Education Two Part Assignment

AComprehensive.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Education Two Part Assignment

1 A Comprehensive Framework

This chapter includes three summaries of research and practical approaches that will help school, district, and state leaders develop and sustain excellent pro-

grams of school, family, and community partnerships. Strong programs of family and community engagement are part of good school organization and district and state leadership—not accidental or left to chance. Well-organized partnership pro- grams mobilize resources at school, at home, and in the community that will help all students do their best in school.

1.1: School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share by Joyce L. Epstein.1 This article summarizes the theory of overlapping spheres of influ- ence to explain the shared responsibilities of home, school, and community for chil- dren’s learning and development. It also charts the research-based framework of six types of involvement, challenges that must be solved for each type of involvement to engage all families, and expected results for students, parents, and teachers of well-designed and well-implemented partnership practices.

The article outlines and discusses the basic structures and processes needed to develop effective partnership programs as an essential component of school organi- zation. It identifies eight essential elements that ensure strong and sustainable pro- grams of partnership at the school, district, and state levels. The guidelines and tools throughout the Handbook are designed to help educators implement these essential elements. For example, one key structure at the school level is an Action Team for Partnerships (ATP). This committee includes teachers, administrators, parents, and others who work together to plan, implement, evaluate, and continually improve the school’s program of family and community engagement. One key element at the district level is an assigned leader for partnerships. This expert guides all schools’ ATPs to continually improve outreach to all families and the success of all students. With knowledge of the underlying theory, basic structures, and useful processes, schools, districts, and states should be able to strengthen goal-linked partnership programs and practices that contribute to student success.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., VanVoorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., & Greenfield, M. D. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships : Your handbook for action. Corwin Press. Created from franklin-ebooks on 2025-01-07 16:40:08.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

10 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

1.2: School-Community Partnerships: The Little Extra That Makes a Big Difference by Mavis G. Sanders. The second article summarizes research on school and commu- nity connections in comprehensive partnership programs. Businesses, organizations, agencies, other groups, and individuals in the community offer many resources and opportunities to improve schools, strengthen families, and increase student success. This article provides examples of school and community collaborations that are stu- dent-, family-, school-, and community-centered.

Sanders’s research identifies four factors that support school and community partnerships: high commitment to learning, principal’s support, a welcoming cli- mate, and two-way communications and negotiated agreements between the school and community partners. The article also emphasizes the importance of reflection and evaluation for sustaining effective community partnerships. Research on full-service community schools shows the power of school, family, and community connections for improving student learning and meeting health, education, and rec- reation needs of students and families.

1.3: Improving Student Outcomes with School, Family, and Community Partnerships: A Research Review by Steven B. Sheldon. The third article summarizes research on the effects of family and community involvement on student academic and behavioral outcomes. The overview presents results of scores of studies of family involvement to improve students’ reading achievement at the preschool, elementary, and second- ary levels. Results also are reported for family engagement with students on math and science skills, attendance, behavior, and transitions to new schools.

The article reports confirmed results of more than one hundred studies con- ducted across decades to help educators see that well-implemented partnership pro- grams can be linked to school improvement goals for students. Along with excellent teachers and well-managed schools, goal-linked family and community involvement activities affect a range of important student outcomes.

The three articles in Chapter 1 summarize the research base that underlies and supports educators’ decisions to develop and sustain programs of school, family, and community partnerships to increase student success in school.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 11

1.1 School, Family, and Community Partnerships Caring for the Children We Share1

Joyce l. epstein

The way schools care about children is reflected in the way schools care about children’s families. If educators view children simply as students, they are

likely to see the family as separate from the school. That is, the family is expected to fulfill parenting roles for student development and leave the education of chil- dren to the schools. If educators view students as children, they are likely to see the family and the community as partners with the school in children’s education and development. Partners recognize their shared interests in and responsibilities for children, and they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students.

There are many reasons to develop, strengthen, and sustain programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Partnerships can improve the school climate, strengthen school and classroom programs, provide family services and support, increase parents’ skills and leadership, connect families with others in the school and in the community, help teachers understand and appreciate parents, and support teachers’ efforts. However, the main reason to create such partnerships is to help all youngsters succeed in school and in life to their full potential. When parents,2 teach- ers, students, and others view one another as partners in education, a caring commu- nity forms around students and begins its work.

What do successful partnership programs look like? How can effective practices be designed and implemented? What are the results of better communications, inter- actions, and exchanges across the three important contexts—home, school, and com- munity? These questions have challenged research and practice, creating an interdisciplinary field of inquiry into school, family, and community partnerships with caring as a core concept.

The field has been strengthened by federal, state, and local policies. Since the late 1980s, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has included increas- ingly specific, research-based mandates and guidelines for programs and practices of family and community involvement. Presently, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reinforces requirements for school, district, and state actions to develop research-based programs of parent and family engagement to increase student achievement and other indicators of success in school. The guidelines must be met to qualify for and maintain federal funding.

As important, most states and districts have written policies that guide schools to communicate with parents, families, and community partners in ways that sup- port student achievement. The policies reflect research results and exemplary prac- tices that show that more successful programs of family and community engagement are attainable (Epstein, 2005a, 2007).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

12 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

However, just because written policies are “on the books” does not mean that they are enacted or implemented. Policies tell educators to do something, not how to do it. Many districts and schools put the policy for partnerships on a back burner as they work on other school improvements. In doing so, they ignore research that shows that well-organized programs of family and community engagement contrib- ute to the attainment of other goals for school improvement and student learning (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Epstein, 2011; Epstein & Sheldon, 2016).

Underlying all policies, programs, and practices is a theory of how social organizations connect with each other; a framework of the basic components of school, family, and community partnerships for children’s learning; a growing literature on the results of these connections for students, families, and schools; and an understanding of how to organize excellent programs. This chapter sum- marizes the theory, framework, and research-based guidelines that should help preschools and elementary, middle, and high schools and education leaders in districts and states take steps in designing, conducting, and sustaining successful partnership programs.

Understand the Theory

Overlapping Spheres of Influence Schools make choices about the connections between home, school, and community. They may have only a few communications and interactions with families and com- munities, keeping the three spheres of influence that affect student learning and development relatively separate. Or, they may have many high-quality communica- tions and interactions designed to bring the three spheres of influence closer together. With frequent interactions among educators, parents, other family members, and community partners, more students should receive common messages from the key people in their lives about the importance of school, of working hard, thinking cre- atively, helping one another, and staying in school.

The external model of the theory of overlapping spheres of influence recognizes that the three major contexts in which students learn and grow—home, school, and community—may be drawn together or pushed apart. The model includes sections showing that schools, families, and communities conduct some practices separately, and other sections that overlap to show some practices are conducted jointly

The internal model of the theory of overlapping spheres of influence shows where and how complex and essential interpersonal relations, interactions, and patterns of influence occur between individuals at home, at school, and in the community. These social relationships may be enacted and studied at an institutional level (e.g., when a school invites all families to an event or sends the same communications to all fami- lies) and at an individual level (e.g., when one parent and one teacher meet in confer- ence, connect by e-mail or social media, or talk by phone). Connections between educators or parents and community groups, agencies, and services can be similarly represented and studied within the model (Epstein, 1987, 1994, 2011).

The model of school, family, and community partnerships locates the student at the center. The inarguable fact is that students are the main actors in their education. School, family, and community partnerships cannot simply “produce” successful

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 13

students. Rather, partnership activities may be designed to engage, guide, energize, and motivate students to produce their own successes. The assumption is that if children feel cared for and encouraged to work hard in the role of student, they are more likely to do their best to learn to read, write, and calculate; develop other skills and talents; and remain in school.

Interestingly, studies and field work confirm that students are crucial partici- pants for the success of school, family, and community partnerships (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012; Epstein, 2011; McNeal, 2014). Students often are their parents’ main source of information about school. In strong partnership programs, teachers help students understand and conduct traditional communications with families (e.g., delivering memos or report cards, translating and interpreting notices in the lan- guage of the home) and new communications (e.g., interacting with family members about homework; using e-mail, the school’s website and parent portal, or social media platforms to access information about school programs and activities; and participating in or leading parent-teacher-student conferences).

How the Theory Works in Practice

In some schools, there still are educators who say, “If the family would just do its job, we could do our job.” And there still are families who say, “I raised this child—now it is your job to educate her.” These are sentences of separate spheres of influence. Other educators say, “I cannot do my job without the help of students’ families and support from this community.” And some parents say, “I really need to know what is happening in school in order to help my child.” These are sentences of overlapping spheres of influence.

In a partnership, teachers and administrators create family-like schools. A fami- ly-like school recognizes each child’s individuality and makes each child feel special, valued, and included. Family-like schools welcome all families, not just those that are easy to reach. In a partnership, parents create school-like families. A school-like family recognizes that each child also is a student. Parents and other family mem- bers reinforce the importance of education, attendance, homework, and activities that build student skills and feelings of success (Epstein, 2011).

Communities, too, including groups of parents working together, create school- like opportunities, events, and programs that reinforce, recognize, and reward stu- dents for progress in learning, creativity, contributions, and excellence. Communities also create family-like settings, services, and events that enable families to better sup- port their children. Community-minded schools, families, and students help their neighborhoods and other families. They may conduct service-learning initiatives, philanthropic activities, and other problem-solving projects.

The concept of full-service community schools is, now, well accepted as a com- prehensive approach to school, family, and community partnerships (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Moore & Emig, 2014; Sanders, 2016; and see article 1.2 in this Handbook. Community schools offer programs and services for students, parents, and others in the community before, during, and after the regular school day.

Comprehensive, high-quality community schools include strong and sustainable programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Like all schools, commu- nity schools must ensure that teachers and parents at each grade level communicate

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

14 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

and collaborate for student success. In addition, community schools may provide afterschool programs, sports, health clinics, job training, and other services for chil- dren and adults. Schools and communities talk about programs and services that are family friendly—meaning that they take into account the needs and realities of family life, are feasible to conduct, are equitable toward all families, and are responsive— even enjoyable—for all partners.

All of these terms are consistent with the theory of overlapping spheres of influ- ence, but they are not abstract concepts. You will find them daily in conversations, news stories, and celebrations of many kinds. In a family-like school, a teacher might say, “I know when a student is having a bad day and how to help him.” A student might slip and call a teacher “mom” or “dad,” and then laugh with a mixture of embarrassment and glee. In a school-like family, a parent might say, “I make sure my daughter knows that homework comes first.” A child might raise his hand to speak at the dinner table and then joke about acting as if he were still in school. When com- munities reach out to students and their families, youngsters might say, “This pro- gram made my schoolwork make sense!” Parents or educators might comment, “This community really values children and supports its schools.”

Once people hear about the concepts of family-like schools and school-like families, they remember positive examples of schools, teachers, and places in the community that were “like a family.” They may remember how a teacher paid individual atten- tion to them, recognized their uniqueness, or praised them for overcoming a chal- lenge to make real progress, just as a parent would. They may recall things at home that were “just like school” and that supported their work as a student. Or, they may remember community activities that made them feel smart and good about them- selves and their families. They will recall that parents, siblings, and other family members engaged in and enjoyed educational activities and took pride in the good schoolwork or homework that they did, just as a teacher would.

How Partnerships Work in Practice

The above examples are evidence of the potential for schools, families, and commu- nities to create caring educational environments. It is possible to have a school that is excellent academically but ignores families. However, that school will build barri- ers between teachers, parents, and children that affect the quality of school life and learning. It is possible to have a school that is ineffective academically but involves families in many good ways. With a weak academic program, that school will short- change students’ learning. Neither of these schools exemplifies a caring, educational environment that requires academic excellence, good communications, and produc- tive interactions involving the school, all families, and the community.

Some children succeed in school without much family involvement or despite family neglect or distress, particularly if the school has excellent academic and sup- port programs. Teachers, relatives, and members of the community may provide important guidance and encouragement for these students. However, when students have support from school, home, and community, they are more likely to feel secure and cared for, build positive attitudes and school behaviors, work to achieve their full potential, and stay in school. The shared interests and investments of schools, families, and communities create the conditions of caring that work to overdetermine the likelihood of student success (Boykin, 2000).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 15

Any activity can be designed and implemented well or poorly. Even well- implemented partnership practices may not be useful to all families or students. In a car- ing school community, participants work to continually improve the nature and effects of partnerships. Although the interactions of educators, parents, students, and community members will not always be smooth and successful, partnership programs establish a base of respect and trust on which to build. Good partnerships encourage questions and debates and withstand disagreements; provide structures and processes to solve prob- lems; and are maintained—even strengthened—after conflicts and differences have been discussed and resolved. Without a firm base of partnerships, the problems and concerns about schools and students that are sure to arise will be harder to solve.

What Research Says

In surveys, experimental interventions, and other field studies involving teachers, parents, and students at all school levels, some important patterns have emerged.

• Partnerships tend to decline across the grades, unless schools and teachers work to develop and implement appropriate practices of family and commu- nity engagement at each grade level.

• Affluent communities tend to have more positive family involvement, on average, unless schools and teachers in economically stressed communities work to build positive partnerships with their students’ families.

• Schools in more economically stressed communities make more contacts with families about the problems and difficulties their children are having, unless they work at developing balanced partnership programs that also include contacts about the positive accomplishments of students.

• Single parents, parents who are employed outside the home, parents who live far from the school, fathers, parents with diverse cultural and linguistic back- grounds. and those without easy access to new technologies are less involved at the school building, on average, unless the school organizes opportunities for families to become involved at various times and in various places to sup- port the school and their children. These parents may be as involved as other parents with their children at home.

From hundreds of studies, researchers from the United States and other nations have drawn the following conclusions about family and community involvement:

• Just about all families care about their children, want them to succeed, and are eager to obtain better information from schools and communities in order to remain good partners in their children’s education.

• Just about all teachers and administrators say they want to involve families, but many do not know how to build positive and productive programs and, consequently, are fearful about trying. This creates a “rhetoric rut” in which educators are stuck expressing support for partnerships without taking nec- essary actions. This problem is solved when educators understand that family and community engagement is an essential component of good school orga- nization and part of their professional work, and see that there are feasible and thrifty ways to “grow” these programs.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

16 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

• Just about all students at all levels want their families to be knowledgeable partners about schooling and are willing to take active roles in assisting com- munications between home and school. However, students need guidance and support on how to conduct important exchanges with their families about school activities, homework, afterschool activities, and school decisions.

