Separated parents’ experiences with the Australian school system: an overview

Abstract

For decades, the role of parental engagement in children’s schooling has been central to the promotion of learning and wellbeing outcomes for children. However, the recognition of diverse family structures, including where a child’s parents are separated, is largely absent from these models of engagement. Instead, prior research has focussed on the impacts of separation and divorce on children’s learning, resulting in a dearth of work on separated parents’ experiences of engaging with their children’s schools. In order to document these parents’ experiences, a qualitative survey was deployed. From this investigation, it is clear that diverse family structures, particularly those where parents are separated, are not well accommodated, or even well understood, in the schooling context. In many cases, however, small adjustments on the part of the school can make significant differences in enhancing parents’ successful involvement in their children’s education.

Introduction

Many Australian children live in complex family structures due to the separation of their parents. In Australia, around 43% of children under the age of 13 live in families that do not fit the traditional conceptualisation of the family as a mother, father, and genetically related brother and sister (AIFS, 2016). Indeed, between 2008 and 2012, 20% of children aged between four and 17 were in shared time arrangements, spending 35–65% of their time with each parent in the five-year period after their parents’ separation (Baxter, 2016).

Within the schooling context, Cooper et al. (2012) warn that parental conflict may be exacerbated by tensions surrounding the enrolment of children, the collection of children after school, and the sharing of school-related information. In Australia, child protection training is mandated for all educators and approved providers of education services; however, information regarding the complexities of family law and the intricacies of navigating these spaces is less readily available. This tension is complicated by the fact that teachers are not the only contact point for parents. Often, office administrative staff are at the school’s frontline, assisting parents with enquiries related to the many different aspects of school life. Naturally, this triangulation between school leaders, teachers, and office staff, and their shared or incongruous understanding of parental engagement, can have beneficial or detrimental impacts on parents’ experiences with their children’s schools. For separated parents, these experiences may be further complicated by additional tensions within the family or in the family’s relationship with the school.

The impetus for this research arose from the research team’s own experiences with schooling and separated parents/parenting, both personal and professional. While we were privy to anecdotal observations and reflections, and while we ourselves experienced the complexities of navigating schooling as separated parents and teachers, we were surprised to find that current scholarship is largely silent on separated parents’ experiences of interacting, communicating, and consulting with their children’s schools. Thus, this study sought to answer the question: ‘What are separated parents’ experiences with the Australian schooling system?’. To answer this question, the research team developed a qualitative survey that sought to capture the scope of the respondents’ experiences.

Separated parenting and the Australian school system

Post-separation co-parenting refers to the context in which two parents work together to raise a child following divorce or separation, or when parents have not resided together in a domestic relationship. In Australia in 2006, the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act (Cth) assigned shared decision-making authority to both parents in all matters affecting the child, including decisions related to the child’s education and health, their religious and cultural upbringing, and their living arrangements (Daniel, 2009).

The literature on parental involvement in children’s education is primarily concerned with the impacts of separation and divorce on children’s wellbeing and learning (Nusinovici et al., 2018). As a result, almost no published research to date considers this issue from a parent’s perspective. Granted, some education jurisdictions have developed guidelines to assist schools in balancing their obligations to students and parents under the Australian Education Act 2013 (Cth), with their obligation to respect the rights of children under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (see, for example, the New South Wales Government’s Family Law Guidelines, 2020). These guidelines provide some direction as to how interactions between separated parents and schools should be managed, and how difficult issues can be resolved. However, even in the few educational settings where guidelines exist, it is uncertain how they are applied and how their everyday application is experienced by separated parents. Indeed, the need for the implementation of such guidelines points to the complexity of responding to family law issues in the schooling context. Moreover, the heterogeneity of separated parents’ profiles, and the diversity of their experiences, both positive and negative, highlights the need for parents’ experiences to be not only recognised and understood, but appropriately and sensitively managed. This need is undermined by the fact that, as aforementioned, little literature exists in this important field.

