Journal of Professional Capital and Community

A survey of school-family-community partnerships in Kenya

Benard Omenge Nyatuka,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Benard Omenge Nyatuka, (2017) "A survey of school-family-community partnerships in Kenya",
Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 2 Issue: 4, pp.229-243, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JPCC-04-2017-0010
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-04-2017-0010
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 08 October 2017, At: 13:38 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:387340 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2056-9548.htm

School-family-
A survey of school-family- community
community partnerships in Kenya partnerships
Benard Omenge Nyatuka
Educational Foundations, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology,
Kakamega, Kenya
229
Received 18 April 2017
Abstract Revised 20 July 2017
Accepted 18 August 2017
Purpose – The creation of sound school-family-community partnerships is being widely acknowledged as
it strengthens school programs, family practices, student learning and behavior, as well as development.
Active participation of parents and communities in the school tends to reduce the traditional unidirectional
accountability of teachers as a sole party responsible for learners’ success. Furthermore, such collaboration
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

is said to cultivate new hope about schools and education, especially among rural communities.
However, key stakeholders in education claimed that school-family-community partnerships were weak in
primary schools in Kakamega County, Kenya (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2010). The paper aims to
discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was designed to generate relevant empirical evidence.
The study was guided by the Social Capital Theory (Field, 2003; Horvat et al., 2003; Coleman, 1994;
Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) whose central thesis is that social networks are a valuable asset, as interaction
enables people to build communities, commit themselves to each other, and knit the social fabric. Using stratified
random sampling, a sample of 361 primary school teachers in 34 schools drawn from a population of 8,964
teachers in 848 primary schools, cutting across the 12 districts in the county, was involved in the study.
A questionnaire was developed and used to collect the teachers’ views of school-family-community partnership
practices in the schools. The data generated were analyzed and presented by means of such descriptive
statistics as frequencies, percentages, and the mean.
Findings – The findings revealed gaps with respect to collaboration among schools, families, and the
community as the key focus in this study. Results indicated that the school-family-community partnerships in
the county remained at a transactional rather than a transformational level. In light of the findings, relevant
policy recommendations were proposed to improve practice, with particular attention to providing
meaningful professional learning as well as desirable student outcomes.
Originality/value – This is one of the largest county-level studies in Kenya directly addressing
teacher-family partnerships and illuminating the ways in which schools can build internal capacity for
effective family engagement.
Keywords Kenya, Practice, Kakamega county, Questionnaire, School-family-community partnership
Paper type Research paper

Developing meaningful collaboration between the school, family, and community is known to
boost academic achievement as well as positive behavior among children (Florez, 2011, p. 4;
Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015; Republic of Kenya, 2010, p. 185; UNICEF, 2003, p. 9).
Such partnerships reiterate the school’s responsibility in providing an environment to
transform learning into a child-centered endeavor. Erlendsdottir (2010), Koros (2006),
Epstein and Salinas (2004), Sanders and Harvey (2002), Sanders (2001), and Petronic (n.d.)
concur that sound bonds between the school, family, and community have benefits for the
children, their teachers, and parents. More importantly, the notion that the school is a property
of the community generates a sense of ownership since decisions are made jointly by such key
stakeholders as teachers, learners, parents, and other local players (Nyatuka and
Nyakan, 2015). This paper focuses on understanding the school-family-community
partnership practices claimed to be ineffective (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2010) in one
Kenyan county. The survey findings offer implications for professional capital and Journal of Professional Capital and
Community
community, with respect to interactions and relationships in the education sector. Vol. 2 No. 4, 2017
pp. 229-243
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-9548
This paper is based on the author’s dissertation: Nyatuka (2015). DOI 10.1108/JPCC-04-2017-0010
 JPCC Importance of school-family partnerships
2,4 According to the Naperville Community Unit School District (2013), Ministry of Education (MOE)
(2011), Republic of Kenya (ROK) (2009), Epstein and Sanders (2006, p. 86), Epstein and Sheldon
(2006, p. 119), and Epstein (1995, 2001), collaboration between the school, family, and community
can improve the programs and climate of the school, offer crucial services and support to homes,
link families within the school community, and assist teachers to effectively carry out their duties
230 and responsibilities (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015). However, the main reason to create such
partnerships is to help all the learners to succeed in school and in adulthood. Accordingly, when
the parents, teachers, learners, and others view one another as partners in education, a caring
community forms with respect to the learners (Getswicki, 2010; Epstein, 2009).
High levels of parental involvement correlate with improved academic performance, higher
grades, more positive attitudes toward school, higher homework-completion rates,
fewer placements in special education, academic persistence, lower dropout rates, and fewer
disciplinary actions (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015; Xu and Filler, 2008, p. 54). The general school
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

