Family-school relationship in the Italian infant schools: not only a matter of cultural diversity

Point of view of teachers

The teachers involved in the research all work in the city of Milan, with a population of two million inhabitants, where children of immigrants have been increasingly present since the 1990s. The presence of immigrant families varies considerably from district to district, with very marked ethnic and social class segregation dynamics.

The teachers we interviewed were exclusively women, with various levels of experience in the school (from those who had just taken their degrees to professionals with 20 years of experience, who have seen first-hand the socio-demographic changes in Italian schools). Female teachers in Italy are very much in the majority and almost totally dominate education services in infant schools.

Interviews with teachers and their “personal stories” revealed various obstacle and resource factors in the relationship with the families of the children they teach.

First, there are some obstacles linked to interpersonal factors, such as the stereotypes and prejudices of teachers relative to some families, often of low social class and immigrant. Such stereotypes and prejudices are generated by diffidence towards others, with direct effects on the children of such families:

In my class, immigrant parents are considered “inferior” with respect to Italian parents by the other teachers. […] The older colleagues in particular are afraid of immigrants; it’s not racism, nor malice, it’s fear. […] Phrases like “they think they are owed everything”, “they never attend parent-teacher evenings”, “they make no attempt to understand”, “they never show up”, “despite everything we do for their child”, “they always make their child wear the same clothes” are generated by their prejudices and have an effect on the children, who are viewed as direct products of their parents. The majority of parents affected by these kinds of prejudices are immigrants or those belonging to a low socio-economic class (Teacher, school 2).

On the contrary, an attitude of trust on the part of parents appears to teachers to be the best relational resource in building solid and positive relationships. For one of the teachers involved, this trust was already established in the preliminary meeting with the families: “On that very first day I ask parents for a “blank cheque”, if they decide to entrust their children to me. Otherwise we cannot collaborate. Trust must almost be demanded from parents. If we have a relationship of trust the child will succeed in positively fitting in at school.” (Teacher, school 1).

Another relational factor that sometimes obstructs family-school relations is, according to teachers, the poor knowledge of Italian on the part of some families who have only recently immigrated to Italy, as has already been noted in other research work. “Many immigrant parents do not speak Italian well; there is therefore a communication problem which has not been taken into account by the schools. A course in Italian for Arab mothers would certainly facilitate their integration…” (Teacher, school 3). This linguistic barrier has emotional implications for the relationship between parents and teachers, in a context that makes little or no attempt to encourage multilingualism or communication exchange by means of various linguistic registers.

Structural factors also positively and negatively influence family-school relations. These include, as an obstacle element, the absence of a family network extended over the territory. This is especially problematic in a welfare system like that in Italy, based on informal extended family support to help take care of children, rather than on care services offered to families: “parents of immigrant children never turn up for parent-teacher meetings, almost certainly because they have no support from an extended family network, grandparents, uncles, aunts etc.. […] Many parents do not come to the meetings because they have no one they can trust to look after their children…” (Teacher, school 2).

Among structural factors there is also the difficulty experienced in reconciling work hours with school times, an element that is also cited in the narrations provided by parents. A teacher described a specific case: “The father of a child, of Romanian origin, came to a parent-teacher pre-registration meeting in work clothes (bricklayer), apologising for the way he was dressed. […] After that, he never came to any parent-teacher meetings; I think his work times prevented him from taking part” (Teacher, school 3). In the opinion of another teacher, the school should have open times other than those normally offered, like Saturday morning, to facilitate the participation of such parents in the life of the school.

On the other hand, in the family-school relationship, communications are nowadays often carried out using techniques other than traditional “notices” hung up in front of the class, often ignored by the majority of parents. Emails or “whatsapp groups” have become an instrument for communication between families and even sometimes between teachers, to transmit practical information or facilitate reciprocal knowledge, including over long distances. However, teachers do not hide the fact that there are some negative features relative to this type of communication: “not all parents have internet on their mobile phones, so some are excluded from this type of communication” (Teacher, school 2).

Finally, cultural factors undoubtedly influence family-school relations both positively and negatively. In our research work we identify as cultural factors those attitudes and behaviours displayed by both Italian and immigrant families, according to an approach where culture is seen as something that native people also display, and not only immigrant families.

This kind of greater awareness appears to be infrequent even among teachers, who identify as cultural behaviour solely that of immigrant parents, as indicated by the story of a teacher:

There is an Egyptian family which is “very Arab”. For example, it focuses much more attention on the boy than on the girl. They find it difficult to adapt to the rules of the school, always arrive late for parent-teacher meetings. […] The mother of an Italian boy always arrives late too, and rarely takes part in parent-teacher meetings. She is a university lecturer… a professional woman! She never has any time… (Teacher, school 1).

