engagement. Westergård’s study of Norway—a context where parents are explicitly treated as “equal partners” in education and as a resource for schools—highlights the complexity of this task. Norwegian teachers and parents report difficulties establishing effective cooperation despite the curriculum’s emphasis on dialogue (Fylling & Sandvin, 1999). Westergård (2013) concludes that building trusting school–home relationships requires deliberate competence-building: not only must individual teachers develop conflict-management and counselling skills, but schools must also foster a culture of open communication through whole-staff initiatives. She identifies three interrelated domains of teacher competence in this area:

Relational Competence: Creating welcoming, trust-based relationships with parents and managing sensitive issues with diplomacy.

Communication Competence: Engaging in respectful two-way conversation—utilizing active listening, assertiveness, and empathy—to ensure parents feel heard and involved.

Contextual Competence: Operating with confidence and skill in the school environment so that teachers can address classroom issues without placing undue burden on parents and can bring parents into conversations about learning.

Teacher education programs should model and practice these skills. For instance, role-play exercises, case studies, and supervised interactions with families can help candidates build confidence in their communication and conflict-resolution abilities.

6.3. Developing Teacher Identity and Reflective Practice

Robust literature supports causal links between beliefs and behavior, demonstrating how personal beliefs shape actions (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Fullan, 1991, 2007; Wilson & Berne, 1999). This occurs because beliefs influence our understanding and perceptions of events, orient us toward particular tasks and actions, and influence our decisions (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002). Research on identity shows that past experiences, personal beliefs, and teacher education program content all strongly influence what student teachers learn (Graue, 2005) and that reflective practice is an important aspect of teacher formation (Bonfield & Horgan, 2016). Consequently, student teachers need opportunities to reflect on their experiences, attitudes, and feelings about partnering with parents. They require sufficient time to learn fundamental information and “grapple with their personal beliefs and practice, while applying their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a variety of settings” (Baum & McMurray-Schwarz, 2004, p. 61). Becher (1986) emphasized this need: “It is only when teachers become aware of their own fears, concerns, and negative feelings that they are able to rationally eliminate them and to develop more effective strategies” (p. 109).

Epstein and Dauber (1991) found that “Teachers who believe that they share similar beliefs with parents about involvement make more contacts with parents who other teachers find hard to reach, conduct more types of activities to involve families, and are less affected by disadvantaged characteristics of the student population” (p. 300). They concluded that building a “common understanding about shared goals” (p. 300) among parents, teachers, and principals is crucial. Another vital aspect is developing teachers’ beliefs about parents’ capacity to support children’s learning (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002).

Unal and Unal (2014) found that most preservice and in-service teachers held positive opinions about parent involvement and that providing content and experiences addressing knowledge, skills, and practices integrated across activities over extended periods proved more effective than condensing everything into a single course. This underscores the need for student teachers to have sufficient time for critical reflection on their ingrained beliefs and practices, as well as the space necessary for meaningful transformation to take place. Without such reflection opportunities, student teachers may rely solely on traditional involvement practices, such as communication and volunteering, never progressing to more meaningful parent engagement in children’s learning (Patte, 2011).

Formulating a personal teaching and learning philosophy is widely acknowledged as a key component of teacher development (e.g., Bonfield & Horgan, 2016; Caukin & Brinthaupt, 2017). Patte (2011) extended this idea by proposing that coursework focused on family engagement should incorporate the creation of a philosophy for working with diverse families, the development of family engagement action plans, and the analysis of teaching-related case studies. Weiss et al. (2014) created a useful casebook tailored to teacher education programs in the U.S., and similar resources could be adapted for use in international contexts (Ryan, 2024).

7. Suggested Teacher Professional Development Experiences

Shartrand et al. (1997) noted that “No one method of instruction can prepare teachers to work effectively with families and communities” (p. 56) and approaches must be “comprehensive, integrated, and varied” (p. 56). These researchers highlighted innovative approaches, such as placing preservice teachers in schools and communities under the guidance of experienced professionals, as well as fostering communication and interpersonal skills, especially in interactions with families from diverse cultural backgrounds. It was also considered important to collaborate with professionals from other disciplines to design family involvement activities and to develop problem-solving skills for dealing with sensitive issues.

Many researchers emphasize the importance of direct experiences with families and communities for student teachers (e.g., de Acosta, 1996; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Shartrand et al., 1997; Uludag, 2008). Based on findings that student teachers’ perceptions of parents are most influenced by practical experiences, Uludag (2008) recommended activities such as writing newsletters, planning, and implementing family activities, initiating contact with parents, and participating in parent–teacher meetings. Some U.S. teacher education courses emphasize guest speakers, case studies, self-reflection, and research with families and communities.