The bulleted points, above, reflect the results of countless studies conducted by researchers in many countries over 30 years.3 The confirmed results are important because they indicate that caring communities can be built intentionally to include families that might not become involved on their own. The studies confirm that, by their own reports and survey responses, just about all parents, teachers, students, and administrators believe that partnerships are important for helping students suc- ceed at all grade levels.

Six Types of Involvement—Six Types of Caring

A framework of six major types of involvement is based on the results of many stud- ies and many years of field work by researchers with educators and families in pre- schools and elementary, middle, and high schools. The framework (summarized in Tables 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3) helps educators develop more comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The framework also helps research- ers locate their questions and results in ways that will extend the knowledge base and inform and improve practice (Epstein, 1995, 2011).

The six types of involvement are, in brief: (1) parenting—helping all families establish supportive home environments for children and helping the school under- stand its families; (2) communicating—establishing two-way exchanges using varied technologies about school programs and children’s progress; (3) volunteering— recruiting and organizing parent help at school, home, or other locations, including audiences for student activities; (4) learning at home—providing information and ideas to families about how to help students with homework and other curriculum- related materials; (5) decision making—having family members serve as representa- tives and leaders on school committees, and as advocates for their children and other children on school decisions; and (6) collaborating with the community—identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs and to enable students to serve the community.

Each type of involvement includes many different practices of partnership (see Table 1.1.1). Each type presents particular challenges that must be solved to involve all families and requires redefinitions of some basic principles of involvement (see Table 1.1.2). Finally, each type is likely to lead to different results for students, par- ents, teaching practices, and school climates (see Table 1.1.3). Schools must select or design engagement activities that will help achieve goals for student success and for creating a climate of partnerships.

Charting the Course

The entries in the tables are illustrative. The sample practices in Table 1.1.1 are a few of hundreds of activities that may be implemented for each type of involvement.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 17

Although all schools may use the framework of six types as a guide, each school must chart its own course in choosing practices to meet the needs of its families and goals for students.

The challenges in Table 1.1.2 are a few of many that relate to the sample practices for each type of involvement. Challenges—or problems—arise in the development of every program. They must be resolved to reach out to and engage all families in feasible and useful ways. Often, when one challenge has been solved, a new one will emerge. That is the nature of education and school improvement.

The redefinitions in Table 1.1.2 redirect familiar ideas in new directions so that involvement is not measured only by “bodies in the building.” For example, this table calls for changes in how we define and organize workshops, communications, volunteers, homework, decision making, and connections with the community. By redefining these terms, it is possible to redesign activities to engage more and differ- ent families—indeed, all families—in their children’s education.

The selected results in Table 1.1.3 should help correct the widespread mispercep- tion that any practice that involves families will raise children’s achievement test scores. Instead, it can be seen that certain practices are more likely than others to influence students’ attitudes, attendance, and behavior in school, whereas other practices will influence skills, test scores, and other achievements over time.

Although students are the main focus of school, family, and community partner- ships, the six types of involvement also produce important results for parents and teachers. For example, expected results for parents include confidence about parent- ing; positive, subject-specific, curriculum-related interactions with children; leader- ship in decision making; and interactions with other parents and teachers at the school, in the community, and via social media.

Expected results for teachers include improved parent-teacher and parent-teacher- student conferences and clearer two-way communications from school to home and home to school. Also, partnership activities increase teachers’ understanding of stu- dents’ families, improve teachers’ approaches to homework, and promote more pro- ductive connections with families and the community that contribute to student success in school.

The results listed in Table 1.1.3 have been measured and reported in research studies and repeatedly observed as schools conducted their work on partnerships. The entries are listed in positive terms to indicate the results of well-designed and well-implemented practices. It should be understood, however, that results may be negative if poorly designed practices exclude families or create barriers to communi- cation and exchange.

More research always is needed on the results of specific practices of partnership in districts and schools in different communities, at various grade levels, and for diverse populations of students, families, and teachers. It will be important to con- firm, extend, or correct the results listed in Table 1.1.3 to help schools make purpose- ful choices of activities for family and community engagement that will produce desired outcomes.

The framework of six types of involvement is a typology, not a hierarchy. Type 1 is just as important as Type 6 and vice versa. There is no such thing as a “pure” type. This means that some family and community engagement activities incorporate more than one type of involvement in design, implementation, and/or results. For example, parents and other volunteers may organize and conduct a clothing swap shop (Type 3) that welcomes donations of funds or new clothes from community

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

18 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

businesses (Type 6). As a result of this practice, parents may obtain school uniforms or children’s clothes at no cost (Type 1).

As another example, an afterschool program may be designed and conducted by parents and community volunteers along with a town’s parks and recreation depart- ment, combining Types 3 and 6. The afterschool program also produces Type 1 results, as it assists families in supervising their children in a safe and purposeful place. The program also may alter how interactions about homework are conducted at home between students and parents (Type 4). The three tables show how the six types help educators and parents think about the design and goals of partnerships, how activities are implemented, and their results.

The typology is research-based. It grew from analyzing data on hundreds of engagement activities reported by teachers and schools’ ATPs. The three tables show clearly how each type of involvement includes different practices, raises different challenges, and produces different results. This framework is more useful than lim- ited categorizations (e.g., involvement at home vs. at school) for planning and improving school programs of family and community engagement. It is clear that some activities may occur in multiple locations, and that the community, too, is a partner in education.

The three tables suggest how family and community engagement may help improve student learning and success over time. For example, the involvement of families with children in reading at home may increase students’ motivation to read. Motivated students may increase their attention to reading instruction in class, which may help them improve their reading skills and report card grades. Over time, good classroom reading instruction combined with ongoing support for reading at home will increase students’ confidence and, ultimately, reading achievement test scores.

The time between a Family Reading Night held at a school that offers families ideas for encouraging children’s reading at home and the time that students increase their reading achievement test scores will vary depending on the quality and quan- tity of reading-related activities in school and at home. Results for students will depend on the extent to which they internalize a love of reading, read for pleasure, and attend to reading instruction in class. The process is neither magic nor immedi- ate, but it reflects the real purpose of good partnerships to mobilize all resources that will support student success in school.

Eight Essential Elements for Effective and Equitable Partnership Programs The framework of six types of involvement guides schools to think about how to engage parents and community partners in different ways and in different places. Activities conducted at school, at home, and in the community may help improve the school climate and support students’ academic and behavioral success. The framework is only useful if it is part of a well-constructed partnership program. Studies conducted over 30 years identified eight essential elements of excellent part- nership programs at the school, district, organization, and state levels: leadership, teamwork, written plans, implementation, evaluation, adequate funds, collegial support, and networking. Here we summarize the essential elements, which are discussed in detail in chapters throughout the Handbook.

Leadership at the school, district, and state levels determines whether and how well actions will be taken to improve programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Studies confirm that principal leadership is essential for schools to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 19

TABLE 1.1.1 epstein’s Framework of Six types of involvement for comprehensive Programs of Partnership and Sample Practices

Type 1 Parenting

Type 2 Communicating

Type 3 Volunteering

Type 4 Learning at Home

Type 5 Decision Making

Type 6 Collaborating with the Community

help all families establish home environments to support children as students, help schools know their families

design effective forms of school- to-home and home- to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress

recruit and organize parent help and support for the school and for students

Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum- related activities, decisions, and planning

include parents in school decisions; develop parent leaders, representatives, and advocates; include all parents’ voices

identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development; conduct activities for students to assist the community

Sample Practices

Workshops, videos, computerized phone messages, apps, other social media, and resources on parenting at each age and grade level

assistance for families with health, nutrition, and other services

home visits, neighborhood meetings, or welcoming meetings at school at time of transitions to new schools

Programs that help schools understand families’ goals and dreams for their children

courses or workshops for parents (e.g., Ged, college credit, family literacy, parent leadership)

conferences with every parent at least once a year, with follow-ups as needed

language translators to assist families as needed

Weekly folders in print, on a website, or in electronic form of school notices and memos

monthly folders in paper or electronic form of student work sent home for review and comments

Parent-student review of report cards and discussion of goals for the next report card period

clear information on choosing schools and choosing courses, programs, and activities within schools

clear information on all school policies, programs, reforms, and transitions

information for parents on the parent portal, internet safety, and preventing bullying with students

School and classroom volunteer program to help teachers, administrators, students, and other parents

annual postcard survey to identify all available talents, times, and locations of volunteers

Parent telephone tree, e-tree, or other structure to provide all families with needed information

Parent patrols or other activities to aid safety and operation of school programs

Punch card or electronic record of times parent attends student presentations, sports, and other events in volunteer role as audience

Parent room or family center for volunteer work, meetings, resources for families

information for families on skills required of students at each grade level

information on homework policies and how to monitor and discuss schoolwork at home

information on how to assist students to improve specific skills to meet learning standards

regular schedule of homework for students to interact with families on something they are learning in class

Family participation with students to set learning and behavior goals, meet credit requirements, and plan for college or work

Family math, science, and reading activities at school

Summer learning activities

calendars with daily or weekly learning activities that may be conducted at home

action team for Partnerships (atP), Pta, Pto, or other parent organizations or committees (e.g., curriculum, safety) for parent leadership and participation

independent advocacy groups to lobby and work for school reform and improvements

room parent to help teachers connect with all students’ families

networks or parent-buddy systems to link all families to a parent representative (e.g., language- specific phone- or e-trees)

district-level councils and committees for family and community involvement

information for students and families on health, cultural, social, recreational, and other programs or services in the community

information on community activities that link to student learning and talents, including summer programs for students

Service to the community by students, families, and schools (e.g., recycling; art, music or drama activities for seniors; philanthropy)

Participation of alumni in school programs for students and as mentors for planning for college and work

Service integration through partnerships involving the school with civic, counseling, cultural, health, recreation, and other agencies, organizations, and businesses

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

20 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

TABLE 1.1.2 challenges and redefinitions for the Successful design and implementation of the Six types of involvement

Type 1 Parenting

Type 2 Communicating

Type 3 Volunteering

Type 4 Learning at Home

Type 5 Decision Making

Type 6 Collaborating with the Community

Challenges

Provide information to all families who want it or who need it, not just to the few who can attend workshops or meetings at the school building

enable families to share information about culture, background, and children’s talents and needs

make sure that all information for families is clear, usable, and linked to children’s success in school

review the readability, clarity, form, and frequency of all memos, notices, and other print and electronic communications

consider translators and interpreters for parents who do not speak or read english well

review the quality of communications (e.g., the schedule, content, and structure of conferences, newsletters or e-connections, report cards, and others)

establish clear, two-way channels for communications from home to school and from school to home using traditional tools and emerging social media

recruit volunteers widely so that all families know that their time and talents are welcome

make flexible schedules for volunteers, assemblies, and events to enable employed parents to participate some of the time

organize volunteer work; provide training; match time and talent with school, teacher, and student needs; and recognize efforts so that participants are productive

inform families that they are volunteers when serving as audience for student events, sports, and other presentations

design and organize a regular schedule of interactive homework (e.g., weekly or bimonthly) for students to discuss important things they are learning and for families to stay aware of the content of their children’s classwork

involve families with their children in all important curriculum-related decisions (e.g., choosing courses, programs)

Provide timely information to students and families on credits required for high school graduation, credits earned, and steps for planning postsecondary education

include parent leaders from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and other groups in the school on committees

offer training to enable leaders to serve as effective representatives of other families, with input from and return of information to all parents

include students (along with parents) in decision making groups

Solve turf problems of responsibilities, funds, staff, and locations for collaborative activities

inform families of community programs for students, such as mentoring, tutoring, and business partnerships

assure equity of opportunities for students and families to participate in community programs or to obtain services, including summer programs (e.g., camps, arts, music, other talent development)

match part-time employment of high school students with school goals and requirements

Redefinitions

“Workshop” to mean more than a meeting about a topic held at the school building; “workshop” also may mean the content of a meeting and how the information is made available in various forms for easy access to those who could not attend

“communications about school programs and student progress” to mean two-way, three-way, and many- way channels of communication that connect schools, families, students, and the community

“Volunteer” to mean anyone who supports school programs and students’ activities in any way, at any place, and at any time—not just during the school day at the school building; including those who are audience members for student events, sports, activities, performances

“homework” to mean not only work done alone in a quiet place, but also interactive activities shared with others at home or in the community, linking schoolwork to real life

“help” at home to mean encouraging, listening, reacting, praising, guiding, monitoring, and discussing—not “teaching” school subjects

“decision making” to mean a process of partnership, of shared views and actions toward shared goals, not a power struggle between conflicting ideas

“Parent leader” to mean a real representative, with opportunities and support to hear from and communicate with other families

“community” to mean not only the neighborhoods where students’ homes and schools are located, but also neighborhoods that influence student learning and development

“community” rated not only by low or high economic qualities but also by strengths and talents to support students, families, and schools

“community” to mean all who are interested in and affected by the quality of education, not just families with children in the schools

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 21

TABLE 1.1.3 expected results for Students, Parents, and teachers of the Six types of involvement

Type 1 Parenting

Type 2 Communicating

Type 3 Volunteering

Type 4 Learning at Home

Type 5 Decision Making

Type 6 Collaborating with the Community

Results for Students

awareness of family supervision

Positive personal qualities, habits, beliefs, and values taught by family

Balance between time spent on chores, other activities, and homework

Good or improved attendance

awareness of importance of education

awareness of own progress and of actions needed to maintain or improve grades

understanding of school policies on behavior, attendance, and other areas of student conduct

informed decisions about courses and programs

awareness of own role in partnerships, serving as courier and communicator

increased learning of skills for which students receive tutoring or targeted attention from volunteers

awareness of many skills, talents, occupations, and contributions of parents and other volunteers

Skill in communicating with adults

Gains in skills, abilities, and test scores linked to homework and classwork

homework completion

Positive attitude toward schoolwork

View of parent as similar to teacher, and home as similar to school

Self-concept of ability as learner

awareness of representation of families in school decisions

understanding that student rights are protected

Specific benefits linked to policies enacted by parent organizations and experienced by students

increased skills and talents through enriched curricular and extracurricular experiences

awareness of careers and options for future education and work

Specific benefits linked to programs, services, resources, and opportunities that connect students with community