effects of parental involvement include increasing the skills and achievement of all the children
in the school along with the responsiveness of the school to the community’s needs ( Jeynes,
2005, 2007, 2011). According to Chrispeels and Gonzalez (2006, p. 34), home-learning activities
can be helpful to all families. There is a need, therefore, to build social networks and
relationships between schools and diverse families (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015; Epstein, 2009).
Epstein and Van Voorhis (2001) asserted that schools effective in raising the academic
achievement of low-income children usually have strong parental involvement programs,
and schools endeavor to extend invitations for involvement to such families.
Although children from higher-income families tend to perform better at school, learners
from all backgrounds benefit if their parents become involved (Henderson et al., 2007;
Henderson and Mapp, 2002). Malecki and Demaray (2006) assert that learners from low
socio-economic backgrounds experience higher achievement if their parents become
engaged with their schools. However, according to Green et al. (2007), although the
family’s socio-economic status and parental involvement appear to be positively linked,
socio-economic variables do not directly explain the often large variability found in the
levels and effectiveness of involvement within the socio-economic groups.
Getswicki (2010) and Chrispeels and Gonzalez (2006) reiterate the role of the teacher in
creating sound school-home-community partnerships. Particularly, teachers need to ensure
that parents participate in making decisions regarding education of their children.
This includes areas like administration, evaluation, supervision, and monitoring (Nyatuka
and Nyakan, 2015). Parental participation in the school helps to avoid the blame
traditionally heaped on the teacher whenever learners fall short of realizing the expected
goals (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015; Sirvani, 2007).
Florez (2011, p. 54) notes that the traditional tension between teachers and learners, and
among teachers and families, should be replaced by dialogue. In addition, teachers ought to
consider the social and cultural contexts of the individual families and their offspring.
An effective family-school partnership includes discussing and determining the rights,
roles, responsibilities, and resources of the families, school staff, and the learners
(National Association of School Psychologists, 2005). Given that effective parental
involvement practices are the result of collective efforts, activities at home and school
require additional commitment and effort. Particularly, the schools need to invest in human
capital embedded in the staff, the learners, and the families, if they want to improve learning
and achievement (Chrispeels and Gonzalez, 2006). Auerbach (2012) urges that the key players
employ a transformational approach to building school-family-community partnerships.
Accordingly, transformational leaders are focused on realizing desirable change, as opposed
maintaining the status quo via transactional approaches to leadership. Thus, in order to
motivate and engage partners, transformational leadership is required.
 Epstein (2009) observes that schools need to overcome challenges to family-school- School-family-
community partnerships by providing the opportunities for school-home and home-school community
communication in a language and at a reading level all families can understand, ensuring partnerships
adequate representation of the entire community of parents on school advisory councils or the
school governing bodies, and disseminating information provided during workshops to the
families who could not attend. Accordingly, the schools that make these kinds of efforts to
reach all families will reap the rewards of appreciation from all the parents, thereby improving 231
the achievement of all the learners. Furthermore, to address obstacles to parental involvement,
teacher training, both pre- and in-service, should cover the topic of parental involvement
(The Net Industries, 2013, p. 5). Epstein (2013) also suggests that teacher training programs
should provide time and curriculum space to parental involvement.
As a professional obligation, teachers develop constructive attitudes, philosophies,
communication, and practical skills to build productive relationships with families
(Auerbach, 2012; Getswicki, 2010). A sincere understanding of parenting is essential to
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

determine positive home-school-community partnerships (Epstein et al., 2002).

More importantly, the educators should cherish a strong belief in the importance of
family-school-community partnerships. This is not an add-on role, but is integrated into the
concept of working with the whole child and demands thorough preparation (Getswicki, 2010).
According to both Republic of Kenya (ROK) (2013) and MOE (2011), schools need to work
harmoniously with the various partners, including parents and the community, to provide
the essential facilities and services to foster children’s education. Indeed, parental
empowerment and engagement is documented in the Basic Education Curriculum
Framework as a pertinent and contemporary issue (Republic of Kenya (ROK), 2017).
Accordingly, parental involvement in children’s learning can have a very positive impact on
education outcomes. In this study, “school-family-community partnerships” means families,
communities, individual persons, groups of people or organizations working as partners
with the schools to enhance meaningful learning among children (Nyatuka, 2015).

Problem statement
Kakamega County, the site of this study, is one of the 47 devolved governments in Kenya.
Ranked second in terms of population size, it is viewed to be experiencing more
socio-economic challenges, including provision of education, than most of the counties in the
country (Ngetich, 2013; MOE, 2010). This underscores the need to provide relevant empirical
data to inform decision making in the county. In 2012, there were 459,013 pupils in primary
schools, of whom 247,381 were females and 211,632 were males (County Government of
Kakamega, 2013). While the gross enrollment stood at 72.9 percent, the net enrollment and
dropout rate in the same year was 67.6 and 15 percent, respectively. Additionally, while
academic achievement among pupils as measured in national examinations compared
favorably with that of the mean for the entire country, males and females completed this
level of schooling at an average age of 14 and 15 years, respectively. This means that
females took longer to finish primary school compared to their male colleagues. It is thus
imperative that schools, families, and communities, as well as other stakeholders, combine
efforts to tackle these challenges to enhance children’s education in the county.
Although school-family-community partnerships are recognized as important for
student learning, many schools struggle in designing effective strategies, especially in
Kenya’s Kakamega County. This was indicated during a workshop involving stakeholders
in education where the participants felt that collaboration among the stakeholders in the
county was weak (MOE, 2010). Teachers, parents, and the community were rarely involved
in decisions regarding matters affecting their schools; the decision-making power instead
rested in the hands of administrators and managers. Furthermore, while society expects
educators to lead the way in building strong partnerships among the families, communities
 JPCC and schools, some teachers do not believe in such a philosophy. Similarly, some parents
2,4 believe that teachers do not welcome their participation (Nyatuka, 2015; MOE, 2010;
Koros, 2006). This has been considered a major impediment to the provision of quality
education and in the implementation of government policies and decrees.
Against this background, this study sought to explore the school-family-community
partnership practices in primary schools in Kakamega County, Kenya. The research
232 question in this study was formulated as follows: what are the school-family-community
partnership practices in primary schools in Kakamega County, Kenya?