This affirmation clearly reveals how in the worldview of this teacher the behaviour of the immigrant family is interpreted through a generic and in some senses stereotypical cultural prism; while the very same kind of behaviour, exhibited by an Italian family, is not attributed to cultural but to merely personal factors, linked to professional standing. In other words, the cultural approach is used to describe the behaviour of “others” but not that of Italians.

We have also noted how among the cultural factors that can hinder family-school relations there is, according to some teachers, the diffidence and poor understanding of their professional role, with a consequent diffidence towards the school as an institution. A feature that seems more widespread among Italian families of medium–high class: “with my colleague we decided to ensure information notes were signed by mothers who were given information in order to avoid any later misunderstandings or disagreements. It often happens that Italian families complain they have not been informed relative to this or that matter…” (Teacher, school 1).

On the other hand, teachers have noted excessive respect shown to them by some immigrant families, coming from social contexts where there is no provision for any active participation of parents in the life of the school:

Immigrant parents completely delegate the education of their children to the scholastic institution and do not intervene in school questions, not least because they fear it will be perceived as a lack of respect for the school’s authority. We have particularly noted that parents from Arab countries often display this type of behaviour (Teacher, school 3).

This latter type of behaviour can be explained by the poor or non-existent opportunities for participation in the life of the school in the social contexts they come from. The scholastic experience of parents represents an essential element in defining their expectations and relationship modalities with their children’s school, including in a different geographic and temporal context.

In some cases an unusual way of relating with the school is described, as in this example provided by another teacher:

The father of a Chinese girl often came to school: every time he was asked to make an economic contribution (for teaching equipment, school trips etc.) he paid immediately, often without even knowing what the money would be specifically used for. Giving money was the most immediate thing, in his opinion, that he could do to take part in the life of the school (Teacher, school 3).

In this case too, it is likely that the parent of Chinese origin acquired this particular way of relating to the school as an institution in his country of origin, and felt that this was the best way to collaborate with the Italian school.

On the other hand, another teacher focused on a specifically cultural factor, when relating an episode: she was speaking to the mother of a three year old boy who originally came from China. The boy was very agitated at school and the teacher asked for explanations from the mother. The mother, who spoke little Italian, told the teacher to “put the boy with his face to the wall”, as a form of punishment, which she felt would be effective. The teacher was not accustomed to this type of method, but decided to adopt the mother’s suggestion, given that it seemed the boy was used to this style of education at home. “After 2 h, I remembered that X was still standing with his face to the wall! I had completely forgotten that I had left him there … I am not accustomed to using these methods. He had remained standing there, ‘as good as gold’, facing the wall” (Teacher, school 2).

Cultural factors can also be seen as resource elements in the family-school relationship; teachers unanimously state the importance of valorising the culture of origin of the parents as a factor that facilitates their relationship. The following are the words of one of the teachers who accurately describes the importance of this factor:

Parents, especially those who are not Italian, want to talk about themselves: often they feel it is important to specify that in their country of origin they had a good education, they obtained their degree, they lived in a beautiful house; they do not want to be viewed solely in the light of their current situation in Italy, but for their whole life experience e.g. an African mother who works in Italy as a cleaning lady but when she lived in her home country she was a teacher (Teacher, school 2). In Table 1, we summarize the obstacle and resource aspects that emerged from the teachers’ accounts.

Point of view of parents

The parents involved all live in the city of Milan, in districts that vary considerably in terms of their socio-cultural contexts.

The parents we interviewed were all women, with the exception of one father, aged between 30 and 40, with very different socio-economic conditions and an array of professional experiences (from university lecturer to factory worker), of various origins (Italy, Morocco, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, United States), different migratory experiences and periods of stay in Italy (from 5 to 20 years).

Participation in the life of the school, and the consequent decision to accept taking part in an interview on this subject, directly involved far more mothers than fathers.

Interviews with parents brought to light various obstacle and resource factors in their relations with the teachers of their children. The parents involved in the research, like the teachers, described a series of obstacles and resources that influence their relationship with their children’s school.

First, some interpersonal factors arose as stereotypes and prejudices, both positive and negative in character. We feel it is interesting to set out one example linked to the Christmas season. One mother told us the following:

Christmas was approaching. The school director called me and asked me to act as a “mediator” with Muslim mothers to reassure them as regards the activities that would be taking place during this festivity, which included a visit to a church. He wanted me to tell the mothers that “their children would not become Christians”, as the manager put it. In reality, the Muslim mothers reacted in a completely different way: they were not angry or irritated, but simply wanted to take part, cooking or preparing things that would be useful for the festivity. The director’s fears proved to be completely unfounded… (Parent, school 2).