In Canada, Debbie Pushor created a “curriculum of parents” in which student teachers explore their underlying beliefs and assumptions about parents and develop practices reflecting newly articulated perspectives based on experiences with or alongside parents and the study of relevant research. Such reflexivity is particularly important when working with diverse parent groups, as many middle-class teachers believe in meritocracy and have limited understanding of their own privilege or of how class and opportunity function in society. In communities affected by poverty, it is critical that teachers avoid negative assumptions about students and their families based on deficits and harmful stereotypes (Pushor & Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013).

In follow-up research with former students one to two years after graduation, Pushor (2014) found their experience with the “curriculum of parents” supported some beginning teachers in viewing themselves as part of the parent community rather than outside it. These young teachers developed understanding that parents possess crucial knowledge for schooling, whether about their own children or their own lived experiences. Pushor (2014) suggests that by adopting more proactive and positive attitudes toward parents, teachers can reposition parents within the school landscape and central to the school community rather than peripheral to it.

8. Parent Engagement Course in Ireland

A concrete example of the above principles in action is an elective course on developing parent engagement for student teachers at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick (Ryan & Lannin, 2021; Ryan, 2024). Since 2013, this course has immersed final-year student teachers in the theory and practice of educational partnerships. Through seminars, assignments, and field visits, candidates explore research on family engagement, examine the Irish Home–School–Community Liaison (HSCL) program, and hear from practicing HSCL coordinators, parents, and school leaders. Crucially, the course includes reflective elements: students craft a personal philosophy of parent engagement and analyze case studies of sensitive issues, thus confronting their own assumptions about families. Additionally, each cohort visits a local DEIS (disadvantaged) school to work directly with parents and children on STEM activities in the classroom (Ryan et al., 2025).

Outcomes from this course have been promising and have been published in detail elsewhere (see Ryan et al., 2025). Participants reported meaningful shifts in their attitudes toward parents, noting reduced initial apprehensions and improved communication skills essential for effective collaboration with parents. The course deepened their understanding of the complexities surrounding parent engagement and enhanced their awareness of and openness to the teacher’s role in fostering meaningful partnerships with families. They came to appreciate the pivotal contribution parents make to their children’s education, along with the unique insights they offer. Moreover, participants acquired practical strategies for planning and implementing parent engagement in the classroom, while also recognizing the diversity among parents—their varying strengths, concerns, and capacities for school involvement. Participants also expressed a stronger understanding of the barriers that limit some parents’ involvement (e.g., time, language, and previous negative school experiences), a deeper respect for parents’ viewpoints, and a commitment to more inclusive, thoughtful practices for engaging families from diverse backgrounds (Ryan, 2024; Ryan et al., 2025).

9. School Leadership, Policy, and Professional Development

Reform cannot stop at initial preparation; a supportive school context and ongoing training are also essential. Leadership plays a pivotal role: principals and administrators “hold the key” to fostering a family-engagement ethos. Effective school leaders explicitly prioritize parent partnerships by setting policy, allocating resources for family outreach, and modeling the practice of involving parents in decision-making. For example, Irish DEIS schools are required to include parent engagement targets in their plans, signaling that engagement is a schoolwide priority. Moreover, Pushor and Amendt (2018) argue that principals must move schools from a “schoolcentric” mindset to a “familycentric” one, where parents’ knowledge, hopes, and dreams inform all aspects of schooling. Family partnership work at the school level should include “goal-linked engagement activities for student learning in specific subjects”, which positively influence student learning in these subjects (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2012; Van Voorhis et al., 2013 cited in Epstein, 2018, p. 403). Teachers’ collective attitudes also matter. When staff members share positive beliefs about parental roles and support each other’s outreach efforts, parent involvement increases. Achieving effective school-home partnerships requires teachers who understand both the school context and the communities their students inhabit and who share with colleagues a commitment to family engagement. School factors, particularly relational factors, significantly influence parent engagement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Oswald et al., 2018). When school staff recognize parents as partners and create caring, trusting relationships with families, parents’ motivation to participate increases, leading to more active involvement in children’s educational development (Oswald et al., 2018). Similarly, parents’ perception of invitation for school involvement—whether they feel invited and welcome—either fosters or undermines their participation (Walker et al., 2005).