Theoretical framework
This study was guided by the Social Capital Theory, which holds that social networks are
an asset as far as building responsible communities and knitting the social fabric are
concerned. According to Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, p. 119) and Bourdieu (1983, p. 249),
social capital is the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

group by possessing a durable network of institutionalized relationships of mutual

acquaintance and recognition. Furthermore, Bourdieu (1984) asserts that each person
occupies a position in the social space which is multidimensional in nature. Thus, every
individual is not only defined by being a member of a given social class, but also by every
single kind of capital that one meets through social relations.
It is worth noting that high social capital increases human capital as individuals become
confident and access the right kinds of people, interactions, and relationships. According to
Hargreaves and Fullan (2012), professional capital is the product of three kinds of capital:
human (talent), social (group), and decisional ( judgment) capital. Building professional
capital includes both supporting the teacher in the classroom and transforming the whole
system. It is about collective responsibility, scientific evidence, and personal judgment.
In the context of this study, therefore, increasing opportunities for professional development
and collaboration between teachers, families, and the community will contribute
significantly toward the provision of meaningful education to children.
James Coleman, an American sociologist at the University of Chicago, is also credited for
the use of the social capital concept. Particularly, he identifies two distinct components of
social capital, namely, as being a relation of construct, and as providing resources to others
through relationships with individuals (Coleman, 1990, 1994). Furthermore, he opined that
social capital is a relatively unstable construct that can change over time and in response to
different situations (Coleman, 1990, 1994). By highlighting the role of the family and kinship
networks as well as of learning and religious institutions in the creation of social capital,
Coleman emphasizes the fact that these institutions and social structures are better suited to
the cultivation of reciprocity, trust, and individual action.
Three types of social capital have been identified as bonding social capital, bridging social
capital, and linking social capital (Field, 2003, p. 42; Woolcock, 2001, pp. 13-14). While bonding
social capital involves the ties between people who are in similar situations, such as immediate
family, close friends, and neighbors, bridging social capital entails the distant ties of like
people, such as loose friendships and workmates. On the other hand, linking social capital
involves reaching out to unlike people in situations that are not similar. This includes those
people who are entirely outside the community, thereby enabling members to leverage a far
wider range of resources than are available in the community (Field, 2003, p. 42).
According to Schaefer-McDaniel (2004), there are three dimensions of social capital among
young people, and include social networks and sociability, trust and reciprocity, and a sense of
belonging or place attachment. First, incorporating Coleman’s understanding of relationships,
children should be asked to describe their interactions with and among peers, teachers,
parents and other family members, and people in the community such as neighbors. Second,
for people to benefit from relationships and to use them as resources, one needs to be able to
 trust that network-members are providing correct and helpful information and genuine School-family-
support. Children need to establish trusting relationships with family members, teachers, community
neighbors, peers, and other role models. It is worth noting that trust and reciprocity also refer partnerships
to authentic fairness, overall trustworthiness, and acts of helpfulness such as engaging in
helping behavior without necessarily gaining direct benefits.
It is important to observe that the sense of belonging or place attachment has been found
to influence a child’s development through the formation of a proper identity. Scholars 233
attribute academic success to a sense of belonging to a school, while they explain that
violent behavior, for example, is more prevalent in schools where children do not feel that
they belong.
Robert Putnam, an American political scientist, extends the definition of social capital to
apply to societies and communities in general. His interpretation of social capital has been
referred to as a “collective asset” and a “common good” of neighborhoods and communities
(Denner et al., 2001; Warren et al., 2001, p. 1; Putnam, 2000). Social capital in neighborhoods,
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

communities, and schools has been shown to be essential in developing successful school-
community collaborations (Horvat et al., 2003). However, these relationships remain
productive only as long as they are based on a common set of expectations, shared values,
and a sense of trust among people.
Halpern (2009) notes that there now exists a range of evidence that communities with a
good “stock” of social capital are more likely to benefit from higher educational
achievement, lower crime figures, and better health, as well as economic growth. Hargreaves
and Fullan (2012) assert that groups, teams, and communities are far more powerful than
individuals with respect to developing human capital.
Coleman (1994) asserted that both family and school systems are the most typical
settings for investigating social capital. He identified six types of interpersonal relationships
in the school setting. These include relationships among the learners, the teachers, and the
parents. The others are those between the teachers and the learners, the teachers and
the parents, and between the learners and the parents. Accordingly, the six types of these
interpersonal relationships are bi-directional in nature. This means that one should examine
all the relationships and interactions among the parents, the teachers, and the learners to
fully understand and assess social capital in the school environment.
More importantly, Coleman (1990, 1994) believed that increasing social capital in the
school increases the learners’ academic achievement. In other words, strengthening
the social relationships between the learners, the parents and the teachers would boost
the academic achievement of the learners. Furthermore, Coleman asserted that parental
involvement is important in the school as it increases personal awareness, thereby
enhancing the relationships with the teachers, the learners, and other parents.
Thus, social capital not only plays a role in promoting the already existing relationships
but is also crucial in creating new ones. This in turn increases the learners’
academic achievement.
However, the Social Capital Theory has some limitations. For example, Coleman’s
interpretation of social capital focuses on examining the quantity and not the quality of
interpersonal relations (Timberlake, 2005; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004). Although spending time
with children is crucial for their development, how that time is spent and what types of
activities are undertaken seem to be more important than a quantification of the time spent
with the child. Second, even though previous research found differences in social networks
between boys and girls, the Social Capital Theory does not address the important issue of how
individuals of different genders, ethnicities and cultures experience and view social capital.
Furthermore, research on social capital has also focused primarily on poorer communities,
while the role of social capital in wealthy communities has been ignored. These limitations
notwithstanding, the Social Capital Theory reiterates the importance of fostering social
 JPCC relationships among teachers, parents, and communities in a bid to improve the academic
2,4 performance and behavior among the learners.
The Social Capital Theory offers a fitting framework, as this study sought teachers’
views on school-family-community partnership practices in primary schools in Kakamega
county. It also informed the formulation of relevant proposals meant to foster collaboration
among the partners, including opportunities for professional learning that support human
234 capital. More importantly, the theory emphasizes the need to enhance teachers’ knowledge,
relationships, and professional judgment; what Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) refer to as
ability of professionals to make appropriate decisions in complex situations.