In their critical examination of the notion of collaborative parenting, Brown et al. (2010) report on a number of studies into parents’ involvement in their children’s schooling following partnership breakdown, separation, or divorce. The first of these studies (Baker, 1996) was conducted in the late 1990s when it was common for children to spend 80% of their time with one parent and 20% with the other. The second study, which anticipated the 2006 Family Law amendment, involved a national survey of over 200 non-residential fathers and mothers (Baker & Bishop, 2003). Both studies found that almost all non-residential parents felt they were not involved, or little involved, in their children’s schooling. Reported difficulties included barriers to accessing academic performance information, as well as school events. In a subsequent study, Brown et al. (2010) surveyed 50 non-residential parents to gauge their experiences with their children’s schooling after the 2006 legislation was introduced. The authors found that despite the change in legislation, there was no significant change in the parents’ experiences, with the majority of respondents (61%) receiving no information from the school post-separation. Brown et al., (2010, p. 12) concluded that ‘for schools to do better’, a multi-targeted intervention is needed that includes policies and programs that support both parents when a relationship breakdown occurs.

In further work conducted in the lead-up to the 2006 amendment, Baker and Bishop (2005) investigated the specific issues facing non-residential mothers. The authors argue that discourse around child-residence arrangements was based on the gendered assumption that the non-residential parent is always the father. They argued that this assumption marginalised non-residential mothers by ignoring the fact that non-custodial mothers ‘also seek greater involvement in their children’s lives following separation’ (Baker & Bishop, 2005, p. 206). While non-residential mothers and fathers experience similar challenges (Thompson & Laible, 1999), non-residential mothers face additional stressors, such as social stigma (Greif, 1997), negative treatment from family and friends (Fischer & Cardea, 1981), and greater financial disparity (Arditti, 1994). Baker and Bishop also posit that despite the extensive literature around the importance of parental involvement in a child’s education, there is little understanding of non-residential parents’ participation in, and engagement with, the school community. As the researchers conclude, ‘Given the importance of parent-school involvement and the emerging emphasis on community partnerships, it is striking that non-residential parents are virtually never discussed in these initiatives’ (2005, p. 210).

Despite the scant amount of Australian literature from which indicative results can be drawn, a renewed focus on the experiences of separated Australian parents has started to emerge. Recently, research by Saltmarsh et al. (2021a, 2021b, 2021c) have explored parent–school engagement during times of post-separation transition, including school cultures of complicity and everyday exclusionary practices that exacerbate separated parents’ already diminished sense of engagement. While Saltmarsh et al. draw attention to these complex entanglements through a series of interviews with separated parents (n = 4, 2021a) and a subsequent case study with a separated mother (n = 1, 2021c), recent research is constrained to small sample sizes.

In fact, one of the only recent Australian studies with a larger sample size is our own research into separated parents’ experiences of schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic (Desmarchelier & Bryce, 2020). This narrative-based work reports on a survey (n = 141) of separated parents’ experiences of schooling during the height of the pandemic: a time of heightened anxiety and stress in which existing disparities between separated parents, in terms of access and support, were exacerbated. It was clear from the findings of this research that points of tension exist in separated parents’ expectations of schooling and in the inconsistent messaging that surrounds collaborative parenting and shared care.

Method

Theoretical framework

In an attempt to investigate power differentials experienced by separated parents in their interactions with school systems, two intersecting theoretical lenses were employed: feminist theory and communication theory.

Feminist theory challenges dominant discourses in Westernised models of thinking (Healy, 2014; Saulnier, 2008) and shifts from the ideological model of distributive justice to humanistic and social justice models for achieving equality (AASW, 2020; Healy, 2014; Turner & Maschi, 2015). Applying a feminist lens also involves the adoption of key principles. First, the researchers must analyse the degree to which the participants have control over their lives (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2013; Turner & Maschi, 2015). Second, a critical gendered analysis needs to contextualise the research in the broader social context of gender relations (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016). During this process, it is important that the researchers employ, and are informed by, feminist notions that recognise intersectional experiences of oppression (Saulnier, 2008). Finally, a review of the broader education system and its associated impacts must be viewed in the context of reinforcing socially accepted constructs of gendered power inequalities (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Saulnier, 2008). Thus, by identifying the systemic causes of marginalisation and discrimination, researchers can detect power differentials and highlight opportunities for consciousness raising (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Healy, 2014).

A communication perspective can also draw attention to power imbalances by helping to contextualise the barriers that arise in communication. Communication theory, in this context, establishes the idea that separated parents’ interactions with school systems and school personnel are a process of communication. The transactional model of communication (Barnlund, 2008) recognises the complexity of interactions between parents and schools by acknowledging that the meaning of a message (for example, a message about enrolment, the collection of children from school, or the sharing of school-related information) lies in the perceptions (or fields of experience) of the communicators themselves (in this instance, schools and parents). This model further recognises that communication occurs in a context, and as such, the time and place can affect meaning, as can situational factors such as a family’s internal dynamics. Transactional theories of communication also appreciate that there are barriers that can impede communication. These barriers can be semantic (for example, the use of abbreviations or jargon); intrapersonal (that is, the effects of one’s assumptions, expectations, or prejudices); interpersonal (for example, conflicts arising in organisational contexts); and physical (accessibility issues that intensify when parents are physically separated).

