1. Handbook on
Family and
Community
Engagement
Sam Redding, Marilyn Murphy, & Pam Sheley, Editors
www.families-schools.org
2. The Handbook on Family and Community Engagement was created with funding and support from the U.S.
www.centerii.org
www.families-schools.org
3. Handbook on
Family and Community Engagement
Sam Redding, Marilyn Murphy, & Pamela Sheley, Editors
4. Acknowledgements
The editors acknowledge the support and guidance provided us by the U.S.
Department of Education, especially Carl Harris, Patricia McKee, Gary Rutkin, Danita
Woodley, and Fran Walter, for the creation of this Handbook. The timely and competent
editing by Robert Sullivan, Lori Thomas, and Stephen Page resulted in a published
version worthy of the expert contributions of the authors. Especially, the editors shower
their appreciation on the authors, all scholars of high merit devoted to families, schools,
and communities and cheerful in meeting the project’s expectations and deadlines.
5. Foreword
-
-
rience reveal promising organizational structures and professional practices. Always, family and
-
relationships among school personnel, families, and community members remains a vision not entirely
achieved. Our hope is that this Handbook will bring us closer to the realization of that vision.
Our desire in preparing this Handbook was to bring together the best minds on the various topics
related to family and community engagement and produce a guidebook that is solid in its research
parents, teachers, and the children they hold in their care.
This Handbook is intended to provide educators, community leaders, and parents with a succinct
survey of the best research and practice accumulated over the years. More important, the Handbook
Handbook
our youth and wise in their understanding that schools cannot provide that opportunity alone.
iii
7. Table of Contents
Forew rd ................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Sam Redding
...........................................................................................................................................................
Helen Westmoreland
Part I: Framing the Discussion
...................................................................
Oliver C. Moles, Jr. & Arnold F. Fege
..........................................................................
Sam Redding
.........................................................................................................
Heather Weiss & M. Elena Lopez
...................................
Lauren Morando Rhim
...................
Amy Mart, Linda Dusenbury, & Roger P. Weissberg
.........................................................................
Marty Blank
Part II: Families and Learning
..........................................................................
William Jeynes
William Jeynes .............................................................................................................. 60
.........................................................................................................................
Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey
.......................................................................................................................................
Herbert J. Walberg
e Marilyn Murphy ........................................................................................................... 5
................................................................................................................................
Lee Shumow
Lee Shumow ........................................................................................................................ 80
................................................................................................................................
Holly Kreider
Georganne Morin & Holly Kreider .................................................................................. 85
............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................. 91
..............................................................................................................................
Mary R. Waters & John Mark Williams
v
8. Part III: Families and Schools
..............................................................................................................................
Steven B. Sheldon
...............................................................................................................................................
Anne T. Henderson & Sam Redding
.......................
..........................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................. 116
..........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
Susan J. Paik
...
Ronald Taylor
Sam Redding ....................................................................................................................... 129
.....................................................
Eva Patrikakou
Lori G. Thomas ................................................................................................................... 135
.....................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................... 141
Mavis Sanders
....................................................................................
Brian R. Beabout & Lindsey B. Jakiel
..................................................................................................................
............................................................................................
Pamela Sheley
Pamela Sheley .................................................................................................................. 161
........................................................................................................................
Sam Redding
..............................................................................................................................................
vi
9. A key takeaway from these chapters is
that there is a need for schools to create
collaborative and coordinated systems for
family and community engagement.
Helen Westmoreland
10. FACE Handbook
T
his Handbook
Handbook
Handbook
Handbook
Handbook Handbook
x
11. Handbook
Handbook
Handbook
Handbook is also a
Handbook
Handbook
This Handbook
Handbook
xi
15. The one historical constant is the research
and practice links between low-income families
engaging with their school, which leads to higher
student achievement, greater social and political
capital for families, and empowerment to demand
high achieving education.
Oliver C. Moles, Jr. and Arnold F. Fege
1
17. Moles & Fege
S
ince the passage of the Elementary children’s home learning activities, communi-
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
in 1965, parent involvement (which parent meetings and educational workshops,
has been expanded to include family helping to write school policies, organizing to
engagement) has been recognized to be a
component of social justice, equity, and qual- decisions about the education of one’s child
including choice of schools. The term parent
component of ESEA and federal policy. For involvement is being supplanted today by
instance, the original ESEA Title I did not con- family engagement in recognition that grand-
tain any parental involvement provisions, but parents and other family members may also
was fundamentally a school-based bill designed be responsible for the care and upbringing of
children. Family engagement also suggests a
school districts and to advance integration. Over deeper level of commitment and participation
the years and through seven reauthorizations, than involvement.
parental involvement has taken on many shapes
and forms, from collective organizing, decision
making, and training parents in working with
their children, to promoting parental choice. Although the original law contained no men-
What lessons can be drawn from the 40-year tion of parental involvement, it did become a
history of Title I parental involvement that
might inform policy in the current educational debate on ESEA. Senator Robert F. Kennedy
and political debates and might guide schools (D-NY), member of the Senate Education Com-
and districts in their current practices? The one
historical constant is the research and practice
links between low-income families engaging parental involvement, thereby raising some
with their schools, which leads to higher student
achievement, greater social and political capi- between instructional quality, assessment data,
tal for families, and empowerment to demand and low-income parents using that information
high achieving education (Bryk, Sebring, Allen- to demand improved public schools. Kennedy
sworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Gold, Simon, was relentless in his belief that poor parents had
& Brown, 2002; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Nye, a right to decision making in those institutions,
Turner, & Schwartz, 2006). such as public schools, that are designed to serve
them and their children, and that the federal
On the other hand, many low-income parents government had a role to play in assuring that
send their children to schools which generally local school districts provided that opportunity.
have the lowest levels of student achievement
and the highest levels of families who feel parents holding schools accountable as a vital
disengaged from meaningful involvement and political force in “watch dogging,” Title I funds
participation. In this chapter, we review major would not reach the classroom (Fege, 2006; Hal-
provisions concerning parent involvement since
the inception of the Title I program and weigh 1965).
