EDES302 Tutorial 6A – Communicating with Parents

Communicating with Parents

• Parents legally and ethically entrust schools/early-learning centres with BOTH care and education of their children.
  • Creates a duty of care and an accountability framework for teachers/educators.
  • Failure to communicate ≈ breach of trust and potential negligence.
• Contemporary perspective = partnership model rather than the older paternalistic “school knows best” model.
  • Shared goals: child wellbeing, learning growth, social–emotional development.
  • Requires two-way information flow, mutual respect, co-decision-making.
• Communication is the linchpin of the partnership.
  • Channels: face-to-face, email, phone, instant-message apps, Learning Management Systems (LMS), printed notes, formal reports, social media updates.
  • Frequency & timeliness: “in the moment”, daily digests, weekly newsletters, termly reports.
• Guiding question posed to preservice teachers: “What do parents want to know from teachers?”
  • Child’s academic progress/potential gap alerts.
  • Behaviour—both positive and negative, context, triggers, supports.
  • Wellbeing, friendships, social dynamics.
  • Practical logistics: excursions, deadlines, resources needed.
  • Opportunities for involvement: volunteering, clubs, reading at home.
  • Clear next steps: how can the parent support learning at home?

Email Communication (Workshop Activity)

• Students asked to work in pairs with an A3 printout of two sample emails ("Billy had a cranky day!").
  • Tasks:
  • Deconstruct communication issues.
  • Annotate noise sources (semantic noise, psychological noise, channel noise, etc.).
  • Evaluate effectiveness against unit topics (communication models, ethics, inclusion, purpose, audience, modality).
  • Report findings to class.

Original Email Samples and Issues

• Informal version (“Hey Jane…”):
  • Subject line and body mismatch; unclear professionalism.
  • Minimises incident (“No big deal”), yet labels Billy as “cranky”, possibly judgmental.
  • Over-familiar tone; assumes existing social relationship (Book Club reference) ➜ boundaries blurred.
  • Lacks specific detail for parental action, no positive framing or strategy.
• Formal version (“Dear Mrs Smith…”):
  • Highly formal, punitive tone, blame-oriented (“As his parent you need to…”).
  • Assumptions about causes (lack of sleep, sugary food) without evidence.
  • Directive/commanding language (“make sure it doesn’t happen again”).
  • No acknowledgment of teacher responsibility or collaborative problem-solving.
  • No offer for further discussion.

Identification of Noise

• Semantic noise: ambiguous term “cranky”, loaded phrases “poor behaviour choices”.
• Psychological noise: parent may feel shamed or defensive ➜ reduces openness.
• Channel noise: email lacks non-verbal cues, easily misinterpreted emotional tone.

Effectiveness Evaluation (link to unit theory)

• Shannon–Weaver model: message encoded poorly, noise high, feedback path absent.
• Schramm’s model: lack of shared field of experience (teacher’s classroom context ≠ parent’s home context).
• Ethical principles: respect, fairness, dignity compromised; blame language contradicts inclusive practice.
• Inclusive communication: deficit framing of child, no cultural sensitivity checks.

Rewriting Task (prompt)

• Students asked to craft improved email:
  • Clear subject line (e.g. “Billy – minor behaviour concern today, seeking home support”).
  • Greeting using parent’s preferred title.
  • Positive opening: highlight Billy’s strengths that day.
  • Factual description: behaviour, context, teacher’s immediate response.
  • Reflection: possible triggers (sleep, routine) framed as observations not accusations.
  • Collaborative tone: invite parent insights, propose joint strategy.
  • Offer meeting/phone call.
  • Professional closing & contact details.
  • Annotation of choices (tone, structure, readability, actionable request, respectful language).

Reporting to Parents

• Multiple modes and timelines:
  • Behaviour notes (immediate, anecdotal, restorative approaches).
  • Academic progress: continuous vs. milestone.
  • Formative reporting: low-stakes, descriptive feedback; informs learning adjustments.
  • Summative reporting: grades/marks vs. standards referencing.
  • Written semester reports: holistic snapshot (academic, co-curricular, wellbeing).
  • "Online, in-the-moment" systems (e.g. Compass, Seesaw, Google Classroom guardian summaries).
  • Parent–teacher interviews (PTI) / 3-way conferences.

