Parental involvement in the education system is a topic that has been researched worldwide, yet researchers cannot agree on a single, unambiguous definition (Fisher, 2018; Boonk et al., 2018). The literature presents diverse and complex areas of involvement, spanning a wide range of domains and actions that require definition, clarification, and understanding. Consequently, there is a need for a precise conceptualization and a clear definition of parental involvement in education (Yulianti et al., 2019; Epstein and Sheldon, 2023).

The research literature indicates a wide variety of approaches and definitions for the concept of parental involvement, addressing different areas: parental involvement in the child's life, partnership between parents and school, the school-student relationship, and various types of parental engagement (Park et al., 2017). Some approaches emphasize the teachers' perspective, limiting the parents' role to involvement in learning processes at home, after school hours (Woltran, 2023). Others emphasize that the parents' role in their child's academic success manifests through the numerous aspects of the parent-school relationship (Kantova, 2024; Boonk et al., 2018; Hornby and Blackwell, 2018).

Despite researchers' different approaches and definitions, three central axes can be identified in the field of parental involvement (Ma et al., 2016):

Many have attempted to define the concept based on the level of connection, level of involvement, and place of involvement. This ranges from basic communication between the school and parents reporting on the individual child to a more complex relationships between the school and parents that are not necessarily related to the individual child but to general volunteering in the school and community. Parents, teaching staff, and administration members create a connection at this level without addressing specific pedagogical or emotional issues. Involvement can be active, passive, or both active and passive (Fisher and Friedman, 2022; Povey et al., 2016; Park et al., 2017).

The prevailing approach among parental involvement researchers is that there is a need to establish a balance between the needs of parents and those of the school (Epstein and Sheldon, 2023). Research literature also emphasizes the main factors influencing parental involvement, such as their level of awareness and identification with the school. “Awareness” in this context refers to parents' cognizance of what is happening at school; i.e., rather than indifference to school activities, the parents show an active interest in what happens within the school and consider its contribution to their children's education as valuable. “Identification” in this context refers to the parents' acceptance of the school's values and goals. The degree of parental identification ranges from high identification, whereby parents approve of and support the norms and values that the school imparts to their children, which manifests as respect and trust between teachers and parents, to low identification, meaning that parents do not approve of the norms and values that the school imparts to their children (Yulianti et al., 2019).

Additionally, the approach espoused in the research literature is to recognizes the authority of both the parents and the school, demonstrating that this allows for positive parental involvement (Ðurišić and Bunijevac, 2017; Hornby and Blackwell, 2018).

Parental involvement is widely recognized as a significant contributor to students' academic and emotional success in school. Research consistently demonstrates the positive impact of parental involvement, particularly on students' academic achievements (Martinez-González et al., 2023). However, parental involvement levels demonstrate a normal distribution pattern, ranging from minimal to extensive engagement (Fisher and Kostelitz, 2015).

The child's age emerges as a significant determinant of parental involvement factors. Elementary school children generally welcome parental involvement, whereas adolescents tend to seek greater autonomy and may resist parental engagement. Parents similarly report higher motivation to assist younger children, often feeling more competent with elementary-level content than with secondary school material (Wei et al., 2019).

In examining influential parent- and family-related factors, the spectrum ranges from socioeconomic status to educational encouragement at home. Parental involvement in Western societies correlates with educational attainment levels, democratization processes, educational competition, and student feedback systems (Foulidi and Papakitsos, 2022; Chen et al., 2024). Gender differences persist, with mothers generally showing higher engagement levels than fathers (Kim, 2022). Socioeconomic status significantly impacts involvement patterns: parents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically delegate greater educational responsibility to the school. In comparison, parents of a higher socioeconomic status demonstrate greater participation in school governance and activities (Zhang et al., 2023).