family engagement. We conclude with the need The 1970s were known as the decade of “par-
for strong federal involvement advocating for ents as advisors,” strengthening both the role
rights of low-income Title I parents. The fol- and power of Title I parents. From the federal
lowing brief account of the evolution of family perspective, the involvement of parents aimed
engagement requirements in the federal Title to: (1) make the services delivered to the poor
I program draws on recent reviews of these more responsive to their needs; and (2) integrate
requirements (Fege, 2006; Moles, 2010a).
into community life consistent with other pro-
Parent involvement can refer to a wide array grams constituting the War on Poverty and
of activities in the home and in collaboration hold schools accountable (Davies et al., 1979). In
with the school. These may include helping with
5
18. FACE Handbook
1974, P.L. 93-380, the Elementary and Second- the repeal of the 1978 provisions led districts to
ary Amendments of 1974, was passed along abolish both district- and school-based parent
with regulations requiring all school districts to advisory councils. A 1985 Congressional report
establish parent advisory councils (PACs) before concluded that “Chapter 1’s weaker parental
45 C.F.R., 116.17(o)). In 1978, P.L. 95-561, the on parent involvement,” and concluded “that to
1978 ESEA Amendments, was passed, creating the extent that PACs mobilize parents and politi-
the most far-reaching and comprehensive of cal action, that may be a good thing—it can lead
any of the Title I mandates related to parental to healthy democracy on the local level” (House
involvement.
Under the 1978 Amendments, local education Labor, 1985). The PACs were also perceived to
agencies were required to involve the PACs in be the gateway in requiring school districts to
Title I program planning and implementation to:
1997), although they were also seen to promote
assure the PAC’s composition was repre- parent factions where parents tried to protect
sentative of Title I parents, their own programs and funding (Mizell, 1979).
assure that PACs had the information
needed to make decisions and recom-
mend programs to be addressed under
Title I,
give parents information in their native It was apparent that local school administra-
languages, tors and school boards would oppose any new
evaluate parent and instructional Title I mandates that would create an alternative
programs, parental power structure such as the PACs; but
on the other hand, groups such as the National
develop procedures to address parent
Title I/Chapter 1 Parents Coalition, Children’s
complaints and grievances,
Defense Fund, National PTA, and the Center for
provide funding to the PACs, Law and Education were pushing to reinstitute
provide parents the opportunity to the parental involvement language lost in the
approve or veto district Title I plan 1981 reauthorization. What emerged in the 1988
applications, and
consider developing parent resource cen- were “requirements” that LEAs develop policies
that ensured parental involvement in planning,
learning. design, and implementation of Title I programs,
provide timely information to parents about the
program, and provide parent information in a
language and format they could understand.
They were also encouraged to develop resource
brought in by the new president, Ronald Reagan,
- learning (D’Agostino, Hedges, Wong, & Borman,
ing the 1978 Amendments were too prescriptive
stripped the mandated parent involvement
the states and local school districts to determine The term parent involvement is
how they wished to involve parents. As a result, being supplanted today by family
ESEA was replaced with P.L. 97-35, the Educa-
tion Consolidation and Improvement Act, and
engagement in recognition that
Title I became Chapter 1 (Sunderman, 2009). The grandparents and other family
parent involvement language was reduced to members may also be responsible
a single requirement that schools and districts for the care and upbringing of
hold an annual meeting of Title I parents to
inform them about the program. In most cases, children.
6
19. Moles & Fege
2001). However, the provisions lacked systemic provide materials and training to help parents
monitoring and enforcement. These provisions improve student achievement and training for
organizing and advocacy toward strategies of parents as equal partners.
individual parents working with their children
at home. as NCLB (Public Law 107-110, 2002), continued
The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, these requirements and strengthened them in
known as IASA, P.L 103-382, was a signature
reauthorization—it accelerated the change in
ESEA and Title I from a civil rights and anti- essence is “the participation of parents in regu-
poverty bill to one that assumed that poverty lar, two-way, and meaningful communication
- involving student academic learning and other
ity of parents and schools to develop social school activities,” including the idea that par-
capital and began the laser focus on standards ents play a key role in helping children learn
aligned with assessments, consequences for and act as full partners in their child’s education
schools that did not meet state expectations, (P.L. 107-110, 2002, p. 1962). All of these ways
of communicating, sharing responsibility, and
2007). IASA continued the 1988 provisions for fostering mutual respect are essential building
parent involvement in Section 1118 and added blocks of successful partnerships, but dependent
several important new provisions for funding on the leadership, skills, and will of the state and
and program development which continue to local education agencies. Yet once again, without
the present day. School districts receiving over deep monitoring and enforcement provisions,
$500,000 yearly in Title I funds must now reserve parents had no recourse if school districts did
at least 1% of these funds for activities to involve not implement Section 1118. In essence, they
parents. Each school is also required to develop were armed with legislation and information,
with parents a school–parent compact describ- but at the mercy of local school districts for
ing the school’s responsibilities for providing implementation.
high-quality curriculum and instruction, the par- For parents, NCLB also added new roles
ents’ responsibilities for supporting children’s and opportunities. Parents now have choices
learning, and the continuing school–home com- if their children are in a “failing school” and
munication needed to achieve high standards. information to help them make choices. Annual
By 1998, compacts were used in 75% of Title I school report cards, either sent to parents or
schools, and most of these schools reported that posted on websites, must show several things:
parent involvement was strengthened by the student performance on state assessments by
compacts (D’Agostino et al., 2001) although their subgroups in each school and district in Grades
long-term impact was more questionable (Funk- 1
,
houser, Stief, & Allen, 1998). The prevalence of 1
In December 2010, Congress enacted a provision which
compacts today is not known.
