Participatory Action Research Article

Using a Community-Based Participatory Research Model to Encourage Parental

Involvement in Their Children’s Schools JoDee G. Keller, Claudia Miller, Chance LasDulce, and Rachel G. Wohrle

Parental engagement with their children’s education has been shown to have positive effects for children’s academic outcomes; thus, learning ways to increase parental engagement can be beneficial for students. Because of the importance of understanding schools in the context of the community and the essential role that community can play in supporting schools, community-based participatory research (CBPR) may be a particularly effective approach to data collection because it engages community partners as well as parents and school personnel, and it gains information that leads to meaningful interventions. This study explored the use of CBPR within an economically and ethnically diverse school community with the intent of developing strategies to foster increased parental participation in their children’s education. Social workers and social work students facilitated focus groups with parents and community stakeholders to explore ways to increase parental engagement in their children’s school and to identify barriers to engagement. The article identifies next steps based on the recommendations of participants and describes the outcomes of preliminary implementation of these steps.

KEY WORDS: community-based participatory research; diversity and equity; parental engage-

ment; public schools; relationship and community

T he institution of the school is one of the

most important and influential in a child’s

development. Family and community fill

out the context of a child’s life. When these three

systems work collaboratively, outcomes are more

positive for all and include enhanced achievement

for children and youths, increased social and political

capital for parents, and greater capacity for school

and community partners to work together (Hender-

son & Mapp, 2002). The importance of parent in-

volvement has been well established (Blair, 2014;

Jeynes, 2007; LaRocque, 2013; Toso & Grinder,

2016), but as schools are becoming increasingly ra-

cially and ethnically diverse, traditional models of pa-

rental involvement may not be as effective or rele-

vant. In addition, some parents may feel alienated

from schools for a variety of reasons. Many parents,

particularly those of color, may find it difficult to

engage with schools but still remain deeply

invested in their children’s learning (Goodall &

Montgomery, 2014). There may be additional

barriers to traditional models of engaging

parents. School social workers may be uniquely

suited to address issues around family engage-

ment and to develop and support models to

strengthen collaboration among school, families,

and community.

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN THE SCHOOLS The benefits of parental engagement in their child-

ren’s education are wide reaching and include the

domains of academics, behavior within and outside

of school, and attitudes that affect educational and

noneducational outcomes. From an ecosystems

perspective, children grow and develop within

systems—the most important being family,

school, community, and society (Bronfenbren-

ner, 1979). When there are multiple points of

contact among systems, it provides a rich web of

support for the developing child (Garbarino &

Ganzel, 2000). If the child is the only point of

contact between systems, such as family and

school, that child is at greater risk than if there

are multiple points of contact. Parental engage-

ment in the school setting provides additional

connections among family and school systems,

leading to a richer context for development. Di-

rect and indirect academic benefits to parental

doi: 10.1093/cs/cdab015 VC 2021 National Association of Social Workers 149

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

engagement include improved academic outcomes

and educational attainment (Blair, 2014; Hender-

son & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003, 2007), better

school attendance, stronger parent–teacher rela-

tionships, and improved teacher morale and school

climate (Hornby & Blackwell, 2018).

Nonacademic benefits that are related to both

school and home include positive attitudes toward

school and improved behavior and mental health of

children as well as increased parental confidence and

satisfaction (Hampden-Thompson & Galindo, 2017;

Hornby & Blackwell, 2018). Hampden-Thompson

and Galindo (2017) suggested that parental satisfac-

tion with the school is positively correlated with

children’s behavior and academic performance but

depends on both parental involvement and the de-

gree to which school personnel encourage and wel-

come participation. Henderson and Mapp (2002)

found that parental engagement had an effect on

behaviors of children and youths at home and at

school, such as lower rates of substance abuse and

teenage pregnancy, stronger social skills, and more

effective adaptation to the school environment

(Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Parental engagement, suggested Domina (2005),

benefits children and families in three significant

ways: first, by socializing children to the impor-

tance of school. Students see their parents engaged

and are more likely to engage and to value educa-

tion themselves. Second, parents who are engaged

at school form relationships with teachers and other

parents, giving them greater capacity to monitor

their children. Third, parents who are engaged in

school have increased access to “insider information”

in the sense that they communicate with teachers

and other school personnel and thus hear about

any concerns sooner so they can address those con-

cerns sooner (Domina). Based on mothers’ com-

pletion of the Behavior Problem Index (Zill,

1991), which measures such behaviors as cheating,

lying, argumentativeness, bullying, disobedience at

home and school, and difficulty getting along with

other children, Domina found that children whose

parents were engaged in school through monitor-

ing homework completion, helping with home-

work at home, and volunteering in the classroom

were assessed as having fewer of these behavior

problems.

