Parents’, Teachers’ and Principals’ Views on Parental Involvement in Secondary Education Schools in Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study is based on a questionnaire previously developed and validated. No further triangulation approaches e.g. interviews are included. The outcomes are in line with literature expectations and are thus not surprising. But little is said on why the study is undertaken at this time and, although its intention is to ‘investigate’, in actual practice the study basically ‘reports’ on the situation based on questionnaire responses.
A concern is the reliability associated with such a small sample. Another concern is with the recommendations made in the conclusions, which go beyond reference to the sample and seem to apply to the Greek system as a whole. A further concern is the interrelating to the literature at a more specific level. The links tend to be at a general level and thus do not relate to the specific discussion aspect, associated with the questionnaire outcomes.
There are minor difficulties with the English such as a change of tense of the verb e.g. lines 76, 98, 140, 224. Also, on lines 139 and 144/5, it does not seem that the information is given in the form of a sentence.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: This study is based on a questionnaire previously developed and validated. No further triangulation approaches e.g. interviews are included. The outcomes are in line with literature expectations and are thus not surprising. But little is said on why the study is undertaken at this time and, although its intention is to ‘investigate’, in actual practice the study basically ‘reports’ on the situation based on questionnaire responses.
Response 1: We thank you for the constructive criticism. The manuscript was revised according to this comment and other comments of Reviewer 1. The introduction now supports the questions raised by the Reviewer, about the “why the study is undertaken at this time” (Lines 85-102) and on the value of having the views of each group is presented in the Discussion (Lines 293-297).
Point 2: A concern is the reliability associated with such a small sample. Another concern is with the recommendations made in the conclusions, which go beyond reference to the sample and seem to apply to the Greek system as a whole. A further concern is the interrelating to the literature at a more specific level. The links tend to be at a general level and thus do not relate to the specific discussion aspect, associated with the questionnaire outcomes
Response 2: We agree with the Reviewer about the need limitations of the present work. A paragraph that describes the limitations and the value of the present work is now included in the revised manuscript (Lines 288-297).
Point 3: There are minor difficulties with the English such as a change of tense of the verb e.g. lines 76, 98, 140, 224. Also, on lines 139 and 144/5, it does not seem that the information is given in the form of a sentence.
Response 3: We apologize and we corrected the mistakes in all these lines which now have been moved to different parts of the manuscript (highlighted with yellow colour)
Reviewer 2 Report
I enjoyed reading this piece. It seems to me to be well written and has identified an area that is of importance within the profession and that is clearly something that creates difference in opinion based on the role/background of the individuals involved. I think there are some issues that could further enhance the paper:
1) There is an assumption that by delineating the groups that these 'common' roles can be acknowledged as having enough similarity as to assume that they are therefore ultimately the same. However, with human actors this is often more complex and this is not really acknowledged in the paper and if clearly an issue for taking on quantitative design without the benefit of a qualitative element that would assist with this.
2) Which leads to an area that would further enhance the paper, an acknowledgement of the limitations of the paper. I think the author/s should acknowledge that as with any research there are limitations and to be more open about these. This is a limited geographic area, limited numbers and this may influence for example.
3) The style adopted with single line paragraphs makes for quite a fragmented almost bullet-point approach which I did not find helped the narrative flow. The synthesis of ideas which could be made is lost as a consequence. I would encourage you to develop this narrative more so that there is more of a flow to the argument and it is connected.
4) I think one area that is not acknowledged is the fact that there is a significant literature that suggests that policy has encouraged scrutiny on those within teaching and the 'professions' and that ultimately this has undermined the notion of professionalism. It argues that those outside (in this case parents) who have no education in the profession have increasingly been encouraged that they have 'rights' and this equates to questions about professional roles (medics, lawyers, educators and so on) and that this undermines the 'professionalism'. A key aspect of professionalism is autonomy to make decisions in complex situations. This, I would suggest, is exactly what the teachers/principals are defending when they suggest that parents should not have great influence in the educational aspects.
5) I was ultimately left wanting to know what it is/was your research was saying that was new, what the 'so what' was. If you could make this clearer for the reader then I think that would be really helpful.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: 1) There is an assumption that by delineating the groups that these 'common' roles can be acknowledged as having enough similarity as to assume that they are therefore ultimately the same. However, with human actors this is often more complex and this is not really acknowledged in the paper and if clearly an issue for taking on quantitative design without the benefit of a qualitative element that would assist with this.