In addition, schools are also required to
develop with parents a parent involvement plan
overturned a 9th Circuit Court decision brought by parents
and to make the plan available to the parents of (Renee v. Duncan, 2010) by adding to NCLB a regulation
participating children. Such a plan must include that had been struck down by the 9th Circuit Court. The
the input of parents in shaping school-level poli- regulation allows states to describe teachers as “highly
cies, shared responsibility for bolstering student
cases, just beginning training—in alternative route pro-
performance, and build more capacity for parent
grams. NCLB gives parents the right to know when their
involvement. As part of this, schools must hold a
meeting each year for Title I parents in which the and who has not completed training. But by labeling
school explains the program and gives parents
information on the school’s progress toward
meeting the performance standards of their
state. Schools and districts are also required to
7
20. FACE Handbook
and graduation and retention rates for second-
ary schools. If the school is failing—lacking about their options, school and district poli-
cies on parent involvement were inadequate
years—parents must be given an explanation, be and poorly disseminated, and parents were
given an account of how the school is working to not included in the development and review of
remedy the problems, be “consulted” about the school improvement plans. For a state by state
plan, and be given information on how parents evaluation, see the U.S. Department of Education
can help address these academic issues. Parents Student Achievement and School Accountability
may choose to transfer their children to another
public school without having to pay transporta-
tion costs. If a school is failing for a third year, its
students are eligible to receive free supplemen- A major component was added to the 1994
ESEA Amendments, the Parental Information
hours. Districts are charged to conduct evalua- and Resource Centers (PIRCs). Each state has
one or more PIRCs. Their overall purposes are to
policies for parent involvement each year. States help implement parent involvement policies and
are required to review these district policies and programs for improving children’s achievement,
practices. to strengthen partnerships between parents and
During the Bush Administration, the U.S. educators, to further Title I children’s develop-
Department of Education focused its dissemi- ment, and to coordinate with Title I and other
nation and monitoring work on parent choices initiatives for parent involvement under NCLB.
Training and support have gone to parents of
of Title I. Many channels were used to inform children from birth through high school and to
school systems and parents about these options, persons and groups that work with them. At
least half of each project’s funds must be used
FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report, to assist low-income families. The PIRCs are
during the school year 2006–2007 only 14.5% of also expected to help parents understand the
eligible students across the nation received sup- accountability systems under Title I and parental
plemental educational services, and a tiny 2.2% options.
chose another school (U.S. Department of Edu- A very large number of parents and families
cation, 2008). Apparently, many parents were have been served since the program’s incep-
simply unaware of their options, school districts tion. In 2008–2009, large majorities of educators
did not adequately communicate the informa- who received PIRC services reported changing
tion, quality choices or SES programs were not their practices on family engagement, as did
available, or parents chose not to exercise the majorities of families on supporting children’s
options. Satisfaction with their child’s school learning. Sixty percent of Title I schools and
and its location were the principal reasons par- 73% of Title I school districts reported receiving
ents chose not to transfer their child. The most PIRC services (National Coalition of Parental
common reasons for not seeking supplemental Information and Resource Centers, 2010). (Note:
education services were the parents’ sense that The PIRCs will no longer receive federal funding
their child did not need help, and tutoring times
were not convenient for families (Vernez et al.,
-
ation work on non-choice aspects of parent
involvement during the Bush years, in contrast The history and evolution of parental involve-
to the 1990s (Moles, 2010a). ment in ESEA Title I, along with the emerging
research and best practices, inform us about
Federal monitoring of activities under Title
some fundamental next steps. Recall that NCLB
I is conducted in each state every few years as
and meaningful communication to enhance stu-
monitoring regarding parent involvement and
dent academic learning. Where such interaction
parent options paint a discouraging picture.
8
21. Moles & Fege
engagement where parents can build social and
and support can more easily develop a shared political capital (Appleseed, 2007; Crew, 2007;
vision linking public education, parents, com- Noguera & Wells, 2011).
munity, and policymakers. Working together,
Collective action and a shared vision. We
there are elements integral in undergirding the
learned from the PACs that organizing parents
next phase of ESEA to assure that every child
is an important function for school account-
has a quality public education. Besides overall
ability and collective action, but parents should
reform strategies, we also discuss some school-
organize around a shared vision such as increas-
based reforms. These elements include:
ing the number of children ready for college or
1. Importance of a federal role providing a quality education for all children,
2. Collective action and organizing by
families with a shared vision toward and divide parents. Whether Title I, English as
demanding quality education for all a Second Language (ESL), or special education,
children among other programs, the school and parent
3. Promoting school capacity building and visions should be aligned and a learning cul-
redesign of the “factory model school” ture developed where educators and parents
4. Local parent information and resource
advocating for all children, as well as their own.
centers
Family engagement should not be an add-on or
5. Promoting school turnaround over paren- a program but should be interwoven throughout
tal choice the school—its instructional program, planning
6. Strengthening of the school–parent and management, and other aspects of school
compacts life so that schools are places of connection
7. and the center of the community. As families
with parents gain knowledge about what constitutes a high-
8. Ongoing personal communication achieving school, they will also feel ownership
9. Home learning to build a culture of over advocating for change. Building on what
learning UCLA professor and co-director of the Civil
Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles Patri-
10. Community coordination and support
cia Gándara calls “cultural capital,” known as
11. Research for program improvement “bienes culturales” in Spanish (Gándara, 2008),
The federal role. Federal policy can and the parents connect with the school, not because
they are in competition with other parents, but
encouraging innovations, monitoring and because coming together strengthens the aca-
enforcing parental provisions such as Section demic opportunities for children (Bryk et al.,
1118, conducting ongoing and systemic research, 2010; Clarke, Hero, Sidney, Fraga, & Erlichson,
and providing incentives for states and LEAs
to respond to the needs of low-income parents Paredes, 2011).
and communities. There are still too many School capacity building. This next phase
schools that shut parents and the community of family engagement work should focus on
out of meaningful participation, and volun- implementation and building school capac-
tary strategies by themselves seem not to work ity in responding to the needs of low-income
without federal pressure. Family engagement parents. The current factory model school was
not designed for partnership, involvement, or
more legitimate part of mainstream education did not value the input or participation of the
policy, both from a democratic perspective and citizen/consumer. In many cases, educators, par-
as instrumental to school improvement where ents, and the community have limited expertise
school districts blend individual parental activi- and skills in knowing how to partner with each
ties in working with their children to collective other; do not possess the necessary understand-
ing of the cultural, racial, gender, and ethnic
9
22. FACE Handbook
devote any substantial time to helping educa-
middle class parent involvement; and educa- tors prepare to work with parents beyond early
tors and parents are not equipped to execute the childhood and special education (MetLife, 2006).