Sample Report Cards (Extracted Data)

• Assessment percentages shown:
  • Social Media Pitch Final Product = 69\%.
  • Text Response Project = 70\%.
• Victorian Curriculum Standards table:
  • Levels < 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A with shading on expected 9.
  • Green dot placed at current standard for each strand (Reading, Writing, Speaking & Listening, Capabilities).
• Approaches to Learning rating scale: Seldom / Sometimes / Usually / Consistently across sub-domains (Application, Behaviour, On-time Tasks, Organisation, Contribution, Homework Completion).

Commentary Examples

• Year 9 Oliver (Semester 1 vs 2):
  • Repetition of generic praise → risk of seeming copy-paste.
  • Minor update (science fair highlight, extracurricular nudge) shows some growth evidence.
• Year 7 Jeremy:
  • Detailed description of transition, participation, social justice contribution.
  • References to Homeroom phone policy success → integrates classroom management wins.
  • Explicit thanks to parent, fostering partnership.

Critique & Best-Practice Insights

• Purpose of written comments: inform, celebrate, guide next steps.
• Avoid generic or duplicated sentences year-on-year; personalise via evidence.
• Use growth language: “has improved…”, “next goal is…”.
• Ensure balance of strengths and areas for development.
• Maintain professional, inclusive language; avoid jargon without clarification.
• Link comment to measurable standards and future action.

Evaluating a Communication Sample (Analytic Checklist)

• Model of communication employed? Linear, interactive, transactional?
• Is it sufficient? Consider feedback loops, context, noise management.
• Purpose clarity: Is objective explicitly or implicitly stated? Evidence of achievement?
• Audience appropriateness: vocabulary level, cultural references, reading ease.
• Alignment of verbal & non-verbal elements: e.g., tone vs. body language in video calls, design aesthetics in multimodal reports.
• Ethical/inclusive adherence: respectful, non-discriminatory, protects privacy.
• Multimodality: text, tables, graphics, audio. Do modes support or distract? Universal Design for Learning (UDL) compliance (captions, alt-text).

Setting Up the Parent–Teacher Meeting

• Preferred model: Transactional model; allows feedback, co-creation of meaning.
  • Encourages mutual turn-taking, clarification questions, rapport building.
• Purpose: share progress, discuss concerns, set joint goals, strengthen partnership.
• Audience considerations:
  • Cultural/language background: need interpreters? culturally responsive examples.
  • Literacy/edu background: avoid jargon, provide visuals.
  • Emotional state: parents may be anxious or defensive; start with positives.
  • Logistics: timing outside work hours, childcare for siblings, accessible venue/s.
• Ethical considerations: confidentiality, child-safe standards, duty of care, truthful disclosure without bias.
• Inclusive considerations: disability accommodations (hearing loops, ramps), neurodiversity-friendly environment (calm room, clear agenda).
• 3-Way conference tweaks (student present):
  • Student voice central; use scaffold like “glow and grow” statements.
  • Teacher becomes facilitator; parents respond supportively.
  • Ground rules: respectful listening, strengths-based focus.

Connections to Previous Lectures / Foundational Principles

• Builds on communication theory (Shannon–Weaver, Berlo’s SMCR, Transactional model).
• Reinforces ethical code of conduct and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) 3.7, 7.3.
• Links with evidence-based behaviour management (restorative practices) and assessment literacy (formative vs. summative).
• Reflects UDL and inclusive education frameworks.

Practical / Real-World Implications

• Effective parent communication correlates with improved student achievement and behaviour regulation.
• Poorly phrased emails can escalate conflicts, damage trust, and trigger complaints.
• Transparent, timely reporting supports early intervention and personalised learning plans.
• Consistency across teachers within a school maintains brand/professional culture.

Key Take-Away Strategies

• Before sending any communication, run a “CRISP” check:
  • C = Clear purpose and context.
  • R = Respectful tone.
  • I = Inclusive & individualised.
  • S = Solution-oriented.
  • P = Professional formatting/proofreading.
• Use “Positive–Challenge–Plan” structure in meetings and reports.
• Document all communication for legal accountability (scribe notes, email archive).
• Continual reflection: solicit parent feedback to improve communication methods.