Martine van der Pluijm

82 Chapter 3 their increased awareness of the specific needs of lower-educated parents. One principal said: “ I now realize that it’s a huge problem and that we should be much more alert from the moment parents register their child at our school. We need to know their background from that moment.” These interventions led to the professional development of other colleagues who were not part of the design team. More colleagues in the teams changed to a more reciprocal style of communication with parents. As one of the principals reported: “ I’m sure that all the colleagues in my team asked parents questions about their home environment. For me, that’s a significant step.” This process fostered improvements and created opportunities to continue working with the prototype. More opportunities include adjustments to school-family procedures and policy. Two teams mentioned introductory conferences as an example of a procedure that will remain part of school policy in the coming years. One of the school principals said: “ Every teacher in the team participated in the training and conducted introductory conferences. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a real good start. I am convinced that these conferences will contribute to better family- school partnerships in the future.” This progress led to a shared vision of SFPs and a feeling of urgency. One of the principals reported: “ I never stop thinking of the triangle that symbolizes the collaboration between school, parents, and children. We are in this together, and we better make it work. And I see that I’m not the only one who really wants to make it work.” However, teams had additional needs for continuing with the fourth and fifth design principle. Although they were convinced that the required expertise was available to continue applying the first three design principles, principals reported that they lacked the knowledge and the people to implement the fourth and fifth design principle directed at the children’s language development. One of the principals said: "It’s simple, many colleagues really don’t want parents in their classroom. I’m not happy about this. But it’s the truth. I can’t fire them, can I? I’m fortunate to have teachers who want to teach the kids .” Schools would require more time and means to continue working with parents using the full prototype. One of the principals mentioned: “ You don’t have to convince me that what we’re doing right now contributes to a better education for our children. But, I don’t know how to sell this to my team . There’s a structural problem, i.e., lack of time and energy for other activities besides teaching the kids. Teachers who tested the prototype in the classroom reported the need for better school policies. These teachers had developed their annual program to work on SFPs in support of children’s language development and felt a lack of shared foci as a team. One teacher (1) mentioned: “ We should do this more as a team. I see too many colleagues who are not open for dialogues with parents. I work hard to build relationships with parent. I see colleagues who ignore parents. That hurts.” Many teachers felt that colleagues had different visions on bilingualism and different expectations of parents. A teacher (2) said: “ I think we should share a similar intention and arguments . Otherwise, it feels like we’re just doing something .”