Parent-teacher relationship factors play a crucial role, with school initiatives and invitations for involvement often proving more influential than socioeconomic factors (Tauber et al., 2023). Modifiable factors, such as communication quality, school encouragement, and engagement opportunities, significantly impact parental involvement levels (Epstein and Sheldon, 2023). The relationship between parents and school staff is a fundamental determinant of engagement levels, with increased opportunities for involvement generally leading to higher participation rates. Limited legislative frameworks, insufficient resource allocation, and inadequate teacher training in parental engagement influence the extent and quality of parental involvement across different educational contexts (Yang et al., 2023). Research has identified significant correlations between public region employment, increased school involvement, and higher engagement rates among parents with multiple children in the same school (Mori, 2022; Fisher and Kostelitz, 2015). This relationship between community service orientation and school involvement suggests broader implications for understanding parental engagement patterns. The connection between parental involvement and community volunteering reveals interesting patterns, particularly regarding collective engagement (Fisher, 2018).

Models of parental involvement span a broad spectrum, ranging from hierarchical approaches to models advocating full parental partnership in all institutional education matters. Earlier research, particularly before 1994, primarily focused on traditional school activities, such as parent-teacher conferences, participation in school fundraising, school fairs, bake sales, and similar events (Goldberger, 1996). These models predominantly emphasized a hierarchical approach to parental involvement: from less desired to most desired forms of involvement. Such models highlighted that power resided with the school, positioning it as the sole entity authorized to create policies.

Parental involvement models have evolved significantly over the past few decades, with five significant frameworks emerging as particularly influential in educational research and practice. These models provide different yet complementary perspectives on how and why parents engage in their children's education.

Epstein's (2019) Framework of Six Types of Involvement is one of the most comprehensive and widely adopted models proposed in educational research. Initially developed by Joyce Epstein in 1995 and updated through multiple editions, with the most recent comprehensive Handbook published in 2019, this model provides a holistic approach to understanding parental involvement. The framework encompasses parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and community collaboration. Recent research by Park et al. (2017) has validated the continuing relevance of this model in contemporary educational settings, particularly emphasizing its applicability across diverse cultural contexts.

The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Model offers a psychological perspective on parental involvement (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997). This model is particularly valuable for understanding the motivational aspects of parental engagement and has been instrumental in developing intervention strategies to enhance parent participation. This model has been refined by Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2010). Their contemporary research explores the psychological factors influencing parents' decisions to become involved in their children's education.

Contemporary research indicates that the most effective approaches to parental involvement often integrate elements from multiple models. As the study of Park et al. (2017) demonstrated, successful parental involvement programs typically draw on various frameworks to create comprehensive approaches tailored to specific school contexts. This integration acknowledges the complexity of parent-school relationships and the need for flexible, context-sensitive approaches to foster meaningful parental involvement.

The collective influence of these models has significantly shaped our understanding of how schools can effectively engage parents in their children's education. While each model offers unique insights, they share a common recognition of the multifaceted nature of parental involvement, the importance of two-way communication, the need to address barriers to involvement, and a focus on improving student outcomes. As educational contexts evolve, these models provide valuable frameworks for understanding and promoting effective parental involvement in education.

The use of the term “locus of control” in the context of parental involvement is novel, although it is well-known in other fields. The term originated from Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality; a few years later, Lefcourt (1966) referred to “perceived control” and defined it as follows: “Perceived control is …a generalized expectation for internal versus external control of reinforcement.” Rotter (1975) clarified that internal and external locus of control do not refer to dichotomous states but represent two ends of a continuum.

While some individuals attribute an internal locus of control to outcomes or events, others attribute the control of such events to external circumstances. For this study, the term “locus of control” was borrowed to describe the degree to which parents attribute their involvement in their children's educational processes to personal internal factors or to external school-related circumstances. Like Rotter's articles, this study does not view the factors as dichotomous but as endpoints on a spectrum.