Research design

To collect data from separated parents of diverse backgrounds and experiences, an online survey was distributed via social media. The aim of the survey was to gather qualitative data on separated parents’ experiences with their children’s schools, with different types and levels of interaction and communication. The survey was designed to allow parents to provide their individual experiences primarily through open-ended questions. To be eligible to participate, respondents needed to first confirm that they were Australian, separated or divorced, and parents of a school-aged child or children. Most participants were recruited via Facebook through an open call that was posted to various parenting groups, including groups for separated parents, blended families, and single mothers. Importantly, the invitation to participate was also extended to single fathers through their participation in these Facebook groups; however, the all-female research team encountered difficulties when trying to access all-male communities. Human ethics approval was granted for this research, and a condition of approval was that participants would remain anonymous in the reporting of findings.

The survey, which ran for a period of approximately three months, comprised 33 questions, including demographic questions, open-ended questions, and rating questions that required participants to assess their school experiences using Likert scales. The use of the Likert scale was designed to measure the level of impact of each described experience for the participants. The open-ended questions also addressed perceptions of safety in school relations, perceived support for decision making, and experiences with school communication flows around the child’s academic performance and behaviour. The final question invited parents to share additional experiences that they felt comfortable disclosing.

Data were analysed to determine overall patterns according to particular demographic information, such as the parent’s age and gender, and the parent’s allocation of the child’s residential care. The aim of the demographic analysis was to identify any trends in the experiences of particular parenting groups in order to allow for more targeted qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions. Once patterns in experience were identified, the qualitative data were analysed to identify common themes. Themes were analysed according to Seidel’s (1998) cyclical process of noticing, collecting, and thinking. Coding was used heuristically to lead the data to the emergent theme and then back from the theme to the relevant data (Saldaña, 2013). In this way, patterns in the data that related to the research question were identified and examined, and common themes in the data were recorded.

Results

Characteristics of survey participants

A total of 140 participants completed the survey. Of these, 82 identified as mothers, 28 identified as fathers, and 30 chose not to identify as mothers or fathers. Of the 28 fathers, 14 were non-primary caregivers, 8 were equal caregivers, and 6 were primary or sole caregivers. Of the 82 mothers, 56 were primary or sole caregivers, 19 were equal caregivers, and 7 were non-primary caregivers. Therefore, of the 140 participants, the majority of respondents identified as mothers with equal, primary or sole care, while just over 20% of participants were fathers. As aforementioned, participants were recruited from across Australia and from a wide range of schools, including state schools and fee-paying schools, with the latter including independent schools, private schools, and non-traditional institutions.

Overall experiences of separated parents

Overall results regarding separated parents’ experiences with their children’s schools revealed that, in general, most parents were not satisfied with their interactions with teachers, with only 43% of respondents rating their experiences with teachers as positive (see Figs. 1, 2). Likewise, parents rated their experiences with school leadership similarly, with 40% of respondents recording positive experiences. Overall, participants reported a greater number of positive rather than negative experiences with school leadership; however, one in four participants reported a negative experience with school leaders. Interactions with office administrative staff were reported as positive by only 37% of parents. In line with this finding, the staff group that parents most often nominated as encountering a negative experience with was office administrative staff (35%), with about one in seven participants reporting ‘very poor’ experiences with administration. The number of negative experiences was similar between teachers (27%) and school leaders (25%).

Fig. 1.

Percentages of separated parents who had a negative, neutral, or positive experience with teachers, office administration staff, and leadership within schools

Fig. 2.

Gender breakdown of the number and percentages of separated parents who had a negative, neutral, or positive experience with teachers, administration, and leadership within schools

Interestingly, despite being a numerically smaller cohort, fathers consistently reported more negative experiences than mothers. Mothers were almost three times more likely to report having positive experiences with office administrative staff than fathers, and they were twice as likely to report positive experiences with teachers and leaders. In fact, almost half of the mothers surveyed reported positive experiences with teachers. Office administrative staff overall received the highest number of reported negative interactions for all parents. Most concerning was the fact that 75% of fathers reported encountering one or more negative experiences with these administration staff. Moreover, about half of the fathers surveyed reported a negative experience with both teachers and leaders.