Methodology
The problem was investigated by means of a literature study and an empirical inquiry using
a researcher-designed questionnaire. The study was informed by the social capital theory
and Epstein’s (2009) typology on school-family-community partnerships. The literature
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

reviewed included books, scholarly journals, theses and dissertations, relevant government
policy documents and legislation, as well as internet-based sources.
Empirical data in this study was drawn from teachers in primary schools in the county.
These respondents were vital sources of information, given that they are required by the
Ministry of Education (ROK, 2017; MOE, 2011) to play a professional role in initiating sustainable
school-family-community partnerships in their respective schools. Indeed, this practice stands
out as a global phenomenon (The Net Industries, 2013; Auerbach, 2012; Getswicki, 2010).
Stratified random sampling was employed to select a total of 368 (n ¼ 368) teachers from
34 primary schools out of a population of 8,964 teachers distributed across the 848 primary
schools in the 12 districts in the county. Each district was considered as a subgroup.
Stratified random sampling ensures that the desired representation from various subgroups
in a population (Mertens, 2005, p. 63) is achieved. Families and pupils did not participate in
the survey, as the primary focus was to understand teachers’ perspectives.
Of the selected 368 teachers, 7 did not take part in the actual study, translating to a
98.1 percent return-rate on the questionnaire. Of the 361 teachers who completed the
questionnaire, 184 or 51.0 percent were male and 177 (49.0 percent) female. The majority of
the respondents (73.4 percent) were regular teachers, who did not hold any professional
administrative role outside the classroom. The rest were serving as senior teachers, deputy
head teachers, or head teachers. Regarding the level of education, 14.4 percent of the
teachers in the sample held a university degree while the rest (85.6 percent) had either a
certificate or a diploma as their highest academic qualification which compared favorably
with other counties in the country.
The teaching experience among the respondents ranged from at least a decade
(67.9 percent) to under three years (8.9 percent). Given the length of their teaching experience,
and the policy emphasis on school-family-community partnerships, this data suggested that
most of the teachers had some degree of knowledge and involvement in this area. Regarding
the levels of professional training where the teachers studied family-school-community
partnerships, 39.9 percent indicated in-service education and training, training at the
Teachers’ Training College (23.5 percent), and at university level (5.8 percent). About a third
(30.7 percent) indicated that they had never received such training.
In order to obtain objective data, the questionnaire was prepared based on the theoretical
underpinning and the literature reviewed. This included the social capital theory as well as
Epstein’s (2009) typology on school-family-community partnerships. The questionnaire was
designed to collect respondents’ views regarding school-family-community practices in
primary schools in the county. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003, pp. 96, 100), an
instrument that yields valid data will necessarily yield reliable data and that there should be
many items in the questionnaire on a construct so that a conclusion is objectively made.
 The questionnaire comprised two parts: Part A dealt with biographical data while Part B School-family-
dealt with school-family-community collaboration. The items in Part B comprised ten community
statements (see Table AI) to which the respondents were invited to respond according to a partnerships
4-point frequency scale where 1 ¼ Always, 2 ¼ Often, 3 ¼ Sometimes, and 4 ¼ Seldom.
Thus, the items were designed to gauge the frequency at which schools: provided information
to families about community activities relating to learning skills, talents, mentoring and
tutoring (item 1); made available information on social support services to both parents and 235
pupils (item 2); worked with family and community representatives to secure grants to further
pupils’ education (item 3); organized sessions to encourage the parents and community to
expose pupils to future job opportunities (item 4); and fostered service integration through
partnerships involving businesses, civil organizations and other agencies (item 5).
The other questionnaire items that required respondents to indicate how often schools
were engaged in promoting partnerships with the rest of the stakeholders were to do with:
thanking local professionals, merchants, civil bodies and other agencies for the various
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

forms of support offered (item 6); organizing joint co-curricular and cultural activities with
local communities (item 7); inviting professionals from various fields to the classroom or
school to discuss issues like the curriculum, HIV/AIDS and substance abuse (item 8);
supplying parents with a list of community organizations to be contacted for help (item 9);
and matching the community’s contributions to the goals of the school (item 10).
To enhance the validity of the questionnaire, a pilot study involving eight teachers was
conducted in two primary schools in the neighboring Vihiga County, which had similar
socio-economic and biographical characteristics to those of both the schools as well as
respondents involved in the actual study. Respondents of the pilot study were given a
chance to identify any perceived pitfalls in the questionnaire before its final administration.
This also helped to avoid contamination of the results.
To ensure reliability, participation in this study was voluntary, and the respondents’
identities were protected to ensure honest responses. The reliability of those items whose
responses were on the 4-point Likert scale was established using the Cronbach’s α coefficient.
The reliability coefficient of 0.80 was generated and was acceptable for this study.
After receiving the data, it was checked for completeness, appropriately coded, scored,
and then keyed in the computer to be analyzed by means of the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences. The responses involving the 4-point frequency scale in the questionnaire
were assigned numerical values to make the quantitative analysis possible. The data were
presented in tabular form using such descriptive statistics as the mean, mode, frequencies,
and percentages. These were considered appropriate in as far as answering the research
question in the study was concerned. The findings of each of the questionnaire items are
presented and discussed in the following section.