Results for Parents

understanding of and confidence about parenting, child and adolescent development, and changes in home conditions for learning as children proceed through school

awareness of own and others’ challenges in parenting

Feeling of support from school and other parents

understanding of school programs and policies

monitoring and awareness of student progress

effective responses to student problems

interactions with teachers and ease of communications with school and teachers

understanding of teacher’s job, and carryover of school activities at home

Self-confidence about ability to work in school and with children

awareness that families are welcome and valued at school

Gains in specific skills of volunteer work

actions to improve own education

Knowledge of how to encourage and help student at home each year

discussions of school and homework

understanding of instructional program and what child is learning in each subject each year

appreciation of teacher’s skills and efforts

awareness of and pride in child as a learner

input into policies that affect child’s education

awareness of parents’ voices in school decisions

Shared experiences and connections with other families

awareness of school, district, and state policies

Feeling of ownership of school

ability to take leadership roles on committees

Knowledge and use of local resources by family and child to increase skills and talents or to obtain needed services

interactions with other families in community activities

awareness of school’s role in the community and of community’s contributions to the school

Results for Teachers

understanding of families’ backgrounds, cultures, concerns, goals, needs, and views of their children

respect for families’ strengths and efforts

understanding of student diversity

awareness of own skills to share information on child and adolescent development

increased awareness and use of various technologies for communicating with families and awareness of own ability to communicate clearly

appreciation and use of parent network for communications

increased ability to elicit and understand family views on children’s programs and progress

awareness of parent talents and interests in school and children

Greater individual attention to students, with help from volunteers

readiness to involve families in new ways, including those who do not volunteer at school

Better design of homework assignments for specific purposes

respect of family time

recognition of equal interest of single- parent, dual-income, and more and less formally educated families in motivating and celebrating student learning

Satisfaction with family involvement and support

awareness of parent perspectives as a factor in policy development and decisions

View of equal status of family representatives on committees and in leadership roles

awareness of community resources to enrich curriculum and instruction

openness to and skill in using mentors, business partners, community volunteers, and others to assist students and augment teaching practice

ability to make knowledgeable referrals of children and families to needed services

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

22 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

develop and sustain goal-linked programs and practices of family and community engagement (Sanders, 2014; Sanders & Sheldon, 2009; Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004). Strong principals support the school-based ATP to put goals and plans for family and community engagement into action. District-level leaders for partnerships can encourage and support the principals of all schools in a district to continually improve their partnership programs (Sheldon, 2016). (See roles for principals in Chapter 3 and roles for district and state leaders in Chapter 7.)

Teamwork at the school level ensures that one person working alone is not “in charge” of parents. Rather, all partners in education—teachers, parents, administra- tors, community partners, students, and others—work together on the partnership agenda for student success in school. A well-functioning ATP ensures that all mem- bers’ ideas are taken into account in selecting and implementing engagement activi- ties. Team members also are able to reach out to engage different groups of educators and parents to support and participate in partnership activities. Teamwork builds the kind of trust and respect between educators and parents required to conduct and sustain partnership programs. (See Chapter 3 for details on teamwork.)

Written Plans for partnerships turn hopes for family engagement into actions. Most schools have specified clear goals for student learning and behavior in their School Improvement Plans, but they need a detailed plan of action to identify how families and community partners will be engaged to help students attain those goals. A good action plan includes the targeted goals for student success, specific involve- ment activities, desired results, and measures to assess results. A good plan also lists dates the activities are scheduled, types of involvement, actions needed to prepare for conducting the activities, people responsible for implementing the activities, funds or resources needed, and other important details. (See guidelines for writing goal-linked action plans for partnerships in Chapter 4. See examples of goal-linked activities at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in Chapters 5, 6, and 8.)

Implementation brings written plans to life. Educators know that “implementa- tion is everything” when it comes to school improvement. The best plans and cre- ative practices yield nothing unless they are implemented effectively. Based on their talents, interests, and time, ATP members share leadership to implement planned engagement activities. Over time, the ATP will incorporate new knowledge to improve outreach to all families and to engage them in goal-linked activities for stu- dent success. For example, schools have improved the quality of program imple- mentation by using multiple technologies to communicate with parents in print, by e-mail, via a school’s parent portal, and by other channels (Olmstead, 2013; Williams, 2015). District leaders for partnerships may support school teams to help them implement activities successfully to reach all parents with meaningful engagement activities. (See examples of schools’ implemented actions in Chapter 2, and see dis- trict roles in facilitating schools’ implementation of their plans in Chapter 7.)

Evaluation includes assessing the quality and success of each activity after it is implemented and evaluating the quality of the program as a whole at the end of each school year. At the school level, ATPs may evaluate the extent and quality of team- work, principal support, district assistance, outreach to families and community partners, responses to outreach, results for students, and next steps for the next year’s action plan. At the district level, leaders for partnerships may evaluate the extent and quality of their facilitation of school teams, their collegial support, how well they address challenges to reach all families, and next steps for continuous improvement. (See Chapter 9 for guidelines to evaluate partnership programs and results.)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 23

Adequate Funds are needed to conduct planned activities and continually improve outreach to parents. A reasonable—even thrifty—budget will help each school implement and improve an effective and equitable partnership program. Most schools and districts have adequate Title I and other federal, state, and local funds to conduct a well-planned goal-linked program of school, family, and commu- nity partnerships. (See estimates of costs and sources of funds in Chapter 7.)

Collegial Support from teachers, administrators, families, district leaders, and the community helps a school-based ATP know that its work is appreciated by oth- ers who recognize that family and community engagement is central to the success of students. Strong support encourages ongoing program improvement. Collegial support at the district level supports the development of a “culture of partnerships” in all schools throughout the district. In all cases, collegial support is needed to jus- tify the time and funds spent on strengthening connections between home, school, and community to support the success of all students.

Networking with others who are working on the same agenda may be the best way for school-based ATPs to learn new approaches to partnership program devel- opment. Local networks or networked improvement communities help teachers within a school or schools within a district share good ideas, identify challenges, and design solutions (McKay, 2017). The same dynamic that has focused on improving classroom instruction works well for improving connections and exchanges within schools and within districts. National and international networks focused on part- nerships provide professional development, technical assistance, opportunities to share best practices, recognition of good work, and opportunities for research (Epstein, Jung, & Sheldon, in press; and see www.partnershipschools.org).

At the school level, studies show that when educators and parents established ATPs and used the guidelines in this Handbook, schools strengthened all eight essen- tial elements of effective and equitable partnership programs (Epstein, 2011; Hutchins & Sheldon, 2013; Sanders, 1999, 2001; Sanders & Lewis, 2005; Sanders, Sheldon, & Epstein, 2006; Sanders & Simon, 2002; Sheldon, 2005; Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004).

At the district level, studies show that when district leaders for partnership fol- lowed the guidelines in this Handbook, they were more likely to conduct district-level leadership activities, be recognized by district and school colleagues as experts on partnerships, and help more schools implement basic and advanced structures and processes for successful partnership program (Epstein, Galindo, and Sheldon, 2011; Epstein & Sheldon, 2016).

At the school, district, and state levels, leaders must have the will to move policy statements and priorities for family and community engagement into practice. If a principal wants a welcoming, partnership school, next steps may follow. If a district leader wants to establish a “culture of partnerships” in all schools in the district, each school may progress quickly and intentionally on this agenda. If a state leader has the will and takes action to guide all districts to enact the state policy for family and com- munity engagement in all schools, the state policy will move from words to action.

How Do Partnership Programs Improve?

Hundreds of schools and district leaders have been working to strengthen their partnership programs by attending to the eight essential elements. Their experiences reveal three characteristics of high-quality partnership programs that improve

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

24 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

from year to year: incremental progress, connections to the curriculum, and ongoing professional development and technical assistance.

Incremental Progress on Partnerships. The development of an excellent partnership program is a process, not a single event. Not all activities that are implemented will succeed the first time in engaging all families. But well-planned, goal-linked activi- ties, thoughtful implementation, and annual evaluations will, incrementally, improve the quality of outreach to parents and community partners, and responses that help students do their best in school. Studies show that when schools and districts work purposely on partnerships, the quality of their programs improves from year to year (Ames & Sheldon, 2017; Epstein & Hine, 2017).

It should be noted that not all students instantly improve their attitudes or achievements when their families become involved in their education. Student learn- ing depends on challenging curricula, captivating and appropriate instruction, stu- dent motivation to learn, and the work that students complete. Studies show that some results of family and community engagement (e.g., improved attendance and behavior) may occur in the short term; other results (e.g., achievement) take longer (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016; Jung & Sheldon, 2015; McNeal, 2014; Sheldon, 2003, 2007b). (See Article 1.3 for an overview of results of family engagement for students.) When more and different families are engaged, more students will hear messages of sup- port for education at school and at home, and, over time, more will be motivated to do their best in school.

Connections to the Curriculum. A program of school, family, and community partner- ships that focuses on children’s learning and development is linked to other school improvement efforts, including curricular and instructional reform (Bryk et al., 2010; Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015). For example, helping families under- stand, monitor, and interact with students on homework is an extension of teachers’ classroom instruction. Parent and community volunteers who bolster and broaden student skills, talents, and interests extend classroom learning. Improvements to the content and conduct of parent-teacher-student conferences and students’ goal-setting activities are important aspects of curricular reform. These family and community engagement activities—homework-help interventions, volunteers and tutors linked to student learning, well-designed parent-teacher-student conferences, and many other activities are fundamentally part of curricular and instructional reform.

An important new direction for partnership programs is to link practices of fam- ily and community involvement directly to the goals in the School Improvement Plan. The ATP may append the One-Year Action Plan for Partnerships to the School Improvement Plan (e.g., as Appendix A). This kind of purposeful program align- ment moves school, family, and community partnership programs from being peripheral to the school’s “real” work to being official components of a school’s pro- gram for student learning and development.

Redefinition of Professional Development and Shared Leadership. The One-Day Team-Training Workshop for the ATP (Chapters 4 and 5) changes the definition of professional development to apply to the whole team. In that workshop, teachers, administrators, parents, and other partners learn together—as a team—to develop, implement, and evaluate goal-linked practices of family and community engagement. The development of a well-functioning ATP is not the result of a “dose” of inservice

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 25

education for teachers, but is a long-term process of developing and extending educators’ and parents’ talents and capacities for organizing and conducting effec- tive partnerships.

An effective program of family and community involvement also stretches the definition of shared leadership—an important concept in educational administration. Usually, the term means that teachers will share leadership with principals and spe- cialists in improving school organization, curriculum, and instruction. To develop effective partnership programs, shared leadership also means that all members of the ATP will work together to develop, implement, evaluate, and continually improve plans and practices of family and community involvement.

Teachers, administrators, parents, and others on the ATP become experts on fam- ily and community engagement for their schools. District leaders become the part- nership experts for their districts and key facilitators to help all school teams continually improve their site-based plans for and practices around partnerships. Using the expanded definitions of professional development and shared leadership, districts and schools may qualify for federal, state, and local funding programs for school improvement.

Preservice Education. Developing excellent partnership programs in all districts and schools would be easier if educators came to their positions prepared to work pro- ductively with families and communities. College courses are needed in preservice teacher education, continuing studies, and advanced degree programs that include partnerships in the definition of educators’ professional work. Today, most teachers, principals, counselors, and district leaders enter their professions without an under- standing of family backgrounds, concepts of caring, the framework of six types of involvement, or partnership program development. Similarly, most principals and district leaders are not prepared to guide school teams in developing, evaluating, and sustaining effective partnership programs.

Colleges and departments of education that prepare future teachers, administra- tors, and others who work with children and families should identify where in the curriculum they enable their students to study and learn the theory, research, policy, and practical ideas of partnerships, or where these topics could be added to better prepare their graduates for their professional work (Chavkin & Williams, 1988: Christenson & Conoley, 1992; De Bruine, Willemse, D’Haem, Griswold, Vloeberghs, & van Eynde, 2015; Epstein, 2011; Epstein & Sanders, 2000, 2006; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Hinz, Clarke, & Nathan, 1992; Quezada, 2013; Swap, 1993).

Inservice Education. The lack of preservice and advanced coursework in degree programs makes inservice education even more important. Even if preservice and advanced courses were offered to all future teachers and administrators, each school’s ATP would still need targeted team training to tailor plans for partnerships to the needs and goals of the teachers, families, and students in their own school. In addition, district leaders for partnerships need inservice training to work with the school teams in their district.

It should be noted that this Handbook, mainly designed for inservice education for school teams and district leaders, is used by some professors in courses for graduate students who are earning a master’s degree while they continue to teach full time. For these students, partnership program development becomes the focus for action research in their own schools, which they then discuss in the college classroom.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

26 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Programs of family and community involvement will look different at each site. Individual schools must tailor their practices to meet school goals, families’ needs and interests, and the ages and grade levels of their students. Although unique in important ways, all effective programs are characterized by the eight essential ele- ments. Strong and supportive leaders and well-functioning teams with good plans, dedicated actions, collegial support, adequate funding, and opportunities to net- work and learn will lead to more comprehensive, coordinated, and goal-linked pro- grams of school, family, and community partnerships. High-quality partnership programs contribute to a welcoming school climate, engage all families, and help students reach learning goals (Epstein, 2007, Epstein, Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011).

The Core of Caring

Partnerships are about the shared responsibility of parents, teachers, and the community to help students succeed in school and beyond. This kind of shared work is all about caring. Interestingly, synonyms for caring align with the six types of involvement:

Type 1–Parenting: supporting, nurturing, loving, understanding, and child raising

Type 2–Communicating: relating, reviewing, and connecting

Type 3–Volunteering: supervising, advising, giving, and fostering

Type 4–Learning at Home: managing, recognizing, interacting, enriching, and rewarding

Type 5–Decision Making: contributing, considering, participating, and judging

Type 6–Collaborating with the Community: cooperating, assisting, developing, problem solving, and sharing

Behind all of these useful synonyms are two defining components of caring: trusting and respecting. Of course, all of the terms listed above are related and inter- connected, but it is striking that different aspects of caring are associated with activ- ities for the six types of involvement. It is striking that every synonym for caring has meaning for teachers, parents, and students. Combined, they reveal the depth of connections of partners in children’s education. If all six types of involvement are operating in a school’s program of partnerships, then these caring behaviors will be activated to assist children’s learning and development.

Summary: Battleground or Homeland?