federal and state parental involvement require- Many teachers have negative views of parents
ments. Schools need to help families build their and underestimate the importance of family
knowledge and capacity and then help them to engagement. Yet strong parent–teacher relation-
act using these new-found skills which result in ships are linked to various positive outcomes
change (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991; Trotman, 2001). for students. Skills and practices like welcom-
ing partnerships with families, building on
Local parent information and resource cen-
family strengths, and positive communications
ters. As counterparts of the state-level PIRCs,
can be folded into systems of training (Caspe,
school districts can take added steps to bolster
Lopez, Chu, & Weiss, 2010). The diverse stu-
parent and educator collaboration for student
dents and families of the 21st century challenge
learning. Besides informing parents of school
the competencies of educators and call for new
policies and activities as is commonly done,
contexts such as those in some emerging pro-
educators to joint action. Exemplary PIRCs have
assessed local needs regarding parent involve-
ment, trained parent liaisons, trained parents for Ongoing personal communication. One key
leadership, and trained parents and educators to to meaningful family engagement is personal
work as teams (U.S. Department of Education, communication. Partnerships are built on close
2007). collaboration and interaction. Continued two-
way contacts in person or by phone allow for the
Parent choice. Parental choice options may not
free exchange of ideas that is a basis of part-
-
nerships. Early home contacts by phone or in
person send a message that all parents and their
options, very few parents have chosen to move
children are welcome and important. Annual
their children out of “failing schools.” The strong
parent–teacher conferences, encouraged under
pull of local schools suggests that parents will
ESEA, can be more productive when teachers
be engaged more productively in ways they can
urge parents to bring questions and follow-
help strengthen existing schools. Advisory and
up plans are made and when teachers engage
policy making bodies concerning schoolwide
families in understanding data and the course
issues with broad parent participation would
work required to access college or a career. This
seem the more appropriate move. requires more than the usual two parent–teacher
School–parent compacts. The school–parent meetings per year, but rather reinforces the
compacts should be strengthened and imple- need for continuous communications to under-
mented. These agreements are appealing in
principle, and states have provided compre- conferences, contacts with those who miss them
hensive compact models for their schools. An can open communication with them early in
example of recommendations for constructing the school year. Finally, school meetings with
and using compacts can be found at ncpie.org/ parents should allow ample time for questions
nclbaction/SchoolParent_Compact.pdf. While and comments to promote personal communica-
widely used, compacts rely on voluntary agree- tion. All these modes of communication can be
ments from parents and educators without any -
necessary follow-up or implementation plan.
Compacts could become the starting point of (Clarke et al., 2011; Davies, 1988; Gándara, 2008;
discussions in creating compacts add to their 2010; Xu & Filler, 2008).
potential for action. Home learning. Connecting the home and
Focus on training school the school in a culture of learning not only
enhances the skills of students and parents, but
Few colleges of education or school districts
10
23. Moles & Fege
also positive relationships between the parent of parents or educators served, information is
and teacher. Material and training for parents, as needed on knowledge and skills gained by them
ESEA requires, could be strengthened especially
when coupled with strong two-way communica- data on participation in programs and com-
tion, but in formats and languages that parents parison with matched non-participating groups
make a much stronger case than one-time infor-
part of a continuing program, home learning mation on participants alone. Where possible,
activities can be a potent source of change. Field
experiments over many years bear this out (Nye,
Turner, & Schwartz, 2006). Another study exam- or program.
in 71 Title I schools; making early and continu-
ing phone contact with families regardless of If we have learned anything from the rocky
student progress and sending home learning past of Title I parental involvement, it is that
activities on a regular basis was more important
than a number of other school reforms in schools the essential partnership of the family in the
with strong improvement (U.S. Department of academic as well as the developmental success
Education, 2001). A testable framework based on of low-income children. Many communities
this strategy has been developed (Moles, 2010b). and school districts are already engaged in this
Community coordination and support.
Schools and families need the support of and and empowering parents—all parents—in their
coordination with their community. Parental children’s education lies ahead.
involvement alone is inadequate to improve the Parents are not and should not be part of the
- school bureaucracy. However, school leaders
bers must also be involved in and responsible have a major role to play in enabling low-income
for providing resources and funding, support parents to work with schools as engaged part-
services, parental assistance, political pressure, ners, to provide individual support for their
and accountability. It is not fair to ask parents children, and to build the social and politi-
by themselves to be the only entity that holds cal capital they need to demand change and
schools accountable, and community-based improvement where it is not forthcoming. This
organizations should be part of the capacity- requires building district capacity, teacher and
building process noted above (Adelman & administrator professional development, com-
Taylor, 2009; Cibulka & Kritek, 1996; Kugler, munity involvement, funding, communications,
2002; Public Education Network, 2001). mobilization, and parental decision making—all
Research for program improvement. Devel- part of a coordinated policy in developing a
oping and supporting a research-based family whole child. To do this, the whole child needs
engagement framework is essential to deter- the whole school, the whole family, and the
mine when programs are working and how to whole community working in collaboration.
improve them. Besides counts and percentages Experience over the years has demonstrated
that, without a federal framework, low-income
parents frequently do not receive the kind of
the seamless link and connection between the
Connecting the home and the family and the teacher, and between the home
school in a culture of learning -
not only enhances the skills of S. Paul Reville conclude that “in polite education
students and parents, but also
positive relationships between other non-school factors is met with impatience,
resigned shrugs, or a weary rolling of the eyes.
the parent and teacher. … (but) the vision of future education reform is
11
24. FACE Handbook
simple: American schools won’t achieve unless R. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at
the crossroads -
Reville, 2011). rence Erlbaum Associates.
Reauthorization of ESEA, then, needs to Davies, D. (1988, Spring). Low-income parents and
the schools: A research report and a plan for
visualize a much broader concept of education
action. Equity and Choice 4
to move beyond “schooling” and into areas of
child development and parent empowerment.
Educators and parents should be partners in B., & Zerchkov, B. (1979). Federal and state impact
on citizen participation in the schools. Citizen Action
this process, not adversaries. Whether school
in Education. Boston, MA: Institute for Respon-
improvement, turnaround schools, parental sive Education.
choice, or schoolwide Title I, integrating parent
involvement strategies and parent voices as Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in the
schools: A process of empowerment. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
should be a core element of reform, and not one
that is marginalized.
and school leaders for school–family partner-
Promising practic-
es for connecting families with schools (pp. 129–150).