Findings and discussion

In this section, the results of Part B of the questionnaire are presented and discussed.
Table AI provides data from each of the ten survey items relating to practices in
school-family-community collaboration. The table indicates the frequency of the responses
per item according to the 4-point Likert scale.
Table AI (item 1) indicates that 62.3 percent of the respondents, that is, a combined score of
those who selected the Always (32.1 percent) and Often (30.2 percent) options in the
4-point frequency scale, reported that the schools regularly provided the families with
information on community activities; 37.7 percent of the respondents, a sum of those who
selected the Sometimes (26.0 percent) and Seldom (11.7 percent) options indicated that this was
not a frequent practice (mean value of 2.17). It is worth to note that providing families with vital
information to do with community activities can be a rich source of additional expertise,
financial support, and services (ROK, 2013; Epstein, 2009). Table AI (item 2) indicates that
 JPCC 56.9 percent of the respondents (26.3 and 30.5 percent) reported that the schools regularly made
2,4 information available about community-based social support services to parents; 43.1 percent of
the respondents (33.9 and 9.2 percent) felt that this was seldom the case (mean value of 2.26).
According to Erlendsdottir (2010) and Petronic (n.d.), the schools should help the families to gain
access to support services, such as health-care, cultural events, tutoring services, and
after-school childcare programs. Table AI (item 3) indicates that 54.0 percent of the respondents
236 (33.6 and 20.4 percent) felt that the schools did not regularly work with the community
representatives to seek grants to further the pupils’ learning; 46.0 percent of the respondents
(20.7 and 25.3 percent) felt it was a regular practice (mean value of 2.54). Securing grants enable
learners from impoverished families, such as the ones in this study, to further their education
(Henderson et al., 2007; Malecki and Demaray, 2006; Henderson and Mapp, 2002).
Table AI (item 4) indicates that 61.7 percent of the respondents (35.5 and 26.2 percent)
felt that community-based sessions to educate the pupils about future job opportunities
were infrequently organized; 38.3 percent of the respondents (15.2 and 23.1 percent)
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

judged this regular practice (mean value of 2.73). Table AI (item 5) indicates that
78.0 percent of the respondents (22.9 and 55.1 percent) felt that the schools did not regularly
foster service integration through partnerships involving businesses or civil organizations.
Only 22.0 percent of the respondents (11.7 and 10.3 percent) were of a different opinion
(mean value of 3.21). Sanders and Harvey (2002) and Sanders (2001) hold that the schools
always need to involve businesses, agencies, and cultural and civic organizations in
coordinating relevant resources and services to foster children’s education.
Table AI (item 6) indicates that 54.0 percent of the respondents (40.7 and 13.3 percent) felt
that appreciation was not regularly shown to the local professionals who offered their support
for school activities; 46.0 percent of the respondents (36.2 and 9.9 percent) considered this
common practice (mean value of 2.31). Nyatuka and Nyakan (2015), Florez (2011), and Epstein
and Sheldon, 2006) hold that it is important to appreciate the efforts made by the various
stakeholders to motivate them to continue contributing positively toward children’s education.
Furthermore, Table AI (item 7) indicates that 64.6 percent of the respondents (25.0 and
39.6 percent) felt that joint co-curricular and cultural activities with the local community was
not a common practice; 35.4 percent of the respondents (23.3 and 12.1 percent) disagreed
(mean value of 2.81). The Net Industries (2013, p. 1) and Putnam (2000) reiterate the need for
involvement of the local community in sporting events. Epstein and Sheldon (2006, p. 119)
argue that through interactions involving the parents, the teachers and the community,
social ties are established, while the information exchanged accumulates as social capital
(Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004; Horvat et al., 2003; Coleman, 1994). Accordingly, this increases the
students’ academic achievement.
Table AI (item 8) indicates that 55.2 percent of the respondents (32.8 and 22.4 percent)
considered inviting professionals to address the school on social issues as being regular
practice; 44.9 percent of the respondents (34.5 and 10.4 percent) disagreed (mean value of 2.22).
As per MOE (2011, p. 21) invitations to relevant professionals should be encouraged and that
committees should be formed to ensure that the school environment is free from drugs and
alcohol. According to ROK (2009, p. 27), involving the social service providers as partners is the
best way to develop policies regarding sanitation, hygiene, and HIV/AIDS.
Table AI (item 9) indicates that 67.0 percent of the respondents (27.7 and 39.3 percent) viewed
the distribution of the names of community services to the parents as an infrequent practice;
33.1 percent (15.5 and 17.5 percent) indicated it happened regularly (mean value of 2.91).
Developing sound collaboration between the school, family and community requires that the
necessary information is shared among the concerned parties to make decisions within the
timelines stipulated (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015; Epstein et al., 2002). Table AI (item 10)
indicates that 56.6 percent of the respondents (26.0 and 30.7 percent) felt that the schools
regularly matched the school goals with the community’s contributions, while 43.3 percent of the
 respondents (27.7 and 15.6 percent) considered it an infrequent practice (mean value of 2.33). School-family-
Matching goals of the school with contributions of the community helps the relevant community
stakeholders to remain focused in playing their respective roles thereby establishing sustainable partnerships
partnerships (Florez, 2011; Erlendsdottir, 2010; Epstein, 2009).

Conclusion
The study found that there were both strengths as well as weaknesses in school-family- 237
community partnership practices in primary schools in the county. With respect to
strengths, the findings showed that four of the ideal ten items investigated were practiced
regularly (items 1, 2, 8 and 10 in the questionnaire). These included providing the families
with information about community activities related to learning skills, talents, mentoring
and tutoring (62.3 percent); providing information about community social support services
to parents as well as pupils (56.9 percent); inviting professionals to tackle specific social
issues (55.2 percent); and matching the school goals with the community’s contributions
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