Parental engagement with their children’s edu-

cation also promotes positive health behaviors,

resulting in decreased risk for unhealthy eating

practices, school disengagement, suicide attempts

or thoughts, and emotional distress (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). In addition

to benefits of family engagement, collaboration

with community partners can enhance positive

outcomes. “When schools, families, and commu-

nity groups work together to support learning,

children tend to do better in school, stay in school

longer, and like school more” (Henderson &

Mapp, 2002, p. 7).

ROLE OF CULTURE IN PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Although schools have demonstrated increased

efforts in encouraging parental involvement, partic-

ipation in schools may be more difficult for families

who feel excluded or dismissed because of race,

ethnicity, immigration status, or socioeconomic sta-

tus (Toso & Grinder, 2016). In a study of middle-

school parents, Hill, Witherspoon, and Bartz (2018)

found that parents value education and want their

children to be successful in school. Latinx families

described the sacrifices they have made for their

children to have the opportunity to attend school

in the United States. They reported wanting their

children to learn as much as they could, to take ad-

vantage of all their opportunities, and to aspire to

work in a profession and not just a job (Hill et al.,

2018). This valuing of education and making sacri-

fices for the next generation is true of many immi-

grant populations. Similarly, African American

parents demonstrated concern for and a focus on

keeping their children on the right track with the

fear that any mistake or failure would jeopardize

their future, thus reflecting an awareness of struc-

tural racism and inequality and the daunting task of

overcoming barriers to success for students of color

(Hill et al., 2018).

WHAT DOES INVOLVEMENT LOOK LIKE? Broad definitions of involvement include ways that

parents assist and interact with their children and

ways that schools encourage the children’s success

(Blair, 2014). Parents may have a different under-

standing of involvement based on their own story,

cultural background, and socioeconomic status.

Because school demographics and families have

changed, to reflect this diversity, an understanding

of parent involvement must expand beyond the

traditional attendance at Parent–Teacher Associa-

tion (PTA) meetings and volunteering at school.

150 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

Blair (2014) found cultural differences in defini-

tions of “involvement,” noting that more collec-

tive cultures may engage with their children differ-

ently. In some cultures, direct communication

with teachers may be seen as disrespectful, and

parents may view parental presence in the class-

room as a burden for teachers (LaRocque, 2013).

Goodall and Montgomery (2014) recommended

moving from a focus on the school and the unidi-

rectional sharing of information to a mutual ex-

change of information between parents and

school. For example, back-to-school nights, al-

though helpful, generally represent communica-

tion from the school to parents; parent–teacher

conferences can represent more of a dialogue.

The authors further suggested that parents en-

gage directly with their students’ learning rather

than with the schools, which can be most benefi-

cial for the student “so that work with parents

can move from school directed (which is useful)

to fully engaged (far more useful to students)” (p.

407). Moreover, encouraging a focus on their

students can help those parents who had negative

experiences in their own schooling or achieve-

ment to feel more engaged and even more confi-

dent.

Blair (2014) found that assisting with home-

work, attending school events together, and volun-

teering at school represented actively involved

parents who are highly invested in their children’s

success. When exploring parental involvement,

though, Hill et al. (2018) noted that both parents

and youths talked about the importance of creating

a routine and structure at home. These activities

were not identified by teachers as a form of paren-

tal involvement, pointing to the need to broaden

the understanding of what engagement may look

like. Hornby and Blackwell (2018) asserted that

when school staff considers a broader understand-

ing of parental involvement, they may be better

equipped to engage parents, including through

uses of technology.

BARRIERS TO INVOLVEMENT Even with a broader understanding of engagement,

there can be many barriers to involvement. In one

study (Hornby & Blackwell, 2018), school staff

identified barriers to parental involvement, catego-

rized as (a) parental factors that included their own

negative experiences in school and current life

issues, (b) societal factors, and (c) practical factors.

LaRocque (2013) found challenges to family in-

volvement also being related to constraints facing

teachers, because teachers may feel like it is addi-

tional work to include parents. Other barriers may

be related to specific family challenges, including

parents’ work schedules or personal issues, whereas

others may be “related to language, cultural, and

socioeconomic dissonance between families and

schools” (LaRocque, 2013, p. 112), increasing the

potential for miscommunication and misunder-

standings. Parents may not know how to navigate

the school system, and school personnel may inac-

curately assume that all parents are familiar with

school processes (LaRocque, 2013).