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2009). Schools and their
communities: Common purpose in remaking the
nation. Fege, A. F. (2006). -
edu/whatsnew/announcement(1-22-09).pdf cation: Forty-two years of building the demand for
quality public schools through parental and public in-
Appleseed. (2007). It takes a parent: Transformation edu-
volvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational
Washing-
Review.
ton, DC: Author.
Lessons
Bryk, A. S. (1997). Democratic localism: A lever for insti-
tutional renewal. Los Angeles, CA: Westview Press.
in America’s schools -
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, A., Luppescu, sity of Virginia Press.
Organizing schools for
Title I
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL:
school–parent compacts: Supporting partnerships to
University of Chicago Press.
improve learning. Washington, DC: Policy Studies
Caspe, M., Lopez, M., Chu, A., & Weiss, H. (2011). Associates.
Teaching the teachers: Preparing educators to engage
Gándara, P. (2008). The crisis in the education of Latino
families for student achievement. (Issue Brief). Cam-
students. Washington, DC: Civil Rights Project/
bridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project and
Proyecto Derechos Civilies, University of Califor-
Alexandria, VA: National PTA.
nia-Los Angeles, NEA Research Series.
Coordination
Gold, E., Simon, E., & Brown, C. (2002). Strong
among schools, families, and communities. Albany,
neighborhoods, strong schools: The indicators project
NY: State University of New York Press.
on education organizing. Chicago, IL: Cross City
Clarke, S. E., Hero, R. E., Sidney, M. S., Fraga, L., & Campaign for Urban School Reform.
Erlichson, B. A. (2011). Multiethnic moments: The
The relationship of school structure and
politics of urban education reform. Philadelphia, PA:
social environment to parent involvement in elemen-
Temple University Press.
tary schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Edu-
Halperin, S. (1978, September 9). ESEA: Five years
cation and Urban Society, 16, 323–337.
later. Congressional Record, pp. 8492–8494.
Crew, R. (2007). Only connect: The way to save our
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave
schools. New York, NY: Sarah Crichton Books.
of evidence: The impact of school, family, and commu-
nity connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
Borman, G. D. (2001). Title I parent-involvement Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
-
12
25. Moles & Fege
- Renee v. Duncan, 623 F.3d 787 (2010), No. 08-16661.
tention will return to non-school factors. Educa- United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
tion Week. -
-
ary and Vocation Education. (1985). Congress, 89th Congress, 1st Session. (1965). Hear-
changes under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolida- ings on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
tion and Improvement Act. .
Kugler, E. G. (2002). Debunking the middle-class myth: Sunderman, G. L. (2009). The federal role in educa-
Why diverse schools are good for all kids. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Education. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School
MetLife, Inc. (2006). The MetLife survey of the American Reform, Voice of Urban Education (VUE).
teacher: A survey of teachers, principals, and leaders of New
college education programs. New York, NY: Author. visions for public schools: Using data to engage fami-
Mizell, M. H. (1979). Maintaining parent interest in lies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Title I parent advisory councils. Project.
11(2), 81–87. Trotman, M. F. (2001). Involving the African Ameri-
Moles, O. (2010a). Family involvement in federal can parent: Recommendations to increase the
level of parent involvement within the African
Michael (Ed.), Promising practices to support family American families. ,
involvement in schools 275–285.
Information Age. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Engaging par-
Moles, O. (2010b). Parent outreach that can increase stu- -
dent achievement. Unpublished manuscript. tion and resource centers.
www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/parents/parentin-
Montemayor, A. M. (2011). School and community volve/index.html
capacity building for collaboration. San Antonio, TX:
Intercultural Development Research Association
Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and
- Program Studies Service. (2008). State and local
gies/School_and_Community_Capacity_Build-
ing_for_Collaboration/ Volume IV - Title I school choice and Supplemental
Educational Services: Interim report. Washington,
National Coalition of Parental Information and DC: Author.
Resource Centers. (2010). Great families mean great
. Washington,
DC: Author. C., & Gill, B. (2009). State and local implementation
Noguera, P. A., & Wells, L. (2011). The politics of school choice and Supplemental Education Services:
school reform: A broader and bolder approach for Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Newark. (1), 5–25.
The and Policy Development. Retrieved from www.
academic performance of elementary school children: -
A systematic review. Campbell Collaboration ment and support for inclusive education. School
Reviews of Interventions and Policy Evaluations (2), 53–71. Retrieved from
-
collaboration.org/review_list/index.php
Paredes, Maria, C. (2011). Parent involvement as an
instructional strategy: No more waiting for Superman.
New York, NY: Teachers College Record.
Public Education Network. (2001). Communities at
work: A guidebook of strategic interventions for com-
munity change. Washington, DC: Author.
13
27. Strong school communities engender strong
students. The school community’s purpose
is to ensure that each student acquires
the knowledge, skills, habits, and attitudes
necessary for success in school and in life.
The School Community:
Working Together for Student Success
Sam Redding
Chapter 2
28. FACE Handbook
S
trong school communities engender -
strong students. The school commu-
nity’s purpose is to ensure that each
student acquires the knowledge, skills,
that their students succeed;
student success is bolstered when par-
That requires many people working together. school community work in unison on
The work includes that done by the student and
-
establishing and nurturing the processes
Academic, personal, social, and emotional and practices necessary to intentionally
strengthen the school community.
- In short, a school community rests upon
- mutual respect, strong relationships, shared
kakou, Weissberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005;
Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). The academic, personal, social, and emotional learn-
school directly impacts the student’s learning, as a community
rather than in a community, its constituents asso-
community.
-
-
relationships among the people in that student’s
school. Especially, we are
-
demic, personal, social, and emotional learning that cement their relationships to one another.
Their discrete but symbiotic roles rest upon this
each
student’s success.
A school community is built and continuously
intimately associated with a school—students,
1. Leadership that is shared among its
members.
2. Goals and Roles that guide its members
parents, the students are their own children; and
learning and in their relationships to one
another.