(56.6 percent), respectively. It is worth noting that the involvement of the various
stakeholders, as well as appreciation of their respective roles in school-family-community
partnerships, significantly contribute toward the realization of desirable academic
achievement, as well as behavior among learners (Epstein, 2009; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004)
On the other hand, weaknesses were observed in six out of the ten items (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 in
the questionnaire). These items included working with family and community representatives
to secure grants to further pupils’ education (54.0 percent); organizing sessions to encourage the
parents and community to alert pupils to future job opportunities (61.7 percent); fostering
service integration through partnerships involving businesses, civil organizations and other
agencies (78.0 percent); thanking local professionals, merchants, civil bodies and other agencies
for the various forms of support offered (54.0 percent); organizing joint co-curricular and
cultural activities with local communities (64.6 percent); and supplying parents with a list of
community organizations to be contacted for help (67.0 percent), in that order.
According to Schaefer-McDaniel (2004), Horvat et al. (2003) and Coleman (1994), social
capital increases participation in both social and informal groups. Since the majority – six
out of the ten – ideal practices investigated in this study did not occur regularly in the
sampled primary schools, it could be concluded that the school-family-community
partnership practices in the county are limited and have not reached the level of
transformational partnerships such as those described by Auerbach (2012). Thus, more
deliberate efforts need to be made to enhance social capital in the schools, families, and
communities in a bid to provide meaningful education to learners in the county.
The proposed basic education curriculum to take effect in 2018 requires that teachers’
human capital be enhanced through continued professional development, and geared toward
authentic family and community engagement (ROK, 2017). Such a move could thus strengthen
teachers’ decisional capital through increased awareness of this aspect of their practice. Coupled
with the support in developing collaborative relationships with community organizations and
various stakeholders in the education sector, this focus could help teachers lead the way to the
kinds of transformational partnerships that will enable pupils, families, and teachers to succeed.

Limitations
This study focused on one of the 47 counties in Kenya, and involved a random stratified
sample, which means that the findings can only be generalized to this population; they
cannot be generalized to other primary schools in other counties in the country.
The questionnaire used in this study was administered to teachers, who constitute a section
of the population playing a critical role in strengthening school-family-community
partnerships. Thus, to corroborate these findings, similar studies involving other key
stakeholders, as well as covering a wider geographical and demographic area, including a
 JPCC bigger sample, could be conducted. Moreover, self-reporting instruments like the
2,4 questionnaire used in this study are generally known to have limitations in respect of
both validity and reliability. Furthermore, the respondents may not necessarily have given
their honest feelings in the items contained in the data-collection instrument. In other words,
they may have given answers which they felt were acceptable rather than true.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study contributes knowledge to the area of
238 school-family-community partnerships, which has largely received little attention,
particularly in Kenya. Furthermore, the study provides direction for teachers seeking to
fulfill their professional mandate with respect to this crucial field.

Policy recommendations
Based on the findings of the literature study and the empirical inquiry, the following policy
recommendations were proposed for the improvement of practice of school-family-community
partnerships in primary schools in Kenya with special reference to Kakamega County.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

Appreciate professionals and other groups for services rendered

The study findings revealed that schools did not always make deliberate efforts to thank
professionals who supported school activities in various forms. This could explain, among
others, the failure of schools to regularly host people to provide tips on such crucial issues as
securing grants to help pupils advance in their education as well as educate them about
available career opportunities. Henderson et al. (2007), Malecki and Demaray (2006), and
Henderson and Mapp (2002) emphasize the need to seek grants to help learners from
disadvantaged backgrounds advance in their education.
It is worth noting that taking the initiative to appreciate the professionals and other
members of the community for their contribution would ultimately motivate them to keep
sharing their valued knowledge, skills, and experiences for the benefit of humanity.
Schools can recognize the support of the various professionals by thanking them verbally,
writing complimentary notes, presenting tokens, and documenting their contributions
in, say, the school magazine, among other fora.

Provide information on community services available

The sampled schools in the county rarely brought to parents’ attention the possible or available
community services from which the latter could benefit. Particularly, workshops or talks for the
parents regarding such vital areas as volunteering, family literacy, pupils’ health and nutrition,
gender equity and equality, and the fathers’ involvement in their children’s education were not
regularly organized. It is important, therefore, for the schools to take the necessary measures to
share important information, not only with the parents but also learners and the community at
large. This could take the form of regular and relevant workshops as well as seminars,
especially for parents to effectively participate in the education of their children. Providing such
crucial information that exists in the community will enable families to support an authentic
partnership offering services both desirable and useful to parents.