‘Parent’ and ‘Time in Care’

Unsurprisingly, there were significant differences between the amount of care that mothers and fathers had of their school-aged children. Of the mothers who opted to answer the question about percentage care, 67% had sole or primary care (that is, the children were in their care more than 50% of the overall time), while 24% had equal care (that is, 50% of the time), and 9% had minority care (that is, less than 50% of the time). Fewer fathers responded to this question; however, of those who did, 57% had minority care, 23% had equal care, and 20% were sole or majority care parents.

Fathers who had shared or equal care of their children reported more negative experiences with teachers, leaders, and office administrators. However, despite fathers reporting a higher number of negative experiences overall, fathers who were either sole or primary caregivers reported more positive experiences. In fact, two out of three fathers in this group reported positive experiences with teachers and school leaders, while half reported a positive experience with administration.

Overall, mothers with sole or majority care were more likely to report positive experiences with all members of staff (teachers, leaders, and office administration) than mothers with equal or minority care. Mothers who had either equal care, or majority or sole care, reported fewer negative experiences with teachers and leaders; however, negative experiences with office administrative staff was still an issue. The small number of mothers with minority care were disproportionately negative about their experiences with school staff. Mothers with minority care were the most dissatisfied with their school interactions.

Qualitative themes

Mothers’ experiences

Through thematic analysis of open-ended questions, it was possible to identify some of the issues and experiences that led to differing levels of satisfaction in the mothers’ interactions with their children’s schools. While mothers with sole or majority care were more positive overall about their interactions with school staff, qualitative responses revealed that this satisfaction was not always uniform across, or even within, an individual’s responses.

For example, mothers with sole or majority care often commented positively on their communication with both school teachers and school leaders. For this group of mothers, attaining general communications from the school, such as newsletters and consent forms, was less problematic than it was for mothers with equal or minority care. Indeed, some mothers even recognised that this ease in access may be due to their status as the primary caregiver. Comments that specifically acknowledged positive communication experiences include the following:

Understanding staff. They would prefer to ask how we require communication and support rather than assume. [They] support the children through any tricky situations at home and communicate their observations back.

The administration staff are very good at clarifying what information should be available to who, and who should be contacted. They take great care to ensure safety and privacy if court documents are not available. Extremely cautious and respectful.

One issue, however, that was only raised by mothers with sole or majority care was school expectations around parental involvement that were perceived to be especially difficult for single mothers. In particular, mothers with sole responsibility for their children felt that there was a different set of expectations for their children’s fathers. Specifically, these mothers believed that school staff did not account for the additional emotional labour required when one parent takes on all of the caring, learning, and financial responsibility. As one respondent explained:

There is an expectation that I as the mother will be able to spend more time in the classrooms assisting. There is a judgement that I am not interested in my children’s schooling if I do not volunteer time in the room. This expectation is not the same for my ex-husband as ‘he has to work’. My job is more demanding in terms of time and stress, but I guess that gender stereotypes continue, even in a non-traditional school setting.

Furthermore, inequitable communication between parents was of major concern for mothers with equal care. Where communication channels were inclusive, both mothers and fathers were more likely to be satisfied with their school experiences. However, when schools did not share information with both parents (such as newsletters, report cards, and consent forms), and when schools did not accommodate requests for separate parent–teacher interviews, all parents rated their experiences more negatively. For those parents with equal care, the child’s movement between houses on a regular basis made the absence of effective and transparent communication between schools and parents particularly problematic. As one mother with shared care explains, ‘Lack of understanding about how to deal with separated parents. Communicating or sending out information to one parent only, ignoring the other parent’.

Finally, mothers with minority care were overwhelmingly unhappy with their school experiences. These mothers often felt alienated and judged in their interactions, reporting, for example, that school staff ‘tend to favour the person the child lives with regardless of any situation’. That said, where school communication channels were well defined, some of these mothers were included in the receipt of written communications, such as report cards and newsletters. However, most comments were overwhelmingly negative and gestured towards to a lack of agency for mothers with minority care. As another respondent explained, ‘Newsletters have been getting sent but never any consent forms for anything as the other parent has the higher percentage of care. Therefore, the schools don’t want to talk to me about much’. Another mother reflected:

As the alienated parent due to the narcissistic parent’s controlling, they don’t give me much information at all. The then principal had started speaking fairly genuinely with myself until something must have been said from the other parent. Then suddenly the principal stopped saying much to me at all and I was kept in the dark.