Despite real progress on partnership program development over the past two decades, there still are too many schools where educators do not understand the fam- ilies of their students. There still are too many families who do not understand their children’s schools, and too many communities that do not understand or assist their schools, families, and students. There still are too many districts and states that set policies without enactments, and without the leaders, staff, and fiscal support needed to help all schools develop excellent and permanent programs of partnership.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 27

Relatively small financial investments are needed to support district leaders for partnerships and the work of school-based ATPs. Those investments yield signifi- cant returns for all schools, teachers, families, and students. Educators who have led the way in implementing research-based partnership programs with the essential structures and processes for purposeful work show that any school, district, or state can create similar programs.

Schools have choices. There are two opposing approaches to involving families in schools and in their children’s education. One approach sees home, school, and community as separate spheres of influence. Parents should do their job with chil- dren at home and leave education to the teachers and the school. This establishes the school as a battleground, limits positive relationships between and among teachers and parents, and guarantees power struggles and disharmony.

The other approach sees home, school, and community as overlapping spheres of influence and views the school as a homeland. The conditions and relationships of a homeland invite mutual respect; shared leadership; ongoing two-way communica- tions among teachers, parents, and students; and the inclusion of all families and community partners in activities that foster student learning and development.

Even when conflicts occur in a battleground, peace must be restored, and the partners in children’s education must work together. A homeland holds the promise of success for all students.

Next Steps: Strengthening Partnerships

Collaborative work and thoughtful give-and-take among researchers, policy leaders, educators, parents, and community partners are responsible for the progress that has been made over the past few decades in understanding and developing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Strong collaborations will be important for future progress in this and other areas of school reform.

To promote these approaches, I established the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University in 1996. NNPS is a professional devel- opment organization that provides school, district, state, and other leaders with research-based tools, training, and ongoing support to help preschools and elemen- tary, middle, and high schools plan, implement, evaluate, and continually improve comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships. With the help of many colleagues over the years, NNPS has been able to encourage and guide educators, parents, and other community leaders to organize goal-linked programs of family and community involvement that contribute to students’ academic and behavioral success in school.

Partnership schools, districts, and states have worked hard to put the research- based recommendations of this chapter and this Handbook into policies and practices that are appropriate for their locations. Implementation includes understanding the theory of overlapping spheres of influence and taking an action team approach to plan a goal-linked program using the framework of six types of involvement for the engagement of all parents and for the success of all students. Systemic advances include identifying district leaders who assist all schools to use teamwork to develop and sustain their own partnership programs. The researchers and staff of NNPS dis- seminate information and guidelines; offer e-mail and website assistance; and con- duct professional development workshops and presentations to help district, state,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

28 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

and school leaders strengthen their skills, learn new strategies, take charge of their own partnership programs, and share successful ideas. With a strong research base, NNPS guides district leaders; school teams of teachers, parents, and administrators; and leaders at all policy levels to recognize their common interests in the success of the children they share.

Notes

1. The first version of this article appeared in Phi Delta Kappan in1995 (vol. 76, pp. 701–712). With every edition of this Handbook, the article was edited and updated to include references to recent studies and to include knowledge gained by working with thousands of schools, hundreds of districts, and scores of states and organizations for more than 20 years in the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. The article retains many of its original references along with new studies for readers to see the solid base of research on which we developed and improved the guidelines in this Handbook.

2. Throughout this Handbook, the word parent refers to an adult who is responsible for a child’s learning and development, and who has connections with the school and teachers (e.g., parent, grandparent, foster parent, guardian, or other).

3. This summary of results of prior studies draws from articles and chapters including, but not limited to, Baker and Stevenson (1986), Bauch (1988), Becker and Epstein (1982), Booth and Dunn (1996), Burch and Palanki (1994), Catsambis, (2001), Clark (1983), Connors and Epstein (1994), Dauber and Epstein (1993), Davies (1991, 1993), Deslandes (2012), Dornbusch and Ritter (1988), Eccles and Harold (1996), Epstein (1986, 1990, 1991, 2011, 2005b), Epstein and Connors (1994), Epstein and Dauber (1991), Epstein, Herrick, and Coates (1996), Epstein and Lee (1995), Epstein and Sanders (2000), Fan and Chen (2001), Galindo and Sheldon (2012), Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davies (2007), Hoover-Dempsey, Ice, and Whitaker (2009), Jeynes (2003, 2012), Lareau (1989), Lee (1994), Sanders (2005), Scott-Jones (1995), Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002), Sheldon (2005, 2007a, 2007b), Sheldon and Van Voorhis (2004), Simon (2004), Van Voorhis (2003, 2011a, 2011b), Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, and Lloyd (2013), Van Voorhis and Sheldon (2004), and others.

References

Ames, R. T., & Sheldon, S. B. (2017). Annual NNPS report: 2016 school data. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156–166.

Bauch, P. A. (1988). Is parent involvement different in private schools? Educational Horizons, 66, 78–82. Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A study of teacher practices. Elementary School

Journal, 83, 85–102. Booth, A., & Dunn, J. F. (Eds.). (1996). Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Boykin, A. W. (2000). The talent development model of schooling: Placing students at promise for

academic success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5, 3–25. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s

schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for

improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Burch, P., & Palanki, A. (1994). Action research on family-school-community partnerships. Journal of

Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 1(4), 16–19. Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education:

Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177. Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1988). Critical issues in teacher training for parent involvement. Educational

Horizons, 66, 87–89.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 29

Cheung, C. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 820–832.

Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic competence. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor Black children succeed or fail. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Coalition for Community Schools. (2017). Community school results. http://www.communityschools .org/results/results.aspx

Connors, L. J., & Epstein. J. L. (1994). Taking stock: The views of teachers, parents, and students on school, family, and community partnerships in high schools (Center Report 25). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53–71). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school and community partnerships for student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 376–382.

Davies, D. (1993). A more distant mirror: Progress report on a cross-national project to study family- school-community partnerships. Equity and Choice, 19, 41–46.

De Bruine, E., J., Willemse, T. M., D’Haem, J., Griswold, P., Vloeberghs, L., & van Eynde, S. (2015). Preparing teacher candidates for family-school partnerships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 409–425.

Deslandes, R. (2009). International perspectives on contexts, communities and evaluated innovative practices: Family-school-community partnerships. New York: Routledge.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource. Educational Horizons, 66, 75–77.

Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In

A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 277–294.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York: DeGruyter.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). Single parents and the schools: Effects of marital status on parent and teacher interactions. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Change in societal institutions (pp. 91–121). New York: Plenum.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices of parent involvement. In S. Silvern (Ed.), Literacy through family, community, and school interaction (pp. 261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In C. L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.), School, family and community interaction: A view from the firing lines (pp. 39–52). Boulder CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (2005a). Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the No Child Left Behind Act on parental involvement. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 179–182.

Epstein, J. L. (2005b). School, family, and community partnerships in the middle grades. In T. O. Erb (Ed.), This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 77–96). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Epstein, J. L. (2007). Research meets policy and practice: How are school districts addressing NCLB requirements for parental involvement? In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 267–279). New York: Routledge.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Connors, L. J. (1994). Trust fund: School, family, and community partnerships in high schools (Center Report 24). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

30 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 289–303.

Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon. S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 462–495.

Epstein, J. L., Herrick, S. C., & Coates, L. (1996). Effects of summer home learning packets on student achievement in language arts in the middle grades. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 93–120.

Epstein, J. L., & Hine, M. G. (2017). Annual NNPS report: 2016 district data. Baltimore, MD: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.

Epstein, J. L., Jung, S. B., & Sheldon, S. B. (in press). Toward equity in school, family, and community partnerships: The role of networks and the process of scale up. In S. B. Sheldon & T. Turner- Vorbeck (Eds.), Handbook on family, school, and community partnerships in education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Epstein, J. L., & Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections in the middle grades. In B. A. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family-school connection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 108–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). School, family, and community connections: New directions for social research. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of education (pp. 285–306). New York: Plenum.

Epstein J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and com- munity partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Epstein, J. L., & M. G., Sanders. (2006). “Prospects for Change: Preparing Educators for School, Family, and Community Partnerships.” Peabody Journal of Education, 81: 81–120.

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The role of policy for advancing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 202–219.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta- analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.

Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 90–103.

Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale. New York: The New Press.

Hinz, L., Clarke, J., & Nathan, J. (1992). A survey of parent involvement course offerings in Minnesota’s undergraduate preparation programs. Minneapolis: Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Center for School Change, University of Minnesota.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., Ice, C. L., & Whitaker, M. W. (2009). “We’re way past reading together”: Why and how parental involvement in adolescence makes sense. In N. E. Hill & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools and the adolescent: Connecting families, schools, and the adolescent (pp. 19–36). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hutchins, D. J., & Sheldon, S. B. (2013). Summary 2012 school data. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202–218.

Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706–742.

Jung, S. B., & Sheldon, S. B. (2015). Exploring how school-family partnership programs improve attendance: Principals, teachers, and program organization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Chicago.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Philadelphia: Falmer.

Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students’ education: Continuity and change of family involve- ment from the middle grades to high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

McKay, S. (2017). Five essential building blocks for a successful Networked Improvement Community (NIC). Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from: https://www.carnegie foundation.org/blog/why-a-nic/

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 31

McNeal, R. B, Jr. (2014). Parent involvement: Academic achievement and the role of student attitudes and behaviors as mediators. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2, 564–576.

Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for policy makers. Child Trends White Paper. https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 02/2014-05ISSWhitePaper1.pdf

Olmstead, C. (2013). Using technology to increase parent involvement in schools. TechTrends, 57, 28–37.

Quezada, R. (2013). Family, school, community, and partnerships: An imperative for K–12 and colleges of education in the development of 21st century educators. Special issue. Teaching Education, 24, 119–122.

Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools’ programs and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 220–229.

Sanders M. G. (2001). A study of the role of “community” in comprehensive school, family and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102,19–34.

Sanders, M. G. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaborating for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sanders, M. G. (2014). Principal leadership for school, family, and community partnerships: The role of a systems approach to reform implementation. American Journal of Education, 120, 233–255.

Sanders, M. G. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring compo- nents of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27, 157–177.

Sanders, M. G., & Lewis, K. C. (2005). Building bridges toward excellence: Community involvement in high school. High School Journal, 88(3), 1–9.

Sanders, M. G., & Sheldon, S. B. (2009). Principals matter: A guide to school, family, and community partner- ships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2006). Improving schools’ partnership programs in the National Network of Partnership Schools. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5, 24–47.

Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (2002). A comparison of program development at elementary, middle, and high schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The School Community Journal, 12(1), 7–27.

Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Activities in the home that support school learning in the middle grades. In B. Rutherford (Ed.), Creating family/school partnerships (pp. 161–181). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 455–460.

Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35, 149–165.

Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106, 171–187.

Sheldon, S. B. (2007a). Getting families involved with NCLB: Factors affecting schools’ enactment of federal policy. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’ Day, G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and reducing the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 281–294). New York: Routledge.

Sheldon, S. B. (2007b). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275.

Sheldon, S. B. (2016). Moving beyond monitoring: A district leadership approach to school, family, and community partnerships. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.). Family-school partnerships in context (pp. 45–64). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, V. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 125–148.

Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209.

Swap, S. M. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323–338.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

32 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011a). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study of mathematics achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43, 313–338.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011b). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Lessons learned from students and families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220–249.

Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills. New York: MDRC.

Van Voorhis, F. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2004). Principals’ roles in the development of U.S. programs of school, family, and community partnerships. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 55–70.

Williams, S. (2015). 6 key school communication channels and how to use them. Campus Suite, pp. 1–19. http://www.campussuite.com/6-key-school-communication-channels-and-how-to-use-them/

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 33

1.2 School-Community Partnerships The Little Extra That Makes a Big Difference Mavis G. Sanders

Rationale for School-Community Partnerships

Families and schools traditionally have been viewed as the institutions with the greatest effects on children’s development. Communities, however, have received increasing attention for their role in socializing youth and ensuring students’ success in a variety of societal domains. Epstein’s (1987, 2011) theory of overlapping spheres of influence, for example, identifies schools, families, and communities as major institutions that socialize and educate children. A central principle of the theory is that certain goals, such as student academic success, are of interest and importance to people in each of these contexts and are best achieved through their cooperative action and support.

In particular, school-community partnerships are viewed as a strategy to increase human, material, and financial resources that expand and enrich curricu- lar and extracurricular activities for students (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003; Hands, 2010). Such partnerships also are conceptualized as a means to create more culturally responsive schools, where funds of knowledge (Moll, 2015)—that is, the knowledge and skills possessed by students’ families and community members— are integrated into classroom instruction and schoolwide practices (Sanders & Galindo, 2014). In addition, school-community partnerships enhance social capi- tal for students, families, and educators (Decker, Decker, & Brown, 2007; Warren & Mapp, 2011). Social capital refers to the networks and relationships through which information, support, and resources are exchanged for mutually beneficial purposes (Lin, 2001).

School-community partnerships, then, can be defined as the connections between schools and community individuals, organizations, and businesses that are forged to directly or indirectly promote students’ social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development. Community within this definition of school-community partnerships includes social networks that are inside and also extend beyond local geographic boundaries.

Features of School-Community Partnerships

School-community partnerships can take a variety of forms. The most common linkages are partnerships with businesses, which can vary significantly in focus, scope, and content. Other school-community linkages involve universities and edu- cational institutions, government and military agencies, health care organizations, faith-based organizations, national service and volunteer organizations, senior citizen organizations, cultural and recreational institutions, other community-based

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

34 School, FaMily, and coMMunity PartnerShiPS

organizations, and community volunteers that may provide resources and social support to youth and schools (see Table 1.2.1).

Partnership activities may also have multiple foci. As shown in Table 1.2.2, activities may be student, family, school, or community centered.

• Student-centered activities include those that provide direct services or goods to students. These include, for example, mentoring and tutoring pro- grams, contextual learning, and job-shadowing opportunities, as well as the provision of awards, incentives, and scholarships to students.

• Family-centered activities are those that have parents or entire families as their primary focus. This category includes activities such as parenting and leadership workshops, GED and other adult education classes, parent and family incentives and awards, family counseling, and family fun and learning nights.

• School-centered activities are those that benefit the school as a whole, such as beautification projects, the donation of equipment and materials to the school, or activities that benefit the faculty, such as staff development and classroom assistance.

• Community-centered activities have as their primary focus the community and its citizens, such as community programs and services for students and families, charitable outreach, art and science exhibits, and community revital- ization and beautification projects (Sanders, 2005).