Implicit bias within the schools as well as more

blatant forms of discrimination can present barriers

to family engagement. Hill et al. (2018) found that

Latino and African American “parents and youth

are well aware of the differential treatment. They

are aware of this, while they were equally likely as

Euro-Americans to endorse the school” (p. 23).

Chang et al. (2013) posited that contextual chal-

lenges of immigrants (for example, language bar-

riers, discrimination, fewer economic opportuni-

ties, fear) may lead them to prioritize meeting

family needs over civic participation. Language

challenges can further lead to a lack of hope and

lowered expectations, which also can affect partici-

pation (Chang et al., 2013). Ishimaru et al. (2016)

noted that parents and families from nondominant

communities may feel devalued, excluded, or

unwelcome. Thus, lower rates of parental partici-

pation among marginalized populations may not

be surprising.

Essentially, though, education is a relational ven-

ture and thus is central to understanding family–

school partnerships (Hill et al., 2018). One of the

many activities of school social workers is to make

connections among community, schools, and fami-

lies (National Association of Social Workers,

2012), knowing that parental engagement is critical

to children’s success and that most parents want to

be involved and supportive but do not always

know how or may not feel comfortable in the

school setting. The unique skill set of school social

workers allows them to address barriers to involve-

ment and build connections across systems.

In the present study, following the procedures of

community-based participatory research (CBPR), a

university–school district team worked in full part-

nership to identify a research question and develop

Keller, Miller, LasDulce, and Wohrle / Community-Based Participatory Research in a Public School Setting 151

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

strategies to collect and interpret data. Essentially

CBPR involves the community as equal partners

through each step of the research process (see Al-

len-Meares, Hudgins, Engberg, & Lessnau, 2005;

Branom, 2012; Hacker, 2013, for more complete

descriptions of CBPR). District administrative staff

identified an interest in learning the most effective

ways of increasing parental engagement in their

children’s education, beginning with an elementary

school. Essentially, the research question they posed

was, “What are the things that we, as school district

staff, can do to increase parental/family engagement

in their children’s education?” District staff further

suggested focus groups as a way of reaching and en-

suring meaningful participation by the largest num-

ber of parents, and they formulated questions for

those focus groups.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION School Information The elementary school selected by the school dis-

trict had an enrollment of 404 students (Washing-

ton Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

[OSPI], n.d.; see the 2019–2020 data). Of those

students, 54.2 percent were female; 60.9 percent,

Latino; 14.9 percent, White; 11.1 percent, multira-

cial; 5.4 percent, Black; 4 percent, Asian; 3.5 per-

cent, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; and 0.2 percent,

American Indian and Alaska Native. English lan-

guage learners made up 37 percent of the school

population, and 88 percent of the students were

designated as low income, thus qualifying for free

or reduced-price lunch (OSPI, n.d.). In addition,

the school began a dual language program in 2017,

beginning with kindergarten, and has added a grade

each year; in the program, students receive instruc-

tion in all subjects in both English and Spanish.

Community Information The school principal and counselor noted that

parents and families as well as residents of the im-

mediate and neighboring communities may not

have a clear sense of the community surrounding

the school. The school is located in an unincorpo-

rated area adjoining a larger urban area, and the

school may be the unifying tie within the commu-

nity. Table 1 provides more of the community

context by using the county in which the school

district is located for comparison. As the table

shows, children in the school district were facing

challenges, including income and housing stability.

At this particular elementary school, approximately

90 percent of the children came from renter house-

holds. The district’s annual turnover rate was about

35 percent, but this school’s rate might be slightly

higher (P. Elery, principal of Harvard Elementary

School, Tacoma, Washington, personal communi-

cation, January 24, 2019).

Although some may see deficits, this school and

community presented a number of resources. The

dual language program is an asset because, in addi-

tion to language learning benefits, it ensures com-

munication in Spanish and English, that children

hear Spanish spoken in classrooms and hallways,

and that someone is always present in the building

who is fluent in Spanish. Across the street from the

school are a church, a food bank, and an assisted-

living facility. Staff from each of those organiza-

tions meet monthly with the school principal and

counselor to coordinate activities. For several years,

the church has provided a community dinner every

month during the school year to serve school fami-

lies and offer opportunities for socializing and rec-

reation. Church members prepare and serve food

donated by the food bank, and kitchen staff at the

assisted-living facility prepare dessert. In addition,

the school counselor has a care team of students

who make birthday and other greeting cards for

residents of the assisted-living facility. Those resi-

dents, in turn, sew small comfort pouches that the

counselor distributes to students as needed. The

food bank also operates a clothing bank that fami-

lies at the school use, and the clothing bank

attempts to procure specific items, such as shoes or

coats.