Fathers’ experiences

Fathers with sole or majority care of their children rated their experiences with their children’s schools more highly than fathers with equal or minority care. However, these fathers still struggled with maintaining a positive and productive relationship with school personnel. Like mothers with minority care, these fathers felt distrusted by school staff: ‘As a single full-time and sole parent, I could not be listed as “main parent”, which they insisted had to be a mother. I was listed as “other significant person”’. In addition to reporting issues with school communication, fathers with sole or majority care reported that they encountered difficulties when requesting information to be updated in order to ensure that both parents were included in important communications. These fathers reported being questioned about the requested changes, with some school staff preferring to defer to the mother’s authority, regardless of the father’s status as the primary caregiver.

When I have called with a query, the teacher returned the call to my ex-partner instead of me. Deliberately seeking out ex instead of me to discuss matters.

There is sometimes distrust when I call to advise of changes and I get the impression that they feel they need to check with the other parent. Information is not always passed to both parents, some distrust when I call to make changes.

Fathers with equal care shared similar concerns to mothers with equal care; however, fathers were more likely to report that they felt the school favoured the other parent. Similar comments to those provided by sole and majority care fathers were also offered by fathers with equal care, especially in respect to feelings of inadequacy, with several respondents reporting that they felt disregarded or overlooked in school correspondence. One father reflected that it is ‘extremely difficult to access report cards, parent teacher interviews etc., as all of these processes are designed for traditional families and can’t handle two separate emails for report cards and two separate days for interviews etc.’. Another father, experiencing similar difficulties, registered his ‘total dissatisfaction after many non-confrontational attempts at communication with the school’.

Interestingly, fathers with minority care more often reported positive interactions and experiences than fathers with majority or shared care; however, positive experiences for this group were still limited in number. Positive interactions with teachers and principals were registered in situations where issues of communication were able to be resolved. For example:

Paper notices were not reaching me despite court orders. Teachers were understanding and helpful in trying to communicate these to me or notify me about their existence via email (once I know about the notices and ask the mother, she provides them to me under fear of a contravention). One teacher even used her personal phone to photograph school notices and email them to me. I needed to be proactive and ask for special assistance.

On the other hand, some fathers with minority care had very little success in resolving communication issues despite repeated attempts to reach out to the school. As one father explained:

Emailed teacher throughout year for updates on child’s progress, behaviour. Very generic reply, no information given. Emailed teacher about parent teacher information night, no reply. Emailed teacher about child’s diagnoses of ADHD to be informed of in class procedures or plans to managing child’s behaviour, no reply.

Shared experiences

Another important theme that emerged from the data was a shared recognition from both mothers and fathers that the schooling system did not cater well to families that do not fit the traditional nuclear structure. In some cases, even when a parent’s experience with the school was positive, the individual acknowledged that the experience of their former partner was not as positive and that the school could have been more inclusive or responsive in its communication. One respondent explained:

The expectation that both parents be in the same space isn’t realistic; lack of understanding around why school needs to communicate with both parents; lack of understanding in general around needs of separated parents; lack of understanding of emotional and financial abuse; lack of understanding of teacher where student is living between 2 homes; general lack of understanding of complexities for children living between 2 parents. [mother with shared care]

In families with parental conflict or a history of violence, these difficulties were exacerbated. In such cases, parents often reported that school staff had very little understanding of family complexities and were subsequently dismissive of the parent’s needs. In some cases, this led to parents forming the belief that interactions with the school actually amplified parental conflict or made them feel unsafe in the school environment. A lack of understanding or empathy from school staff was a recurring theme, with one respondent claiming that schools are ‘unequipped for dealing with high conflict parents’. The following is an example of other representative comments:

The school just didn’t have systems in place nor training of staff to address the schooling and school-related medical side of this, to make sure both parents are informed of things, to make sure consent/decision of both parents is obtained – even when consent of both parents is required by law! [father with minority care]

Thus, despite perceptions of mothering and fathering as heavily gendered, the separated parents in this study shared a number of common complaints and concerns.

Discussion

One of the most alarming findings to emerge from this study—that less than half of the participants were positive about their experiences with their child’s school—is of concern for Australian schools, system leaders, and education policy makers. The diversity of experiences communicated by parents highlights the inherent complexities of navigating parent–school relationships in situations where parents are separated or divorced. Such a finding is a reminder that despite growing empirical research into the opportunities and challenges of parental engagement with schools, it remains that ‘we know more about how parents affect schooling than about how schooling affects parents’ (Brown, 2022, p. 4). In this context, key issues that require further attention are the social expectations of mothers and fathers in the schooling context and communication barriers in parent–school interactions.