Whole-school professional development—such as staff workshops on communication or collaborative planning across classrooms—reinforces the individual skills learned by teachers and aligns the school’s vision. Networks such as Johns Hopkins University’s National Network for Partnership Schools exemplify how sustained training and inter-school collaboration can build capacity for family engagement at scale.

Epstein (2018) underscores that family partnership competencies should be woven into every stage of teacher development. Ongoing in-service training is critical: longitudinal U.S. studies show that schools seeing improved partnership programs offer teachers continuous workshops, coaching, and planning support. In essence, preparing teachers is a career-long endeavor: initial coursework must be reinforced by professional learning communities, mentoring, and administrative support so that home–school partnerships remain vibrant beyond the first year of teaching.

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

The evidence is clear: effective parent engagement must be treated as a core component of teacher professionalism. Every teacher education program should embed family–school–community partnership throughout its curriculum. This entails revising program standards and course requirements so that future teachers graduate with not only content expertise but also the attitudes, knowledge, and skills to work collaboratively with families. Initial teacher courses should include explicit content on engagement strategies, supported by practical assignments (e.g., designing a parent–involvement plan) and guided reflection on one’s cultural assumptions. Importantly, programs should facilitate real interactions between student teachers and diverse families—through community projects, school visits, or supervised home visits—since these experiences powerfully shape teachers’ mindsets and strategies.

To realize this vision, the following recommendations are suggested for teacher education policy and practice:

Curriculum Integration: Mandate family-engagement training as a required component of teacher education programs. This could be a dedicated course or integrated modules within existing courses. Key content should include the principles of partnership, strategies for two-way communication, and the value of cultural diversity.

Reflective Practice: Incorporate structured reflection on beliefs and identities. Teacher educators should use assignments such as case analyses and personal philosophy statements to help candidates uncover implicit biases about families, confront issues of privilege, and gain empathy for parents’ perspectives.

Experiential Learning: Provide meaningful field experiences with families. Even in large programs, schools can partner with teacher education institutions to create family-engagement projects (e.g., co-teaching literacy nights and involving student teachers in parent–teacher conferences). These experiences, guided by teachers or HSCL coordinators, allow candidates to practice communication and see the benefits of partnership firsthand.

Ongoing Professional Development: Ensure that initial training is followed by sustained support and in-service workshops, coaching, and communities of practice focused on family engagement.

Leadership Commitment: Encourage school leaders to institutionalize partnership. Principals should allocate time for teacher collaboration on family-engagement initiatives, celebrate successful teacher–parent collaborations, and systematically invite parent input in school improvement. Training for school leaders should highlight strategies to build “familycentric” school cultures.

By implementing these strategies, teacher educators and policymakers can move beyond rhetoric to action. As Epstein makes clear, family and community engagement is not optional; it “is part of every teacher’s professional work and an essential component of the organization of every school” (Epstein, 2018, p. 8). Preparing teachers for this reality requires a reimagining of teacher education pedagogy—one that makes the path to partnerships as integral as any path to pedagogy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Notes

1. An HSCL coordinator is a teacher who works intensively with and provides support to parents/guardians, with the goal of improving educational outcomes for children. Further information is available at https://www.tusla.ie/tess/hscl/ (accessed 9 January 2025).

2. The DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) scheme (Department of Education and Skills, 2017a) is comprised of a standardized system for identifying levels of disadvantage in schools throughout Ireland and intends to reduce the risk of educational failure among children from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes. DEIS targets resources to schools, and within schools, directs resources to students most in need (Weir et al., 2017).

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Table

Table 1

International Comparison of Accreditation Standards for Parent Engagement.