Hacker et al. (2012) recommended having a

broad definition of community to include stake-

holders, target population, community liaisons. In

this study, the nearby church, food bank, senior

housing, and monthly community partner meet-

ings provided a window into some of the com-

munity’s resources. Clearly, this school has a broad

base of community support fostered by the efforts

of school staff and community partners.

METHOD Development of Research Tools and Strategies In keeping with a CBPR approach, initial meet-

ings with school district staff (including the public

information officer and family engagement coordi-

nator [FEC], who is a bilingual–bicultural social

152 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

worker) identified general focus group questions to

gain information about parental involvement and

communication from the school district. Partner-

ships were created with staff, parent leaders, and

other community stakeholders. Through conversa-

tions with these partners, the focus group guide

was refined and revised multiple times to include

questions about the community as well as the effec-

tiveness of the school and district’s current com-

munication strategies (see Appendix A for the final

focus group questions).

The district/university team attended commu-

nity/school dinners to gain a better sense of the

community, to be more visible, and to develop trust.

Parent leaders recommended using PTA family

night, community/school dinners, and a letter to all

parents from the principal to recruit participants.

They noted the communication challenges in a

school that is split fairly evenly between two primary

languages. The original recruiting script and letter

were modified to reflect the recommendations of

this group of parents as well as district partners, and

verbal and written communications were in English

and Spanish. Facing challenges in recruiting research

participants that were representative of the diverse

school community, we, through partner input,

adapted our initial research plan to make focus

groups more accessible and convenient for partici-

pants by holding them as a part of regularly sched-

uled school and community events.

Data Collection Data collection tools and strategies included focus

groups, interviews, and participant observation and

involved university faculty, students, school district

staff, and parents. Focus groups were facilitated sep-

arately in English and Spanish. Facilitators included

two social workers, one from the district and one

from the university, and three social work students,

one of whom was a district intern. At least two

members of the research team were present in each

focus group: one who was the primary facilitator

and one who was a secondary facilitator and note-

taker. Focus groups were audiotaped.

We conducted 10 focus groups in total with 49

participants representing 46 families. Of those fam-

ilies, 26 were Spanish speaking, 19 were English

speaking, and one was Cambodian (Khmer speak-

ing). The school population consisted of 228 fami-

lies, so the convenience sample represented approx-

imately 20 percent of these families. Participants in

focus groups were 67.4 percent female and 32.6

percent male. They identified race or ethnicity as

Latinx, 50 percent; African American, 17.4 percent;

White, 21.7 percent; multiracial, 6.6 percent; and

Asian American, 4.3 percent.

Data Analysis Three researchers independently reviewed focus

group notes and transcripts to look for themes. Each

researcher listed parent responses under the broader

areas around the four focus group questions: (1) gen-

eral ideas about parental engagement, (2) positive

feedback (what’s working), (3) barriers to involve-

ment, and (4) suggestions for improvement. Each

then grouped responses according to subthemes. We

compared findings and refined themes. We again in-

dependently read and coded transcripts and notes af-

ter identifying the themes. All findings were dis-

cussed among the entire research team, which also

included the district FEC.

FINDINGS Broadly, parent participants were enthusiastic about

desiring to share their perspectives and build a stron-

ger school community. The importance of commu-

Table 1: Comparison of Housing and Poverty Status in the Study’s School District and the County

Housing and Poverty Status County School District

% %

Poverty rate: Percentage under age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018b) 14.5 20.1

Percentage living in households receiving SNAP, SSI, or other public assistance

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a)

24.5 32.9

Percentage living in owner-occupied housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018c) 61.7 55.2

Percentage living in renter-occupied housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018c) 38.3 44.8

Notes: SNAP ¼ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (n.d.)]; SSI ¼ Supplemental Security Income program (https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/).

Keller, Miller, LasDulce, and Wohrle / Community-Based Participatory Research in a Public School Setting 153

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

nication, relationships, and community were recur-

ring themes across all groups.

VIEWS OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT All parent participants expressed valuing parent in-

volvement, in general, and valuing it for them-

selves, personally. Most parents stressed the impor-

tance of communication between parents and

teachers as well as the need to work together and

create positive relationships. In addition to the ben-

efits of this collaboration to supporting children’s

learning, parents identified this collaboration as a

means for teaching values and for “being on the

same page” as well as holding children accountable.