As this story makes clear, prejudices, including of a positive character, can be obstacles to relationship if there is no opportunity to overcome them. The subject of religion is one of the most delicate and misunderstood areas in the relationship with immigrant families. The idea that Muslim families could feel offended or awkward about festivities linked to the Catholic faith is often disproved by the facts and the openness of Muslim families, for whom religion is important, including when it does not involve their own faith.

Prejudices against families are not limited, however, only to parents of other origins or religions. Italian families too are considered to display certain typical features, e.g. they are “too involved” in the life of their children’s school:

Teachers often negatively judge the families: they feel they are too intrusive in their children’s education and training. Teachers are very “protective” about their didactic projects and work, do not accept suggestions from parents, even if the latter have specific skills in certain areas (Parent, school 1).

The subject of excessive interference on the part of Italian families in the life of the school is linked to the question of different roles carried out by the family and the school, roles that sometimes appear to be managed in an ambiguous manner. As an immigrant mother explained, “teachers should not be vice-mothers” (Parent, school 1).

On the other hand, a factor that facilitates family-school relations, in the words of parents, appears to be once again trust, including when difficult situations arise, as in a very effective example described by the mother of a young boy:

Last year, two children ran away from school during an activity. They wandered around the city, crossing a very busy road. The subject was tackled in class: the school admitted they bore responsibility, the teachers that they were to blame. The parents did not get excessively angry with the teacher responsible; there was a good level of mutual understanding between the parents and the school institution. It was an excellent opportunity for collaboration, even though it was a delicate situation (Parent, school 2).

An obstacle factor, in the opinion of immigrant families, in the family-school relationship, is represented by the language used by teachers. Not linguistic difficulty, linked to a poor knowledge of Italian, but the language used by schools that have codes and vocabulary (jargon) that are not always easy to understand. As already emphasised by other research work, words like “equivalence”, “portfolio”, “primary school”, “training credits” made even worse by the use of acronyms like “pof”, “nai” or “invalsi,” which are certainly not easy for families to communicate the idea of a system that is difficult to interpret, especially for families that have come from other countries.

One father interviewed identified the question of gender as a source of difficulty: relations with the school are mostly undertaken by mothers and the teachers are for the most part women. This fact is closely connected to the question of school hours, often incompatible with work schedules: “I work from 5.30 to 18.00, there is no way I can ever accompany my daughter to school, or pick her up” (Parent, school 3).

Interpersonal facts are accompanied by structural factors which influence family-school relations. These include, and were named by many parents, socio-economic factors. In the current historical period schools ask parents to make an economic contribution to the life of the school, but not all families can afford to do so: “The discussions among parents almost always focus on questions concerning money, the economic contributions requested relative to activities. Not all families can afford to pay these…” (Parent, school 2). Among structural factors, on the other hand, that facilitate the family-school relationship there is again mentioned by parents the experimentation of forms of communication that differ from traditional ones, like “whatsapp groups”.

With respect to cultural factors, it became clear that parents like the valorisation of their cultural origin as an element that facilitates reciprocal trust between teachers and immigrant parents. One father stated that he would be very happy to talk about Morocco in his daughter’s school: “I would do it for her, for the other children” (Parent, school 3).

But there is another element that seems very interesting relative to intercultural considerations. Various parents make it clear that the aims of the school and the expectations of teachers are not always clear, a feature already identified as typically voiced by immigrant families and also voiced by Italian families in our research.

The perception of the role of the school in the lives of children depends to a considerable extent on the experience parents acquired in their countries of origin, where frontal didactics, discipline, affective distance, rigid imposition of rules and the authority of teachers are still very much a daily reality.

This factor is shared by both Italian and immigrant parents: what counts is their own scholastic experience which they seek, as a point of reference, in their children’s schools.

It is vital that these expectations receive an answer:

Often I don’t understand what teachers want from me as a parent, it’s difficult to understand what kind of contribution they want from the families in the school… School in Tunisia is a frontal school, families are absolutely not involved in scholastic and education dynamics, it is the teacher who, with total autonomy, decides on the scholastic programs and methods. We don’t understand what they want from us! (Parent, school 2).

This declaration makes it clear that schools are failing to communicate their aims and expectations in their relations with parents. A factor that certainly does not help parents from other cultural contexts to consolidate their role within their children’s school, even when they are fully prepared to collaborate. Table 2 provides a summary of the obstacle and resource aspects that emerged from our interviews with parents.