Country/Region	Accrediting Body/Framework	Parent Engagement Standards	Status/Policy
Ireland	Teaching Council (2020) (Céim)	“Professional Relationships and working with parents” is a required area of study	Mandated for all ITE programs; nationally reviewed 2021–2023
United States	NCATE, INTASC, ISLLC, State Licensure; NAFSCE	Majority of states focus on four key areas of family engagement; 17 states mandate family engagement, 7 do not mention it	Strong standards exist (NAFSCE, 2022) but implementation varies widely across states
Canada	Provincial Ministries	BC and Quebec have specific standards for parent engagement (Ministry of Education, 2021); most provinces name parents as partners and some focus on building relationships and communication	Varies by province; ongoing advocacy for a cohesive national framework (Anthony-Newman, 2025)
Australia	AITSL (2011, 2022) (Australian Professional Standards for Teachers)	Required in Standards: 3.7, 7.3, and 7.4 on working with parents and communities	Nationally embedded in teaching standards
Scotland	General Teaching Council for Scotland (2021, p. 9)	“Establish opportunities for parents/carers to participate in decisions about their child’s learning”	Well-developed parent engagement policies (Education Scotland, 2022)
England	Department for Education (2021) (ITE Framework)	Teachers required to communicate effectivelywith parents regarding pupils’ achievements and well-being	Parent engagement is assessed during Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and ongoing performance management
Finland	Finnish universities (regulated nationally)	Not defined in a national teacher standards document, but embedded in teacher education curricula and national policy.	The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016) explicitly promotes:“Cooperation between the school and the homes of pupils is important for supporting the pupil’s growth and learning”
Norway	Norwegian Directorate for Education	Professional practice standards require teachers to:“Facilitate collaboration with parents and guardians to support the development and learning of students”	The National Curriculum (LK20) emphasizes the role of parents as partners in education.
Switzerland	Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK/CDIP)	The Swiss Teacher Education standards include expectations to:“Cooperate with parents in a constructive and goal-oriented manner” and teachers are assessed on these skills	The Intercantonal Agreement on Harmonisation of Compulsory Education (HarmoS) and cantonal regulations emphasize school–parent collaboration

References

Abrego, M. H.; Rubin, R.; Sutterby, J. A. They call me maestra: Preservice teachers’ interactions with parents in a reading tutoring program. Action in Teacher Education (Association of Teacher Educators); 2006; 28, 1 pp. 3-12. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507883256&site=ehost-live (accessed on 11 June 2019). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463563]

Anthony-Newman, M. Preparing teachers for parent engagement: Role of teacher educators in Canada. Educational Review; 2025; 77, 5 pp. 1422-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2324154]

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Australian professional standards for teachers; Education Council: 2011.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Australian professional standards for teachers (AITSL); Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership: 2022; ISBN 978-1-925192-64-3

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control; W.H. Freeman: 1997.

Baum, A. C.; McMurray-Schwarz, P. preservice teachers’ beliefs about family involvement: Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2004; 32, 1 pp. 57-61. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14270789&site=ehost-live (accessed on 30 May 2019). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000039645.97144.02]

Becher, R. Parents and schools; Office of Educational Research and Improvement: 1986.

Bleicher, E. Parsing the language of racism and relief: Effects of a short-term urban field placement on teacher candidates’ perceptions of culturally diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2011; 27, 8 pp. 1170-1178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.001]

Bonfield, T.; Horgan, K. Learning to teach. Teaching to learn; Gill: 2016.

Caukin, N. G.; Brinthaupt, T. M. Using a teaching philosophy statement as a professional development tool for teacher candidates. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; 2017; 11, 2 18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110218]

Datnow, A.; Castellano, M. Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal; 2000; 37, pp. 775-799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775]

de Acosta, M. A foundational approach to preparing teachers for family and community involvement in children’s education. Journal of Teacher Education; 1996; 47, 1 pp. 9-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487196047001003]

de Bruïne, E. J.; Willemse, T. M.; D’Haem, J.; Griswold, P.; Vloeberghs, L.; van Eynde, S. Preparing teacher candidates for family–school partnerships. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2014; 37, 4 pp. 409-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912628]

Department for Education. Teachers’ standards; 2021; Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-standards (accessed on 17 October 2024).

Department of Education and Science. EPSEN act; Department of Education and Science: 2004.

Department of Education and Skills. DEIS (delivering equality of opportunity in schools). An action plan for educational inclusion; Department of Education and Skills: 2005.

Department of Education and Skills. Aistear; Department of Education and Skills: 2009.

Department of Education and Skills. Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011–2020; Department of Education and Skills: 2011.

Department of Education and Skills. DEIS plan 2017. Delivering equality of opportunity in schools; Department of Education and Skills: 2017a.

Department of Education and Skills. Síolta. National quality framework for early childhood education; Department of Education and Skills: 2017b.

Education Scotland. Strategic framework for parental involvement, parental engagement, family learning and learning at home; Education Scotland: 2022.

Epstein, J. L. School, family, and community partnerships. Preparing educators and improving schools; Westview Press: 2001.