Every focus group identified volunteering in the

classroom as one example of involvement, some-

thing they valued and wished to engage in even if

they did not do so currently. Parents noted that

they felt welcomed by some teachers but not

others. One English-speaking father stated, “I per-

sonally would like to have more time in the class-

room.” The second most frequently noted way of

engaging with their children’s education was help-

ing at home with homework, although many

parents indicated that they did not always know

the best ways to help or did not always understand

their children’s homework. Also identified was

volunteering at school events, and some expressed

disappointment that there were not many opportu-

nities to help or that they were not aware of how

to volunteer at events or did not feel encouraged to

do so. Parents consistently noted the important

role they play. One of the Spanish-speaking parents

stated that it is the “parents’ responsibility to teach

youth how to achieve their goals.” Another, in the

same focus group said, “Much of the education

happens in the home.”

With regard to the community itself, parents

commented on the lack of children playing outside

after school, suggesting that doing so was unsafe for

children because of the large, busy roads and com-

munity crime. They also noted a lack of places to

play, identifying the absence of a community cen-

ter. Some thought that parents’ work schedules

prevented children from playing outside. Parents

often defined the “community” as the church be-

cause of the monthly dinners, but noted that, out-

side of those events, there was not much of a sense

of community. Participants also stated that they

would like to see more events like the dinners but

commented on the lack of teachers in attendance.

Spanish-speaking parents, in particular, expressed a

desire for more opportunities to be able to connect

with others. Relationships with school staff and

other parents were important to them.

STRENGTHS: WHAT’S WORKING Participants expressed strong positive feelings to-

ward the school principal and counselor as well as

most of the teachers, citing communication from

the school as a strength. Some noted specific types

of communication from teachers, including daily

reports and e-mails. They valued what they saw as

a small school community in which people knew

each other and in which staff and teachers knew

their children. One parent in a Spanish-speaking

group noted, “The teachers and principal seem to

know the students well.” Many parents identified

the value of the monthly community dinners; spe-

cifically, they appreciated all opportunities to meet

and talk with other parents. A few parents noted

that some school staff were aware of the additional

challenges faced by Spanish-speaking students,

viewing this as a positive first step. Another parent

said, “It’s a great school, and I love how inclusive

the school is.”

BARRIERS Focus group data revealed several challenges to pa-

rental involvement, the greatest being language. A

Spanish-speaking parent said, “We want to be in-

volved but feel we can’t based on the language

barrier.” Participants identified a lack of Spanish-

speaking office staff and opportunities for Spanish

speakers to participate in school events, such as

PTA meetings. Time and work obligations were

also identified as barriers to involvement, including

families with two working parents or parents

working irregular hours as well as having multiple

children engaged in a variety of activities. In addi-

tion, the lack of warmth and welcoming from the

office staff was identified as a barrier to involve-

ment, specifically in the Spanish-speaking focus

groups. This identified challenge reinforces the

finding that the language barrier between staff and

families hinders relationships. In one particular fo-

cus group, Spanish-speaking parents remarked that

the language barrier makes it difficult for their chil-

dren to feel included and supported, even though

they make up the majority of the school’s popula-

tion. A lack of encouragement to become involved

in the classroom was identified by participants as a

154 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

barrier to involvement. One father stated, “I’m go-

ing to be honest: I don’t feel like there was a lot of

encouragement to participate.”

Parents identified a number of communication

challenges beyond language differences. Several

commented on fliers not getting home, voice

mails coming too late, and notices of events being

sent home without adequate time for parents to

plan. In addition, although there is an online plat-

form for communicating with parents, several

parents expressed dissatisfaction with it. Commu-

nication may be more difficult for those families

who may not have access to a cell phone, e-mail,

Internet, and the like. Several parents expressed

dissatisfaction with PTA events, noting that they

could be “chaotic” or that the meeting time was

inconvenient.

Parents as well as school and community part-

ners identified additional barriers to parental in-

volvement, including background checks for

volunteers, discomfort in school settings, fami-

lies feeling stretched across many obligations,

transportation, and child care. Extending to the

geographic community, school partners identi-

fied community-level barriers, including lack of

(a) identification with the community, (b) ser-

vices in the immediate geographic community,

(c) collaboration with other community institu-

tions, and (d) opportunities for children to see

adults in the community as role models in a vari-

ety of settings. Community partners also noted

challenges in encouraging Latinx parental partic-

ipation given the political climate at the time of

the study as well as in attempting to connect the

institution of the school with a population in

which relationships and trust take precedence

and in which there may be a well-founded mis-

trust of institutions. Parents stressed the impor-

tance of bidirectional communication and trust;

they also suggested changes in communication

strategies, but also identified strengths of staff

and existing community–school activities.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Perhaps most helpful in terms of guiding future

directions are the specific recommendations and

suggestions parents made. Very broadly, parents

wanted increased and more frequent communica-

tion from school staff as well as more opportunities

for ways to both get involved at school and,

especially, to meet other parents. A few parents

commented on the need for clearer channels of

communication with the office staff; some stated

that it is difficult to get through by phone. Several

parents from both English- and Spanish-speaking

focus groups noted the need for someone in the

office who speaks Spanish as well as for office staff

to be more welcoming.

