The collaboration between family and school constitutes a significant area of academic inquiry, as both institutions play a pivotal role in the holistic development and education of the child. The positive interconnection between these two primary agents of socialization has been extensively acknowledged in the literature, emphasizing the necessity for the establishment of systematic and sustained partnerships. Nonetheless, the definition of such collaboration varies, a fact that inspired the present study. The objective was to investigate how both parents and educators conceptualize family-school collaboration. The findings indicate that the notion of collaboration is structured around three central dimensions: its purpose; communication, specifically regarding the mode, frequency, and initiative of interaction; and the boundaries, primarily set by educators, in order to sustain a constructive and balanced relationship. The methodological framework employed was Grounded Theory Methodology, with a particular focus on Charmaz’s constructivist approach.
AlmahdiO (2019) Family-school connections: Different theoretical perspectives and their implications for teacher education. Humanities and Social Science Research2(4): 1–13.
2.
BæckUD (2010) Parental involvement practices in formalized home-school cooperation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research54(6): 549–563.
3.
BöökMPerälä-LittunenS (2014) Responsibility in home–school relations—Finnish parents’ views. Children and Society. The International Journal of Childhood and Children’s Services29(6): 615–625.
4.
BruzosA (2002) School-family cooperation: Problems and opportunities for its development. Scientific Yearbook of the Pedagogical Department of Primary Education of the University of Ioannina15: 97–135.
5.
ChanTC (2021) Perception of Chinese parents toward school and family collaboration. School Community Journal31(1): 233–258.
6.
CharmazK (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In: LincolnIN (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Sage, pp.509–535.
7.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Research. Sage.
8.
DafermouCKoulouriPBasagianniE (2006) Kindergarten teacher’s guide: Educational planning. Creative learning environments. Ministry of National Education; O.E.D.B.
9.
DaviesD (1991) Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta Kappan72(5): 376–38.
10.
DeebaF (2021) Family school partnership: A cohesive perception of teachers and parents. Pakistan Social Sciences Review5(2): 431–445.
11.
EpsteinJL (1988) Effective schools or effective students? Dealing with diversity. In: HawkinsRMacraeB (eds) Policies for America’s Public Schools. Ablex, pp.89–126.
12.
EpsteinJL (1989) Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In: AmesCAmesR (eds) Research on Motivation in Education. Academic Press, pp.259–295.
13.
EpsteinJL (2018) School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Routledge.
14.
FlynnN (2013) Linguistic capital and the linguistic field for teachers unaccustomed to linguistic difference. British Journal of Sociology of Education34(2): 225–242.
15.
GerdesJGoeiSLHuizingaM, et al (2020) True partners? Exploring family-school partnership in secondary education from a collaboration perspective. Educational Review74(4): 805–823.
16.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction.
17.
GoodallJMontgomeryC (2014) Parental involvement to parental engagement: A continuum. Educational Review66(4): 399–410.
18.
GreenwoodGEHickmanCW (1991) Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal91(3): 279–288.
19.
GubaEGLincolnYS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, pp.105–117.
20.
HaakMK (2007) Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about parental involvement in schooling. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/12/ (accessed 29 October 2025).
21.
Hampden-ThompsonGGalindoC (2016) School–family relationships, school satisfaction, and the academic achievement of young people. Educational Review69(2): 248–265.
22.
HillNETaylorLC (2004) Parental school involvement and childrens academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science13(4): 161–164.
23.
Hoover-DempseyKWalkerJSandlerH, et al (2005) Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal106(2): 105–130.
24.
HughesPMacNaughtonG (1999) Who’s the expert: Reconceptualizing parent-staff relations in early education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood24(4): 27–32.
25.
JeynesWH (2007) The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education42(1): 82–110.
26.
KimEMSheridanSM (2015) Foundational aspects of family–school connections: Definitions, conceptual frameworks, and research needs. In: SheridanSMKimEM (eds) Research on family–school partnerships. Springer International Publishing, pp.1–14.
27.
KiprianosPVaosA (2010) Représentations pédagogiques et hiérarchies sociales: sur la maternelle et les instituteurs en Grèce. Revue Penser l’éducation28: 71–88.
28.
KiprianosPStavropoulouAChristodoulouM (2015) Peut-on avec des mots différents entendre la même chose ? Formes de coopération entre parents et familles dans l’école maternelle. In: KiprianosPPourtoisJP (eds) Famille, école, sociétés locales. UMONS, pp.56–61.
29.
LareauA (1987) Social class differences in family–school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education60(2): 73–85.
30.
LauEYH (2014) Chinese parents’ perceptions and practices of parental involvement during school transition. Early Child Development and Care184(3): 403–415.
31.
LindleJBoydWL (1991) Parents, professionalism, and partnership in school-community relations. International Journal of Educational Research15(3–4): 323–337.
32.
MatsangourasEPoulouM (2009) School and family relations: A comparative quotation of teachers’ and parents’ views. Mentor11: 27–41.
33.
Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute (2003) Cross-thematic unified curriculum framework for kindergarten. Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute.
34.
Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute (2014a) Cross-thematic unified curriculum framework for kindergarten. Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute.
35.
Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute (2011) Teacher’s guide for the kindergarten curriculum. Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute.
36.
Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute (2014b) Teacher’s guide for the kindergarten curriculum. Ministry of National Education – Pedagogical Institute.
37.
MollerJEggenAFuglestadO, et al (2005) Successful school leadership: The Norwegian case. Journal of Educational Administration43(6): 584–594.
38.
NeuenschwanderMP (2020) Information and trust in parent-teacher cooperation – Connections with educational inequality. Central European Journal of Educational Research2(3): 19–28.
39.
OvatiTRydlandVGrøverV, et al. (2024) Teacher perceptions of parent collaboration in multi-ethnic ECEC settings. Frontiers in Education, 9.
40.
PiagetJ (1970) Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Orion Press.
41.
PentériEChlapanaEMélliouK, et al. (2021) Preschool education curriculum for kindergarten. Institute of Educational Policy.
42.
PhtiakaH (1999) Parental education in Cyprus: Past, present and future. International Studies in Sociology of Education9(1): 95–107.
43.
ReayD (1999) Linguistic capital and home-school relationships: Mother’s interactions with their children’s primary school teachers. Acta Sociologica42(2): 159–168.
44.
RoseMMooneyMJohnstonC, et al. (2024) Parent involvement in positive behaviour intervention and supports in Australia: Teacher and parent/caregiver perspectives. Australian Educational Researcher51(1): 347–364.
45.
ShuZ (2019) Chinese teachers’ perceptions of school-family collaboration: A study of elementary schools in Zhejiang Province. Educational Planning Journal26(1): 23–41.
46.
StraussACorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage.
47.
ThornbergRCharmazK (2014) Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In: FlickU (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, pp.153–169.
48.
TóblováEFerkováSPoliakováA (2020) Research into school and family cooperation from the perspective of teachers and parents. In: EDULEARN20 proceedings. 12th International conference on education and new learning technologies, 6–7 July 2020. New York: Springer.
49.
VygotskyLS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
50.
WeiningerEBLareauA (2003) Translating Bourdieu into the American context: The question of social class and family–school relations. Poetics31(5): 375–402.
51.
WilliamsTTSanchezB (2011) Identifying and decreasing barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society45(1): 54–74.
52.
YamauchiALPonteERatliffeT, et al (2017) Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family-school partnership. School Community Journal27(2): 9–34.
53.
YuQF (2014) Parents’ and school principals’ perception differences in school and family collaboration. Family Education2014(5): 42–45.