Epstein, J. L. Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the no child left behind act on parental involvement. Sociology of Education; 2005; 78, 2 pp. 179-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800207]

Epstein, J. L. Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Teaching Education; 2013; 24, pp. 115-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786887]

Epstein, J. L. School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching; 2018; 44, 3 pp. 397-406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669]

Epstein, J. L.; Dauber, S. L. School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal; 1991; 91, pp. 279-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461656]

Epstein, J. L.; Sanders, M. G. Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education; 2006; 81, 2 pp. 81-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8102_5]

Epstein, J. L.; Sanders, M. G.; Sheldon, S. B.; Simon, B. S.; Salinas, K. C.; Jansorn, N. R.; Van Voorhis, F. L.; Martin, C. S.; Thomas, B. G.; Greenfeld, M. D.; Hutchins, D. J.; Williams, K. J. School, family, and community partnerships. Your handbook for action; 4th ed. Corwin Press: 2019.

Epstein, J. L.; Sheldon, S. B. Necessary but not sufficient: The role of policy for advancing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences; 2016; 2, 5 pp. 202-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.5.10]

Evans, M. P. Educating preservice teachers for family, school, community engagement. Teaching Education; 2013; 24, 2 pp. 123-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786897]

Fan, X.; Chen, M. Parental involvement in students’ academic achievement: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review; 2001; 13, pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009048817385]

Ferrara, M. M. Understanding family engagement through the focus of the national standards for family–school partnerships: Secondary preservice teachers’ perspectives. School Community Journal; 2017; 27, 2 pp. 145-166.

Finnish National Board of Education. New national core curriculum for basic education: Focus on school culture and integrative approach; Finnish National Agency for Education: 2016; ISBN 978-952-13-6259-0

Fullan, M. The meaning of educational change; 2nd ed. Teachers College Press: 1991.

Fullan, M. The new meaning of educational change; 4th ed. Teachers’ College Press: 2007.

Fylling, I.; Sandvin, J. T. The role of parents in special education: The notion of partnership revised. European Journal of Special Needs Education; 1999; 14, 2 pp. 144-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625990140205]

General Teaching Council for Scotland. Standard for full registration; 2021; Available online: https://www.gtcs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/standard-for-full-registration.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2024).

Graue, E. Theorizing and describing preservice teachers’ images of families and schooling. Teachers College Record; 2005; 107, 1 pp. 157-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00461.x]

Henderson, A. T.; Mapp, K. L. A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community on student achievement; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL): 2002.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V.; Walker, J. M. T.; Jones, K. P.; Reed, R. P. Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2002; 18, pp. 843-867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00047-1]

Jeynes, W. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education; 2012; 47, 4 pp. 706-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643]

Jones, C.; Banerjee, P.; Jackson, L. The Positioning of parental engagement within England’s current educational policy landscape. British Educational Research Journal; 2025; pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.4175]

Kidd, J. K.; Sanchéz, S. Y.; Thorp, E. K. Defining moments: Developing culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices in early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2008; 24, 2 pp. 316-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.003]

Lehmann, J. Parental involvement: An issue for Swiss primary school teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching; 2018; 44, 3 pp. 296-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465626]

Ministry of Education. Reference framework for professional competencies for teachers; 2021; Available online: https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/education/publications-adm/devenir-enseignant/reference_framework_professional_competencies_teacher.pdf?1611584651 (accessed on 20 May 2025).

Morris, V. G.; Taylor, S. I. Alleviating barriers to family involvement in education: The role of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education; 1998; 14, 2 pp. 219-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00037-1]

Mutton, T.; Burn, K.; Thompson, I. Preparation for family-school partnerships within initial teacher education programmes in England. Journal of Education for Teaching; 2018; 44, 3 pp. 278-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465624]

NAFSCE. Preparing educators for family engagement: What states can do to help; n.d.; Available online: https://nafsce.org/ (accessed on 9 October 2024).

NAFSCE. Family engagement core competencies: A body of knowledge, skills and dispositions for family-facing professionals; NAFSCE: 2022.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Professional standards for the accreditiation of schools, colleges, and departments of education; NCATE: 2002.

National Parent Teacher Association [PTA]. National standards for family-school partnerships; 2012; Available online: http://www.pta.org/nationalstandards (accessed on 17 October 2024).

Noguera, P. Urban schools must start empowering–and stop blaming–parents; 2011; Available online: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com (accessed on 7 December 2017).

Oswald, D. P.; Zaidi, H. B.; Cheatham, D. S.; Diggs Brody, K. G. Correlates of parent involvement in students’ learning: Examination of a national data set. Journal of Child and Family Studies; 2018; 27, 1 pp. 316-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0876-4]

Patte, M. Examining preservice teacher knowledge and competencies in establishing family-school partnerships. The School Community Journal; 2011; 21, 2 pp. 143-160.