Community partnerships vary in complexity. If viewed on a continuum, at one end are simple partnerships characterized by short-term exchanges of goods and services. For example, a school can partner with a local restaurant to provide free or discounted food coupons as incentives for students. Such partnerships require very little coordination, planning, or cultural and structural shifts in school functioning. At the other end of the continuum, activities are long-term and characterized by bi- or multi-directional exchanges, high levels of interaction, and extensive planning and coordination. For example, community health and social services can be inte- grated with extended educational services and family engagement activities to meet the complex needs of students in poverty through a full-service community school approach (see Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Galindo & Sanders, in press; Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017; Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013). Although complex partnerships can yield substantial benefits, they require significant coordination of resources, space, time, and funding (Sanders, 2016).

Role of School-Community Partnerships in Comprehensive Partnership Programs

School-community partnerships, regardless of form, focus, or complexity, are an important part of comprehensive partnership programs. They may support or strengthen all six types of involvement: (1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volun- teering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision making, and (6) collaborating with the community (Epstein, Sanders, Sheldon, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn, et al., 2019). For example, community partners may provide meeting space or speakers for parenting workshops (Type 1), interpreters for school meetings with families (Type 2), volunteer

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 35

tutors (Type 3), information on books that families can read with their children at home (Type 4), and meals or transportation vouchers to reduce barriers to parents’ attendance at school leadership meetings (Type 5).

Moreover, community partnerships can be developed to enhance schools’ curric- ula, identify and disseminate information about community resources, and support community development efforts (Type 6). One school in the National Network of

TABLE 1.2.1 examples of community Partners

Community Partners Examples

Businesses and Corporations local businesses, national corporations, and franchises

Universities and Educational Institutions

colleges and universities; community colleges; vocational, trade, and technical schools; high schools; and other educational institutions

Health Care Organizations hospitals, health care centers, mental health facilities, health departments, health foundations and associations

Government and Military Agencies

Fire departments, police departments, chambers of commerce, city councils, and other local and state government agencies and departments

National Service and Volunteer Organizations

rotary club, lions club, Kiwanis club, ViSta, concerned Black Men, inc., Shriners, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, yMca, united Way, americorps, urban league, and other associations

Faith-Based Organizations churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations and charities

Senior Citizen Organizations nursing homes and senior volunteer and service organizations

Cultural and Recreational Institutions

Zoos, museums, libraries, and recreational centers

Media Organizations local newspapers, radio stations, cable networks including foreign language outlets, and other media

Sports Franchises and Associations

Major and minor league teams, nBa, ncaa, and other sports-related groups

Other Community Organizations

Fraternities, sororities, foundations, neighborhood associations, and political, alumni, and local service organizations

Community Individuals individual volunteers from the community surrounding the school

TABLE 1.2.2 Focuses of School-community Partnership activities and examples

Student Centered Family Centered School Centered Community Centered

Student awards, student incentives, scholarships, student trips, tutors, mentors, job shadowing, and other services and products for students

Parent workshops, family fun nights, Ged and other adult education classes, parent incentives and rewards, counseling, and other forms of assistance to parents

equipment and materials, beautification and repair, teacher incentives and awards, funds for school events and programs, office and classroom assistance, and other school improvements

community beautification, student exhibits and performances, charity, and other outreach

Adapted from Sanders (2005).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

36 School, FaMily, and coMMunity PartnerShiPS

Partnership Schools (NNPS), for example, worked with its state Department of Environmental Protection to help the science faculty integrate local resources and environmental concerns into the science curriculum. Another NNPS school devel- oped a community resource handbook for its families describing available services and contacts. A third school partnered with a local library to hold a community art exhibit of students’ work, and another school partnered with an assisted living and senior care center to promote cross-generational relationships and knowledge shar- ing between students and senior citizens. These and other reported activities show how important community partnerships can be for students, schools, families, and communities (Sanders, 2005). (See also Chapter 1.1 and www.partnershipschools.org, section on Success Stories, for other examples of school-community partnerships.)

Outcomes of School-Community Partnerships

When schools and communities partner to provide services and supports for stu- dents, measurable benefits result. For example, school-based mentoring programs have been found to have significant and positive effects on students’ school atten- dance and behavior (Gordon, Downey, & Bangert 2013; Wheeler, Keller, & DuBois, 2010). Afterschool programs have had measurable effects on students’ social compe- tencies and academic achievement (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Grogan, Henrich, & Malikina, 2014; O’Donnell & Kirkner, 2014a; Shernoff, 2010). School- community partnerships focused on academic subjects have been shown to enhance students’ attitudes toward and efforts in these subjects, as well as the attitudes of teachers and parents (O’Donnell & Kirkner, 2014b).

School-community partnerships implemented in full-service community schools also have shown positive effects for students and families. Documented benefits include behavioral and academic gains for students who receive intensive services (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Blank, Jacobson, & Melaville, 2012; Moore & Emig, 2014); greater access to coordinated services for families; lower family stress; and increased family engagement in children’s education (Zetlin, Ramos, & Chee, 2001). School- community partnerships, then, are a key strategy to help schools meet the learning and developmental needs of all students.

Factors Facilitating School-Community Partnerships

Case study research identified four factors that support a school’s ability to develop and maintain meaningful community partnerships (Sanders & Harvey, 2002). These factors are (a) high commitment to learning, (b) principal support for community partnerships, (c) a welcoming school climate, and (d) two-way communication with potential community partners about their level and kind of involvement.

High Commitment to Learning Interviews with community partners representing faith-based organizations, non- profit foundations, health care organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and senior citizen organizations revealed a common desire to support students’ academic achievement. Community partners wanted to be a part of an effective

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 37

school that was visibly focused on students’ learning and to engage in activities that had demonstrable effects on student outcomes. Community partners identified schools that were well organized, student centered, family friendly, and academi- cally rigorous as the most desirable partners for collaboration.

Principal Support Community partners stated the importance of a school principal who not only allowed but also created opportunities for collaboration. In the case school, the prin- cipal provided such support, and also modeled and rewarded collaborative behav- ior. Indeed, active principal engagement largely explained the community partners’ continued involvement with the school. One community partner stated, “I don’t want to pinpoint any schools, but I’ve gone into some and have been totally turned off by the administration. If I’m turned off, what’s the interest in helping you?”

A Welcoming School Climate Similarly, community partners expressed the importance of a school that is receptive to and appreciative of community involvement. Community partners stated that being greeted warmly at the school by staff, faculty, and students strengthened their commitment to the partnership. Although most community partners in the study agreed that formal acknowledgment was not necessary, they valued the school’s expressions of gratitude. Several community partners reported that they received thank-you letters and notes from students, were thanked for their assistance over the intercom system, were stopped on the street by students and their parents and thanked for their service, were acknowledged in the school newsletter, and received certificates of appreciation at the school’s annual awards ceremony.

Two-Way Communication Community partners and school administrators interviewed for the case study also emphasized the importance of honest, two-way communication between schools and potential community partners so that each party is fully aware of the intent and expectations of the other. The case school principal stated that initial honest and “up-front” conversations prevented both parties from “wasting each other’s time.” She used a simple measure to determine if a community partnership was right for the school. Her measure was whether the partnership would be positive for students.

Addressing Challenges to School-Community Partnerships

In theory, then, school-community partnerships are an opportunity for a more democratic and participatory approach to school functioning that can enhance stu- dents’ achievement and well-being, assist families, build stronger schools, and revi- talize communities. In reality, however, such partnerships are too often a reminder of the difficulty of implementing inclusive, collaborative strategies for school improvement. Their effectiveness is largely determined by the ability of school and community partners to confront key challenges to collaboration. Evaluative studies

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

38 School, FaMily, and coMMunity PartnerShiPS

highlight strategies to address such challenges, and move the reality of school- community partnerships closer to theory (Sanders, 2005).

Professional Preparation One issue that is emphasized in the literature on school-community partnerships is the importance of professional preparation for collaboration. Such preparation is especially important for educators at the state, district, and school levels who, argu- ably, should be at the forefront of educational improvement.

Ideally, professional preparation for collaboration would begin during the pre- service stage of teacher and administrator training. It would include structured opportunities for future educators to develop the skills and capacity to work collab- oratively with other educators and community service providers, as well as with adults in students’ families and communities. Partnerships should be a theme throughout educators’ professional preparation so that they enter schools, class- rooms, offices, and departments of education with a clear understanding of the rewards and benefits of collaboration, and a working knowledge of strategies for successful partnerships. Collaboration also should be an ongoing theme of in-service professional development of educators so that the day-to-day reality of teaching and managing schools, districts, and state departments does not cloud educators’ views of themselves as partners in the development of children and youth.

Of note, schools that have successfully built a sense of community within their walls—that is, schools that are collaborative, communicative, and inclusive— appear to have the greatest success in developing strong connections with the com- munity outside their walls (Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). This is no coincidence. When the capacity to collaborate becomes a part of educators’ professional identity and knowledge base, community partnerships become business as usual (Stroble & Luka, 1999). In complex school-community collaborations, challenges around turf, funding, roles, and responsibilities will surely arise (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Epstein, 2011; Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013). However, educators who have been prepared to collaborate will have the resources and skills to minimize and resolve these challenges.

Partner Selection Professional development also will assist educators in selecting appropriate commu- nity partners and partnership opportunities. Most schools have access to a variety of business and other community partners. School districts and state departments of education also may seek and select community partnership opportunities. The selec- tion of partners should be based on shared goals and a common commitment to the basic tenets of successful collaboration—open communication, joint decision mak- ing, and respect for all stakeholders. Therefore, before a partnership begins, repre- sentatives from the partnering groups or organizations should meet to discuss the goals of the potential connection and how their work together will be organized.

When selecting community partners and partnership opportunities, educators should also consider the intensity and duration of collaborations. As previously described, school-community partnerships can range from simple to complex. A school with little experience in community collaboration might elect to engage in some simple connections before venturing into more complex collaborations.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 39

This purposeful, measured approach to the selection of community partners and community partnership opportunities would provide educators the necessary time to hone their collaborative skills and identify partnerships that are most important for achieving their goals for students (Anderson, 2016).

Reflection and Evaluation The literature on school-community partnerships highlights the importance of reflec- tion and evaluation. Because school-community collaboration is a process and not an event, it is important that partners take the time to reflect on and evaluate the quality of their interactions and the implementation of their partnership activities. This exer- cise will assist in the refinement of collaborative efforts and the enhancement of collaborative skills. To engage in reflective action, partners need time to meet. Time is an increasingly rare commodity, especially among professional educators in schools. The challenge of finding time for professional educators to engage fully in collaborative efforts with the community is perhaps greatest in resource-poor urban schools that stand to benefit most from well-planned community partnerships.

This challenge has been successfully met in many schools (Sanders, 2005). One factor that is crucial is principal leadership (Sanders & Sheldon, 2009; Sanders, in press). Supportive principals provide school personnel with the professional devel- opment and time they need to collaboratively plan and evaluate partnership activi- ties (Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Principals’ capacity to effectively carry out these practices can be enhanced through district support and leadership in the form of funding, assistance with partnership planning and evaluation, and school recogni- tion activities (Sanders, 2009).

Concluding Thoughts

Research and practice clearly show that school-community partnerships can benefit students, schools, families, and communities. The success of such partnerships requires that school and community partners have common goals, mutual respect and appreciation, good communication, and principal support. They must also be prepared to address common challenges to collaboration. For all their promise, how- ever, community partnerships are not a panacea for the ills of many of today’s schools. They cannot replace sound educational policies, adequate funding, excel- lent teaching, and effective partnerships with families. Community partnerships can, however, enhance the effect that these elements have on schools and students. When properly executed, school-community partnerships can be the little extra that makes the big difference.

References

Anderson, J. A. (2016). Is an ounce of prevention still worth a pound of cure? Community-based inter- agency collaboration to enhance student and family wellbeing. School Community Journal, 26, 9–29.

Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the contri- butions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 21, 157–173.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

40 School, FaMily, and coMMunity PartnerShiPS

Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving results through community school partnerships: How district and community leaders are building effective, sustainable relationships. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational Leadership.

Decker, L., Decker, V., & Brown, P. (2007). Diverse partnerships for student success: Strategies and tools to help school leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek

to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294–309.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., . . . & Williams, K. J. (2019). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Galindo, C., & Sanders, M. G. (in press). Achieving equity in education through full-service community schools. In S. B. Sheldon & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), Handbook on family, school, and community partnerships in education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low income com- munities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community school. American Educational Research Journal, Centennial Edition, 54(1 Suppl.),140S–163S.

Gordon, J., Downey, J., & Bangert, A. (2013). Effects of a school-based mentoring program on school behavior and measures of adolescent connectedness. School Community Journal, 23, 227–248.

Grogan, K. E., Henrich, C. C., & Malikina, M. V. (2014). Student engagement in after-school programs, academic skills, and social competence among elementary school students. Child Development Research, 2014, article ID 498506. doi10.1155/2014/498506

Hands, C. M. (2010). Why collaborate? The differing reasons for secondary school educators’ establish- ment of school-community partnerships. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, 189–207.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Moll, L. C. (2015). Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of students. Kappa Delta

Pi Record, 51(3), 114–117. Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for policymak-

ers. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. O’Donnell, J., & Kirkner, S. L. (2014a). Effects of an out-of-school program on urban high school youth’s

academic performance. Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 176–190. O’Donnell, J., & Kirkner, S. L. (2014b). The impact of a collaborative family involvement program on

Latino families and children’s educational performance. School Community Journal, 24, 211–234. Sanders, M. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sanders, M. (2009). District leadership and school-community collaboration. In A. Honigsfeld &

A. Cohan (Eds.), Breaking the mold of school instruction and organization: Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century (pp. 139–147). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27, 157–177.

Sanders, M. (in press). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record.

Sanders, M., & Galindo, C. (2014). Communities, schools, and teachers. In L. Martin, S. Kragler, D. Quatroche, & K. Bauserman (Eds.), The handbook of professional development, PK-12: Successful models and practices (pp. 103–124). New York: Guilford Press.

Sanders, M., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345–1368.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 41

Sanders, M., & Hembrick-Roberts, J. (2013). Leadership for service integration in schools. In L. Tillman & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 476–493). London: Routledge / Taylor and Francis.

Sanders, M. G., & Sheldon, S. B. (2009). Principals matter: A guide to school, family, and community partner- ships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 325–337.

Stroble, B., & Luka, H. (1999). It’s my life, now: The impact of professional development school part- nerships on university and school administrators. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 123–135.

Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wheeler, M. E., Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2010). Review of three recent randomized trials of school- based mentoring: Making sense of mixed findings. Social Policy Report, 24, 1–21.

Zetlin, A. G., Ramos, C., & Chee, A. (2001). Two case studies of community schools serving Latino and Southeast Asian children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10, 23–38.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 43

1.3 Improving Student Outcomes with School, Family, and Community Partnerships A Research Review Steven B. Sheldon

The academic success of students—often measured by report card grades and achievement test performance—depends on several school factors including

exposure to high-quality teaching, a safe and well-maintained school facility, and ded- icated and caring teachers. Equally important are out-of-school influences such as family involvement and home environments that support student learning and aca- demic achievement. Because the importance of these multiple influences is well docu- mented, schools need to attend to school, family, and community contexts and develop programs and practices that enable parents and community partners to help students reach school goals for high achievement and other measures of school success.

High-quality and high-performing schools have strong partnerships with their stu- dents’ families and communities. This is true for all schools, including high-performing, high-poverty schools, where students are learning and achieving at high levels despite what might be expected based on family and neighborhood economic disadvantages (Chrispeels, 1996; Hoffman, 1991; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).

Bryk and his colleagues studied Chicago schools for more than a decade and reported that having positive school and family relationships is one of five essential components for sustained school improvement (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010). Strong and positive programs of school and family con- nections, then, are not only characteristic of strong schools, but also are important for schools to become and remain places of learning and achievement.

Studies confirm that successful students have strong academic support and involvement from parents and other family members. For many decades, research has reported that family life and home environments have powerful effects on stu- dents’ academic and behavioral outcomes (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003, 2005, 2012; Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2001; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Scores of studies confirm positive connections between parent engagement and students’ academic achievement. Meta-analyses (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2012) and major literature reviews (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1996; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Hill & Tyson, 2009) point to positive effects of parental involvement on specific academic outcomes across scores of studies. With this evidence, it is nearly universally accepted that students need family and/or community members who support and encourage learning and development to succeed in school.

Despite all of the evidence of the importance of school, family, and community partnerships for student success, this topic rarely receives adequate attention from school, district, and state education leaders. With budget deficits and increasing

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

44 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

demands for traditional accountability in standardized achievement test scores, educational leaders often are forced to make difficult decisions about how to spend limited resources. Understandably, educational leaders demand research evidence on the connections of parent involvement with student outcomes to help them decide whether and how to allocate financial resources and personnel to this component of school improvement.

This article provides an overview of research on the effects of family and com- munity engagement on student outcomes, including achievement and other aca- demic and behavioral outcomes. The information should help educators understand the value of goal-linked partnership programs and encourage the development of systematic approaches to family and community engagement to help more students achieve and excel in school.

Effects of Parent Involvement

Helping parents and other family members strengthen their involvement in their children’s education is an important and attainable goal for educators. Studies indi- cate that schools with strong family and community involvement programs tend to have higher levels of parent involvement. Other studies show that educators can foster the kinds of support and encouragement from home that students need to be more successful in school (Epstein, 2011; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Epstein & Sheldon, 2016; Harackiewicz, Rozek, Hulleman, & Hyde, 2012; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Hoover- Dempsey, Ice, & Whitaker, 2005; Sheldon, 2005; Sheldon & Jung, 2015; Sheldon & Van Voorhis, 2004; Simon, 2004).

Until recently, studies of family engagement tended not to differentiate between the effects of particular types of involvement on distinct student outcomes. Early research conducted analyses of the connections of general measures of parent involvement with student report card grades and achievement test scores (Ho & Willms, 1996; Keith, Keith, Quirk, Sperduto, Santillo, & Killings, 1998; Muller, 1993). These studies were important in establishing a base of research about the importance of parent involvement, overall.

More recently, researchers have begun studying how different types of involve- ment relate to specific student outcomes. The evolution in research on school, family, and community partnerships is important for increasing knowledge on how differ- ent types of involvement may affect children’s learning and development (Epstein 1995; Jeynes, 2003, 2012; McNeal, 2014; Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010; Shen, Washington, Palmer, & Xia, 2014; Shumow & Miller, 2001; and see Chapter 1.1 in this Handbook). It is becoming increasingly clear that educators need to consider which types of involvement they will activate to attain specific school goals and desired student outcomes.

Academic Outcomes

Literacy Research provides overwhelming evidence of the connections between literacy resources at home and students’ literacy development. A report from the U.S. Department of Education confirmed the historic finding that children from

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 45

homes with more books and more reading by parents perform higher on reading achievement tests than do children from less reading-rich environments (Donahue, Finnegan, Lutkus, Allen, & Campbell, 2001). Because so much research examines how family involvement affects children’s literacy development, this section offers a brief overview organized by children’s age and grade level. (Also see Sheldon & Epstein, 2005b.)

Family Involvement in the Preschool Years Family influences on literacy and reading achievement begin before children enter formal schooling, with a home “environment for literacy” from infancy on (Edwards, Pleasants, & Franklin, 1999; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Leichter, 1984; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Wasik, 2012). Many studies indicate that children’s early liter- acy experiences—such as being encouraged to talk and sing, reading books with an adult, and writing alphabet letters—are associated with students’ skills in school and higher scores on tests in vocabulary, print knowledge, and letter sounds.

Children between three and five years old from low-, middle-, and upper-income families are exposed to a variety of literacy experiences at home, such as being read to, seeing others reading, and having instruction in letter naming and letter writing (Hart & Risley, 1995; Heibert, 1980; Teale, 1986). Although stories, signs, and labels help children learn that words have a communicative function, other experiences provide children with different understandings of word meanings and language. Parents’ emphases on print and literacy activities, therefore, may affect children’s early language, reading, and writing knowledge and skills (Hammer, Farkas, & Maczuga, 2010; Heath, 1983; Purcell-Gates, 1996).

Most preschools conduct reading and language experiences to help all students become “ready” for kindergarten, and most preschools try to involve families with chil- dren in literacy activities. Two experimental studies conducted with families of pre- school children in Early Head Start (a federally funded program for infants and toddlers in families with low incomes) and Project EASE (Early Access to Success in Education) in Minnesota found that parents could be guided to work effectively with their children on literacy skills and book-related activities. Both interventions found that children in the treatment groups improved their prereading language skills compared to students in the control groups (Mathematica Policy Research and Center for Children and Families, 2001). The programs increased parents’ reading stories to children, reading at bedtime, and other reading and language-related activities. A study of the HIPPY (Home Instruction Program of Preschool Youngsters) intervention to increase mothers’ reading aloud and working with children on literacy skills came to the same conclusion (Baker, Piotrkowski, & Brooks-Gunn, 1998). A comprehensive review of over 90 meth- odologically rigorous studies reported that, regardless of family background character- istics, parents of preschool students can, with guidance from preschool teachers, conduct reading and math activities with their young children that increase the chil- dren’s readiness for kindergarten (Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, & Lloyd, 2013).

Storybook Reading. Parent-child storybook reading, commonly encouraged by teachers in the younger grades, is one of the most studied types of parent involve- ment. In their review of 30 years of research on the impact of parents’ reading to preschool students, Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) concluded that there is a mod- est impact of shared storybook reading on students’ literacy development, due

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

46 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

mainly to the quality of that interaction. Other research expanding on this base found that, for families who do not speak English at home, storybook reading in the family’s primary language was as effective as reading in English for developing children’s English vocabulary (Roberts, 2008).

Educators often conduct workshops to help parents improve the quality of their storybook reading with young children. In a study of the effects of parent participa- tion in reading workshops, Jordan, Snow, and Porche (2000) compared the early lit- eracy skills of about 250 kindergarten students whose parents received training with the skills of students whose parents did not receive such training. Parents were taught ways to increase the frequency and quality of parent-child verbal interactions and conduct structured activities provided by the child’s teacher. This and other studies (Bus, de Jong, & Van Ijzendoorn, 2007; Saracho & Spodek, 2010) showed that students whose parents were in a training group showed significantly greater improvement than did other students on early literacy tests of vocabulary, compre- hension, story sequencing, and sound awareness.

Interventions to assist parents with low incomes and limited formal schooling also found positive results for students’ early reading skills development. Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) compared the effects of a shared-reading intervention on pre- school children’s early literacy skills. Students were randomly assigned to four groups: (1) teachers reading to a small group of children, (2) parents reading to their children at home, (3) combined teachers and parents reading to children, and (4) a control group of children who received no special intervention. In this study, students who experienced shared reading with a parent, small-group reading with a teacher, or a combination of the two performed better on reading assessments than did students with no shared reading experiences. In addition, participation in shared reading activ- ities with parents (either solely or in combination with teachers’ use of small-group dialogic reading) was associated with higher levels of vocabulary and oral language skills, compared to participation in reading activities only with teachers.

The results of studies of training workshops show that parents of preschool stu- dents who are assisted to become effectively involved in reading-related activities con- duct more and better interactions about reading with their young children, and that the students improve their early reading and literacy skills. In particular, Lonigan and Whitehurst’s classic study provides strong evidence that parents with low incomes and less formal education, who may have weaker reading skills than more economically advantaged parents, can effectively support their preschoolers’ reading readiness.

Family Involvement in the Primary Grades Children’s entry to formal schooling marks an important transition in learning and development. The transition to elementary school has important consequences for parents’ roles in their children’s literacy development. Purcell-Gates (1996), for example, found that in some low-income families, parent involvement in reading increased after their children began formal schooling. Although schools and teachers are significant influences on children’s learning to read in the elementary grades, parents remain influential in children’s reading and literacy development (Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005b).

Storybook Reading. Storybook reading continues to be an important activity for children in the primary grades. Studies suggest there are long-term, multifaceted

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 47

effects of parent-child storybook reading on children’s language development (Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Sénéchal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998; Sénéchal & Young, 2008). In one study, these researchers found that first-grade children whose parents read more storybooks to them in the preschool years (informal literacy activ- ities) scored higher on receptive language skills (e.g., vocabulary and listening com- prehension) than did children not read to at home. First-graders whose parents more often used books to teach letters and words (formal literacy activities) scored higher on emergent literacy skills (e.g., alphabet knowledge, decoding, and invented spell- ing). The studies showed that, over time, emergent literacy skills predicted chil- dren’s reading achievement in first grade, whereas receptive language skills predicted reading achievement in the third grade.

The complex results are consistent with other studies indicating that parental involvement with children on varied reading-related activities helps students develop several literacy skills that are important for later reading achievement (Ma, Shen, Krenn, Hu, & Yuan, 2016; Sénéchal, & Young, 2008; Wilder, 2014). Moreover, the findings suggest that schools can guide parents to conduct and enjoy a variety of literacy activities with their young children, including reading aloud with children, listening to stories, and learning letters and words. These readiness activities will prepare students to learn to read in school.

Reading Volunteers. Elementary schools often bring parent and community volun- teers in to help children improve their literacy skills. Wasik (1998) reviewed empiri- cal research on adult volunteer programs focused on helping students learn to read and found that most of these programs used community members rather than par- ents as volunteer reading tutors. She identified common characteristics of these programs, including a coordinator with knowledge about reading and reading instruction; structured activities for volunteer tutors to use with students; and train- ing for volunteer tutors.

Building on Wasik’s review, Baker, Gersten, and Keating (2000) evaluated longi- tudinal effects on students of a low-cost community volunteer program. After ran- domly assigning first grade students to either two years of one-on-one tutoring or to a control group, the researchers compared differences in students’ reading achieve- ment at the end of the first and second grades. At the end of the second grade, stu- dents in the tutoring program had significantly higher oral reading and word comprehension skills, and had improved their reading skills more than did peers who were not in the tutoring program.

In another example, Young, Mohr, and Rasinski (2015) reported greater growth in reading fluency for struggling readers in third through fifth grade who were tutored by community volunteers and school personnel. Also, Fitzgerald (2001) found that use of college students as volunteer reading tutors had the potential to improve elementary school students’ reading outcomes. These studies suggest that community involvement strategies, such as the use of well-prepared reading tutors, can have a positive impact on students’ reading achievement.

Family and Community Involvement in the Upper Elementary and Middle Grades More studies of parent involvement and students’ reading and literacy skills have been conducted with families of young children in preschool and the elementary grades,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

48 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

fewer have been conducted for students in the secondary grades. After the third grade, parents report less involvement in their children’s education (Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Eccles & Harold, 1996), and educators report fewer efforts to include parents in their children’s schooling (Chen, 2001; Donahue et al., 2001; Epstein & Dauber, 1991).

Studies are accumulating, however, that indicate family and community involve- ment has a positive influence on student achievement, behavior, and other measures of success through high school (Catsambis, 2001; Crosnoe, 2009; McNeal, 2014; Nuñez, Suárez, Rosário, Vallejo, & Epstein, 2015; Simon, 2001). The success or failure of interventions to involve families with their children in reading, language arts, and other literacy skills in older grades rests on the design and quality of implementation of the parent involvement programs, and their connections to students’ classwork and assessments. Most intervention studies report changes in the nature and increases in the extent of parents’ involvement, but not all studies measured effects on students’ reading achievement over time.

One study provided some information about these effects. A study of third and fifth grade students from mainly African American families with low incomes in urban schools found that, controlling for prior reading achievement, students in classrooms with teachers who more frequently involved families in learning activi- ties at home had higher gains in reading achievement from one year to the next than did students in other teachers’ classrooms (Epstein, 1991). The data did not identify the specific practices teachers used to involve parents in children’s reading, but fol- low-up interviews with teachers, parents, and administrators in the schools indicated that most involvement activities focused on reading and reading-related activities.

Other intervention studies reinforce the importance of parental involvement in reading activities across the grades to influence students’ reading skills. Shaver and Walls (1998) found that workshops for parents of students from second through eighth grade promoted involvement of parents with children by using learning packets for reading at home. In addition, students increased their reading compre- hension skills and total reading scores.

A study of 71 Title I schools in 18 school districts found that outreach to parents on several types of involvement, including providing parents with materials on how to help students at home, improved reading achievement over time as students moved from third to fifth grade (Westat and Policy Studies Associates, 2001). Test scores were 50 percent higher in reading for students whose teachers reported high levels of outreach to parents in the early grades.