Hence, in this context, the two ends of the locus of control continuum are factors related to the parents and, at the other end, factors related to the school and its environment. Parental Locus of Control: Actions or activities indicative of parental involvement depend entirely on the parents. Examples of these actions include choosing the school the child attends, helping with homework, accompanying the class on a field trip, and attending parent-teacher meetings. School's Locus of Control: Parental involvement can occur only with the school's (and its environment's) consent. The parent cannot perform these actions without the school's cooperation and willingness to accept the parent as an active participant. Examples of these actions include visiting the school during the day, conducting activities for the class or the entire school, and developing curricular programs.

The sample consisted of approximately 430 participants, including 215 parents (who were not working as teachers in the education system) and 215 teachers.

The researchers employed an anonymous self-report parental involvement questionnaire titled “Questionnaire for Measuring Attitudes Toward Parent-School Relations” (Fisher, 2011). The questionnaire consisted of two sections and included an introductory letter to participating teachers and parents outlining the study's aims and objectives, providing assurance of anonymity, and soliciting their candid participation.

The first section comprises 44 statements forming the Parental Perception of Involvement Scale (PPIS) (α = 0.91). Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original questionnaire yielded four factors: enhancement of school resources, monitoring of school processes, pedagogy, and school welfare. The reliability coefficients for these four factors were 0.80, 0.85, 0.92, and 0.70, respectively.

The second section included demographic variables (nine items common to parents and teachers: e.g., gender, age, education). The teacher questionnaire included additional background variables: number of students in their school, school type, teaching experience, role in school, and management team membership. The parent questionnaire included additional variables: employment status, number of children, children's ages, type of residential area, whether their child was identified as gifted, and type of school their child attended.

The study was conducted during the 2020–2021 academic year. The research was conducted in three main phases. The first phase included submitting the original questionnaire and the research proposal to the relevant college's ethical committee (removed for blinded submission) for approval. In the second phase, questionnaires were administered to 215 parents (residing in various areas with children attending different schools) and 215 teachers (from multiple types of schools and locations). The third phase involved data processing, beginning with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using SPSS 21, followed by data analysis using HUDAP 8 (Hebrew University Data Analysis Package Version 8).

Participant anonymity was strictly maintained throughout the data collection process, with no collection of personal identifiers (such as names, contact information, or addresses). Participation was entirely voluntary, and teachers could exercise their right to withdraw by either declining to complete the questionnaire or submitting an incomplete form. Any incomplete questionnaires were destroyed through secure shredding procedures, and the corresponding data were excluded from the final analysis. The study was conducted without monetary compensation for participation, and participants incurred no costs associated with their involvement in the research.

The data analysis in this research followed a two-phase approach. In the first phase, factor analysis was conducted to obtain a comprehensive overview of the questionnaire items. While factor analysis is not always employed in Facet Theory studies, it proved beneficial for the initial stage, based on similar research precedents. The original parental involvement scale (Fisher, 2011) utilized item-total correlation analysis.

On the Parents' Perceptions of Parental Involvement Scale (PPPIS), the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was α = 0.93 (44 items). In this scale, there was no need to eliminate items. Although Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) revealed four factors as in the original scale (Fisher, 2011), the component structure differed, leading to the decision to conduct an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). After EFA, four factors emerged:

Factor analysis was conducted to validate the first stage before data analysis using Facet Theory. Weighted Smallest Space Analysis (WSSA) was performed in the second data analysis stage using HUDAP (Hebrew University Data Analysis Program), building upon the factor analysis conducted in the first stage.

On the Teachers' Perceptions of Parental Involvement Scale (TPPIS), the overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient was α = 0.92 (44 items). Three items were eliminated from the original scale based on the following criteria: Corrected Item-total Correlation < 0.35 and factor loading below 0.35. Following item elimination, factor convergence was re-examined through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA did not validate the hypothesized structure, so an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted. The EFA of the TPPIS yielded three factors (in contrast to the four factors identified in the original scale):

According to the parents' mapping sentence, parent X perceives parental involvement as comprising four domains:

Support of School Resources—This pertains to areas where parents actively support and participate in school-related matters. It encompasses parental participation in school-wide activities, providing physical or financial support, and participating in school and class committees. In this domain, parents respond to school-defined needs rather than initiating involvement, maintaining a relatively passive role (Tauber et al., 2023).