-
matically within a school, but is intentionally In short, a school community
rests upon mutual respect, strong
and honored, and by ensuring that all are con- relationships, shared responsibility,
nected and focused attention to students’
academic, personal, social, and
2007). A school community is premised upon the
emotional learning.
16
29. Redding
3. Communication among its members that Goals and Roles
their roles and responsibilities.
4. Education academic, personal, social, and emotional learn-
responsibilities.
5. Connections among its members that the goals in mind, we can then consider the goal-
enhance their personal relationships,
strengthen their bonds to one another and
In the academic realm, teachers carry a broad
-
6. Continuous Improvement because a eration to the areas in which the home and the
“built.” It is always building its capacity
-
-
Shared Leadership
A school community is organized to make students’ ability to master content and manage
-
decision-making bodies such as a Leadership disciplined study at home.
-
leaders—and teacher Instructional Teams. A
ment, including social and emotional learning,
parent or parent–teacher organization sponsors
-
Community Council to this structure introduces
-
-
each student acquires the knowledge, skills,
A School Community Council includes the
1. Reading & Literacy.
read well,
members, and they are the primary custodi-
employed by the school. This or a similar com- instruction.
- 2. Self-Directed Learning
will become a through
Councils engage the parent or parent–teacher teaching that incorporates study skills
- and learning strategies, homework prac-
rying out its plans and communicate regularly
with them. The Council operates with a consti- -
month is a necessity), with agendas, minutes, 3. Respect & Responsibility.
and work products. will
social and emotional well-being through
17
30. FACE Handbook
4. Community. The
put in touch with each other with telephone and
- that teachers send home to parents and parents
send to teachers.
Why wouldn’t “education” be a building block
what schools do. In a school community, edu-
cation is not limited to the students. Teachers
teachers, and sometimes principals. The School
Community Compact outlines these responsi- -
bilities related to the school community’s goals,
such as homework guidelines, school and class- assistance to make the school a welcoming place.
Volunteers are trained and guided in the roles
Community Council members, helps them grow
in their competence with decision making and
that communication between the home and the
-
For parent education, well-trained parents
-
munication among parents, teachers, administra-
community’s purpose and goals are the central
The School Community Compact is an impor-
by residence, workplace, and school enrollment
discussion among students, parents, teach-
described in it.
Children are most likely to become
- avid readers, skilled learners, and
self-confident, socially adept,
by parents, students, teachers, and others. Inter- respectful, and responsible human
beings when they are part of a
community’s constituents, including guidance community of people working
on how best to support student learning. Tele-
together on their behalf.
31. Redding
schoolmates. Teachers understand their students -
-
-
dren’s learning when they know their teachers.
when they know each other well.
in schools to understand what each student
-
-
and emotional learning. Connections also build
social capital.
students think they are doing with the respon-
Home gatherings, where a teacher meets in the sibilities outlined in the School Community
- -
ties that enable people to get to know each other. ing homework on time and with good quality?
-
-
ers? What do people suggest to make the school
a more welcoming place?
can be channeled toward a later meeting with
-
instruction, how children learn to read, and how The School Community Council takes these data
into account when making its plans.
parents learn to appreciate each other’s roles.
Conclusions
A school community is strengthened with the
building blocks described herein, and it nurtures
Again, the preparation and organization are
students in their academic, personal, social, and
-
-
its members—to their personal aspirations, their
-
-
to the parents is paramount.
or she plays and appreciates the roles played by
-
nity naturally; community is built intentionally.
References
Educa-
- tional Researcher, 16
- Building local leadership for
change: A national scan of parent leadership training
32. FACE Handbook
programs
Beyond the bake sale: The essential
guide to family–school partnerships.
Parental involvement and academic
success
School–family partnerships for
children’s success.
Parents and learning. Education
-
-
The mega system: Deciding, learn-
ing, connecting. -
Building community in schools.
Developing home-school partnerships:
From concepts to practice.
Building school success on social
and emotional learning: What does the research say?
Resources/Websites
emotional learning.
School Community Journal.
20
33. We believe that investment in student
performance data that is accessible,
meaningful, and actionable to families is
a core component of 21st century family
engagement strategies.
Heather B. Weiss and M. Elena Lopez
3
34. FACE Handbook
W
e believe that investment in gain access to meaningful student data that can
student performance data guide their actions to support children’s learning
that is accessible, meaningful, and school success. Sharing individual student
and actionable to families is a performance data with families—as well as
core component of 21st century family engage- drawing information from families about stu-
ment strategies. New data-sharing initiatives dents’ interests, behaviors, and challenges—can
described here suggest that, equipped with transform the way family engagement is orga-
student data, families can strengthen their roles nized. Rather than focusing on “random acts,”
as supporters of their children’s learning and as family engagement elevates the strategies that
advocates for school improvement. Their expe- support learning, continuous improvement, and
- successful outcomes. Collective data about stu-
dent performance deepen parents’ understand-
ing of the quality of their schools. They help
to ascertain their value added as part of larger parents make school choices and enable parent
and community leaders to take action with
they need to succeed. schools on improvement strategies.
States and school districts have spent over one
billion dollars in the last decade to build and
implement student performance data systems
(Tucker, 2010a). In addition, with funds from While the examples we note are grade level
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -
of 2009, 38 states are planning to build data
systems that track the achievement of students students, it is useful to envision and construct
by individual teachers. Thirty-seven states are a birth through high school strategy built on
working to align K–12 data systems and higher shared responsibility for data use among family,
education to produce longitudinal data for school, and community stakeholders. A data
individual students (Kober & Rentner, 2011). pathway consists of measureable benchmarks
As policymakers invest in data systems to drive for a child’s learning that begins in early child-
decision making from the classroom to the hood and continues through the school years.
legislature, families are important stakeholders. A family can track progress over the short term
Research on family engagement repeatedly cor- (e.g., to improve reading) and over the long
relates family engagement with student achieve-
ment and is discovering more precisely what it levels). Through this pathway, families can help
is that families do that promotes learning and their children stay on the right track to gradu-
school success. Sustained family engagement in ation and college and career readiness, access
children’s learning is linked with higher grades an array of school and community learning
and test scores, motivation to achieve, social resources, and gradually transfer responsibility
competence, and aspiration for and enrollment for performance-based learning to the student.