These intervention studies are particularly important given evidence that increasing family involvement after the early grades may improve student achievement in read- ing. Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, and Weiss (2006), for example, found that, after con- trolling for students’ achievement in kindergarten, families that were more involved at their children’s school from kindergarten to fifth grade had children with higher liter- acy performance in fifth grade. They also reported that students whose families increased their involvement at school from kindergarten to the upper elementary grades were more likely to demonstrate an increase in literacy performance by fifth grade.

Parent Involvement and Adolescents’ School Achievement Family and community involvement is largely absent from discussions about adoles- cent literacy and how to teach reading to middle and high school students. Older students with weak reading skills often are given remedial instruction in vocabulary,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 49

comprehension, and writing skills, but little attention is given to the roles that family and community reinforcement, interaction, and support might play in encouraging students to put forth effort to master reading competencies and to be successful in high school (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). It still is rare for second- ary schools to have well-designed interventions to assist all families to interact with their teens on homework or coursework in specific subjects (Sanders & Epstein, 2000).

Using a nationally representative sample of students in grades 8, 10, and 12, sev- eral researchers found that after controlling for prior levels of achievement, students scored higher on reading achievement tests and/or earned higher grades in English if their parents had discussions with them about school and about their future plans, checked their homework, and maintained high educational expectations (Desimone, 1999; Ho & Willms, 1996; Lee & Croninger, 1994; McNeal, 2014; Simon, 2004). These studies confirmed that parents’ interest in and support for reading and other school subjects continue to play an important role in adolescents’ academic development through high school.

Other studies also indicate that high schools’ communications with families are associated with higher levels of students’ reading achievement. After statistically controlling for prior achievement, researchers found that schools that communicated more often with students’ families had students who gained more on their standard- ized reading achievement tests than did schools that did not maintain strong com- munication practices (McNeal, 2014; Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Simon, 2004). The results suggested that if schools established frequent, positive, and purposeful communica- tions, more parents would be able to support and encourage reading attitudes and habits in their teenage children that were more closely coordinated with teachers’ goals, and that this support and encouragement would translate into improved stu- dent learning. Clear and helpful communications may be essential in secondary schools, where parents often feel less confident about their abilities to help adoles- cents with more advanced curricular activities (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2009).

One intervention, Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS), was designed to increase family involvement with students on language arts homework in the middle grades (Epstein, 2017; and see Chapter 8 in this Handbook on TIPS). A study of TIPS–Language Arts included 683 students in grades 6, 7, and 8 in two central city middle schools where most students were African American and over 70 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997). The students shared writing prompts, ideas, and drafts of stories or essays with a parent or family partner and conducted “family surveys” to discuss their family partners’ experiences that related to their own. Analyses statistically con- trolled for parent education, student grade level, attendance, fall report card grades, and fall writing sample scores to identify the effects of TIPS interactive homework on students’ writing skills in the winter and spring. Students who completed more TIPS homework assignments had higher language arts report card grades. When parents participated, students improved their writing scores from fall to winter and from winter to spring, regardless of their initial abilities.

A longitudinal study that followed students from Grade 6 to 7 found that, with prior test scores statistically controlled, students in TIPS language arts classes had higher test scores than students in the control group. Students in TIPS classes also interacted more on language arts activities with their families and had more positive attitudes about homework than did students in the comparison group (Van Voorhis, 2009, 2011b).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

50 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Mathematics Like reading, math is a core school subject at all grade levels. This subject presents some unique challenges associated with school, family, and community partner- ships. The progressively difficult nature of mathematics curricula and many parents’ fears or lack of confidence about helping with math make it especially important for schools to implement strong partnership programs and activities related to mathe- matics from preschool on.

There are fewer studies of school, family, and community partnerships in math than in reading, but studies are accumulating with important results. In a review of research on the effects of different types of math interventions, Baker, Gersten, and Lee (2002) found that students having difficulties in mathematics benefited most when teachers had data on student performance, used peers as tutors, provided clear and specific feedback to students about their errors, and provided explicit instruc- tion as they were teaching math concepts and procedures. They noted that few pro- grams sought to connect or communicate with students’ families, and when they did, the practices were add-ons to the program. The lack of attention to family involvement in math runs counter to research findings suggesting a need for more systematic interventions designed to involve families and community members to help students improve their math skills and achievements.

Mathematics and Family Involvement School and family partnerships are essential because parents socialize their children in ways that affect their children’s self-perceptions of ability and achievement in math. In fact, children’s self-concepts of math ability were more closely related to their parents’ perceptions of the child’s ability than to the actual grades the students earned (Frome & Eccles, 1998; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). These complex psy- chological effects are important, because other evidence indicates that children’s self-perceptions shape their later career decisions (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004). In addi- tion to helping teachers improve students’ self-perceptions of their math abilities, schools may need to help parents increase their understanding of and expectations for students’ math achievement and progress.

Other studies indicate that parental involvement directly influences children’s math achievement. Many studies have shown that, across racial and ethnic groups and across school levels, students performed better and continued further in math- ematics if they participated in parent-child discussions about school at home, and if their parents were active volunteers at the school or members of the PTA or PTO (Desimone, 1999; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Ma, 1999; Park & Holloway, 2017; Valadez, 2002). Also, higher parental expectations for their children predicted higher math achievement (Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Hong & Ho, 2005; Yan & Lin, 2005). Catsambis and Beveridge (2001) extended these findings by showing that, at the high school level, positive neighborhood characteristics also contributed to stu- dents’ math achievement. On a variety of math outcomes, then, studies demon- strated that family and community connections may influence students’ math achievement.

There is ample evidence indicating that many, if not most, parents need help structuring their interactions with their child about math. Lerner and Shumow (1997), for example, found that parents believed in the value of progressive instructional

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 51

strategies in math (e.g., having children talk about their math work and learn from mistakes). However, they tended to provide help that was directive and that gave students few opportunities to discover solutions to math problems on their own. Similarly, Hyde and colleagues (Hyde, Else-Quest, Alibali, Knuth, & Romberg, 2006) found significant variation in mothers’ abilities to help their children with math homework. In both cases and in the comprehensive review of research on students’ math readiness for kindergarten (Van Voorhis et al., 2013), the researchers concluded that school and family partnerships were needed to help all families understand how to interact with their children on math homework in ways that would provide chil- dren support and encouragement for learning math.

One effective strategy has been teachers’ use of interactive homework that requires children to discuss math work and ideas with a family partner. Balli, Demo, and Wedman (1998) found that students receiving interactive homework in the mid- dle grades reported more parent involvement in math. Sheldon and Epstein (2005a) reported that teachers who assigned interactive homework in math reported greater improvement in the percentage of students scoring at or above proficient on stan- dardized math tests than did teachers who did not assign this type of homework.

The strongest evidence that interactive math homework benefits students’ math achievement in the elementary grades is reported by Van Voorhis (2009, 2011a, 2011b). She conducted a quasi-experimental study that compared the math achieve- ment of students in classrooms where teachers assigned TIPS interactive math home- work (treatment) to those who were in classrooms where the teacher did not incorporate this type of homework into the curriculum (control). Following students from Grade 3 to Grade 4, Van Voorhis found that students who were assigned TIPS interactive math homework reported greater family involvement in math, had more positive attitudes about math homework, and had higher levels of achievement compared to students in the control group. This study’s strong research design sug- gested that teachers can help all families support student learning in math without making parents think that they have to “teach” math skills. This kind of parental support and conversations about math at home may translate into positive math attitudes and higher levels of student math achievement.

Other research suggests that schools can improve their students’ math achieve- ment by developing a school climate that is welcoming and that has the support of parents, families, and the community. School climate—the organizational character- istics that capture the tone or atmosphere of a school—has been associated with prin- cipals’ leadership styles, sense of community, expectations for students, ethos of caring, and a variety of student outcomes (National Research Council, 2003). Studies show that schools that are welcoming to parents and community partners have more positive school climates (Desimone, Finn-Stevenson, & Henrich, 2000; Griffith, 1998; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989). Also, schools with stronger partnership cli- mates report higher levels of achievement on standardized math tests after con- trolling for prior levels of math achievement and poverty (Rice, Barth, Guadagno, Gabrielle, Smith, & McCallum, 2013; Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010).

Taken together, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that the home environment influences students’ math attitudes, abilities, and achievement. The findings suggest that schools should implement strategies to help families frame their messages and interactions with children about math. These practices should result in more family involvement and improved student attitudes and performance in math.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

52 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Science Compared to studies of reading and mathematics, there are even fewer studies of the effects of school, family, and community partnerships on students’ science achieve- ment. Recent research, however, suggests that parents’ attitudes about science have a significant effect on student motivation (Harackiewicz et al., 2012) and achieve- ment (Perera, 2014). Given the growing interest in grade-specific science standards, attitudes toward STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math), and student achievement on science tests, it is important to understand the results of extant studies of family and community involvement effects on students’ science attitudes and skills.

One study using national data from students in grades 4, 8, and 12 found that students from low-income families performed less well in science than their more affluent peers (Von Secker, 2004). This study showed that parent education and the educational resources of the home (e.g., books and magazines) helped compensate for lower family income and minority status to increase students’ science scores. That is, students from families with low income had higher science scores if their parents had more formal education and actively encouraged their education. Moreover, Von Secker found that without these positive family resources, the achievement gap between students from families with low and high incomes widened from grades 4 through 12. The study suggests that family involvement may be especially important for students who are most at risk of experiencing failure in science.

As with math, family and community involvement may affect students’ attitudes about science and, in turn, their achievement. George and Kaplan (1998) found that parents play an important role in developing children’s science attitudes by engag- ing in science activities at home and by taking their children to libraries and muse- ums. It is important to understand how families can help students develop positive attitudes toward science, as this may help all students—including those from low- income households—to increase achievement in science and other subjects.

In two of the strongest studies of the effects of teachers’ efforts to increase parent- child interactions around science in the middle grades, Van Voorhis (2003, 2011b) used a quasi-experimental design to test the effects of TIPS interactive science home- work on parent involvement in science and students’ science achievement. Families whose students received weekly interactive homework in science were significantly more involved with their children on science compared to families of students in the control group. The TIPS students had higher report card grades in science and more positive attitudes and emotions about science homework than did the other stu- dents. The findings suggest that schools can and should encourage more science- focused family involvement at home in order to increase students’ completion of science homework, boost discussions about science at home, and increase students’ success in science in the middle grades.

Nonacademic Outcomes

Transitions to New Schools Entering formal schooling in preschool or kindergarten represents a major shift in the lives of children and their families. The period of transition brings dynamic changes in the ways families and students interact with each other, and adds the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 53

challenge of relating to teachers and others at school. According to Powell, Son, File, and Froiland (2012), more than half of families increased or decreased their level of school involvement from prekindergarten through first grade. Family support and guidance for a child at the time of the transition to formal schooling can help stu- dents successfully progress from one phase of education to the next (e.g., entering school or moving from one school to a new school).

Several studies on the effects of school and family partnerships at times of educa- tional transitions found that, controlling for prior achievement and family back- ground, kindergarteners in schools that implemented activities designed to promote parental involvement and keep families informed had higher achievement than did students in schools that did not conduct this outreach (Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005). Also, increased home-based family engagement at the transition into formal schooling is associated with improvements in children’s math skills, and may be particularly beneficial for students entering prekindergarten with lower math skills (Powell et al., 2012). To improve or target family engagement so that parents know how to help their children in ways that will contribute to learn- ing requires well-designed interventions that combine needed information about the transition, recognition that a parent or the family makes the transition with the stu- dent, and goal-linked engagement activities that will enable all parents to guide their children toward success in school.

Other researchers have studied students’ transitions to middle school and high school and the part that family engagement plays in students’ adjustment, atten- dance, and learning (Crosnoe, 2009; Falbo, Lein, & Amador, 2001; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000; Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Mac Iver, Epstein, Sheldon, & Fonseca, 2015). These studies suggest that schools can help students manage educa- tional transitions, have fewer adjustment problems, and proceed with academic learning by encouraging family members to talk with and help their children navi- gate the new experiences and expectations that accompany these changes in educa- tion and development.

Attendance Improving student attendance is an important goal for schools, because children who are at school have more opportunities to learn than those who are not. Meeting this goal, however, requires a holistic approach that addresses school and classroom factors, as well as factors related to school, family, and community partnerships (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; McConnell & Kubina, 2014). Although most schools know that home and school connections are important for increasing student attendance, many have not established practices to collaborate systematically with families to reduce student absenteeism. One approach—organizing comprehensive, school- wide programs of school, family, and community partnerships and implementing them well—has been shown to help more students attend school regularly and improve school-level rates of average daily attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016; Jung & Sheldon, 2015; Sheldon, 2007).

Some studies identified parental behaviors related to better student attendance. These include monitoring students’ whereabouts, parent-child discussions about school, volunteering at school, and PTA/PTO membership. These variables were reported as important predictors of lower levels of truancy among students (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Duckworth & DeJong, 1989; McNeal, 1999).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

54 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Other studies identified specific school practices of family and community engagement that were associated with improved attendance, including communi- cating with families about the school’s attendance policies, their own child’s atten- dance, and people to contact at school; conducting workshops on attendance; conducting home visits; and providing afterschool programs for students (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheldon & Jung, 2015). Sheldon and Epstein (2004) found that chronic absenteeism declined when schools implemented communication strate- gies to inform parents of their children’s attendance and when schools conducted comprehensive partnership programs with a variety of family and community involvement activities.

The associations between good attendance and reduced absenteeism with posi- tive and frequent communications from school to home and from home to school are consistent with other studies that found that phone calls to parents of absent stu- dents were associated with improved student attendance (Helm & Burkett, 1989; Licht, Gard, & Guardino, 1991). Also, providing timely information to families about attendance helped improve attendance rates in high schools (Roderick et al., 1997). Keeping parents informed of their children’s attendance at school allowed parents to monitor and supervise their children more effectively. (See Attendance Works for ongoing summaries of research studies on attendance at http://www.attendance works.org/research/.)

Behavior Children’s behavior, in school and out, is related to their home environment and family dynamics. In a review of the literature over three decades ago, Snyder and Patterson (1987) concluded that neglectful and passive parenting styles, lax disci- plinary approaches, poor parental monitoring, inadequate family problem-solving strategies, and high levels of conflict in the home all were predictive of delinquency among juveniles. They also found that associations between socioeconomic charac- teristics and delinquency were greatly reduced or eliminated when these types of family interactions are statistically accounted for. More recently, studies indicate that family communication patterns and parental support of schooling were associated with lower levels of delinquency in white and minority secondary students (Davalos, Chavez, & Guardiola, 2005).