Raise the academic and professional standards of teachers

The educational standards of most of the teachers involved in this study were found to be low.
Up to 30 percent of the teachers had never studied any course involving family-school-community
partnerships in their professional life (Nyatuka and Nyakan, 2015). Thus, they could be less likely
able to effectively execute their respective duties and responsibilities, especially about building
sound family-school-community partnerships. To address this scenario, the affected teachers
could advance their levels of education through the full-time and or part-time policy provisions
available in the country.
 On their part, the teacher preparation institutions, and in-service programs should offer School-family-
both relevant as well as adequate content and training in school-family-community community
partnerships. Indeed, studies demonstrate that this is a worthwhile undertaking (The Net partnerships
Industries, 2013; Getswicki, 2010). Among other benefits, continued professional
development improves teachers’ decisional capital, which is vital in building
transformational partnerships that propel all those involved to success.
239
References
Auerbach, S. (Ed.) (2012), School Leadership for Authentic Family and Community Partnerships:
Research Perspectives for Transforming Practice, Routledge, New York, NY.
Bourdieu, P. (1983), “Forms of capital”, in Richards, J.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press, New York, NY, pp. 46-58.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL and London.
Chrispeels, J. and Gonzalez, M. (2006), “No parent left behind: the role of parent education programs in
assisting families to actively engage in their children’s education”, unpublished study.
Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Coleman, J.S. (1994), Foundations of Social Theory, 2nd ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
County Government of Kakamega (2013), Kakamega County Integrated Development Plan 2013-2017,
Ministry of Devolution and Planning, Kakamega.
Denner, J., Kirby, D., Coyle, K. and Brindis, C. (2001), “The protective role of social capital and cultural
norms in Latino communities: a study of adolescent births”, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 3-21.
Epstein, J.L. (1995), “School-family-community partnerships: caring for the children we share”,
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 76 No. 9, pp. 701-712.
Epstein, J.L. (2001), School, Family and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving
Schools, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Epstein, J.L. (2009), School, Family and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action, 3rd ed.,
Corwin Press, Baltimore, MD.
Epstein, J.L. (2013), “Family, school, community engagement, and partnerships: an imperative for
K-12, and colleges of education in the development of twenty-first-century educators”,
Teaching Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 115-118.
Epstein, J.L. and Salinas, K.C. (2004), “Partnering with families and communities”, Schools as Learning
Communities, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 12-18.
Epstein, J.L. and Sanders, M.G. (2006), “Prospects for change: preparing educators for school,
family and community partnerships”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 81 No. 2,
pp. 81-120.
Epstein, J.L. and Sheldon, S.B. (2006), “Moving forward: ideas for research on school, family
and community partnerships”, in Conrad, F.C. and Serlin, R.C. (Eds), Handbook for Research
Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 117-137.
Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.G., Simon, P.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansom, N.R. and Van Voorhis, F.L. (2002),
School, Family and Community Partnership: Your Handbook for Action, 2nd ed., Corwin,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Epstein, J.L. and Van Voorhis, F.L. (2001), “More than minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework”,
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 181-193.
 JPCC Erlendsdottir, G. (2010), “Effects of parental involvement in education: a case study in Namibia”, MEd
2,4 dissertation, University of Iceland, Iceland.
Field, J. (2003), Social Capital, Routledge, London.
Florez, A. (2011), Active Schools: Our Convictions for Improving the Quality of Education, Washington, DC.
Getswicki, C. (2010), Home, School and Community Relations: A Guide Book to Working With Families,
7th ed., Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA, available at: www.edrev.infor/brief/june10.
240 pdf (accessed June 4, 2012).
Green, C.L., Walker, J.M.T., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. and Sandler, M.H. (2007), “Parents’ motivations for
involvement in children’s education: an empirical test of a theoretical model of parental
involvement”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 532-544.
Halpern, D. (2009), The Hidden Wealth of Nations, Polity, Cambridge, available at: www.infed.org/
biblio/social-capital.htm (accessed August 15, 2012).
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012), Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School,
Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

Henderson, A.T. and Mapp, K.L. (2002), “A new wave of evidence: the impact of school, family and
community connections on student achievement”, Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, National Center for Family and Community, Austin, TX, available at: www.sedl.
org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf (accessed March 3, 2012).
Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.L., Johnson, V.R. and Davies, D. (2007), Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential
Guide to Family-School Partnerships, The New Press, New York, NY.
Horvat, E.M., Weininger, E.B. and Lareau, A. (2003), “From social ties to social capital: class differences
in the relations between schools and parent networks”, American Educational Research Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 319-351.
Jeynes, W. (2007), “The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school
student academic achievement: a meta-analysis”, Urban Education, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 82-112.
Jeynes, W. (2011), Parental Involvement and Academic Success, Routledge, New York, NY.
Jeynes, W.J. (2005), “Parental involvement and student achievement: a meta-analysis”, Harvard
Family Research Project, Cambridge, MA, December, available at: www.hfrp.org/publications-
resources/browse-our-publications/ parental-involvement-and-student-achievement- a-meta-analysis
Koros, P.K.A. (2006), “Stakeholders’ perceptions of parental contribution to the management of
secondary schools in Kericho District, Kenya”, MEd dissertation, Egerton University, Egerton.
Malecki, C.K. and Demaray, M.K. (2006), “Social support as a buffer in the relationship between socioeconomic
status and academic performance”, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 375-395.
Mertens, M.D. (2005), Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity
with Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ministry of Education (MOE) (2010), “Western province sensitization workshop on re-engineering
education for quality performance”, Western Province Education Office, Kakamega.
Ministry of Education (MOE) (2011), “Education service delivery in Kenya: roles and responsibilities of
duty bearers and stakeholders”, Ministry of Education, Nairobi.
Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (2003), Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches,
Acts Press, Nairobi.
Naperville Community Unit School District (2013), “Epstein’s overlapping spheres of influence”,
available at: www.naperville203.org/parents/EpsteinModel PS.asp (accessed July 4, 2013).
National Association of School Psychologists (2005), “Position statement on home-school collaboration:
establishing partnership to enhance educational outcomes”, available at: www.nasponline.org/
about_nasp/pospaper_hsc.aspx (accessed July 1, 2013).
Ngetich, K.J. (2013), “Planning and development of Kakamega county in Kenya: challenges and
opportunities”, Research Journal in Organizational Psychology and Educational Studies, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 111-118.
 Nyatuka, B.O. (2015), “Assessment of the effectiveness of family-school-community partnerships in School-family-
Kenya’s child friendly schools”, doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, community
available at: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/20665
partnerships
Nyatuka, B.O. and Nyakan, P.O. (2015), “Home-school-community partnerships: an imperative in
teacher education programmes in Kenya”, International Journal of Education and Research,
Vol. 3 No. 11, pp. 261-272.
Petronic, M. (n.d.), “Family-school partnerships models: Epstein’s theory of parental involvement”, 241
available at: www.see-educoop. net/aeiq/documents (accessed July 13, 2013).
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Republic of Kenya (ROK) (2009), National School Health Policy, Ministry of Public Health and
Sanitation, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2010), Child Friendly School Manual, Ministry of Education, Nairobi.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