Parents also seemed to value opportunities for cre-

ating informal connections for both parents and chil-

dren. They mentioned summer activities and even

suggested a book or reading group that could help

both parents and children with language acquisition

and reading skills. Some parents suggested creating

an online tutorial for new parents (with kindergar-

teners as well as others enrolling for the first time).

They also wanted greater explanation of homework

in both English and Spanish, with instructions for

parents accompanying homework. Parents noted

that schoolwide communications came home in

Spanish and English but that classroom-specific com-

munications sometimes were only in English. One

parent suggested building community by having a

thematic focus on communications to tie in commu-

nity resources and class activities.

Following the series of focus groups, we again

met with available parents at a community dinner.

As part of the CBPR process, we shared the find-

ings with them and received their input as to the

accuracy as well as the interpretation of the findings.

They confirmed the findings as well as clarified and

reaffirmed that parents want to be involved and

want opportunities to meet with other parents. We

then discussed next steps.

MOVING FORWARD We encouraged parents to assume leadership in

moving forward, noting the importance of includ-

ing community voices in planning next steps (Ishi-

maru et al., 2016). We then shared findings with

school staff, district administrators, and community

partners. The district implemented some changes at

the school, including hiring a bilingual staff member

to work half-time at this school and to be available

in the office. In addition, the telephone system was

changed so that callers could select Spanish as an

option. Consistent with CBPR is the commitment

to giving the findings back to the community and

supporting the community in making decisions and

taking action based on the results by using the find-

ings for social change (Minkler, 2004). This was

our intent.

Keller, Miller, LasDulce, and Wohrle / Community-Based Participatory Research in a Public School Setting 155

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

Because parents were most interested in increas-

ing their opportunities for community with other

parents, we started there. They were interested in

having a social event first, followed by information

meetings for parents on such topics as bullying,

school safety, and parenting. We met with parents

for planning sessions, but they did the planning.

They coordinated a social gathering, publicized it,

and had upward of 80 people in attendance, includ-

ing children, older siblings, parents, and grandpar-

ents. We supported parents in creating a structure

and implementing interventions, placing us in the

dual role of researchers and change agents (Cole

et al., 2013). The FEC has maintained regular con-

tact, primarily through texting, with these parent

leaders to support them in their efforts at creating

community among school families, even as the

COVID-19 pandemic limited options for in-person

meetings. The bilingual administrative assistant still

works at the school part-time and directly connects

with families regarding attendance as well as helps

them connect with information technology resour-

ces and complete online enrollments, which is now

entirely online. The FEC and other district staff

have continued to work through communication

barriers presented by this online transition, and the

FEC will likely be forming a group of families to

explore how to improve the communication sys-

tems.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS There were some limitations to this research. Even

though we collaborated well with school district

personnel and other community partners, it was

challenging to recruit adequate numbers of parent

participants. As noted, all parents were invited to

participate, but those parents who did participate

may have been those who were already more

likely to be engaged. Although CBPR aims to re-

duce power imbalances in the research process,

this power differential is difficult to eliminate

completely. There will always be one group or in-

dividual who makes decisions about the process

without the community’s full consent. This can be

seen in the formulation of the research question as

well as the set of focus group questions in Appen-

dix A, because it was not families in the commu-

nity who formulated these questions but school

district personnel and the research team. It may be

ideal to eliminate this power differential, but that

is not easily done in practice.

We observed that Latinx parents, in particular,

seemed to welcome the opportunity to share their

ideas with someone who spoke and understood

Spanish as well as to have the chance to communi-

cate with other parents. They tended to discuss for

a longer period and likely would have continued if

the facilitator had not brought the focus group ses-

sions to a close. It may be that these parents do not

have as many opportunities to share with other

Spanish-speaking parents and school staff as they

would like, so this is an area that can be further

addressed. Toso and Grinder (2016) noted that

providing training and offering leadership roles can

be a strategy to engage parents who traditionally

feel excluded and can also enhance parent–teacher

relationships and provide teachers insight into par-

ent knowledge and strengths. Those parents who

stepped up to facilitate the next steps certainly have

demonstrated leadership and organizational poten-

tial that may not have been otherwise used in the

school setting. It may be beneficial to include

parents in the school–community partner monthly

meetings, too.