Our research on pioneering initiatives suggests
2009).
with families: access, understanding, and action
Unfortunately, many strategies and inter- (Weiss, Lopez, & Stark, 2011).
ventions to promote family engagement have
been disconnected from any instructional goals Access. Families want to know how their
and do not take advantage of available data to children are doing in school so that they can
engage families in ways that support learning or
consists of separate and uncoordinated pro- academic progress and performance. Such data
are being shared through parent–teacher con-
ferences and, increasingly, through electronic
Kressley, 2008). The trend toward data-driven media. Because not all families have computers
reform opens new possibilities for families to or reliable internet connections, some schools
22
35. Weiss & Lopez
are providing parents access to computers and the subject areas that are being assessed. Parent–
online student data by opening their computer teacher conferences are ideal for making student
labs to parents and extending hours of opera- data a centerpiece of conversations during the
tion, others are working with community-based school year. These meetings become the “essen-
organizations to set up computer kiosks, and tial conversation” for improving student prog-
some school-community partnerships are refur- ress on the pathway to graduation and college
bishing computers and giving them to families and career readiness. (See Appendix 3.1 for an
that complete a set of family-engagement and example of online tools that help parents under-
computer-learning workshops. stand their child’s assessments and ask teachers
Knowing the circumstances of families helps questions to support a child’s progress.)
The Creighton School District (K–8) in Phoe-
data. In New York City, for example, one school nix, Arizona has recreated the parent–teacher
with a high number of children from a nearby conference to focus on helping parents under-
homeless shelter set up a parent room with a stand student data and take action to improve
washer-dryer, microwave, mini-library, and student progress and performance. Called
computers. Parent coordinators invited parents Academic Parent–Teacher Teams (APTT), the
to use the room and encouraged them to learn sessions consist of three 75-minute parent–
how to use the online student data system and to teacher group meetings and one individual
understand their child’s academic performance parent–teacher meeting. Teachers volunteer to
(Polakow-Suransky, 2010). Parents in New York use this approach, and the number of classrooms
City are also involved in testing the formats of using APTT has expanded since the pilot phase.
online data systems in order to increase user During group meetings, a teacher explains
accessibility. learning goals for reading and math and pres-
Understanding. Families need to be able to ents data on aggregate classroom progress over
understand the data and know what to do with the school year. Each parent receives a folder
it. They need to grasp what the data suggest containing his or her child’s academic data and
in terms of their child’s short- and long-term learns to interpret the child’s performance in
development and academic progress. Data are relation to class learning goals and the overall
meaningful when placed in the context of school standing of students. Teachers present the data
requirements and a student’s learning goals. in creative and concrete ways. For example,
some teachers display a linear achievement line
when families know the school’s expectations designating where the “average” child might
about the number of allowable absences, the con-
- ask parents to chart where their own child falls.
ences between excused and unexcused absences. Teachers work with parents to set 60-day learn-
At the Washoe School District in Reno, Nevada, ing goals for their child based on academic
high school parent workshops and communica- scores. Parents also practice teaching skills mod-
eled by the teacher and receive materials that
of the online data system go beyond the use of they can use with their child at home (Paredes,
technology to incorporate information about 2010, 2011). In this way, parents become partners
with teachers and work together to support con-
parents can seek help if their teen shows signs of
truancy (Crain, 2010). Action.
Understanding data so that they are meaning- provide resources that are linked to the data
ful takes time and regular communication. It gathered from ongoing assessments. These
begins with training parents—usually face-to-
face—so they understand education terminol- -
ogy and student data within a framework of ish, how to overcome challenges, and how to
standards and assessments. In-person training engage their children in activities and discus-
can be followed by web-based tutorials about sions that will support their overall learning
what students should know and be able to do in and growth. In short, data must be actionable
23
36. FACE Handbook
in order to produce changes in student achieve- especially when districtwide changes are sought.
ment. From providing families with recom- For example, the Community Involvement
mended activities that they can do at home with Program of the Annenberg Institute for School
everyday materials, to highlighting resources in Reform at Brown University has been instru-
the community that they can access, schools are mental in providing data analysis, research, and
training to the Coalition of Educational Justice
in New York City, a parent-led entity composed
of individual students. With access to data, an of several community-based organizations
understanding of what that data reveals, and and unions. Based on its reports, the Coalition
resources for action, families can: acquired compelling information to address sev-
Support, monitor, and facilitate student eral issues about educational equity, including
progress and achievement in a focused the middle school achievement gap and school
and concrete way that complements learn- closures (NYC Coalition for Educational Justice,
ing at school. 2010).
Inform transition from one grade level to Understanding. Parent organizations invest
another or one school to another so that in training parent leaders to understand student
teachers can be cognizant of and build data within an educational framework such as
upon the child’s unique development and high school graduation and college readiness
interests. requirements, standards, curriculum, and assess-
Engage in ongoing conversations with
their child about planning for career and types of data reveal and the distinction between
college. formative data showing student progress and
summative data showing achievement. Parents,
Align student skills and interest to avail-
especially those from low-performing schools,
able programs/resources in the commu-
gain new insights when data are disaggregated
and viewed longitudinally. When they see data
summer camps to further enrich learning
from high-performing schools and then look at
and growth opportunities.
their own school’s data in comparison, they are
motivated to act. Through an understanding of
Beyond supporting an individual student’s
learning, data on schoolwide performance can and problem-solve on possible action steps.
motivate parents to take action to improve The Commonwealth Institute for Parent Lead-
their schools. School data help parents under- ership is an organization that pioneered parent
stand their school’s standing in relation to other training in understanding school data as an inte-
schools, raise questions about areas where per- gral part of leadership development. Through
formance falls short of school goals, and work a three-part training program, parent leaders
with schools as strategic partners in addressing learn about the educational system; their roles as
these issues. Parent leaders and community advocates; the relationship of standards, curricu-
groups are on the forefront of accessing and lum, and assessment; how to gather information
using student performance data to advocate for
educational equity.