Republic of Kenya (ROK) (2013), The Basic Education Act, Government Printer, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (ROK) (2017), Basic Education Curriculum Framework, Kenya Institute of
Curriculum Development, Nairobi.
Sanders, M.G. (2001), “A study of the role of ‘community’ in comprehensive school, family and
community partnership programs”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Sanders, M.G. and Harvey, A. (2002), “Beyond the school walls: a case study of principal leadership for
school - community collaboration”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 104 No. 7, pp. 1345-1368.
Schaefer-McDaniel, N.J. (2004), “Conceptualizing social capital among young people: towards
a new theory”, Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 140-150, available at:
www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/14_1/articles/article6full.htm (accessed June 10, 2013).
Sirvani, H. (2007), “The effect of teacher communication with parents on students’ mathematics
achievement”, American Secondary Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
The Net Industries (2013), “Parental involvement in education: research on parental involvement,
effects on parental involvement, obstacles to parental involvement, controversies, current
issues”, available at: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2309/Parental-Involvement-in-
Education.html (accessed March 17, 2014).
Timberlake, S. (2005), “Social capital and gender in the workplace”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 34-44, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510572335
UNICEF (2003), The State of the World’s Children (2004): Girls, Education and Development, UNICEF,
New York, NY.
Warren, M.R., Thompson, J.P. and Saegert, S. (2001), “ The role of social capital in combating poverty”,
in Saegert, S., Thompson, J.P. and Warren, M.R. (Eds), Social Capital and Poor Communities,
Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 1-28.
Woolcock, M. (2001), “The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes”,
Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Xu, Y. and Filler, J. (2008), “Facilitating family involvement and support for inclusive education”,
The School Community Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 59-60, available at: www.adi.org/journal/fw08/
XuFillerFall2008.pdf (accessed January 3, 2013).

Appendix 1. School-family-community partnership practices

Ten items investigated the practices concerning the school-family-community partnerships in the
sampled primary schools. The results are contained in Table AI.
 Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

2,4

242
JPCC

Table AI.

collaboration
family-community
Practices in school-
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Total valid Missing Total
No. Item F P V F P V F P V F P V F P V F P F P Mean Median Mode SD Var.

1 My school provides the families with

information about community activities
that relate to learning skills, talents,
mentoring and tutoring 115 31.9 32.1 108 29.9 30.2 93 25.8 26.0 42 11.6 11.7 358 99.2 100.0 3 .8 361 100.0 2.17 2.00 1 1.012 1.023
2 My school makes information about such
social support services as community
health, nutrition, safety, culture, recreation,
guidance and counseling available to the
pupils and the parents 94 26.0 26.3 109 30.2 30.5 121 33.5 33.9 33 9.1 9.2 357 98.9 100.0 4 1.1 361 100.0 2.26 2.00 3 0.952 0.907
3. My school works with family and
community representatives to find and
apply for grants to further pupil learning 72 19.9 20.7 88 24.4 25.3 117 32.4 33.6 71 19.7 20.4 348 96.4 100.0 13 3.6 361 100.0 2.54 3.00 3 1.036 1.074
4 My school organizes sessions to encourage
the parents and community members to
expose pupils to future job opportunities 54 15.0 15.2 82 22.7 23.1 126 34.9 35.5 93 25.8 26.2 355 98.3 100.0 6 1.7 361 100.0 2.73 3.00 3 1.015 1.030
5 My school fosters service integration
through partnerships involving businesses,
civil organizations and other agencies 41 11.4 11.7 36 10.0 10.3 80 22.2 22.9 193 53.5 55.1 350 97.0 100.0 11 3.0 361 100.0 3.21 4.00 4 1.039 1.080
6 My school thanks the local professionals
including merchants, civil organizations
and other agencies who offer their support
for school activities 128 35.5 36.2 35 9.7 9.9 144 39.9 40.7 47 13.0 13.3 354 98.1 100.0 7 1.9 361 100.0 2.31 3.00 3 1.098 1.206
7 My school organizes joint co-curricular and
cultural activities with the local community 83 23.0 23.3 43 11.9 12.1 89 24.7 25.0 141 39.1 39.6 356 98.6 100.0 5 1.4 361 100.0 2.81 3.00 4 1.190 1.417
8 My school invites professionals from
various fields to the classroom or school to
discuss issues like the curriculum, HIV/
AIDS, pregnancy, substance abuse, sex, etc. 117 32.4 32.8 80 22.2 22.4 123 34.1 34.5 37 10.2 10.4 357 98.9 100.0 4 1.1 361 100.0 2.22 2.00 3 1.020 1.040
9 The parents are supplied with a list of the
names of community organizations, such as
welfare organizations and clinics, and their
phone numbers so that they can easily be
contacted for help 55 15.2 15.5 62 17.2 17.5 98 27.1 27.7 139 38.5 39.3 354 98.1 100.0 7 1.9 361 100.0 2.91 3.00 4 1.088 1.184
10 My school helps to match the community’s
contributions to the
school’s goals 88 24.4 26.0 104 28.8 30.7 94 26.0 27.7 53 14.7 15.6 339 93.9 100.0 22 6.1 361 100.0 2.33 2.00 2 1.028 1.056
 About the author School-family-
Dr Benard Omenge Nyatuka is a Lecturer and the Subject Head, Comparative & International community
Education in the Department of Educational Foundations, Masinde Muliro University of Science &
Technology, Kenya. He earned a Doctorate in Comparative Education from the University of South partnerships
Africa. He holds MEd Degree in Comparative & International Education and BEd (Hons) Degrees from
Egerton and Kenyatta Universities in Kenya, respectively. Previously, Dr Nyatuka served as a Senior
Quality Assurance & Standards Officer in the Ministry of Education, and taught Mathematics and
Geography at secondary school level in Kenya. He has authored various articles in peer reviewed 243
journals and chapters in edited books. He is a member of the International Network of Scholars on
School-Family-Community Partnerships (INET), Southern African Comparative & History of
Education Society (SACHES) and Parents in Education Research Network (PERN). Dr Benard
Omenge Nyatuka can be contacted at: bnyatuka@mmust.ac.ke
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 13:38 08 October 2017 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com