Pushor, D. Kitchen, J.; Ciuffetelli Parker, D.; Pushor, D. Living a curriculum of parents alongside teacher candidates. Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 2011; pp. 217-237.

Pushor, D. Teachers’ narrative understandings of parents: Living and reliving “possible lives” as professionals. Journal of Family Diversity in Education; 2014; 1, 1 pp. 40-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2014.22]

Pushor, D.; Amendt, T. Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership & Management; 2018; 38, 2 pp. 202-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1439466]

Pushor, D.; Ciuffetelli Parker, D. Reformation of storied assumptions of parents and poverty. International Journal about Parents in Education; 2013; 7, 2 pp. 164-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54195/ijpe.18225]

Ryan, S. Leavy, A.; Nohilly, M. Promising partnership practices to support children’s learning. Perspectives on childhood; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2021; pp. 67-84.

Ryan, S. Mooney, B. Teacher professional development for parent engagement. meeting the teaching council Céim requirements. Ireland’s education yearbook 2023; Education Matters: 2024; pp. 343-348.

Ryan, S.; Lannin, C. Parents in partnership. Mapping the way for family, school and community engagement; Curriculum Development Unit/Mary Immaculate College: 2021.

Ryan, S.; Walsh, E.; Liston, M. The parents were brilliant!” engaging parents in STEM learning: Insights from preservice teachers’ field experience. Social Sciences; 2025; 14, 4 215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci14040215]

Saltmarsh, S.; Barr, J.; Chapman, A. Preparing for parents: How australian teacher education is addressing the question of parent-school engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education; 2014; 35, pp. 69-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.906385]

Shartrand, A.; Weiss, H. B.; Kreider, H.; Lopez, M. E. New skills for new schools: Preparing teachers in family involvement; ERIC Number: ED414254 ERIC: 1997.

Silverman, S. K. What is diversity? An inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Educational Research Journal; 2010; 47, 2 pp. 292-329. Available online: www.jstor.org/stable/40645442 (accessed on 14 June 2017). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831210365096]

Swick, K. Empowering parents, families, schools and communities during the early childhood years; Stipes: 2004.

Taylor, S. V.; Sobel, D. M. Addressing the discontinuity of students’ and teachers’ diversity: A preliminary study of preservice teachers’ beliefs and perceived skills. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2001; 17, 4 pp. 487-503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00008-7]

Teaching Council. Céim: Standards for initial teacher education; Teaching Council: 2020.

Uludag, A. Elementary preservice teachers’ opinions about parental involvement in elementary children’s education. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2008; 24, 3 pp. 807-817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.009]

Unal, Z.; Unal, A. Perspectives of preservice and in-service teachers on their preparation to work with parents in elementary classrooms. The Educational Forum; 2014; 78, 2 pp. 112-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2013.878425]

Van Voorhis, F. L.; Maier, M. F.; Epstein, J. L.; Lloyd, C. M. Impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3–8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills; MDRC: 2013.

Walker, J. M. T.; Wilkins, A. S.; Dallaire, J. R.; Sandler, H. M.; Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal; 2005; 106, pp. 85-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499193]

Weir, S.; Kavanagh, L.; Kelleher, C.; Moran, E. Addressing educational disadvantage. A review of evidence from the international literature and of strategy in Ireland: An update since 2005; Educational Research Centre: 2017.

Weiss, H. B.; Kreider, H.; Lopez, M. E.; Chatman, C. M. Preparing educators to involve families: From theory to practice; Sage: 2005.

Weiss, H. B.; Lopez, M. E.; Kreider, H.; Chatman, C. M. Preparing educators to engage families. Case studies using an ecological systems framework; 3rd ed. Sage: 2014.

Westergård, E. Teacher competencies and parental cooperation. International Journal about Parents in Education; 2013; 7, 2 pp. 91-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54195/ijpe.18218]

Willemse, T. M.; Thompson, I.; Vanderlinde, R.; Mutton, T. Family-school partnerships: A challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching; 2018; 44, 3 pp. 252-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465545]

Willemse, T. M.; Vloeberghs, L.; de Bruïne, E. J.; Van Eynde, S. Preparing teachers for family-school partnerships: A Dutch and Belgian perspective. Teaching Education; 2016; 27, 2 pp. 212-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1069264]

Wilson, S. M.; Berne, J. Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education; 1999; 24, 1 pp. 173-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001173]