Access. Student performance data are available Families want to know how their
through national, state, district, and school web-
sites. However, the data are not always easily children are doing in school so
accessible or presented in a format and language that they can help them at home.
that parents can understand. Some parent orga-
nizations translate publicly available data into
They benefit from timely and
useful formats so that parents can grasp how relevant data on attendance,
students are performing. Other parent organi- behavior, and academic progress
zations choose to partner with research centers
to conduct more sophisticated data analysis,
and performance.
24
37. Weiss & Lopez
about schools; and how to interpret data within results show that data sharing serves as a cata-
the framework of standards and curriculum. lyst for meaningful communication between
Parents learn to examine disaggregated data by parents and teachers. As Bill Tucker of the Edu-
cation Sector observes, “Parents will no longer
where learning gaps occur. With their newly
imparted knowledge and skills, parents develop
projects with other parents in their schools that the conversation so that it becomes respectful,
focus on improving student learning and engag- engaging, and results-oriented” (B. Tucker, com-
ments made at the National Policy Forum for
Wilson, 2000). Family, School, and Community Engagement,
Action. Data can answer important questions, November 9, 2010). The early initiatives also
point the way to change, and improve policies, suggest that access to schoolwide data enables
programs, and practices. Through useful data parents and community organizations to advo-
displays, parents can grasp school issues that cate for data-based improvements, design local
demand action. They use data to hold schools solutions that take full advantage of a com-
accountable and to innovate new approaches to munity’s resources, and track student progress.
tackle hard issues. For example, parents in one Although we are in the early stages of learning
Mississippi community became concerned about
the high school dropout rate. Based on training not a cure-all for today’s educational challenges,
in data interpretation provided by Parents for we suggest it is emerging as a powerful way
Public Schools, a national advocacy organiza- to leverage growing investments in state and
tion, the parents examined longitudinal data district data systems and as a core element of
tracking students back to sixth grade. They real- family engagement strategies.
ized that the dropout problem could be traced to
a middle school student engagement problem.
I didn’t know I could
Parents then worked with principals and teach-
do that: Parents learning to be leaders through the
ers and created a mentoring program that brings Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership.
current high school students to the middle
school to build relationships with and provide org/Portals/1059/CIPL/cipl_didnt_know.pdf
academic support for the younger students (N.
Rudy, personal communication, May 25, 2011). what it takes for my own child to graduate”:
(See Appendix 3.2 for an example of disaggre- Engaging immigrant families around data. Family
gated data used in training parent leaders.) Involvement Network of Educators (FINE) Newslet-
ter, 2
EngagingImmigrantFamiliesAroundData
The experience of early data-sharing initia- Breaking new ground:
tives suggests there is enough value added in Seeding proven practices into proven programs. Paper
ensuring that families access, understand, and presented at the National PIRC Conference in
take action on student data to warrant more Baltimore, MD.
investment, development, and evaluation. Early Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011). More to do, but less
capacity to do it: States’ progress in implementing the
recovery act education reforms. Washington, DC:
www.cep-dc.org/
Through an understanding of NYC Coalition for Educational Justice. (2010). New
data, parents identify patterns, York City’s middle grade schools: Platforms for suc-
cess or pathways to failure? New York, NY: Author.
ask questions, and problem-solve
on possible action steps. uploads/2010/03/nyc-middle-grade-schools-rpt.
pdf
Paredes, M. C. (2010). Academic Parent–Teacher
Teams: Reorganizing parent–teacher
25
38. FACE Handbook
conferences around data. Family Involve-
2
ReorganizingConferencesAroundData
Paredes, M. C. (2011, March, 21). Parent involvement
as an instructional strategy: No more waiting for
Superman. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
Polakow-Suransky, S. (2010). ARIS Parent Link: Five
lessons in linking families to student data sys-
tems. Family Involvement Network of Educators
www.hfrp.org/ARISParentLink
Tucker, B. (2010). Five design principles for smarter data
systems to support student learning. Washington,
www.educationsector.org/publications/
W. E. (2009). Reframing family involvement in
education: Supporting families to support educa-
tional equity.
5. New York, NY: The Campaign for Educational
Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. E., & Stark, D. R. (2011).
Breaking new ground: Data systems transform family
engagement in education. Washington, DC, and
Cambridge, MA: National PTA and Harvard
www.hfrp.org/breakingnewground
26
39. Weiss & Lopez
This graphic is one example of how parents can learn about a child’s progress in
meeting state standards using the parent portal of an online student data system.
Source: NYC Department of Education.
27
41. Families and communities can assist districts to
improve instruction through their contributions
to and support of rigorous academics inside
and outside of school.
Lauren Morando Rhim
4
42. FACE Handbook
chool turnaround is not school and communities on student achievement and
factors critical to successful school turnaround
-
-
-
pos-
itive growth in one to two years.
-
-
- -
There is an established research base docu- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
30
43. Mobilizing Parents to Advocate for
Empowerment Act
A dramatic example of parents advocating for
school turnaround is California’s Parent Empow-
erment Act—the “parent trigger law”—that
empowers parents to petition districts to convert
transform the curriculum, or close the school. If at
least 50% of parents sign the petition, the district
is required to respond. The legislation passed in
the Top federal funding.
-
Highly controversial, the law was invoked to
turn around McKinley Elementary in Compton
-
regarding the validity of signatures on the peti-
issued regulations clarifying how districts should
verify signatures, clearing the way for McKinley
for school turnaround is to communicate the
parents to exercise their right to demand dramatic
- Extending authority already granted to districts
- -
nia parent trigger law provides parents of children
in low-performing schools a clear legal channel
- to demand dramatic change when districts are
turn around failing schools.
and there is discussion of including similar
language in reauthorization of the Elementary
In an interview with Time magazine regarding
-
-
for years, and it’s not working.”
44. FACE Handbook
Resources to Support Academic Goals
-
aggressive school turnaround initiative—the
Elementary Initiative—school principals modi-
from volunteer coordinators to analysts charged
with allocating and tracking external resources
-
ment in schools has been limited to activities
-
- classrooms and programs according to schools’
- academic priorities as opposed to volunteers’
- a program that does not support high-priority
-
-
-
other activities that can enhance or inhibit learn-
amounts of time relative to the instructional
-
-
-
communities to make certain that all students
32