Social expectations of mothers and fathers

In seeking to understand the causes for participants’ negative experiences of the Australian schooling system, specifically issues arising during communication, the researchers examined the data through a critical gendered lens. This involved investigating the gendered issues that presented for participants. Rigid gender stereotypes are socially constructed beliefs or assumptions about the types of roles, behaviours, or identities that a person should conform to, based on their respective gender or sexuality (Waling, 2019). Gendered stereotypes have traditionally been underpinned by social pressure to conform to binary notions of masculinity or femininity. As such, traditional gendered stereotypes, such as the woman as ‘nurturer’ and the man as ‘breadwinner’, perpetuate gender stereotypes that generate or exacerbate power imbalances (Laing et al., 2013). For example, a study conducted by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (2013) found that social attitudes about gender contribute to unequal power relations between men and women, which are linked to health and social issues such as family violence. While unravelling the link between gender inequality and gendered violence is a complex project that requires a multi-dimensional perspective (Wall, 2014), it is significant that gender inequality is frequently cited as a key determinant of violence against women (Jewkes, 2002; Ridgeway, 2014; WHO, 2010; Yodanis, 2004).

In the school context, the gendered aspects of caregiving have been linked to gendered expectations around parental involvement (or lack thereof) in children’s education. Townsend (2002) reports that partnered fathers are less involved in school matters than their counterparts, with some men still viewing the responsibility of ‘being involved in the daily routines of their children as optional’ (p. 104). Parcel et al. (2016) confirm that the emotional labour involved in the management of children’s schooling is also heavily gendered, especially with regard to the negative emotional capital that is associated with the stress of forced movement between schools. Compared to partnered fathers, mothers take on more domestic duties and child-rearing responsibilities (Craig, 2006; Doucet, 2011) and subsequently absorb a greater share of the ‘self-sacrificial and time-consuming work’ of school-related decision making (Brown, 2022, p. 9). Interestingly, as aforementioned, despite the fact that non-residential mothers and fathers experience similar parenting challenges (Baker & Bishop, 2005; Thompson & Laible, 1999), non-residential mothers tend to encounter additional stresses, such as social stigma or social disapproval (Greif, 1997), psychological distancing and isolation (Fisher, 1983), and greater financial disparity (Arditti, 1994). Thus, despite the significant progress that women have made in educational attainment and occupational achievement, gendered conceptions of mothering and caring continue to frame social conceptions of schooling and the different roles and responsibilities assigned to parents in their child’s schooling (Parcel et al., 2016; Ridgeway, 2011).

Within the present study, these social expectations arguably contributed to the intrapersonal barriers that were generated by feelings of judgement from teachers and office staff, resulting in the isolation of non-residential parents and an accompanying sense of disempowerment. Unsurprisingly, it was clear that parents who performed their caregiving obligations in line with gendered expectations were happier with their school interactions. For example, mothers with majority care reported better experiences with the schooling system, while those with equal or minority care—women who could be perceived as breaking the social role of mother as primary caregiver—experienced additional barriers. Similar dissatisfaction was also noted by at least one father with sole custody, who explained that he was unable to nominate himself as the ‘main parent’ because the school had decided ‘this had to be a mother’. In this case, it is unclear whether this was a design feature of the school’s software or whether this was the belief or assumption of the staff member managing the information system. Nonetheless, this tension exposes pre-conceived gendered ideas about the roles of mothers and fathers, and exemplifies resultant impacts within broader systems and institutions, such as schools.