Response 1: Wee agree with the Reviewer. New paragraphs are now included in the manuscript, which supports what the Reviewer suggested (Lines 26-34 & Lines 38-45). We do not argue against the benefits of a qualitative design but in this work, a quantitative design was used in order to have a larger sample size on this issue. Prompted by the comments of the Reviewer we revised the introduction (Lines 85-102) to support the need for the present work and we are grateful for this constructive criticism.
Point 2: Which leads to an area that would further enhance the paper, an acknowledgement of the limitations of the paper. I think the author/s should acknowledge that as with any research there are limitations and to be more open about these. This is a limited geographic area, limited numbers and this may influence for example.
Response 2: We agree with the Reviewer, the limitations of the present work (and the value of this work) are now described in the Discussion (Lines 288-297)
Point 3: The style adopted with single line paragraphs makes for quite a fragmented almost bullet-point approach which I did not find helped the narrative flow. The synthesis of ideas which could be made is lost as a consequence. I would encourage you to develop this narrative more so that there is more of a flow to the argument and it is connected.
Response 3: We apologize for the inconvenience and we are grateful for this suggestion. Indeed the flow of the text was not serving our manuscript. Several sections of the manuscript were rephrased and moved to different paragraphs and parts. All changes are now indicated with blue fonts. We believe the manuscript is now significantly improved and the flow of the text follows a logical sequence.
Point 4: I think one area that is not acknowledged is the fact that there is a significant literature that suggests that policy has encouraged scrutiny on those within teaching and the 'professions' and that ultimately this has undermined the notion of professionalism. It argues that those outside (in this case parents) who have no education in the profession have increasingly been encouraged that they have 'rights' and this equates to questions about professional roles (medics, lawyers, educators and so on) and that this undermines the 'professionalism'. A key aspect of professionalism is autonomy to make decisions in complex situations. This, I would suggest, is exactly what the teachers/principals are defending when they suggest that parents should not have great influence in the educational aspects.
Response 4: We agree, somehow we totally missed this in the previous version of our manuscript. This is an important issue, which is now covered in the introduction (lines 28-34).
Point 5: I was ultimately left wanting to know what it is/was your research was saying that was new, what the 'so what' was. If you could make this clearer for the reader then I think that would be really helpful.
Response 5: Wee agree with the Reviewer. The Discussion and Conclusions were revised. As a result of this comment and of the other comments and suggestions of the Reviewer, the entire manuscript was revised, which among other changes, resulted in significant changes in the Abstract (Lines 9-18) and the Conclusions (Lines 306-311) New sentences/paragraphs are now included in the manuscript, which supports what the Reviewer suggested (Lines 26-34 & Lines 38-45).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The additional text is much appreciated.
Two concerns still arise
- The lack of interrelationship between references in the introduction (international) and the references in the discussion section. It is noted that no reference above 35 is mention in the introduction whereas few references in the 1-30 range are mentioned in the discussion.
- There are still changes in the tense of the verb, especially where additional text has been included - examples see lines 105,179, 196, 202, 212, 219, 221-225, 230, 237, 240, 253, 254, 281, 284, 286, 288, 301 Also on line 86 'Despite what' is poor English. Also on line 170, the verb 'put' seems redundant.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments and suggestions, these are our responses to the points raised:
Point 1: The lack of interrelationship between references in the introduction (international) and the references in the discussion section. It is noted that no reference above 35 is mention in the introduction whereas few references in the 1-30 range are mentioned in the discussion.
Response 1: We have now balanced the distribution of references as suggested. This resulted in rearranging the numbering of the references, but it worth the effort as it helped us refer to support the link between the national and international research in this field. We took the opportunity to add a couple of new relevant and supporting references that came to our attention during the revision procedure.
Point 2: There are still changes in the tense of the verb, especially where additional text has been included - examples see lines 105,179, 196, 202, 212, 219, 221-225, 230, 237, 240, 253, 254, 281, 284, 286, 288, 301 Also on line 86 'Despite what' is poor English. Also on line 170, the verb 'put' seems redundant.
Response 2: We corrected the mistakes in all these lines which some have been moved to different parts of the manuscript (all are highlighted with yellow colour).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