This school has a high population of immigrant,

nondominant culture, low-income families. School

personnel noted that individuals are required to un-

dergo a state patrol background check to be cleared

to volunteer in the schools. Even though this docu-

mentation is internal to the school, parents may

not understand or trust this process, particularly

if they are undocumented or come from mixed-

status families, a concern that is heightened in

an era of anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by

some elected officials at the federal level. This is an

issue that might be more challenging to address,

and it is important to broaden the understanding of

what parental involvement can look like and to

provide ways to communicate this to parents as

well as teachers. Communication must be bidirec-

tional.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE For school social workers, this study demonstrates

how they can facilitate discussion and action to bet-

ter serve their students and families, while they also

work to dismantle inequitable power structures

that are inherent in their position as school staff. This

research model is a positive step toward, affirming the

role of parents and families as experts on their children

and their education and toward, affording them the

power to make decisions that are in their best interest.

156 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

School social workers can serve as liaisons among fami-

lies, schools, and community partners by developing

and sustaining trusting relationships among stakehold-

ers. They also can provide education to staff and

schools about strengths-based practices to better sup-

port families, building on their unique experiences.

School social workers can create opportunities for

learning between school staff and families in regard to

equity and culturally responsive services and collabora-

tion. School social workers can empower families to

advocate for the needs of their children by creating

clear pathways of communication between school

leadership and families. School social workers can facil-

itate family- and community-led events that help pro-

mote parent participation and student engagement by

building family-led events into regular school events.

It is important to continue to ask parents what

they want and need—and to check back to see if

changes are making a difference. Goodall and Mont-

gomery (2014) recommended revisiting these ques-

tions frequently, because new cohorts of parents and

students have different needs. Henderson and Mapp

(2002) noted that schools that are successful in en-

gaging diverse groups of families emphasize trust and

collaboration among teachers, families, and com-

munity; they recognize family needs and cultural

and class differences; and they assume a philosophi-

cal stance in which responsibility and power are

shared. In schools with significant turnover each

year, such as the school in this study, it is especially

important to revisit these questions and to encour-

age involvement by all families.

Moving forward, it is important to continue to ask

parents what they want and need from schools in

support of their children. It is essential that school

personnel recognize the strengths parents bring and

allow them the opportunity to demonstrate these

strengths in ways that are culturally relevant. The

school social worker can facilitate this process.

REFERENCES Allen-Meares, P., Hudgins, C. A., Engberg, M. E., & Less-

nau, B. (2005). Using a collaboratory model to trans- late social work research into practice and policy. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(1), 29–40. doi:10 .1177/1049731504272345

Blair, S. L. (2014). Parental involvement and children’s ed- ucational performance: A comparison of Filipino and U.S. parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 45(3), 351–366.

Branom, C. (2012). Community-based participatory re- search as a social work research and intervention ap- proach. Journal of Community Practice, 20, 260–273. doi:10.1080/10705422.2012.699871

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Parent engagement: Strategies for involving parents in school health. Atlanta: Author.

Chang, C., Salvatore, A. L., Lee, P. T., Liu, S. S., Tom, A. T., Morales, A., et al. (2013). Adapting to context in community-based participatory research: “Participator starting points” in a Chinese immigrant worker commu- nity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 480–491. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9565-z

Cole, C. A., Edelman, E. J., Boshnack, N., Jenkins, H., Richardson, W., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2013). Time, dual roles, and departments of public health: Lessons learned in CBPR by an AIDS service organization. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 7(3), 323–330. doi:10.1353/cpr.2013.0034

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assess- ing the effectiveness of parental involvement in ele- mentary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233–249.

Garbarino, J., & Ganzel, B. (2000). The human ecology of early risk. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 76–93). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511529320.006

Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involve- ment to parental engagement: A continuum. Educa- tional Review, 66(4), 399–410. doi:10.1080/00131 911.2013.781576

Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hacker, K., Tendulkar, S. A., Rideout, C., Bhuiya, N., Trinh-Shevrin, C., Savage, C. P., et al. (2012). Com- munity capacity building and sustainability: Out- comes of community-based participatory research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 6(3), 349–360. doi:10.1353 percent2Fcpr.2012.0048

Hampden-Thompson, G., & Galindo, C. (2017). Schoolfam- ily relationships, school satisfaction and the academic achievement of young people. Educational Review, 69(2), 248–265 doi:10.1080/00131911.2016.1207613

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evi- dence: The impact of school, family, and community connec- tions on student achievement—Annual synthesis. Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Con- nections with Schools.