Interestingly, fathers with majority care were more satisfied overall with their school experiences, perhaps as they were seen to be ‘good’ parents who exceeded social expectations of a father’s role. Certainly, shared care parents, whether fathers or mothers, reported more unfavourable experiences with their children’s schools, perhaps as both groups are only partially meeting traditional caregiving expectations. These findings are reflected in recent research by Brown (2022), which reveals that regardless of class, race, or ethnicity, both partnered and unpartnered mothers assume greater responsibility for school decision making than fathers, especially with regard to the burdensome activity of school choice and the cognitive labour involved in the deliberative process. As Brown (2022, p. 5) reports, ‘Expectations that mothers become informed about schools, search for schools, and monitor their children’s wellbeing in schools extend traditional notions of caregiving in the home’. Similarly, Parcel et al.’s (2016) study of gender, emotional capital, and school choice further confirms that school selection is a gendered practice, with ‘mothers more sensitive to the challenges and difficulties of school assignments than fathers’ (p. 3) and with mothers ‘especially invested in school choice because they see it as their job to facilitate children’s learning’ (p. 16). Importantly, however, race and class may affect the extent to which mothers (and fathers) experience a disproportionate burden of emotional and cognitive labour regarding their children’s schooling, particularly when it concerns the process of school selection and admission (Brown, 2022; Parcel et al., 2016). While most research on school selection predominantly focusses on white middle-class families, an increasing number of studies recognise the presence of race and class differences in parent–school relations (Dow, 2019; Horvat et al., 2003; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021). Most of these studies, however, continue to focus on social or cultural differences between families rather than differences within the family unit (Brown, 2022).

Employing a feminist theoretical framework, then, requires recognition of how intersectional experiences might also explain the data. Intersectionality refers to one’s political and social identities (for example, gender, race, and class) and the ways in which these identities interact with systems of privilege and oppression (Goodley, 2014). Under this model, the researchers recognise that other individual factors (participant age, ability, ethnicity etc.) likely contribute to variations in the data. Intersectional variables may explain, for example, why shared parents reported more negative experiences with their children’s schools, particularly where domestic and family violence was also present. This is because identification with particular social identities is evidenced to contribute to unequal outcomes (Collins, 2019). As such, those who also identify as women, as having a disability or of a particular sexual orientation, may lack opportunities in unique ways, exacerbating negative experiences with the schooling system. However, the implementation of an equal care arrangement gives rise to an increased expectation that there is an equally sound relationship between both parents: one that will allow them to overcome intrapersonal and interpersonal barriers. Thus, the onus is on parents themselves to establish a set of shared expectations regarding not only what they choose to communicate, but when and how.

Communication barriers in parent–school interactions

Interpersonal barriers that impede effective communication between parents and schools was the most prominent issue identified in the data. These barriers include teachers communicating with one parent only; insensitive treatment from school staff; and the failure to adhere to court prescribed arrangements for a child’s care.

One recurring issue, which is established in educational literature (Bailey & Zvonkovic, 2003; Brown et al., 2010), is the failure to receive school communications, such as report cards, permission notes, and requests for parent–teacher interviews. These communication barriers become physical barriers when one parent is excluded from the communication and subsequently unable to attend an important school meeting or event. In these cases, there appeared to be, again, either a gender bias in operation or an intrapersonal barrier at play. Residential parents were often perceived to be in a more powerful position in school-related decision-making processes than non-residential parents, leaving the latter feeling disempowered in day-to-day decisions about their child’s education. In some cases, school communications were reportedly used by parents to manipulate the other parent into appearing irresponsible or even negligent. Power, then, was frequently ascribed to information access and to the provision of a strong communication pathway.

Thus, given that communication strategies can reduce or strengthen power differentials between separated parents, school leaders should pay closer attention to the importance of establishing clear and consistent communication protocols. In this study, communication barriers were often attributed to the provision of hard-copy communications only or to the limited functionality of the online systems used to manage student information (for example, OneSchool). Such systems often require the input of a single parent as the primary contact and thus do not have the capability to register shared care arrangements or other complex living scenarios. This limitation, in turn, leads to automated communications that are sent to one parent only, with the school taking the position that it is the parent’s responsibility to share information with the other. In this way, the school itself reinforces power differentials by solidifying physical and interpersonal barriers between parents, which may further entrench patterns of conflict between the parents, and even open the door to abuse.

Finally, the restrictive practice of registering primary contact information for one parent only may be problematic in emergency situations, such as when children fall ill or injure themselves. Indeed, a lack of communication around the child’s medical issues or special needs was particularly upsetting for parents. By extension, communication systems and student management software need to accommodate the often substantial care provided by a child’s step-parents. These imperatives are supported by a number of studies which demonstrate that entrenched assumptions of ‘nuclear’ two-parent families can negatively impact home-to-school communication and parent–school engagement more generally (Cox & Desforges, 2018; Kainz & Aikens, 2007; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). It is also important to note that the gendered imbalances in communication that were reported between the separated parents in this study may likewise extend to non-separated couples. Therefore, the need for gender equality in school-based communication—as supported by a tailored, targeted, and evidence-based strategy—underscores the broader importance of attending to the complexity of gendered values, expectations, and prescriptions in school–parent communications, exchanges, and interactions.