Supervision of School Processes—In this domain, parents actively supervise all school aspects, including pedagogical matters typically managed by educational staff. The term “supervision” implies a degree of distrust in the entity supervised. This activity includes participation in pedagogical committees, curriculum development, and involvement in hiring and dismissing teachers and administrators. Thus, in this domain, parents' functions include goal-setting and decision-making (Ðurišić and Bunijevac, 2017).

Partnership in External Pedagogical Processes—This domain represents collaboration between the school and the parents. While schools maintain responsibility during school hours, parents actively partner in extending school-based activities. The research literature suggests home-school continuity is crucial for students' success across all demographic groups (Efraim, 2014). Parents view disciplinary issues as originating at school but requiring parental intervention outside the school premises.

Awareness of Internal Pedagogical Processes—“Awareness” contrasts with indifference, indicating parents' active interest in school operations and their children's education (Fisher and Friedman, 2009). At the same time, awareness contrasts with the notion of supervision and monitoring, as the findings of this study clearly indicate that awareness is not related to active participation but to parents' knowledge of various school aspects, including familiarity with educational staff, school activities, curricula, and classroom social dynamics.

The dependency focus in each process can be either:

Each item is rated on an intensity scale ranging from very high to very low dependence levels.

By contrast, according to the teachers' mapping sentence, teacher X perceives parental involvement as comprising three domains:

Supervision of School Processes—Similar to parents' perception, “supervision” carries negative connotations of distrust, suggesting parents need to “check” on teachers. Parents' function involves goal-setting and decision-making (Friedman, 2011), expressing opinions on curricula and staff employment.

Mandatory Parental Activities—Activities that teachers consider fundamental parental responsibilities, i.e., basic obligations inherent to parenthood.

Parents as “Service Providers”—Teachers view parents as providing a necessary service, encompassing areas where teachers desire and need parental involvement, such as fundraising or conducting class activities.

These domains exist on a spectrum between:

Each item is rated on an intensity scale ranging from very high to very low approval.

Examining the mapping sentences and resulting maps reveals that parents' conceptualization of parental involvement aligns more closely with recent scholarly perspectives. This contemporary view regards parents as school partners who engage in activities that benefit their children and the broader school community (Ma et al., 2016; Tauber et al., 2023).

In contrast, the teachers' perception of parental involvement reflects perspectives dating back three or more decades. There are areas where teachers are absolutely opposed to parental participation, whereas when parental involvement assists the teachers' endeavors, the teachers find this involvement entirely agreeable. In other words, their views of parental involvement are based entirely on self-interest and completely ignore the parents' interests. Thus, teachers predominantly seek parental help that does not interfere in their professional domain (Boonk et al., 2018; Ðurišić and Bunijevac, 2017).

As shown, the application of Facet Theory in this research and the resulting SSA maps facilitated our understanding of parents' and teachers' perceptions of parental involvement.

The picture emerging from parents' perspectives (see Figure 4) emphasizes the locus of control (Facet B). Parents acknowledge that their involvement cannot materialize in certain domains without the teacher's cooperation. Tauber et al. (2023) reported similar findings. Their research suggests that when schools (administrators and teaching staff) oppose parental involvement, such engagement cannot occur. In other words, while parents can initiate involvement in areas under their control, school-dependent activities require institutional cooperation.

The teachers' map (see Figure 4) differs significantly from the parents. It includes two structures: the first structure (Facet A) is polar; the second structure (Facet B) is axial with two regions (right and left). The polar structure divides the map into three regions, each representing one of the main domains teachers define as parental involvement. The axial structure presents a division wherein each region represents teachers' level of agreement with the action. The degree of agreement moves along an axis from right to left, with teacher-approved activities located on the right side, and the agreement level decreases as one moves leftward.

