A child’s success at school doesn’t depend only on teachers and classrooms. Studies show that when parents engage with schools – by attending meetings, supporting learning at home and working with teachers – children tend to do better academically and socially.
In many African countries, fathers hold decision-making and financial authority within families. This gives them strong influence over children’s schooling.
But when a child has a disability – such as Down syndrome, epilepsy, autism or other conditions that significantly affect learning and daily functioning – a father’s involvement often shifts in complex ways.
Research from Kenya and other African settings shows that children with disabilities already face barriers to school access, continuity and support.
What is less well understood is how fathers engage with their education, and how ideas about masculinity, responsibility and disability shape that involvement.
Much of the existing research on parental involvement focuses mainly on mothers or treats parents as a single category. Fathers’ roles are often assumed rather than examined directly.
Our research set out to address this gap. My colleagues and I are education and disability researchers based in Kenya and South Africa. We looked at how a father’s involvement in the education of school-aged children with intellectual disabilities is constructed and negotiated in Kenya.
We studied a public special school at the coast that serves children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Like many such schools, it functions as a place of learning and a support hub for many low-income families navigating stigma, poverty and limited services.
We wanted to find out how fathers, mothers, teachers and learners themselves describe fathers’ roles, and what counts as involvement from their point of view.
The goal was to identify practical patterns: what a father’s involvement looks like in reality, what limits it and where opportunities exist to strengthen it. We found that many fathers see their main role in their child’s education as financial provision, such as paying school fees, rather than attending school meetings or events.
Social expectations also shape fathers’ visibility at school, with some avoiding engagement in spaces associated with intellectual disability. Work pressures in low-income settings further limit participation.
Our study also found that teachers’ assumptions about fathers’ disengagement can unintentionally reinforce their absence. However, when fathers do engage, their influence is often decisive because they are decision makers in many households.
Our findings challenge the assumption that fathers are simply absent or uninterested. They show instead that involvement often takes less visible forms that are shaped by economic pressures, social norms and school practices.
Recognising these patterns can help schools and policymakers design more effective ways to engage fathers and support children with intellectual disabilities.
The research
Our core evidence comes from case study research conducted in Kenya. Participants included fathers, mothers, teachers and learners with disabilities.
We collected data through individual interviews, focus group discussions and document reviews of school records and parent meeting notes. This allowed us to identify recurring patterns, not just individual opinions.
We extended the analysis by placing these findings within the broader Kenyan social and policy context of fatherhood, education and disability.
The findings cannot be assumed to represent all families. But they do reveal consistent mechanisms that likely operate in similar settings.
What to know about a father’s involvement
1. Many fathers see their main education role as financial provision
Across participants, one pattern was consistent: fathers strongly identified with the role of provider. Paying school fees, transport costs and buying uniforms and supplies was widely viewed – by fathers, mothers and teachers – as legitimate educational involvement.
Even when fathers rarely attended school meetings or events, they were still described as “involved” if they financed schooling. In contrast, mothers were expected to handle direct school contact and daily follow-up.
This means schools that define involvement only as physical presence may misread how the role of fathers is understood.
2. Masculinity norms shape how visible fathers are at school
Many teachers we spoke to linked the low attendance of fathers at school events to masculinity pressures. They suggested that some fathers avoided being publicly associated with a child with intellectual disability because disability was seen socially as weakness or imperfection that could damage male status.
Importantly, this interpretation came mostly from teachers. Fathers themselves framed their absence more often in terms of work and provider duties.
3. ‘Work demands’ are real – but also sometimes a shield
Fathers often explained non-attendance at meetings by pointing to unstable or casual labour conditions – missing a day’s work could mean losing income or even a job. In low-income settings, this constraint is credible.
But our research also found that fathers’ attendance was still low even when meetings were scheduled with advance notice or on weekends. Some teachers and mothers saw “work” as a socially acceptable explanation for fathers to protect their masculine identity.
Both readings can be true at once: economic pressure is real, and identity protection is also operating.
4. Teachers’ expectations can unintentionally push fathers away
Another finding is more uncomfortable for schools. Some teachers held strong prior beliefs that fathers of children with disabilities are uncaring or in denial. These assumptions shaped how, and how often, they contacted fathers.
Where teachers mainly communicated through mothers, fathers became even less engaged with the school. This confirms the original expectation.
5. When fathers are engaged, their influence is high
Where fathers did engage, their impact was often decisive. Their support accelerated school placement, fee payment and follow-through on school recommendations.
Teachers reported that when fathers backed a decision, implementation at home was easier. This suggests that increasing father engagement has practical effects on children’s educational stability.
What it means
The findings suggest that father involvement should be approached differently in disability education.
-
Schools should broaden what counts as involvement. Financial provision, decision support and consent are forms of engagement, even when fathers are not physically present. But schools should also create father-inclusive contact strategies. These include direct invitations, flexible meeting formats, and communication channels that do not rely only on mothers.
-
Teachers need to examine their own gender assumptions, so as to build relationships with fathers.
-
Policy messaging that links father involvement with protection, dignity and future stability may be more effective than messages around attendance.
-
Civil society organisations and family support programmes should design father-focused engagement spaces where men can discuss disability and schooling without stigma pressure.
It is too simple to label fathers as absent or resistant. In our study, fathers’ involvement was not missing – it was different.