Conclusion

As the findings of this study demonstrate, separated parents report negative experiences and interactions with their children’s schools. This finding is of significant concern for Australian educators given the potential impact not only on parents but also on the educational outcomes of Australian children. If schools are to be committed to parent–school relationships, the experiences of separated parents, as a significant percentage of the school community, need to be addressed.

The gendered nature of parental experience suggests an underlying bias in the schooling system that requires further examination. Specifically, how social expectations of mothers and fathers affect the design, implementation, and operation of school support systems requires redress. This further extends to the underlying gendered ideologies that impact staff–parent communication and the provision of school-related information. Improved processes and additional training would enhance separated parents’ experiences of the schooling system. In particular, engaging all school staff (inclusive of office administrative staff and other relevant school personnel) in targeted training that is focussed on improving understanding of family complexities, gendered stereotypes, and parent perceptions and expectations, would be beneficial, especially in terms of heightening a felt sense of inclusivity and belonging.

Further, the significant impact of a lack of equal communication between the school and both of the child’s parents needs to be explored. Certainly, protocols should be established to ensure that effective communication pathways are in place. This is a complex and dynamic problem given the diversity of family structures, the increasing prevalence of family and domestic violence, and the need for interventions with legal directives and court involvement. However, even simple solutions, such as moving communication online, can have a significant impact on a parent’s sense of engagement. Thus, consideration needs to be given to situations in which a parent’s living arrangement or financial position limits their online access. A close examination and review of how student information is handled in student management systems is also necessary. Examination of the assumptions underlying online management systems may reveal why these systems often fail separated parents. Finally, the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility positions schools as gatekeepers with regard to information sharing, and positive and equitable communication. For parents to be able to meet their obligations as caregivers, both parents require access to school information. This will help ensure that informed decision making is shared between parents, and that school interactions are meaningful.

This research has established that separated parents’ experiences with the Australian schooling system require further exploration. To achieve a deeper understanding of specific experiences, a subset of survey respondents were interviewed. These in-depth interviews will be analysed in a future paper by the authors. The authors encourage other researchers to further explore separated parents’ experiences with the schooling system, and to contribute, where possible, in assisting schools and school leadership to better support separated parents. From this investigation, it is clear that there are other important areas for future endeavour, including the gendered nature of school/parent interactions; the improvement of communication pathways; the impact of family and domestic violence on separated parents’ school interactions; the advancement of the school’s understanding of complex family structures; and perhaps even the effect of separation on other family members’ involvement in children’s education, such as step-parents and grandparents.

Biographies

Renee Desmarchelier

is the Director of the Microcredential Unit at the University of Southern Queensland. She has a diverse academic background that spans Humanities, Education, and Science. Her research interests include microcredentialing in Higher Education and marginalisation in education specifically the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledges in Science Education, and the experiences of separated parents with the schooling system.

India Bryce

is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Southern Queensland and a specialist consultant in the field of child maltreatment, specialising in cumulative harm. Her books include Child Abuse and Neglect: Forensic Issues in Evidence, Impact, and Management (Elsevier 2019) and Child Sexual Abuse: Forensic Issues in Evidence, Impact, and Management (Elsevier 2020).

Krystal Schaffer

is a Lecturer in Social Work and Human Services in the School of Psychology and Wellbeing at the University of Southern Queensland. With over ten years of industry experience in child protection and domestic and family violence services, subsequent research interests concern childhood abuse and neglect and prevention of domestic and family violence. Recent book and chapter publications include Protecting and Promoting Client Rights (Elsevier, 2021); Reunification of intrafamilial child sex abusers (Elsevier, 2020), and Understanding multitudinous and collaborative investigate responses to child sexual abuse (Elsevier, 2020).

Jill Lawrence

is the Head of the School of Humanities and Communication at the University of Southern Queensland. Her research specialisations encompass contemporary communication contexts, including education and higher education contexts, cross-cultural transitions, and diversity and inclusion in learning and teaching. She has won national learning and teaching awards and participated in multiple research grants.

Kate Cantrell

is a Senior Lecturer in Writing, Editing, and Publishing at the University of Southern Queensland. Her research interests include contemporary accounts of wandering and narrative representations of illness, immobility, and displacement. Her short stories, poems, and essays appear in several magazines and journals, including Overland, Meanjin, Westerly, Queensland Review, Hecate, and others.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval provided by University of Southern Queensland (H19REA212).