António José Rodrigues Rebelo

Thank you for sharing this thoughtful and deeply grounded perspective. Your long-standing advocacy for respectful school–family communication resonates strongly with the increasing need for nuanced, collaborative approaches to student behavior and well-being. I especially appreciate your emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the parent–child relationship while still upholding the school’s role in safeguarding student development.

The balance you describe—between preserving parental authority and ensuring educational responsibility—is a delicate yet essential one. Schools cannot overstep, nor can they remain passive. Your suggestion of using clear administrative reporting as a neutral starting point for dialogue is wise. It transforms potential confrontation into a space for shared understanding and co-construction of solutions.

What stands out in your approach is its layered lens: recognizing both the individual and collective dimensions of student issues. This dual focus allows educators to tailor interventions that are context-sensitive and holistic—addressing not just isolated behavior, but also the social dynamics that may be contributing to it.

In many educational settings, especially those struggling with overburdened systems or fractured trust between families and institutions, your model could serve as a blueprint. It honors both relational dignity and pedagogical accountability—qualities often overlooked in more reactionary approaches.

I would be very interested to hear how others across diverse contexts have implemented similar principles, and what challenges or successes they’ve encountered. Your work is a reminder that communication is not just a tool—it’s the pedagogy of partnership itself.

António José Rodrigues Rebelo

You raise a deeply important and often overlooked point about the interpretive nature of what young people share in different contexts. Indeed, the information a child brings home is filtered through emotional, cognitive, and social lenses, and often tailored—consciously or unconsciously—to suit expectations or avoid conflict. This does not imply dishonesty, but rather reflects the developmental process of identity formation and self-protection. It reinforces why schools must avoid over-relying on a single source of narrative when trying to understand and support a student.

Your concern about the structural limitation of class directors being the sole communication bridge is well-founded. While teachers hold a valuable pedagogical view, the psychological dimension—particularly when addressing emotional wellbeing, behavioral nuances, or social challenges—demands input from trained mental health professionals. School psychologists possess the expertise to contextualize a student’s behavior within broader frameworks, yet their contributions often remain marginal or reactive rather than proactive and pedagogically embedded.

Your call for institutional psychological consultancy to be woven into the fabric of education—at least once in each student’s academic journey—is both urgent and visionary. It would normalize psychological input as part of holistic learning, rather than relegating it to cases of crisis or diagnosis. Such a model could also help reframe school psychologists not as emergency responders, but as co-educators in human development.

Embedding this model would not only destigmatize psychological support but also elevate the quality of intervention across the board. It aligns with modern understandings of inclusive and student-centered education, where wellbeing and learning are not separate domains. Your persistent advocacy is not in vain—it lays critical groundwork for a future where care, insight, and pedagogy meet meaningfully.