More precisely, activities involving potential parental involvement closer to the left axis represent disruptive actions teachers find disruptive to daily school life. To comprehend this division in-depth, we examined the items at the extremes, as these best explain the entire facet. The results reflected conceptions of parental involvement that were prevalent three decades ago (Boonk et al., 2018). For example, chaperoning field trips, located at the beginning of the agreement axis on the right side (at the map's right edge), represents a desirable activity accepted by teachers—assistance they want and need. On the left side, at the map's left edge, we found statements referring to “general criticism of teachers,” indicating their resistance to criticism. Given that teachers' current view of parental involvement coincides with past perceptions, it is understandable that the notion of accepting criticism would be foreign to them. They preferred that parents refrain from intervening in matters or actions that might challenge their professional performance. While not always explicitly stated, teachers effectively conveyed the following message: “Why should parents comment on the amount of homework I assign to my students? I am the professional, and I will make these decisions.”

We can examine select statements to better understand the fundamental differences between parents' and teachers' perceptions. The first concerns parent committee matters. Interestingly, teachers viewed “participation in class committee” (item 1, located in region a₁/b₁, Figure 4) as a service provision activity. The item's position near the region's edge indicates broad teacher agreement regarding this activity. In contrast, parents viewed class committee participation as supporting school resources. While this item appears in the school-dependent region of the parents' map, it is spatially positioned close to the boundary between school and parent-only decisions.

Interestingly, the Ministry of Education does not mandate class committees. The latest executive circular (Israeli Ministry of Education, 2019) does not require schools or educational staff to establish class committees; hence, none will be established if a school opposes having class committees. It appears that most parents remain unaware of this directive; if they had knowledge of the Ministry's position on the matter, this item would likely be located at the edge of the region, indicating school-dependent actions.

According to the parents' perception, “free choice of school,” positioned in region a₁ of the map (see Figure 3), is related to resource support. Its proximity to the edge suggests that parents feel that when choosing a particular school for their children, they effectively demonstrate their support for it. This finding aligns with previous research by Ma et al. (2016), which explained that when parents choose and support a school, they also want to participate in and impact school affairs.

Conversely, in the teachers' map (see Figure 4), this item appears in region a₁, which refers to parents as “service providers.” This indicates that teachers view parents' school choice as providing a service for them, presumably under the following assumption: “If you chose us, you trust us, so let us do our job while you cooperate and do as we ask.” Placing school choice in the “service provider” region of the map aligns with findings from Barger et al. (2019), which describe parents as mere service providers who do not influence school-related domains. The difference between the parent and teacher maps in terms of the placement of this item demonstrates their significantly divergent perceptions. Parents see school choice as a pathway to partnership, while teachers view it as a means to prevent parental “interference” and secure exclusive authority over school operations.

A similar pattern regarding parents' desire for greater involvement by virtue of their support can be seen at the boundary between region a₁ in the parents' map and the supervision area. Here, two very similar items are positioned: “project funding” and “school fundraising.” These items fall within the resource support region but spatially are located closest to the “supervision” region. This highlights the proximity between financial support and school supervision, suggesting that when parents provide support, they also wish to supervise and participate in additional school processes.

These findings are supported by another recent study, which demonstrated that financial investment by parents leads to increased demands on schools and education authorities (Ðurišić and Bunijevac, 2017). Again, in contrast to the parents, who view financial assistance as a pathway to partnership and sometimes supervision, in the teachers' map, these items are positioned at the edge of region a₁ and are viewed by teachers as part of the services parents provide.

Examining region a₂ (see Figure 3) in the parents' map, which refers to “supervising school processes,” two extreme items are particularly prominent. One is “meetings with the principal,” which lies on the boundary between “supervising school processes” and “support of school resources,” indicating a lack of consensus regarding the category to which it belongs. Most Parents view meetings with the principal as part of monitoring school processes, though some consider them a form of resource support. In the latter case, parents likely view their role as maintaining and promoting existing conditions rather than overseeing school operations. As mentioned, this item is absent from the teachers' map. It was eliminated during the initial factor division, indicating that teachers do not perceive this item as part of the integrated actions that constitute “parental involvement.”