Hill, N. E., Witherspoon, D. P., & Bartz, D. (2018). Paren- tal involvement in education during middle school: Perspectives of ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and students. Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 12–27. doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1190910

Hornby, G., & Blackwell, I. (2018). Barriers to parental in- volvement in education: An update. Educational Review, 70(1), 109–119. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1388612

Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., Cameron Williams, D. M., & Tran, C. (2016). Rein- forcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 850–882. doi:10.3102/ 0002831216657178

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of pa- rental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education & Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218. doi:10.1177/0013124502239392

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student aca- demic achievement. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. doi:10.1177/0042085906293818

LaRocque, M. (2013). Addressing cultural and linguistic dissonance between parents and schools. Preventing

Keller, Miller, LasDulce, and Wohrle / Community-Based Participatory Research in a Public School Setting 157

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

School Failure, 57(2), 111–117. doi:10.1080/1045 988X.2012.677961

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” re- searcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 684–697. doi:10 .1177/1090198104269566

National Association of Social Workers. (2012). NASW standards for school social work services. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil eticket¼1Ze4-9-Os7E percent3D&portalid¼0

Toso, B. W., & Grinder, E. L. (2016). Parent engagement and leadership opportunities: The benefits for parents, chil- dren, and educators [Practitioner’s Guide No. 6]. Uni- versity Park, PA: Penn State College of Education, Goodling Institute for Research in Family Literacy.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018a). American Community Survey 5-year estimates: Children characteristics 2013–2017. Re- trieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q¼ Children percent20in percent20families percent20re ceiving percent20SSI, percent20SNAP&g¼ 9700000US5302940_0500000US53053&hide Preview¼false&tid¼ACSDT5Y2018.B09010&t¼ Children percent3ASNAP percent2FFood percent20Stamps&vintage¼2018&layer¼VT_2018_ 050_00_PY_D1&cid¼B09010_001E

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018b). 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: Poverty status. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q¼Income per cent20and percent20Poverty&tid¼ACSST5Y2018. S1701&vintage¼2018&layer¼VT_2018_860_00_ PY_D1&hidePreview¼true&cid¼S1701_C01_ 001E&g¼9700000US5302940_0500000US53053

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018c). 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates: Selected housing characteristics. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table? g¼8600000US98444,98445_9700000US5302940_ 0500000US53053&layer¼VT_2018_050_00_PY_ D1&cid¼B00002_001E&t¼Housing percent3A Housing percent20Units&tid¼ACSDP5Y2018. DP04&text¼Housing&hidePreview¼false&vin tage¼2018

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Supplemental Nutri- tion Assistance Program (SNAP). Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutri tion-assistance-program

Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion. (n.d.). Harvard Elementary, Franklin Pierce School District [Report card for 2019–2020]. Retrieved from https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102273

Zill, N. (1991). Behavior Problem Checklist based upon parent report. Child Trends Brief. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/11/1991-03BehaviorProblemIndex.pdf

JoDee G. Keller, PhD, is professor of social work, Depart-

ment of Social Work, Pacific Lutheran University, 12180

Park Avenue S., Tacoma, WA 98447; e-mail: kellerjg@plu

.edu. Claudia Miller, MSW, is family engagement coordinator

and Chance LasDulce, MSW, is teacher, Franklin Pierce

School District, Tacoma, WA. Rachel G. Wohrle, PhD,

BSW, is behavior technician, Connections Behavior Planning

and Intervention, Kirkland, WA.

Original manuscript received July 30, 2020 Final revision received November 22, 2020 Editorial decision December 23, 2020 Accepted March 30, 2021 Advance Access Publication July 23, 2021

APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS (AND FOLLOW-UPS, AS NEEDED)

How important do you think it is for parents to be

involved in their children’s education?

• What benefits are there for children? • What benefits are there for parents? • What benefits are there for the school

community?

When you think about parental involvement in

their children’s education, what comes to mind?

• What are the different ways parents can

support their children in school? • What ways have school personnel (teach-

ers, principal, counselor, social worker, par-

aeducators, office staff, others) encouraged

your participation/involvement?

What barriers do you think there are to parent

participation in this school community?

• Have you ever felt reluctant to participate

in school events? • If yes, what keeps you from becoming

more involved? • Have events/activities been at convenient

times? • How well do you think the school com-

municates with parents?

What could your school do to more fully in-

volve parents?

• In what ways have you seen school per-

sonnel reach out to families? • What ideas do you have for involving more

families or involving them more actively?

Some people have spoken about the lack of

community identity in the school vicinity. In other

words, there doesn’t seem to be a clear sense of

what makes up the neighborhood/community.

• How do you define this community (for

example, geographic area? Demographics?

Other?)? • Would you like to see a stronger feeling of

community? • If yes, how do you think this could be

achieved?

Are there any final comments you have or any

ideas that you would like to see emphasized?

158 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

© 2021 National Association of Social Workers. Copyright of Children & Schools is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.