National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education: Note this is an updated version of overheads for Wednesday's meeting

1. A presentation to the
National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education
February 29, 2012
,
Claudia L. Edwards, PhD
St John Fisher College
1

2. … it’s something… You’re going to vote if you see your parents
voting. If you saw your grandmother voting, your mother, your
father. You’re going to vote, you know? Hey, I’m going to
vote, too, because it’s a family tradition, or whatever you want to
call it. It’s passed down. But if your family isn’t used to, if you’re not
used to seeing your family voting, then you’re not going to go out
and vote either. A lot of black people don’t vote. Their grandparents
didn’t vote. Their mother didn’t vote. Their father didn’t vote, and I
don’t vote. I’m not trying to be funny…I don’t vote!
Excerpts from community focus group
2

3. Who Stole
Public Schools
from the Public?
A case study on
parent and
community
involvement
About the Research
3

4. Traditional Schools of Thought on Parent
involvement
 Research on “involvement” focused on “parents”–
Epstein; 2001; Sizer and Sizer (1999); Henderson and Mapp (2002)
 Creative and effective ways to connect parent/family
involvement efforts with student achievement
 Parents working with schools to improve the performance of
their own children’s education journey
 Parents as “consumers” of public education
4

5. What was in the literature on the public’s role in
school and parent/community involvement
Identified patterns of re-segregation taking place
in America creating apartheid schools in urban and
suburban municipalities (Orfield and Eaton, 1996;
Orfield, 2001; Orfield and Lee, 2004)
Research on building civic capacity as a strategy
for improving public schools--Examined the politics
of urban education (Stone, 1998; 2005)
Discussions on the importance of a fully engaged
public prepared to take greater responsibility for
holding officials and themselves accountable for
high performing schools (Puriefoy, 2005)
Documented historical evidence of the “first
Public” and how public engagement was a function
of American democracy (Mathews, 2006)
5

6. Turn in the Journey
Consulting project leads to new school-of-thought on
community/school relations
 Definition of key stakeholder groups for school administrators changed from
“parents and families” to the “entire public”
 Recognition of the public, including parents as “owners” versus
“consumers” of public schools
 New “buzz” word for school community relations shifted
“Parent and family involvement” to “public engagement”
6

7. Theoretical Framework
Empowerment theory
Freire, P. (2000)
Theory of civic capacity
Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., and Pierannunzi, C.
(2001)
Critical Race Theory
Bell (1985)
7

8. Research Question
What are the conditions under which a diverse citizenry can be brought
together around the aim of improving the performance of public schools in
the city of Mount Vernon
The study examined:
I. The extent to which there was a shared believe that public education
was of value to the people
II. Public perception of the major problems facing the District
III. The potential for building a coalition in support of public schools
IV. Barriers that would have to be overcome to build a diverse
coalition
8

9. Case Study of the “Public” in the City of
Mount Vernon
Method for Data Collection
In-depth Interviews
Individuals (78)
Focus Groups (5)
Observations
Review of Documents
9

10. Key Stakeholder Groups Interviewed
• Administrators • Elected Officials
•Principals •Appointed Officials
• Assistant Principals • Business Community
• Teachers
• Safety Officers
• School Nurses
Education General
specialists Influentials
Community
Community
Based
At-Large
Organizations
• Not for Profit • Youth
Organization • North Side Residents
• PTA/ PTA Councils • South Side Residents
• Clergy • Fleetwood Residents
10

11. Key Findings
 The public has a deep commitment to the institution of public
education
 The public is un aware that public belongs to the Public –18%
understood ownership
 A public ill-equipped for the important role of self-governance
 Public has little trust in the decision-making process for public
schools—60%
 Absence of school safety and the absence of leadership from all
sectors— two leading factors impeding education reform
11

12. Respondents’ Responses “How Do Things Get Done for Public
Education in Mount Vernon?” by Stakeholder Group
______________________________________________
Stakeholder Group
Specialist CBO CAL Influentials Total
Formal Process 6% 3% 6% 3% 17%
Behind Closed Doors 11% 19% 8% 8% 47%
Combination 10% 6% 7% 6% 28%
Things Don’t Get Done 3% 0% 4% 1% 8%
Total 29% 28% 25% 18% 100%

13. Respondents’ Responses “Is that a good thing?”—A Follow-up
Question to “How Do Things Get Done for Public Education in
Mount Vernon?” by Stakeholder Group
______________________________________________
Stakeholder Group
Specialist CBO CAL Influentials Total
No 13% 19% 23% 4% 60%
Yes 11% 9% 2% 4% 26%
Sometimes 4% 6% 0% 4% 15%
Neutral 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 28% 34% 26% 13% 100%

14. Key Findings on Major Causes for Disenfranchisement
 Misguided attempts on the part of school board officials to
manage a broken system versus overseeing systemic change
 Public unaware of its role as owners of public schools
 Public unprepared and ill-equipped to take its place as
owners of public schools
 Public prioritizes loyalty over accountability—an
unwillingness to hold its elected and appointed officials
accountable
 Abandonment of the middle class
14

15. Signs of a “Public” Ready to Act
____________________________________
Examples:
• Research findings show 92% of respondents saw value in a
citywide effort in support of higher achieving schools
• Signs of increased civic capacity
• The establishment of a citywide coalition in support of public
schools
15

16. 16