The second extreme item is “expressing opinions about homework quantity” (item 10 on the extreme right side of region a₂ in Figure 3 of the parents' map), which parents believe is at the heart of educational process supervision. Having the broadest parental consensus suggests that parents view this item as the most fundamental type of supervision. In the teachers' map (Figure 4), this item (opinion on homework quantity) also appears in supervision region a₃, indicating similarity in teachers' and parents' perceptions regarding this item, whereby both groups view the expression of opinions about homework quantity as a supervisory element. However, the gap between teachers' and parents' perceptions is evident in the axial deployment. This item is positioned in the region that corresponds with actions that teachers disapprove of because they view parents' interference regarding homework quantity as undermining their professionalism and are unwilling to accept parental input on this matter. Parents, conversely, see this action as an essential part of parental involvement and, as mentioned, as the most fundamental form of supervision and monitoring.

Parents view their supervision of school processes as vital, whether it takes place within or beyond the school boundaries. They consider it essential to “support the child when disagreeing with the teacher” (item 41 in region a₃ of the parents' map, Figure 3), especially because the parents are not present within school walls when such events occur. Although parents cannot control these events, they recognize that supporting their children is both a necessity and an obligation.

In the teachers' map (Figure 4), this item (41) appears in the right-hand side of region a₂, which teachers classify as “mandatory parental activities.” This suggests a quasi-agreement between parents and teachers regarding parents' duty to support their children. However, teachers still view such support as closely linked to parents' supervisory mechanisms toward the school. Moreover, the item is positioned at the extreme right of teacher disapproval region, indicating that while teachers understand this to be an inherent part of parental involvement, they would prefer that this action did not occur.

In conclusion, we can say that parents have expanded their perceptions of parental involvement (in comparison with their past perceptions). Their current views are progressive, and their definitions align with those proposed in the recent research literature (Boonk et al., 2018; Tauber et al., 2023). Parents believe that as society becomes more involved across all dimensions, their involvement and partnership in the education system must figure prominently. This is not a marginal process that can be sidelined according to school staff preferences. In contrast, teachers still prefer parents to provide nothing more than “auxiliary help,” assisting the teachers when asked to do so but otherwise refraining from interfering in matters pertaining to their professional performance. The teachers apparently have failed to recognize the profound social processes that have affected parents' position within the educational establishment over the past three decades.

Indeed, Facet Theory has enabled us to construct two models: the parental involvement model from the parents' perspective and the parental involvement model from the teachers' perspective. These two models represent two perceptions and two worlds of thinking and vision, which are summarized in Figure 5.

Studies examining parental involvement consistently demonstrate its importance, providing evidence that parental involvement enhances students' academic achievement, improves their behavior within school, and serves as an indicator of school excellence. Therefore, reaching consensus on the meaning of “parental involvement” is particularly crucial. When gaps exist, as found in this research, the model helps each “stakeholder” better understand the other's perspective.

Only when one party understands the language spoken by the other can both parties engage in meaningful roundtable discussions to resolve fundamental disagreements and find a bridge to connect the two perspectives. Such dialogue can foster a culture of positive involvement and authentic communication between both parties, with the clear understanding that both sides fundamentally desire the child's best interests.

Additionally, this research aids in conceptualizing the perspectives of both teacher and parent populations separately. Such conceptualization can significantly contribute to developing mutually agreed-upon policies for parental participation in the education system on one hand and better teacher engagement and partnership on the other. These understandings, combined with developing frameworks of successful partnerships and processes in schools based on community-school collaboration, can lead to enhanced work practices between teachers, school administration, and parents, thereby improving schools overall.

This study has several important limitations that must be acknowledged when interpreting the findings:

These limitations require cautious interpretation when generalizing findings to broader populations. Future research should employ more representative sampling methods to ensure demographic balance.