In addition to improving student behavior at school, implementing practices of school, family, and community partnerships focused on student behavior also may help improve students’ academic achievement. Analyzing data from a large national database, Domina (2005) concluded that parental involvement activities helped prevent behavioral problems. The study showed that parents’ help on homework and parents’ volunteering had more favorable effects on school behav- ior of students from families with low incomes than for students from families with high incomes.

Other studies also found that students whose parents were involved in their edu- cation at school and at home behaved better in school, and that school behavior helped predict academic achievement over time (Beyers, Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 2003; El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010; Hill et al., 2004). These studies used advanced statistical methods and large datasets to identify an important path- way connecting family involvement to student outcomes via parents’ positive effects on their children’s behavior.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 55

The connections of student behavior with family and community contexts have been understood for a long time. Many researchers have concluded that the social and cultural organization of neighborhoods helps shape the socialization processes of families and schools. Adolescents’ exposure to violence in the community, for example, is associated with poor school attendance, low grades, and problem behav- ior in school (Bowen, 1999; Bowen, Bowen, & Ware, 2002).

The impact of communities can be positive (Sanders, 2005). School and commu- nity collaborations such as mentoring, safety patrols, and business partnerships may improve school programs and impact student achievement and attitudes toward school (McPartland & Nettles, 1991; Nettles, 1991; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). The potential positive and negative effects of communities on students’ achievement make school, family, and community partnerships an essential component of school improvement programs that aim to improve student behavior.

Practices to Reduce Behavioral Problems Although many have suggested that school, family, and community resources could reduce students’ problem behaviors and improve learning in school (Adelman & Taylor, 1998; Epstein, 1995; Noguera, 1995; Taylor & Adelman, 2000), interventions to improve student behavior have most often focused on what educators need to do to ensure a safe school environment. Parents have been given modest roles in help- ing improve student behavior, such as being asked to reinforce programs at the schools. They have not, typically, been integrated into school efforts to reduce or prevent student behavior problems (Garbacz, McIntosh, Eagle, Dowd-Eagle, Hirano, & Ruppert, 2016; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Hybl, 1993).

There is some evidence that families and community partners can help schools become safer places and encourage students to be more focused on student learning. A study of elementary school students found that school social workers who helped families and schools communicate with one another improved students’ behavior and academic skills (Bowen, 1999). Others have shown that higher levels of family involvement (e.g., attending workshops, volunteering at the school, helping with learning at home, and being involved with school policy reviews and revisions) is associated with better behavior of preschool students (Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004), as well as middle and high school students (Ma, 2001; Simon, 2004).

Sheldon and Epstein (2002) found that schools that improved their programs of school, family, and community partnerships from one year to the next decreased the percentages of students sent to the principal, given detention, and given in-school suspension. Schools with more volunteering and parenting activities reported fewer disciplinary actions. Taken together, the findings reaffirm the importance of devel- oping school, family, and community partnership programs with activities that help students improve their behavior and reduce the number of disciplinary actions.

Research is affecting practice. Many educators understand the connections between students’ family life and school behavior. As they develop and improve their partnership programs, more schools are implementing family and community involvement activities that will help students improve their behavior and succeed at higher levels in school. (Visit www.partnershipschools.org and the section Success Stories for practical examples from schools and districts in diverse communities working to improve student behavior with goal-linked programs of family and community engagement.)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

56 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Conclusion

The studies summarized in this chapter show not only that students’ families and communities are influential in the students’ success in school, but also that effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships may affect a wide range of important student outcomes. We should not, however, expect too much from family and community involvement as an influence on student achievement across the grades. Children’s reading skills, for example, are most affected by high-quality instruction from skilled teachers (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). At the same time, we should not minimize the potential of family and community involvement for the value it adds to student outcomes, over and above the effects of good teaching.

Research conducted for more than a quarter century confirms that school prac- tices to involve families make a difference in whether and which families become involved in their children’s education and how they become involved (Epstein, 2011; Weiss, Lopez, & Rosenberg, 2010). More important, if schools conduct well-designed partnership programs and activities, small effects will accumulate over time, pro- ducing sizable total effects of family involvement on student reading and literacy, math, science, and/or nonacademic outcomes related to school success.

Key to realizing these effects is the willingness of schools and districts to imple- ment high-quality partnership programs and activities. When schools set goals to help students improve reading, math, and science skills; attendance; or behavior; they must have clear, written plans to implement family and community involve- ment activities that will engage all families in ways that help students attain these goals. Educators who are mindful of the potential of involving family and commu- nity members, who plan and implement effective practices, and who monitor prog- ress and meet challenges that occur will ultimately see more students experience greater success in school.

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1998). Reframing mental health in schools and expanding school reform. Educational Psychologist, 33, 135–152.

Astone, N., & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320.

Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). Effects of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) on children’s school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 571–588.

Baker, S. Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494–519.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.

Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149–157.

Beyers, J. M., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K A. (2003). Neighborhood structure, parent processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 35–53.

Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 97–109.

Bowen, N. K. (1999). A role for school social workers in promoting student success through school- family partnerships. Social Work in Education, 21, 34–47.

Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Ware, W. B. (2002) Neighborhood social disorganization, families, and the educational behavior of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 468–490.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 57

Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Social aspects in language and literacy learning: Progress, problems, and interventions. In O. N. Saracho, & B. Spodek, (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on social learning in early childhood education (pp. 243–258). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177.

Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34, 435–457.

Chen, X. (2001). Efforts by public K–8 schools to involve parents in children’s education: Do school and parent reports agree? (NCES 2001–076). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Chrispeels, J. (1996). Effective schools and home-school-community partnership roles: A framework for parent involvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 297–322.

Crosnoe, R. (2009). Family-school connections and the transitions of low-income youths and English language learners from middle school to high school. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1061–1076.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. Chavkin. (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53–71). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Davalos, D. B., Chavez, E. L., & Guardiola, R. J. (2005). Effects of perceived parental school support and family communication on delinquent behaviors in Latino and White non-Latinos. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 57–68.

Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low- income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653–664.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income mat- ter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11–30.

Desimone, L., Finn-Stevenson, M., & Henrich, C. (2000). Whole school reform in a low-income African American community: The effects of the CoZi model on teachers, parents, and students. Urban Education, 35, 269–323.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233–249.

Donahue, P. L., Finnegan, R. J., Lutkus, A. D., Allen, N. L., & Campbell, J. R. (2001). The nation’s report card: Fourth-grade reading 2002 (NCES 2001–499). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Duckworth, K., & DeJong, J. (1989). Inhibiting class cutting among high school students. The High School Journal, 72, 188–195.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Bloom & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Edwards, P. A., Pleasants, H. M., & Franklin, S. H. (1999). A path to follow: Learning to listen to parents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children's academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988–1005.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects of teacher practices of parent involvement on change in student achieve- ment in reading and math. In S. Silvern, (Ed.), Literacy through family, community, and school interac- tion: Advances in reading/language research (vol. 5, pp. 261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2017). Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) language arts, science/health, and math interactive homework in the elementary and middle grades (two manuals). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 289–305.

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308–318.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

58 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997, September). Effects of Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) language arts interactive homework in the middle grades (Research Bulletin 18). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, Center on Education, Development, and Research.

Falbo, T., Lein, L., & Amador, N. A. (2001). Parental involvement during the transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 511–529.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta- analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33, 467–480.

Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk students to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28–46.

Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435–452.

Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achieve- ment gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 90–103.

Garbacz, S. A., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Hirano, K. A., & Ruppert, T. (2016). Family engagement within schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Preventing School Failure, 60, 60–69.

George, R., & Kaplan, D. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82, 93–109.

Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Hybl, L. G. (1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multi- year, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 179–215.

Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R. Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 79–129.

Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 99, 53–80.

Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources and the transi- tion to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 465–488.

Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academic achieve- ment of poor African American students during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223–248.

Hammer, C. S., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2010). The language and literacy development of Head Start children: A study using the family and child experiences survey database. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 70–83.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Sciences, 23, 899–906.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School climate enhancement through parental involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87–90.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heibert, E. H. (1980). The relationship of logical reasoning ability, oral language comprehension, and

home experiences to preschool children’s print awareness. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 313–324. Helm, C. M., & Burkett, C. W. (1989). Effects of computer-assisted telecommunications on school atten-

dance. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 362–365. Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achieve-

ment. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education. Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community

connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 59

Henderson, A., Mapp, K., Johnson, V., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: The New Press.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491–1509.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763.

Ho, E. S-C., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement, Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.

Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 911–950). New York: Longman.

Hong, S., & Ho, H. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.., Ice, C. L., & Whitaker, M. W. (2009). "We're way past reading together:" Why and how parental involvement in adolescence makes sense. In N. E. Hill & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools and the adolescent: Connecting families, schools, and the adolescent (pp. 19–36). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E., & Romberg, T. (2006). Mathematics in the home: Homework practices and mother-child interactions doing mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 136–152.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202–218.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–269.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.

Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706–742.

Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills, Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 524–546.

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Quirk, K. J., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S., & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 335–363.

Lee, V. E., & Croninger, R. G. (1994). The relative importance of home and school in development of literacy skills for middle-grade students. American Journal of Education, 102, 286–329.

Leichter, H. J. (1984). Families as environments for literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 38–50). London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Lerner, R., & Shumow, L. (1997). Aligning the construction zones of parents and teachers for mathemat- ics reform, Cognition and Instruction, 15, 41–83.

Licht, B. G., Gard, T., & Guardino, C. (1991). Modifying school attendance of special education high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 368–373.

Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263–290.

Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement. Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.

Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 351–370.

Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., & Yuan, J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning outcomes and parental involvement during early childhood education and early elemen- tary education. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 771–801.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

60 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Mac Iver, M. A., Epstein, J. L., Sheldon, S. B., & Fonseca, E. (2015). Engaging families to support students’ transition to high school. The High School Journal, 99 (1), 27–45.

Mathematica Policy Research Inc. & Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University. (2001). Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are changing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.mathematics- mpr.com/publications/PDFs/bildingvol1.pdf

McConnell, B. M., & Kubina, R. M., Jr. (2014). Connecting with families to improve students' school attendance: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 58, 249–256.

McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 117–144.

McNeal, R. B., Jr. (2014). Parent involvement, academic achievement and the role of student attitudes and behaviors as mediators. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2, 564–576.

McPartland, J. M., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of project RAISE. American Journal of Education, 99, 568–586.

Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement and academic achievement: An analysis of family resources available to the child. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 77–114). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

National Research Council. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nettles, S. M. (1991). Community contributions to school outcomes of African-American students. Education and Urban Society, 24, 132–147.

Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189–212.

Nuñez, J. C., Suárez, N, Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., & Epstein, J. L. (2015). Relationships between parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: Differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacognition & Learning, 10, 375–406.

Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student achievement. Social Forces, 79, 881–912.

Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2017). The effects of school-based parental involvement on academic achievement at the child and elementary school level: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 110, 1–16.

Parsons, J. E., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.

Perera, L. H. (2014). Parents' attitudes towards science and their children's science achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 3021–3041.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: Relationships between home literacy expe- riences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406–428.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 426–452.

Powell, D. R., Son, S. H., File, N., & Froiland, J. M. (2012). Changes in parent involvement across the transition from public school prekindergarten to first grade and children’s academic outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 113, 276–300.

Rice, L., Barth, J. M., Guadagno, R. E., Gabrielle P. A., Smith, D. M., & McCallum, J. (2013). The role of social support in students’ perceived abilities and attitudes toward math and science. Youth Adolescence, 42, 1028–1040.

Roberts, T. A. (2008). Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children: Evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 103–130.

Roderick, M., Arney, M., Axelman, M., DaCosta, K., Steiger, C., Stone, S., . . . & Waxman, E. (1997). Habits hard to break: A new look at truancy in Chicago’s public high schools. Chicago: School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago.

Sanders, M. G. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaborating for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000). Building school-family-community partnerships in middle and high schools. In M. G. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk (pp. 339–362). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345–1368.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

A Comprehensive Framework 61

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2010). Parents and children engaging in storybook reading. Early child Development and Care, 180, 1379–1389.

Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302.

Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41, 840–871.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 455–460.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experi- ences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 96–116.

Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78, 880–907.

Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and math achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 321, 90–97.

Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106, 171–187.

Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4–26.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involve- ment to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14, 39–56.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005a). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and math achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196–206.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005b). School programs of family and community involvement to sup- port children’s reading and literacy development across the grades. In J. Flood & P. Anders (Eds.), Literacy development of students in urban schools: Research and policy (pp. 107–138). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., & Galindo, C. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership climate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 27–48.

Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2015). The Family Engagement Project: Year 2 Student Achievement Outcomes. Flamboyan Foundation. www.http://flamboyanfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 09/JHU-STUDY_FINAL-REPORT.pdf

Shen, J., Washington, A. L., Palmer, L. B., & Xia, J. (2014). Effects of traditional and nontraditional forms of parental involvement on school-level achievement outcomes. An HLM study using SASS 2007–2008. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 326–337.

Shumow, L., & Miller, J. D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68–91.

Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 8–19.

Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snyder, J., & Patterson, G. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 216–243). New York: Wiley.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.

Taylor, L., & Adelman, H. S. (2000). Connecting schools, families, and communities. Professional School Counseling, 3, 298–307.

Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

62 School, Family, and community PartnerShiPS

Valadez, J. R. (2002). The influence of social capital on mathematics course selection by Latino high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 319–339.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323–338.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2009). Does family involvement in homework make a difference? Investigating the longitudinal effects of math and language arts interventions. In R. Deslandes (Ed.), International perspectives on student outcomes and homework: Family-school-community partnerships (pp. 141–156). New York: Routledge.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011a). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study of mathe- matics achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43, 313–338.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011b). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Lessons learned from students and families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220–249.

Von Secker, C. (2004). Science achievement in social contexts: Analysis from National Assessment of Educational Progress. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 67–78.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. M. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294.

Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 266–292.

Wasik, B. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of family literacy. Routledge. Weiss, H., Lopez, M. E., & Rosenberg, H. (2010). Beyond random acts: Family, school, and community

engagement as an integral part of education reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance

in Title I Schools (vol. 1, Executive summary). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. Educational

Review, 66, 377–397. Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across racial and

ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 116–127. Young, C., Mohr, K. A. J., & Rasinski, T. (2015). Reading together: A successful reading fluency interven-

tion. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54, 67–81.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

or w

in P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .