4

Policy Implications

POLICIES AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, DISTRICT, AND SCHOOL levels increasingly include goals for school, family, and community partnerships. Importantly, legislation and guidelines are beginning to go beyond broad objectives for “parental involvement” by including explicit requirements and commitments for states, districts, and schools to develop effective partnership programs.

The trend—too slow, but encouraging—is to provide leadership and finances at state, district, and school levels to enable every school to create stronger connections with families, businesses, community agencies, and other groups in ways that benefit students. The trend is too slow because most state and district leaders have not established strong leadership and sustainable programs of family and community involvement. Most have not assigned the staff and budgets needed to conduct state and district leadership activities that guide and support all preschools and elementary, middle, and high schools in planning and implementing comprehensive, goal-linked partnership programs that engage all families and help all students succeed in school.

At the state level, there have been too few incentives for action and too few consequences for inaction from state boards and state leaders to encourage all districts and their schools to develop policies and enact programs that engage families in productive ways at all grade levels. Similarly, in most districts, neither incentives nor consequences from superintendents and school boards are pressing and guiding all school principals to establish official committees of educators and parents who share responsibilities for organizing and maintaining comprehensive, goal-linked, site-based partnership programs.

These deficiencies in leadership and organization reflect a general lack of will to translate strong rhetoric and broad policy statements on the importance of family and community involvement into viable programs and practices of partnership. The absence of incentives and consequences allows too many superintendents and principals to put partnership programs on the back burner, instead of placing school, family, and community connections front and center as an essential ingredient of school improvement. Too many leaders still view parental involvement as their personal agenda, rather than as a topic for shared leadership with a committee structure that could make a seemingly overwhelming topic into one that is manageable and successful.

The trend is encouraging, however, because over the past few years increasing numbers of states, districts, and schools have written policies and guidelines, identified leaders for partnerships, mobilized leadership teams, planned their work to improve over time, and started to implement partnership programs that mobilize family and community involvement in ways that support student learning and development. The knowledge gained from these efforts should help other states, districts, and schools take similar actions to involve all families and communities in their children’s education.

 

 

STATES

 

Some states are actively developing and improving their leadership and programs that support districts and schools in their work on partnerships. A few have established permanent bureaus, offices, or departments of school, family, and community partnerships with directors, coordinators, and facilitators as experts on involvement. At this writing, over 20 state departments of education have joined the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University to work on this agenda. These states have a designated leader whose responsibility is to inform, encourage, and assist districts and schools throughout the state to develop plans, programs, and practices of family and community involvement for increasing student success in school.

The investments and efforts of state leaders for partnerships vary, however, in quality, intensity, and duration. State departments of education are complex organizations with leaders who change frequently, with offices that overlap in responsibilities and operate at a distance from their districts and schools.

Some state leaders are guiding districts and schools to improve their partnership programs. State leadership activities include writing state goals and policies, providing federal and state funding and targeted grants for partnerships, providing professional development and ongoing training on partnership program development, conducting conferences, sharing best practices, evaluating work and progress, and recognizing and rewarding excellent practices. Examples of state leadership are discussed in the readings, comments, and activities in this chapter.

Nevertheless, too few of the 50 states have designated offices and leaders charged with increasing partnership program development in the districts and their schools in the state. Too few state leaders have long-term plans for partnerships or line-item budgets to support state experts who actively guide districts and schools to involve all families in their children’s education. Too few state leaders have organized their work in ways that integrate family and community involvement agendas across departments. Efforts remain fragmented in most states, with many different offices conducting aspects of family and community involvement. Without clear leadership for partnerships, state departments of education cannot guide all districts and all schools to plan and implement programs that involve more families in more productive ways.

 

 

DISTRICTS

 

Some districts in all states are implementing policies to help schools improve connections with students’ families and communities. With or without state guidance and financial support, most districts are responding to federal requirements for Title I funds that mandate policies, plans, and programs of family and community involvement. Some districts not only write policies on partnerships, but also have expert leaders who guide and support all preschools and elementary, middle, and high schools to improve the quality of their programs of family and community involvement for student success.

At this writing, over 150 districts are members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. They have identified a leader for partnerships and use research-based approaches to build capacities in all schools to conduct goal-linked partnership programs so that families and communities support student success in school. Some districts are moving swiftly and surely on this agenda; others lag. The work in leading districts will help other districts learn how to develop and maintain effective district-level leadership and school-based partnership programs.

Still, too few of about 14,000 public school districts in the United States are engaged in systematic efforts to develop, implement, evaluate, and continually improve their programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Most districts still need to identify professional staff to serve as leaders for partnerships, allocate adequate budgets, establish clear structures, and follow feasible processes to help all preschools and elementary, middle, and high schools to organize and improve their school-based partnership programs.

Noteworthy efforts by district leaders include allocating federal, state, and local funds for site-based partnership program development; providing ongoing staff development for school teams focused on family and community involvement and other educators to keep improving their programs; enabling schools to share best practices; and evaluating school-based programs. Even in very small districts, superintendents, school boards, principals, and lead teachers can support the development of partnership programs in their schools. Ultimately, every school must have the capacity to plan, implement, and continually improve its own partnership program.

 

 

SCHOOLS

 

Just about all schools conduct some activities to inform and involve parents in their children’s education. Indeed, all schools that receive Title I funds are required to engage parents in productive ways. Not all schools—Title I or otherwise—plan their programs systematically, link the involvement activities to school goals for student success, or evaluate the quality and progress of their efforts.

At this writing, over 1,200 schools located in more than 30 states are members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. They aim to use research-based approaches to establish programs of family and community involvement that create a positive school climate and that help students improve skills and attitudes in reading, math, and other subjects; attendance; behavior; postsecondary planning; and other outcomes. Not all schools in NNPS, however, proceed at the same pace. The work of leading schools is helping to identify essential and effective components of partnership programs and should help other schools understand the new directions needed to improve their programs of family and community involvement.

There are, however, over 98,000 public and 35,000 private elementary and secondary schools in the country. Too few of these schools have an organized committee of educators and parents dedicated to guiding the school to plan, implement, evaluate, and continually improve its program and practices of family and community involvement in ways that support all students’ learning, development, and success in school.

 

 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

 

In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Richard Riley shined a spotlight on school, family, and community partnerships. The department framed a vision, supported research and development, published reports, conducted traditional and satellite conferences, and contributed to a national conversation about improving the connections of home, school, and community.

Attention waned to some extent after 2002, when federal programs focused narrowly on test scores and emphasized parents’ options to change schools that did not meet test-score targets. Some officials lost sight of the importance of family and community involvement as a mechanism for organizing successful schools and increasing student learning. Even when partnership programs were not emphasized, federal requirements for research-based parent involvement programs were written into the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in Section 1118 and in other sections of the law. These regulations—many based on results of research and improved in each reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—influenced the development of partnership programs in some states, districts, and schools, as described above.

For more than 50 years, federal policies have guided educators, families, businesses, and other community groups to improve parental involvement in education. These include Head Start policies in the 1960s, family leave policies, Title I regulations in one form or another since the mid-1960s, Even Start legislation, Goals 2000 targets, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA)—which preceded NCLB as the renewed version of ESEA—and other laws and guidelines from the departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Justice.

Although federal policies and related funds to improve schools and to increase parental involvement have been continuous, the emphases at any point in time reflected the politics of education. As a result, there is little coherence across federal laws from different departments and no clear way to evaluate progress or problems in federally funded programs of family and community involvement. At this writing, for example, NCLB’s Section 1118 requires states, districts, and schools to meet important requirements that could result in well-planned partnership programs in every school. All kinds of “monitoring” are conducted to see if programs meet the federal guidelines, but checklists cannot gauge the quality of partnership programs, the equity of outreach to all families, whether and how programs and results improve from year to year, or how local leaders should strengthen weak programs.

Federal laws are too distant from districts, schools, and families to serve as the main guide for developing permanent partnership programs. Rather, federal guidelines must be interpreted by state, district, and school leaders. Their policies and practices must integrate multiple funding streams for family involvement for general education programs, special education, homeless education, drug abuse prevention, health improvement, and other programs to produce a unified partnership program in every district and in every school that is open to evaluation and improvement.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Leadership and research-based actions at all levels—federal, state, district, and school—are needed to enable all schools to improve their partnership programs. The main work of school, family, and community partnerships occurs at the school level where principals, teachers, parents, and students meet daily. Federal, state, and district policies, funds, and professional development will be most valuable if they guide educators, parents, students, and community members to work together to implement effective school-based programs that welcome, respect, inform, and involve all families in ways that support student learning and success in school.

Federal, state, and district policies and actions should be reviewed and revised periodically to ensure that they encompass the latest, proven approaches. Leadership goes beyond checking for compliance with federal or state rules. Leadership includes ongoing assistance to evaluate progress and to continually improve plans, involve more families, and increase students’ success in school. School policies must be judged on whether they enable teachers, families, and others in the community to work effectively together—as an action team—on behalf of the children they share (see Chapters 5, 6, and 7).

This chapter includes a short reading outlining useful state policies and several examples of state and district policies that are consistent with the theory, research, and framework for school, family, and community partnerships presented in this volume. The examples show how education leaders are beginning to (1) correct vague goals for parental involvement by using the vocabulary of school, family, and community partnerships; (2) identify the six major types of involvement to link practices of partnership to school improvement goals; (3) provide staff development to school action teams of principals, teachers, parents, and others; and (4) offer incentives and recognition for innovative and effective programs and practices.

This chapter also includes one reading that reports the results of research on whether and how well districts are addressing requirements for parental involvement in federal policy—NCLB. Taken together, the readings and activities in this chapter introduce you to viable policies for school, family, and community partnerships and to research on challenging policy questions.

READING 4.1

Parent Involvement: State Education Agencies Should Lead the Way¹⁵

Words about the importance of parent involvement are meaningless without financial and technical support.

ABSTRACT

Parent involvement is on everyone’s list of practices to make schools more effective, to help families create more positive learning environments, to reduce the risk of student failure, and to increase student success. Although most state education agencies have policies on parental involvement, there still is little financial support for leadership, programs, and actions needed to improve school programs, teachers’ practices, and parents’ understanding of ways to become involved in their children’s education. This reading draws from research on school and family partnerships to outline actions needed at the state level to improve programs to involve families in every school.

OVERVIEW

One major finding from the research reported in Chapter 3 is that teacher leadership, outreach, and involvement activities—not parent education, marital status, or other background variables—made a difference in whether parents improved their knowledge about the school and actions to help their children, and whether children improved their reading scores. Because teachers and administrators play key roles in including or excluding parents from their children’s education, state policies and actions should aim to improve district-level and school-level leaders’ capabilities to conduct parent involvement programs and practices that make a difference for student success in class.

STATE SUPPORT OF PARENT INVOLVEMENT

State policies, bylaws, guidelines, and funds for educational programs strongly influence district and school leadership, teaching practice, and community support. These policies can either recognize or ignore the connections between educational and socializing institutions in a child’s life—the family, the school, and the community.

State programs that address the needs of all families for useful information and involvement in their children’s education give something back to families and citizens for their education tax dollars. Parent involvement in a sequential, continuing program from preschool through high school is one important factor for reducing students’ school failure and dropping out, and increasing the probability of students’ graduating from high school. The quality of family and school connections all through school can dramatically affect the students’ futures and determine whether they become dependent on or contribute to the state. Programs through high school that support family and community involvement and parent-child interactions about school may be the most beneficial investments that can be made at the state, district, and school levels to prevent more costly social and educational problems.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT AND CHOICE

In the mid-1980s, the National Governors’ Association Task Force on Parent Involvement and Choice focused a great deal of attention on the pros and cons of increasing parents’ choices of the schools their children attend, especially choices among public schools with different programs. However, after the choice of schools is made—even if children attend their neighborhood schools—parents and educators must choose whether or not to emphasize parental involvement. Important family and school connections start with the choice of or assignment to schools and continue when teachers, parents, and students interact on a daily basis.

Students make many decisions each year. Their choices of programs, courses, activities, opportunities, and special services affect their futures. Parents need to be involved as knowledgeable partners in these decisions. They must understand how the school system works; the goals and programs of the schools their children attend; the options and consequences of decisions that concern their children each school year; the course objectives and requirements for a passing grade; how teachers define success and grade progress; the programs that are available to their children before and after school, on weekends, and on Saturdays; and how their children may participate in those programs.

Some parents have the information and experience they need to guide their children through the elementary and secondary grades and into postsecondary schooling or work. Other parents—most parents—need and want information from teachers and administrators about how to help their children make key decisions and how to guide students’ in learning activities. This is true in all schools—public, charter, or private; religious or secular; chosen or assigned—at all levels of schooling.

Even today, there is much discussion about parent involvement in the choice of schools for their children, but too little attention paid to the importance of parent involvement after the choice of schools is made. The strongest influences on partnership programs will come from districts and schools, but state departments of education, governor’s offices, and other state programs can and should establish policies and take action to encourage and support district and school leaders to improve their programs and practices of family and community involvement.

STATE LEADERSHIP FOR PARENT INVOLVEMENT

Research suggests that the following policies and actions at the state level will help districts and schools improve programs and practices of school, family, and community partnerships and help to produce better academic and behavioral results for more students.

 

1. Write a policy that outlines the state’s commitment to research-based and goal-oriented programs of school, family, and community partnerships. An official policy should recognize the importance of family and community involvement and the need for well-planned partnership programs in districts and schools. The policy should make explicit the state’s perspectives, expectations, and services that will support research-based programs in districts and schools. A strong state policy will recognize leadership at the district level and action-oriented teams of teachers, parents, administrators, and others at the school level to plan, implement, evaluate, and sustain partnership programs linked to school improvement goals. The policy should call educators’ attention to the six types of involvement that can be activated to inform and engage all families in more ways to support student learning and development.

It is not enough to mandate only parent advisory councils, or only parent-teacher organizations, or only parent volunteers at the school building. These activities typically involve only a small number of parents and have little impact on helping all parents monitor and guide their children’s education at all grade levels. Other types of involvement must be implemented, including effective parent-teacher and parent-teacher-student conferences with all parents, parent involvement in learning activities at home, and connections with the community. All children benefit if their parents are knowledgeable about school programs and students’ options, and if their parents are knowledgeable partners with teachers in their education.

A state policy must be clear and comprehensive, but also flexible and responsive. Good policies recognize that districts and schools in the state have different starting points in their practices of partnerships and serve diverse populations of parents and students. An official policy on school, family, and community partnerships should be accompanied by “enactments” that specify the services that the state will provide to help every district and every school implement the policy. The following are some activities that states may select to support the implementation of a policy on school, family, and community partnerships.

 

2. Establish an office or department with an expert leader and adequate staff to facilitate the development and continuous improvement of programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Every state should have a director of school, family, and community partnerships who is an expert on partnership program development and who is known as the “go to” leader on partnership program development for the state. This leader not only will continue to increase his or her knowledge and skills for state-level leadership on partnerships, but also will increase awareness, develop knowledge, and encourage the actions of colleagues in the state department of education and in districts and schools in the state. Interdepartmental connections with colleagues will help state leaders for partnerships strengthen their programs and improve outreach to districts and schools in the state.

 

3. Write an annual Leadership Action Plan for Partnerships. To be effective, state leaders for partnerships must write a Leadership Action Plan that outlines and schedules the activities they will conduct each year to promote and support school, family, and community partnerships at the state level and with districts and schools. Research and field work reveal six leadership strategies for state and district leaders that will be represented in activities selected to match the state’s policy context and education goals. A strong state plan for partnerships will include activities to create awareness, align program and policy, guide learning and program development , share knowledge, celebrate milestones, document progress, and evaluate outcomes of partnership programs (Epstein et al., 2009). The actions discussed in this section will help state leaders fulfill these six leadership strategies.

 

4. Identify funds for state-level leadership on school, family, and community partnerships to cover staff and program costs. State leaders must have a budget for partnership program development that covers staff salaries, training programs, small grants for partnership projects, conferences to share best practices, evaluation studies, and/or other selected activities in the Leadership Action Plan for Partnerships. A line item in the state education budget stabilizes support for leadership on partnerships, for state-level activities, and for the work state leaders do with districts and schools.

The most effective parent involvement programs and practices are conducted at the school level—where the students and families are located. State grants to districts that are, then, channeled to schools can help to increase the number and quality of school-based programs to involve all families—including those typically hard to reach—in their children’s education. State funds also might be used to provide sabbaticals or summer salaries for district and school leaders to develop and adapt materials to improve outreach to all families and effective practices.

There are potentially important connections between state funds and the quality of partnership programs and practices in districts and schools. In most districts and schools, funds are needed to translate materials for parents who do not speak or read English, support interpreters at parent-teacher meetings, and develop effective practices to involve special populations of single parents, young parents, parents of children with special needs, and other groups that need specialized support. State funds can be used to develop, test, and disseminate approaches and materials that districts and schools can use or adapt to reach targeted populations of parents and community groups. (Also see discussions and activities on funding for programs of family and community involvement on pp. 362-368).

 

5. Conduct ongoing inservice education on partnerships. State leaders for partnerships should provide or support others to provide inservice education on beginning and advanced topics for developing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Well-organized inservice education will outline scheduled dates for professional development for district leaders to prepare them for their work on partnerships and advance their skills over time. Other inservice activities help state, district, and school professionals continually improve their knowledge and their programs of partnerships.

 

6. Collect, assess, and help leaders improve district policies on partnerships and the organization of district leadership for partnership program development. Some federal policies (e.g., Title I in ESEA) and some state policies ask state leaders to collect and monitor districts’ policies on parental involvement and related practices to gauge compliance with requirements for funding. It is not enough, however, to collect and rate policies or plans as “in” or “out” of compliance. State leaders must also guide district leaders to continually improve their leadership and programs that fulfill state policy requirements. This means that state leaders themselves must be up-to-date on research and resources that will help district and school leaders implement effective programs of family and community involvement that support student success in school.

 

7. Evaluate teachers and administrators for their work on partnerships. State boards of education should provide guidelines for districts to evaluate the quality of efforts to conduct and improve family and community involvement in educators’ annual or periodic evaluations. This component of professional work should be included in the evaluations of district superintendents, district-level leaders for partnerships, school principals, teachers, counselors, and instructional aides. Although these professional evaluations are conducted at the district and school levels, state leaders may assist with information, templates, and examples of rigorous yet reasonable evaluations of educators’ competencies on leadership for partnerships and on partnership program development and improvement.

 

8. Support a master teacher, lead teacher, or other career ladder program to build a cadre of district and school-based specialists in organizing, evaluating, and improving programs of family and community involvement. In a national survey, teachers reported strong interest in developing leadership skills that enable them to be more active participants in school improvement activities in their schools and in their districts (MetLife, 2010). States may support innovative plans to improve the status of teachers in this “hybrid” role of teacher and leader of an area for school reform.

Some professional development programs prepare teachers to become subject matter specialists or “coaches” to assist other teachers in a school or within a district. It also is possible to prepare and promote teachers who are specialists in school, family, and community partnerships. For example, teachers who are chairs or co-chairs of schools’ Action Teams for Partnerships tend to become expert in organizing effective partnership programs. They not only lead their own schools’ work on partnerships but also may climb a career ladder to become district-level leaders for partnerships who guide other school-based teams to develop their programs of family and community involvement. State support of career ladder programs may provide financial support, planning time, or other recognition for teacher leaders.

9. Develop partnership tools or products. State leaders for partnerships not only use available tools and guidelines to develop their partnership programs but also develop and customize tools to meet the needs and goals of schools, families, and students in their locations. Leaders create brochures, calendars, newsletters, periodic communiqués, translations of information and materials for families with limited English skills, websites, summaries of research results, and other publications and products. Districts and schools must solve various challenges (e.g., in involving fathers, in engaging families who do not speak or read English, in welcoming new families to the community, in explaining state assessments, and many other topics) as they improve their partnership programs. State leaders for partnership can help by developing “tailor-able tools” that district leaders and school teams can use or adapt to engage all families in ways that support their children’s success in school.

 

10. Encourage business, industry, and other community connections to strengthen school, family, and community partnerships. Some businesses have policies that permit and encourage employees who are parents to become involved in their children’s education and attend parent-teacher conferences. Some businesses have policies that enable all employees, with or without school-age children, to volunteer time to assist local schools. State leaders may work with legislators, business leaders, and community groups to draft legislation or develop other incentives (e.g., tax incentives, tax credits, preferred status, or other types of recognition for businesses) that encourage businesses to support family and community involvement in schools. State leaders also may encourage business, industry, university, and community leaders to establish day care programs for young children, summer and vacation programs for school-age students, and information centers on child and adolescent development for employees who are parents, and they may recognize organizations that conduct these family-friendly and student-support activities. See the discussion and activities on support by business and industry for family and community involvement of employees on pp. 376-378.

 

11. Establish an advisory committee so that state education leaders hear from parents and the community about partnerships and other educational issues. Each state should have an advisory committee with representatives of key stakeholders that meets on a regular schedule with the state superintendent of schools and/or the office on partnerships. The members of the advisory committee should represent the diverse population of students and families served in the state. They will represent varied perspectives on how state leaders can strengthen family and community involvement in all districts and schools.

 

12. Establish a website, library, clearinghouse, and/or dissemination center for research on partnerships, promising practices of family and community involvement, and useful materials and resources. State offices for family and community involvement may collect and disseminate information on partnerships and share best practices on a website, in family resource centers, and in other convenient locations. State leaders can use new technologies to collect and share summaries of research results on partnerships; effective approaches for organizing partnership programs; teachers’ practices for involving parents in conferences, homework, and extracurricular and other activities; tools to evaluate the quality and progress of partnership programs; forms and technologies for communicating with parents; information on child and adolescent development and parenting strategies; and other information and materials. The materials developed at the state level may be tailored and disseminated by district leaders in forms useful to educators, parents, and the public in their areas.

 

13. Support requirements for preservice and advanced education to prepare new teachers and administrators to conduct excellent partnership programs. State leaders should support legislation for state certification that requires future teachers and administrators to take at least one course on how to conduct an effective program of school, family, and community partnerships. State grants and other awards should support state colleges and universities in developing preservice and advanced courses on family and community involvement for future teachers and administrators. The content must go beyond coverage of traditional communications with families (e.g., parent-teacher conferences) to include education for future educators on how to plan, implement, evaluate, and improve outreach to parents and results for students.

Currently, in most states, future teachers, principals, counselors, and other administrators are not required to obtain and demonstrate knowledge and skills on developing effective and sustainable programs of family and community involvement linked to school improvement goals for student success in school (see Chapter 1 for an overview). Yet every educator entering a school or classroom must work every day with children and their families. Future teachers’ abilities to implement home and school connections are as critical to their success as their abilities to teach reading or manage classrooms. Future principals, too, need to know how to guide teams of educators, parents, and community partners to work together to develop an effective school-based program of family and community involvement.

 

14. Support research and evaluation on the quality and effects of programs and practices of school, family, and community partnerships. State leaders should collect and analyze data to learn whether and how well state level partnership programs are working and how districts and schools improve the quality, outreach, and results of partnership programs over time. Or state leaders should arrange for periodic external evaluations of these activities.

Educators know that what gets measured gets done. Many educators will continue to consider parental involvement “extra stuff” or “fluff” until there is clear accountability for partnership programs. This includes clarity on what data to collect to learn if district leaders are effectively guiding schools to develop goal-linked partnership programs and whether and how school teams are organizing effective programs to involve all families in ways that support student learning and development.

Measures must be made of current involvement activities, quality of implementation, extent of outreach to families and community partners, responses from families and community partners, and, ultimately, results for students. Some documentation is relatively simple, such as gathering district policies and providing feedback on these documents. Other evaluations are complex, such as collecting longitudinal data to study whether the quality of school partnership programs affects student attendance, achievement, and behavior over time (Epstein et al., 2009).

DISCUSSION

The policies and actions outlined in this chapter require leadership, time, funds, and commitments for the long term. State departments of education that establish these four requirements will have more successful and sustainable programs of school, family, and community partnerships.

Funding is particularly important, not only to support the state leaders for partnerships, but also for the investments in teacher training, evaluation studies, and the other activities discussed above. Funds for state leaders should be ensured for an extended period of time (just as funds support curricular improvements) to develop state leaders’ expertise on partnerships and to help district and school leaders improve and sustain their programs of family and community involvement that contribute to student success in school. Funds to increase the number and quality of partnership programs in districts and schools in the state are likely to be returned to the state in the form of better-informed parents, more successful students, more effective teachers, fewer student failures, higher graduation rates, and fewer demands on other state and local resources for expensive social services when the students are adolescents and young adults.

Parent involvement is not the parents’ responsibility alone. Nor is it the state’s, district’s, or school’s responsibility alone. Parent involvement is everybody’s job but nobody’s job until a structure is put in place to support it. Without financial and technical support from state education agencies, words about the importance of parent involvement are meaningless. State policies—the words—are necessary but not sufficient for enabling all districts and schools to develop strong programs of family and community involvement. Policies that are unfunded and unsupported will be unwelcome and ineffective.

In sum, state leaders have important responsibilities for developing and continually improving their knowledge, skills, and activities of school, family, and community partnerships. They also must take steps to facilitate the knowledge and skills of district leaders and school-based Action Teams for Partnerships so that every elementary, middle, and high school is able to develop its own program of partnership.

REFERENCES

Epstein, J. L. (2009). District and State Leadership for School, Family, and Community Partnerships. In J. L. Epstein et al., School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.; pp. 235-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

MetLife. (2010). Survey of American teachers: Collaborating for student success, part 3, teaching as a career. New York: Author.

READING 4.2

Sample State and District Policies on School, Family, and Community Partnerships¹⁶

Three state policies from California, Connecticut, and Wisconsin and three district policies from Buffalo, New York, Middletown, Connecticut, and Saint Paul, Minnesota, are included in this chapter. The policies were selected because they are thoughtfully written, research-based, and comprehensive and because they include administrative commitments to help schools enact the policies. The policies call for well-planned programs that reach out to involve all parents, ^*3 with district leaders and school-based teams to organize and plan programs that use the framework of six types of involvement and recognize work done well. The words and emphases of these policies may help other states and districts to develop simple yet responsive policies and enactments on school, family, and community partnerships.

Having a good policy is the first step on the path to partnerships. The featured policies should not be interpreted to mean that these states and districts have completed their work or fulfilled their policies. Indeed, all of the states and districts noted here still have a great deal of work to do to help all schools develop and sustain comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships.

STATE POLICIES: CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, AND WISCONSIN

California State Board of Education Policy

Subject: Parent Involvement in the Education of Their Children

Introduction

 

A critical dimension of effective schooling is parent involvement: Research has shown conclusively, that parent involvement at home in their children’s education improves student achievement. Furthermore, when parents are involved at school, their children go farther in school and they go to better schools.

From research studies to date, we have learned the following important facts:

1. Families provide the primary educational environment.

2. Parent involvement in their children’s education improves student achievement.

3. Parent involvement is most effective when it is comprehensive, supportive, long-lasting and well-planned.

4. The benefits of parent involvement are not limited to early childhood or the elementary level; there are continuing positive effects through high school.

5. Involving parents in supporting their children’s education at home is not enough. To ensure the quality of schools as institutions serving the community, parents must be involved at all levels in the schools.

6. Children from low-income and culturally and racially diverse families have the most to gain when schools involve parents. The extent of parent involvement in a child’s education is more important to student success than family income or education.

7. We cannot look at the school and the home in isolation from one another; families and schools need to collaborate to help children adjust to the world of school. This is particularly critical for children from families with different cultural and language backgrounds.

Schools that undertake and support strong comprehensive parent involvement efforts are more likely to produce students who perform better than identical schools that do not involve parents. Schools that have strong linkages with and respond to the needs of the communities they serve, have students that perform better than schools that don’t. Children who have parents who help them at home and stay in touch with the school, do better academically than children of similar aptitude and family background whose parents are not involved. The inescapable fact is that consistently high levels of student success are more likely to occur with long-term comprehensive parent involvement in schools.

The California State Board of Education recognizes that a child’s education is a responsibility shared by school and family during the entire period the child spends in school. Although parents come to the schools with diverse cultural backgrounds, primary languages, and needs, they overwhelmingly want their children to be successful in school. School districts and schools, in collaboration with parents, teachers, students and administrators, must establish and develop efforts that enhance parent involvement and reflect the needs of students and families in the communities which they serve.

To support the mission of California schools to educate all students effectively, schools and parents must work together as knowledgeable partners. All of the grade level reforms, Here they come: Ready or Not!, It’s Elementary, Caught in the Middle, Second to None, and other major initiatives such as Healthy Start (SB 620) and School Restructuring (SB 1274), emphasize parent and community involvement in school restructuring. The reform efforts support school-based shared decision-making at the school site that includes all stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, students, parents and other community members.

The State Board of Education will continue to support, through the California Department of Education, assistance to school districts and schools in developing strong comprehensive parent involvement. Comprehensive means that parents are involved at all grade levels in a variety of roles. The efforts should be designed to:

1. Help parents develop parenting skills to meet the basic obligations of family life and foster conditions at home, which emphasize the importance of education and learning.

2. Promote two-way (school-to-home and home-to-school) communication about school programs and students’ progress.

3. Involve parents, with appropriate training, in instructional and support roles at the school and in other locations that help the school and students reach stated goals, objectives and standards.

4. Provide parents with strategies and techniques for assisting their children with learning activities at home that support and extend the school’s instructional program.

5. Prepare parents to actively participate in school decision making and develop their leadership skills in governance and advocacy.

6. Provide parents with skills to access community and support services that strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.

These six types of parent involvement roles require a coordinated school-wide effort that has the support of parents, teachers, students and administrators at each school site. Furthermore, research indicates that home-school collaboration is most likely to happen if schools take the initiative to encourage, guide and genuinely welcome parents into the partnership. Professional development for teachers and administrators on how to build such a partnership is essential.

The issue of parent involvement in the education of their children is much larger than improving student achievement. It is central to our democracy that parents and citizens participate in the governing of public institutions. Parent involvement is fundamental to a healthy system of public education.

 

ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1989; UPDATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1994

Connecticut State Board of Education

Adopts a Definition of School-Family-Community

Public Act 97-290, Section 14, requires each local and regional board of education to “develop, adopt, and implement written policies and procedures to encourage parent-teacher communication. These policies and procedures may include monthly newsletters, required regular contact with all parents, flexible parent-teacher conference, drop in hours for parents, home visits, and the use of technology such as homework hot lines to allow parents to check on their children’s assignments and students to get assistance if needed.” The state law went into effect September 1, 1998.

In 1997 and again in 2009, the Connecticut State Board of Education issued a Position Statement on School-Family-Community Partnerships for Student Success to guide state, district, and school leaders, parents, and the public to understand and implement the short policy statement. Following is the most recent version of the statement:

The Connecticut State Board of Education believes education is a shared responsibility throughout a student’s life from birth to adulthood. Families, school staff and community members make important contributions to student success and the best results come when all three work together as equal partners. The purpose of these three-way partnerships is to support students’ success in school and through life.

A Definition of School-Family-Community Partnerships

 

 

The State Board of Education endorses a research-based definition of school-family-community partnerships that can be applied to policies and practices across the state that result in student success.

School-family-community partnerships are:

• A shared responsibility with schools and other community organizations committed to engaging families in meaningful, culturally respectful ways as well as families actively supporting their children’s learning and development;

• Continuous across a student’s life, beginning in infancy and extending through college and career preparation programs; and

• Carried out everywhere that children learn including homes, early childhood education programs, schools, after-school programs, faith-based institutions, playgrounds, and community settings.

Taken together, this definition supports the creation of pathways to partnerships that honor the dynamic, multiple and complementary ways that children learn and grow. Family engagement is everything family members do to support their children’s learning, guide them through a complex school system, advocate for them when problems arise, and collaborate with educators and community groups to achieve more equitable and effective learning opportunities. The terms parent or family are intended to mean a natural, adoptive or foster parent, or other adult serving as a parent, such as a close relative, legal or educational guardian and/or a community or agency advocate.

As students become older and more mature, they should and will take increasing responsibility for their learning. Nevertheless, they will need support from the adults in their lives throughout their educational careers.

 

 

A Comprehensive Approach

 

In order to encourage a comprehensive approach to school-family-community partnerships, the Board recommends that school districts develop programs addressing each of the following six standards:

 

1. Parent education. Identify and prioritize as needed, secondary school completion options and English language learning services for parents of school age children. Support the family’s essential role in encouraging children’s learning at every age and in developing positive parent-child relationships.

 

2. Communicating and creating a welcoming climate. Promote ongoing, clear, meaningful, and two-way communication about school programs and student learning, and develop personal relationships among school staff, families, students and community members.

 

3. Volunteering. Involve families in instruction and support, both in and out of school, and in creating a family-friendly atmosphere at school.

 

4. Supporting learning at home. Involve families in learning and enrichment activities at home and in the community that are linked to academic standards.

 

5. Decision-making and advocacy. Provide opportunities for families to develop and strengthen their leadership roles in school decisions, especially those related to student performance and school improvement.

 

6. Collaborating with community. Provide coordinated access to community resources, serve as a resource to the community and offer opportunities for community service.

To be effective, these standards of engagement should be connected to the goals of the school district’s improvement planning, and designed to engage students and families in strengthening specific knowledge and skills identified as needing work by assessment data. Parent and community engagement that is linked to student learning has a greater effect on achievement than more general involvement.

 

 

Characteristics of Successful School-Family-Community Partnerships

 

The State Board of Education recognizes that school-family-community partnerships must focus on activities that are linked to children’s learning. They also must reflect the many ways in which families, community organizations, and school staff engage with and support one another, from promoting family literacy, to improving schools and advocating for greater educational quality and opportunity.

Successful partnerships are as varied as their local communities, yet they share certain common characteristics. Effective partnerships are:

 

1. Respectful. All partners develop relationships that recognize, respect and build on the diverse strengths, talents, needs, and interests of families and students.

 

2. Inclusive. Staff reach out to all families, especially those who are culturally diverse or have low levels of income. They examine their assumptions and come to know and learn from families as individuals. All families are honored and valued as partners in their children’s education.

 

3. Flexible. Partnerships are tailored to all stages of a student’s educational career, and offer a variety of times, locations and opportunities for participation.

 

4. Democratic. Families and young people are equal partners with staff, together constructing programs, policies and information. Leadership is open to families, students and other partners.

 

5. Systematic. Partnerships focus on student achievement and help families and community members understand what students are learning and what the district’s standards for successful performance mean for different ages and grade levels.

 

 

Benefits of High-Quality School-Family-Community Partnership Programs

 

Research shows that well-planned partnerships among families, school and community members can make a powerful contribution to greater student success. No matter what their income or background, students with involved families tend to have higher grades and test scores, better attendance, and higher rates of homework completion. They enroll in more challenging classes, have better social skills and behavior, and are more likely to graduate and go on to college.

Families and schools also benefit. Families engaged in partnerships have a greater sense of efficacy, stronger social ties and are more likely to continue their own education. Teachers report greater job satisfaction when they work with families, and families who are more involved hold more positive views of teachers and schools. Increased involvement develops feelings of ownership, resulting in greater family and community support for public education.

The State Board of Education understands that it takes more than engaged families and communities to sustain high student achievement. High-performing schools have many characteristics, including high standards and expectations for student learning, effective school leadership as well as high quality curriculum and instruction. Research also shows, however, that successful schools also have strong ties with families and their community. An effective program of school-family-community partnerships is a critical support students require to realize their potential, and one essential step toward eliminating our state’s achievement gaps.

 

ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 4, 2009

SUPPLEMENT TO POSITION STATEMENT, NOVEMBER 2009

The Connecticut State Board of Education in its 2009 Position Statement on School-Family-Community Partnerships for Student Success calls for a shared responsibility among three equal partners to support students’ success in school and through life. This document is intended to offer additional guidance to the Position Statement.

To develop effective school-family-community partnership programs, state, district and school leaders, along with parents, community leaders and students, must identify goals for their collaboration. Each member of the team has an important role to play and unique contributions to make to the partnership.

State Department of Education Responsibilities

Develop and promote school-family-community partnership programs that contribute to success for all students.

• Provide resources and technical assistance to school districts to help them implement programs of partnership, in accordance with this policy statement. This leadership includes promoting the six standards of family engagement and the full involvement of all major partners.

• Expand the message from a focus on parenting to emphasize the shared responsibility of families, schools and communities to create pathways for family engagement to support student achievement.

• Hold public forums, summits and other meetings to solicit ideas from parents, educators and others about how families, schools and communities can work together to support student learning.

Coordinate and strengthen the family and community engagement components of all major state and federal programs.

• Identify all state and federal programs that have family and community engagement requirements and assess their implementation and effectiveness.

• Collect and disseminate information about current research, best practice and model policies and programs.

School Districts’ Responsibilities

Create a culture of partnership.

• The district must make family engagement a priority, set clear goals for school-family-community partnerships that all schools are expected to meet and monitor progress on those goals.

• The school board should establish policies that support partnerships, such as making school facilities available to the community and families and creating roles for businesses and community organizations.

• Connect school-family-community partnerships directly to the district’s improvement initiative.

• The district should designate a senior level administrator responsible for school-family-community partnerships to provide leadership for program implementation, coordination and accountability.

• The district should guide all schools to develop and implement a systematic and effective plan for engaging families in improving student achievement that aligns with school and district improvement plans.

Organize district resources to create a structure of support so that all schools can and will establish and sustain strong partnerships.

• The district should develop structures to implement fully the six standards of family engagement and monitor progress to determine which practices produce the best results.

• The district should provide training and support for teachers, administrators, other staff members and families in developing partnership skills, especially understanding and appreciating diversity, developing skills to work with people from different backgrounds and linking programs and activities to student learning.

• The district should provide learning and development opportunities for families such as parent leadership and advocacy training, adult education, literacy and English language instruction so that parents may be full partners in their children’s education.

• The district should prioritize engagement of parents of school age children who may need English as a Second Language program and high school completion programs such as GED test preparation.

Schools’ Responsibilities

Welcome all family and community members to the school.

• The principal should consistently demonstrate commitment to families and expect and support all staff to create a respectful, inclusive and family-friendly environment.

• School staff should make every effort to build trusting, relevant relationships among families, staff and community members.

Engage families and community members in a systematic way to help the school meet its student achievement goals.

• All family engagement programs and activities should be linked to student learning so that families can understand what their children are learning in class and gain skills to help them at home.

• Teachers should learn and practice effective, research-based strategies linking family engagement to student success.

Communicate regularly with families about student learning.

• The school should use many two-way pathways for communication, in everyday language that is translated into families’ home languages.

• Schools should make it easy for any family to communicate with teachers, the principal and other administrators.

Encourage families to be advocates for their own and others’ children, to ensure that students are treated fairly and have access to meaningful learning opportunities.

• Give families information about how the school system works and how to raise questions or concerns.

• Give families information and support to monitor their children’s progress and guide them toward their goals, including college.

• Promote opportunities for families to take part in learning and development programs related to leadership, advocacy and adult education including literacy and English language instruction.

Make families and school staff equal partners in decisions that affect children and families.

• A school council or other decision-making group should include families and give them a voice in major decisions, including principal selection.

• Every school should have a strong, broad-based parent organization that can advocate on behalf of families and children.

Collaborate with community organizations to connect students, families and staff to expand learning opportunities, community services and civic participation.

• School staff should work closely with community organizations, businesses and institutes of higher education to make resources available and turn the school into a hub of community life.

Families’ Responsibilities

Create a home environment that promotes learning and holds children to high expectations.

• Engage in family reading activities and support homework. Emphasize the value of education and hard work. Talk to children about school and help them think about and plan for their future.

Build a relationship with children’s teachers.

• Let teachers know families want to work with them as a partner to ensure children’s success. Ask teachers to keep families informed about children’s progress.

Take advantage of the opportunities the school and district provide.

• Join the parent organization and seek out ways to contribute at home or at school. Attend meetings and get to know school staff.

• Engage in parent leadership and family literacy programs that build parents’ own skills and knowledge.

Make sure children go to school every day and closely monitor how they are doing in school.

• If a child is struggling or falling behind, contact the teacher or a counselor and insist on getting help.

• Make sure children are taking challenging classes or programs. Ask teachers or counselors for help if children need it to succeed. Learn about what students must do to graduate on time and be ready for college.

Community Leaders’ Responsibilities

Work with the district to create community schools that provide integrated family support services.

• Survey families and staff at each school to find out their interests and needs. Respond by mapping the assets in the community, building upon existing resources and co-locating social and health services in schools.

Form a network of organizations that can partner with schools to strengthen families and support student success.

• Community members and employees can: serve as volunteers, role models and mentors; give students individual attention; and demonstrate the value the community places on education. Businesses can sponsor partnership activities and encourage employees to play an active role. Libraries, museums, colleges and cultural agencies can reduce fees and make special programs available for families.

Students’ Responsibilities (as developmentally appropriate)

Take responsibility for learning.

• Students are entitled to a free public education and should take full advantage, asking for help when needed.

• Take initiative to find and explore new areas of learning that are of personal interest.

Form a student organization at school.

• Let the teachers and principal know what is working well in the school and how it could be better.

Join the school improvement team.

• Ask the principal and teachers for student-led conferences where students can display work, explain what has been learned and discuss what students want and will need to learn.

Plan for your future and think carefully about goals in life.

• Discuss ideas with family, teachers, counselors and other adults. Find out how to reach those goals.

ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 4, 2009

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Policy on Family-School-Community Partnerships

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) recognizes that parents and families are a child’s first and most important teachers. When children enter school, the responsibility for their learning is shared by the schools, families, communities, and the children themselves.

Further, the DPI believes that:

• All children deserve to grow up in nurturing, healthy, and safe learning environments in which families are supported in their roles and responsibilities;

• Families of all cultures, languages, and incomes care deeply about their children’s success; and

• Family-school-community collaboration and partnerships benefit all children.

Successful family-school-community partnerships include the following goals:

• Communication between home and school is regular, two-way, and meaningful.

• Responsible parenting, quality teaching, and caring communities are promoted and supported.

• Families and the community play a key role in helping students learn.

• School staff provide a welcoming environment for parents and other community members and seek their support.

• Parents participate in advocacy and decisions, including budget and curriculum, that affect children and families at the local, district, and state levels.

• Community resources are made available to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning, and community partners participate in helping schools meet their learning goals.

To meet its mission that all school-age children have access to quality educational programs that meet high standards of excellence, the DPI provides leadership and resources to enable communities, schools, and families, including students, to work as knowledgeable partners. Therefore, the DPI:

• Educates and expects its staff to promote family-school-community partnerships and community collaborations;

• Is responsive to parents and other citizens who contact the DPI for help or to offer suggestions;

• Encourages school leaders to create a respectful, safe, and caring school climate welcoming family and community participation;

• Promotes and supports education and training for educators, families, and other citizens to develop and maintain partnerships and collaborations for life-long learning; and

• Promotes schools and communities that work together to improve student learning and citizenship development.

APPROVED: APRIL 28, 2004

School District Policies:
Buffalo (NY), Middletown (CT), and Saint Paul (MN)
Buffalo Public Schools
Parent Involvement Policy 3170
2008
Subject: Parent Involvement Policy

Parent Involvement Beliefs

The Buffalo Public Schools believes that education is a partnership among the student, parent/guardian, school, and community. The academic achievement and success of our students depend on the actions, relationships, and strengths of these partnerships.

Students, who are at the center of the partnerships, have unique skills, talents, and learning styles and are ultimately accountable for their own academic achievement. Parents and families provide their children with the foundation of their values, including educational values, responsibilities, expectations, rules for home/school environment, and aspirations. Parents are the primary providers in preparing their children for school readiness and academic success. Parents’ knowledge of their children’s unique histories, traditions, life experiences, and learning experiences are important to their success. Parents also share knowledge about community resources and challenges, both of which are valuable and critical to their child’s progress. The educational responsibility for our students is shared by the parents, district, schools, and community.

Parent Involvement Framework

In 1999, the Buffalo Public Schools adopted the framework of the National Network of Partnership Schools, a research-based model of parent involvement designed by Dr. Joyce Epstein of Johns Hopkins University. The Buffalo Chapter of this Partnership assists our schools in developing comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships as part of their efforts to increase parent involvement. This model is based on the following six types of parental involvement:

 

1. Parenting. Assist families with parenting and child-rearing skills, understanding child and adolescent development, and setting home conditions that support children as students at each grade level.

 

2. Communicating. Communicate with families about programs and student’s progress through effective school-to-home and home-to-school communication.

 

3. Volunteering. Improve recruitment, training work, and schedules to involve families as volunteers and audiences at the school or in other locations to support students and school programs.

 

4. Student Learning at Home. Involve families with their children in learning activities at home, including homework and other curriculum-related activities and decisions.

 

5. Decision Making. Include families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy through PTO/PTA, school councils, committees, and other parent organizations.

 

6. Collaborating With the Community. Coordinate resources and services for families, students, and the school with businesses, agencies, and other groups, and provide services to the community.

District Responsibilities/Expectations

To successfully implement the District’s beliefs in parent involvement, support will be comprised of, but not limited to the following:

1. Continuing to foster a network of sharing among schools through the Buffalo Chapter of the National Network of Partnership Schools framework.

2. Providing a budget allocation to support district and school parental involvement initiatives.

3. Establishing a parent organization in every school.

4. Hiring a parent facilitator in every school.

5. Disseminating information relevant to student achievement and parents’ rights through community meetings, telephone contact, and individual schools.

6. Providing for parent participation on all district decision-making teams.

7. Supporting a District Parent Center that provides academic assistance to parents, students, and community.

8. Ensuring compliance with Section 1118 (parent involvement) of the No Child Left Behind legislation.

9. Providing an effective mechanism to ensure mutual respect and accountability between school/parent partnerships.

The District Parent Coordinating Council

The purpose of the District Parent Coordinating Council is to ensure that a partnership with the District is created and to monitor the implementation of the Board of Education’s Parent Involvement Policy. The Council is the venue for disseminating relevant and important information from the Superintendent, as well as serving as a conduit for parental feedback to the District. The Council receives support from Erie I BOCES Regional School Support Center, including having a member working in conjunction with the Council’s Executive Board. The general Council meetings are held monthly. All district parents are welcome, including all organizations that represent parents, such as the Special Education Parent Advisory Committee and the Title I District Advisory Council.

Building Responsibilities and Expectations

Principals, in collaboration with parents and the support of the District Parent Coordinating Council, Buffalo Chapter of the National Network of Partnership Schools, and the Erie I BOCES Regional School Support Center, will:

1. Establish a parent/family organization in each school and shall:

• Call at least one business meeting of the parent organization each year in order to encourage the inclusion of new parents into the organization.

• Elect officers and have regular meetings, scheduled in consultation with parents and announced publicly, inviting all to attend.

• Be maintained as a viable entity to ensure that parents, who are full partners in their child’s education, have an opportunity to be included in meetings and decision-making.

• Elect/appoint members to represent all parents from the school community to the District Parent Coordinating Council, School Based Management Team, and Action Teams related to student achievement.

2. Establish a parent room in each school.

Parent Responsibilities and Expectations

Parent involvement is the action parents take to participate in regular, two way, and meaningful communication with their children’s schools to provide an education that graduates productive citizens. All parent involvement is aimed at increasing student achievement through various levels of involvement.

Parents can be defined as any parent, guardian, and/or person in parental relation to a child or children. Parents are expected to:

1. Ensure that children come to school prepared and ready to learn.

2. Provide high-quality nutrition, adequate sleep, and exercise for their children.

3. Provide a learning environment for children to do homework and actively monitor their children’s homework and level of completion.

4. Review and support the District Attendance Policy.

5. Review and support the District Code of Conduct.

6. Attend parent/family organization meetings, parent/teacher conferences, and workshops designed to increase student achievement.

7. Communicate with teachers and principals as partners in their children’s academic success.

The Buffalo Board of Education and the Superintendent of Buffalo Public Schools endorse and support this plan to help ensure the BPS mission of “Putting children and families first to ensure high academic achievement for all.”

NOTE: Refer also to Policies #7660—Parent Involvement—Children with Disabilities and #8260—Programs and Projects Funded By Title I.

ADOPTED: APRIL 24, 2002

REVISED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Middletown (CT) Board of Education
Parent Involvement Policy
6172.4(a)

The Middletown Board of Education actively supports and encourages parent involvement in all of its schools and programs. This policy also meets the applicable No Child Left Behind guidelines in the district’s Title I schools. The Board recognizes that cooperative efforts among the parents,¹⁷ school and community are essential to building strong educational programs for all children.

Toward this end and pursuant to federal law, the Middletown School District has developed and will distribute this written parent involvement policy based on discussion and consultation with parents of children participating in the Title I program along with parents of non-participating children. In turn, each Middletown school, both Title I and non-Title I, will develop and distribute its own parent involvement policy/compact, consistent with district policy but specific to that school’s interests and needs.

As recommended by Connecticut’s State Board of Education, the Middletown Board recognizes and supports these six standards for building and maintaining effective school-family-community partnerships. The illustrations noted are some, not all, of the programs and activities that help Middletown meet these standards.

1. Parenting: Promote and support effective parenting skills and the family’s primary role in encouraging children’s learning at each age and grade level.

• Middletown meets this standard through its family math and language arts nights, Parent Leadership Training Institutes (PLTI), pre-school workshops for parents, parenting workshops, and Even Start (adult ed.), and Family Resource Centers initiatives.

2. Communicating: ongoing, two-way, and meaningful communication between schools, families, and the community.

• Middletown meets this standard through its PTAs and PTOs, principals’ coffees, parent-teacher conferences, curriculum nights, Comcast programs, newsletters, and district, school, and classroom web pages. The new parent involvement committees will strengthen this communication.

3. Volunteering: provide training to parents and community members to support learning both in and out of school.

• Middletown meets this standard through its extensive student mentor program, family outreach worker efforts, PLTIs, read-ins, student tutor collaborations with Middlesex Community College and Wesleyan University, parent volunteer program, and several student volunteer/service activities.

4. Learning at home: encourage family involvement in school and curriculum related enrichment activities.

• Middletown meets this standard through its parent math and language arts nights, numerous school-related and educational websites, newsletters (weekly to monthly), and curricular activities that focus on and engage families. Again, the new parent involvement committees will help us better meet this standard.

5. Decision making: help all families strengthen their leadership in school decisions.

• Middletown will better meet this standard through the formation of parent involvement committees at all of its eleven schools, continued support of PLTIs, inviting greater parent participation on curriculum development efforts, and giving greater attention to student performance and curriculum initiatives at its PTA, PTO, and MSA (Middletown Schools Association—the umbrella organization for Middletown’s PTAs and PTOs) meetings.

6. Collaborating with the community: enable schools and families to access—and serve as—community resources.

• Middletown meets this standard through its work with the NAACP, United Way, Ascend, Excel, Upward Bound, park and recreation department, local colleges and universities, school-business partnerships, and neighborhood outreach through community centers and religious organizations.

Annually, parents of both Title I and non-Title I students will help evaluate, revise, and implement their school’s policies for the following year. Every effort will be made to engage these parents and to comply with the new federal and state regulations. Both at the district and school levels, the parent committees will convene annually to assess the district’s success in meeting the six standards and improving overall academic quality. The district parent involvement advisory committee will comprise representatives from all eleven schools and will include Title I parents. Building principals and the assistant superintendent will be responsible for organizing and maintaining both district and building level parent involvement committees. The school-based committees will each compile a brief report, submitting this to the district parent involvement advisory committee. The advisory committee will review the reports and compile a summary report to be shared with the Board of Education and community. Specifically, the committees will consider data from the district’s many assessments (i.e., DRAs, CMTs, CAPTs, SATs, in-house grades and assessments, GPAs, drop-out and behavioral information), success at fulfilling the objectives and recommendations in the annual district/school/department improvement and diversity enhancement plans. The committee will also review Reading First, Literacy Collaborative, and Early Reading Success progress as revealed through these and other measures.

Beyond the annual review and planning meetings, schools receiving Title I funds will conduct three additional meetings—again, scheduled to accommodate as many Title I parents as possible—to provide parents with:

• Information about Title I funded programs;

• Clear and coherent descriptions of curricula, including the kinds of assessments and levels of expected proficiency;

• Opportunities to make suggestions and participate in decisions affecting their children’s educational experiences;

• Opportunities to bring to the district level any concerns that are not satisfactorily addressed at the building level.

The district and schools will ensure that parents of children identified to participate in Title I programs shall receive from the school principal and Title I staff an explanation of the reasons supporting each child’s selection for the program, a set of objectives to be addressed, and a description of the services to be provided. Opportunities will be provided for the parents to meet with the classroom and Title I teachers to discuss their child’s progress. Parents will also receive guidance about how they can assist in educating their children at home.

As part of its school’s parent involvement policy, each Title I school in Middletown shall jointly develop with parents of children served a “School-Parent Compact” outlining the roles and responsibilities of parents, staff, and students for improved student academic achievement in meeting state and federal standards. Each school’s “School-Parent Compact” shall:

1. Describe the school’s responsibility to provide high-quality curriculum and instruction in a supportive and effective learning environment enabling children in the Title I program to meet the State’s academic achievement standards;

2. Indicate the ways in which parents will be responsible for supporting their children’s learning (e.g., monitoring attendance, completing homework, monitoring TV and video viewing, attending school activities, and participating, as appropriate, in decisions related to their children’s education and extra-curricular time); and

3. Address the importance of parent-teacher communication on an ongoing basis, with at a minimum, parent-teacher conferences, frequent reports to parents, and reasonable access to staff.

4. Address the six standards for building and maintaining school-family-community partnerships.

POLICY ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 10, 2004

POLICY READOPTED: JUNE 20, 2006, MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

Saint Paul Public Schools
Family Involvement Policy 615.00

Purpose (2002)

The Board believes that the involvement of families in the children’s education every year, preK-12, has positive impact on the student’s success in school. Research indicates that planned, comprehensive family involvement can contribute to the achievement of key school goals. The Board also believes that children are more likely to be successful when parents or families and school staff work as a team to support each student.

General Statement of Policy (Revised, 2008)

1. Each school site shall collaborate with its community of families to ensure family involvement in the education of their children. Each school shall implement a strategy that takes a research-based, comprehensive approach to parent involvement and expectations that includes the following elements:

• Parenting

• Communicating

• Volunteering

• Learning at Home

• Decision Making

• Collaborating with the Community

• Shares responsibility for high expectations and student performance.

• Builds the involvement capacity of school, program staff and families.

• Increases access and engagement of all families with children.

2. The end result will be to insure integration of family-school involvement throughout district activities, including development and evaluation of district and school improvement plans.

ADOPTED: MAY 14, 2002, SAINT PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY 615.00 REVISED: JUNE 17, 2008

LEGAL REFERENCES:

20 U.S.C. § 6318 (PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT)

MINN. STAT. § 124D.8955 (PARENT AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT POLICY)

READING 4.3

Research Meets Policy and Practice: How Are School Districts Addressing NCLB Requirements for Parental Involvement?¹⁸

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, Public Law 107-110), signed into law in 2002, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), thereby updating the legislation, first passed in 1965, that provides federal funds to improve schools serving children from economically disadvantaged families and communities. In addition to well-publicized requirements for high-quality teachers, achievement tests, and accountability for the progress of major subgroups of students, NCLB includes important requirements for district leaders to develop district-level and school-based policies and programs for more effective parental involvement.

The regulations in Section 1118 have improved with each reauthorization of ESEA, reflecting advances in sociological and educational theories about district leadership for school improvement. The requirements also call for the application of research-based approaches for program development (Borman, Cookson, Sadovnik, and Spade, 1996; Epstein, 2001). For example, early Title I legislation on parental involvement mandated minor, often symbolic, participation of a few parent representatives on district and school advisory committees. Most other parents were left on their own to figure out whether and how to become involved in their children’s education across the grades. Now the law outlines a “nested” system of actions at the state, district, and school levels for developing programs to involve all families in ways that support student achievement and success in school.

Historically, there have been notable pendulum swings in assessments of the contributions of district leaders to school improvement. Some have labeled district leaders irrelevant and inadequate managers of school reform; others have called them essential guides for improving schools (Coburn, 2003; Datnow, Hubbard, and Mehan, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Learning First Alliance, 2003; Mac Iver and Farley, 2003) and for strengthening programs of school, family, and community partnerships (Chrispeels, 1996; Epstein, 2001; Sanders, 2005). The consensus across studies is that district leaders are responsible for creating a culture of reform with all schools and that they must not allow one school to improve while others decline (Burch and Spillane, 2004).

The new understanding of effective district leadership emphasizes shared, distributed, or democratic leadership and teamwork for school reform (Fullan, 2001; Pounder, Reitzug, and Young, 2002). In practice, shared leadership typically refers to collaborative work conducted by administrators and teachers. Although educators know that family and community involvement is important, educators often are reluctant to share leadership with parents and community members. Most teachers and administrators have not been prepared in college courses to conduct collaborative work (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005; Epstein and Sanders, 2006; Leithwood and Prestine, 2002). Most districts do not offer effective inservice education on new strategies for organizing school, family, and community partnerships (Epstein et al., 2009).

Despite these gaps in the education of educators, NCLB requires district leaders to organize effective partnership programs and to share leadership for children’s education with parents. Specifically, Section 1118 specifies that districts shall (which in legislative language means must) provide professional development and ongoing technical assistance to help schools implement programs that inform families about state standards and tests, guide parents to support student achievement at home, communicate messages in languages parents can understand, resolve other “barriers” or challenges that limit the involvement of economically disadvantaged and linguistically diverse parents, and build the capacity of both schools and parents to conduct and improve programs. The law states that districts must:

• Provide the coordination, technical assistance and other support necessary to assist participating schools in planning and implementing effective parent involvement activities to improve student academic achievement and school performance.

• Build the schools’ and parents’ capacity for strong parent involvement.

The law also outlines several optional activities that districts may conduct, including establishing district-level advisory councils; providing parents with literacy classes, leadership training, and transportation and child care to attend school meetings and workshops; scheduling meetings at varied times to increase parental participation, working with businesses and community partners; and adopting model approaches to help organize partnership programs.

The specifications in NCLB redirect district leaders from simply monitoring schools’ compliance with the law to actively guiding schools to improve the quality and results of their partnership programs (Cowan, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

FRAMEWORK OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS

The required and optional actions in NCLB for district leadership on partnerships can be understood with a theoretical framework that outlines a range of policy instruments for school reform. McDonnell and Elmore (1991) identified important differences of mandates that require and regulate actions, inducements that reward or sanction actions, capacity building that increases knowledge and skills for action, and system changing that reassigns decision-making activities to new groups or individuals. NCLB includes all four policy instruments to guide district leaders on varied ways to improve programs of family and community involvement.

NCLB’s Section 1118 includes the mandates for actions districts must take, outlined above. Title I, Part A, includes inducements for action through funding that districts must allocate to schools to implement effective school-based parental involvement programs. The funding is tied to sanctions, which federal monitors may impose if districts fail to meet the requirements. Overall, the law states its goal to build capacities of district leaders, school leaders, and parents to plan, implement, and evaluate productive family involvement through the required professional development activities. District leaders who implement the required actions could help all schools develop more equitable programs of involvement by involving families who are typically labeled “hard to reach.” Such actions would produce system-changing behaviors at the district level and in all schools (Epstein, 2005; Epstein and Sheldon, 2006).

Additional system-changing requirements are legislated in other sections of NCLB that require district leaders to offer parents of eligible students options to change schools and select supplemental services if their child’s school fails to meet state standards for achievement or safety for two years or more (Lauen, 2008; Mickelson and Southworth, 2008). These options change the way decisions about student placement are made in school districts.

NATIONAL NETWORK OF PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS

Although NCLB specifies that research-based programs should be implemented, the law does not indicate how the actions can be accomplished. Most district leaders need help in enacting NCLB Section 1118 and other requirements for family and community involvement. Studies and field tests are required in order to understand the structures and processes that enable districts and schools to develop and sustain effective partnership programs. In this study, we draw from data collected by the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University, which includes a large number of school districts that share an interest in improving school, family, and community partnerships.

NNPS guides districts to use research-based approaches to understand family and community involvement and to help schools develop goal-linked programs that will help more students succeed in school (Epstein et al., 2009). Of course, not all leaders apply new knowledge or use handbooks, tools, or professional development training with the same speed or effectiveness. The variations in district leadership permit NNPS to study whether and how particular practices contribute to the quality of district partnership programs over time. We asked two main research questions:

• How are school districts addressing NCLB’s requirements for family involvement? Are the requirements in Section 1118 for districts reasonable and attainable?

• How do district leaders’ efforts on partnerships affect their reports of the quality of their schools’ programs of family and community involvement?

DATA

Data were collected in 2004 on end-of-year Update surveys from 69 U.S. school districts in NNPS. Of these, 51 districts also provided data in 2003, permitting longitudinal analyses of progress in districts’ partnership program development. The districts, ranging in size from 1 school to over 200 schools, were located in urban, suburban, and rural communities in 24 states.¹⁹ They had been members of NNPS for from one year (20.8 percent) to eight years (11.1 percent). Update surveys are required by NNPS to renew membership and services for the next school year.

Therefore, all districts that returned the surveys were, in effect, restating their interest in improving their partnership programs.

MEASURES

In NNPS, district leaders for partnerships are guided to assume two major responsibilities, which also are required by NCLB. They are expected to establish district-level leadership and directly assist individual schools with their partnership programs, as measured by the following scales.

Dependent Variables

Leadership. This measure of 13 items (α = .79) assessed the extent to which district leaders organized their work by setting up an office, identifying a budget, writing a leadership plan, writing or reviewing policy on parent involvement, and conducting other district-level activities.

Facilitation. This scale of 16 items (α = .92) gauged the extent to which district leaders directly assisted individual schools to form an Action Team for Partnerships, write annual plans, evaluate progress, share ideas, and conduct other school-based activities.

Solve challenges to increase involvement. Six items (α = .71) identified whether district leaders actively helped schools address basic challenges to reach more diverse families or left the schools on their own to solve problems. Challenges included involving parents who do not speak or read English, getting information to families who cannot attend school meetings, providing opportunities to volunteer at school and other locations, preparing teachers to guide families on helping children with homework, ensuring that diverse families are represented on school committees, and identifying community resources for school improvement.

Report of schools’ progress. A single item asked district leaders for the number of schools making “good progress” on partnerships. This number was transformed into the percentage of all schools that were assisted with work on partnerships.

Independent Variables

The explanatory variables in this study included measures that were of interest in prior studies of district leadership on partnerships.

Demographic characteristics. The size of the district (number of schools) and poverty level (the percentage of students receiving free- or reduced-price meals in the district) were statistically controlled.

Collegial support for partnerships. This 13-item scale (α = .93) reported the average level of cooperation (from none = 1 to a lot = 4) that district leaders for partnerships reported receiving from colleagues at the district level, in schools, from parent organizations, and from others in the community.

Program development tools and guidelines. This 7-item scale (α = .87) reported district leaders’ average ratings of helpfulness (from not helpful = 1 to very helpful = 4) of major tools and materials for program development, including a comprehensive handbook, newsletters, books on best practices, website information, monthly communications, and other connections with NNPS.

Evaluation tools. A 6-item scale (α = .53) identified whether district leaders used tools designed to help them evaluate district and school partnership programs, including reflective documentations, on-site inventories, and survey instruments.

Other NCLB requirements. A 10-item scale (α = .79) assessed leaders’ reports of whether the district, as a whole, was addressing specific NCLB requirements. One item in this scale—communicate in languages that parents can understand—had the greatest variation across districts. It is used as an explanatory variable in selected analyses of district leaders’ work on partnerships.

RESULTS

Districts varied on the nature and extent of their leadership and facilitation activities for developing district-level and school-based programs of family and community involvement. They implemented an average of 7.37 activities to organize their offices and their work on partnerships. Some (16.9 percent) conducted 11 to 13 district-level leadership activities, whereas others (19.7 percent) conducted only 1 to 4 of the actions listed. District leaders also reported conducting an average of 7.25 facilitation activities to directly assist schools in developing their partnership programs. About 24 percent conducted 13 to 16 activities, whereas 14.1 percent reported that, as yet, they conducted no (0) actions to assist individual schools.

TABLE 4.1 Variables Affecting District-Level Leadership and Facilitation from 2003 to 2004

Source: 2003 and 2004 Update surveys.

A few NCLB requirements were almost universally addressed, such as having a policy on parental involvement (85 percent) and providing information to parents about their child’s achievement test scores (98.4 percent). By contrast, only 51 percent of the district leaders said their districts were working well to communicate with families in the languages parents speak at home.

The Update survey also measured overall program quality in the form of a “portrait” of the district’s partnership program. Districts’ programs ranged from low (26.7 percent in a planning year or just beginning), to average (46.5 percent with a good start or good programs), to high quality (26.7 percent with very good or excellent programs). The variation in district leaders’ efforts inform the analyses of how partnership programs develop.

District Leaders’ Work

OLS regression analyses were conducted to test whether districts in NNPS improved their leadership and facilitation of schools from 2003 to 2004, as shown in Table 4.1. Districts’ demographic characteristics of size and poverty level did not signifi-cantly affect the number of leadership or facilitation actions conducted by district leaders for partnerships. Some leaders in large and small, affluent and poor districts successfully set up their offices and worked with schools on partnerships, whereas other leaders lagged on these actions.

TABLE 4.2 Influence on District Leaders to Help Schools Meet Challenges to Involve All Families

Source: 2003 and 2004 Update surveys.

Table 4.1 also shows the importance of sustaining work on program development. District leaders who conducted more leadership actions in 2003 continued to do so in 2004 (β = .539, p < .001), and those who previously assisted their schools also did so in 2004 (β = .629, p < .001).

After accounting for prior work in 2003, district leaders who reported strong collegial support for partnerships (β = .208, p < .10) and who used and found helpful more NNPS tools for program development (β = .347, p < .001) significantly increased the number of facilitative activities they conducted to assist schools. Useful tools and guidelines also helped leaders organize their own work on partnerships (β = .325, p < .01). About 50 percent of the variance in leadership and nearly 60 percent of the variance in facilitation were explained by prior work on partnerships, collegial support, and the use of helpful tools and materials. These basic factors helped explain district leaders’ attention to the requirements listed in NCLB Section 1118 to improve programs of parental involvement.

Solving Challenges to Involve All Families

Table 4.2 explores the influences on district leaders’ efforts to help schools address challenges to reach more diverse families, as required by NCLB. The results indicate that district leaders who worked with schools to address challenges in 2003 continued to provide schools with ideas to involve all families in the next school year (β = .379, p < .01).

Over and above the work of the prior year, district leaders were more likely to give schools ideas for addressing key challenges to involve parents from all racial, educational, and socioeconomic groups if the district as a whole was addressing the NCLB requirement to communicate in understandable languages with all families (β = .264, p < .10) and if the leaders for partnerships used more NNPS evaluation tools (β = .296, p < .05).

District leaders in larger districts assisted schools more than in smaller districts (β = .278, p < .05), perhaps because the challenges were more common in large districts. Poverty level of students did not strongly influence whether leaders for partnerships worked with schools to solve challenges to involve all families or left it up to the schools. The district’s history of attention to challenges, priority for communicating in languages families understand, and the use of evaluation tools explained 40 percent of the variance in whether district leaders directly assisted schools to work on challenges to reach all families.

The quantitative results in Table 4.2 were reflected in comments the district leaders wrote about their schools’ progress, as in these typical responses:

More schools . . . included parents on teams, representing the demographic makeup of the school.

 

(The district developed) a new school improvement format (that) requires . . . family and community partnerships . . . for each major initiative.

Schools’ Progress on Partnerships

District leaders reported whether their schools were making little, some, or good progress on partnerships. Table 4.3 shows that neither the size nor the poverty level of the district significantly affected leaders’ reports of their schools’ progress. By contrast, leaders’ actions of leadership and facilitation had strong but varying effects on their reports of schools’ progress on partnership program development.

Column 1 of Table 4.3 shows that the extent of district leadership to organize an office, budget, and plans for partnerships was important for how leaders reported schools’ progress (β = .343, p < .01). Those who conducted more leadership actions reported that more of their schools were making good progress on partnerships. Column 2 shows even more dramatic effects of leaders’ direct assistance to schools on reports of schools’ progress (β = .575, p < .001) and of the level of collegial support on schools’ progress (β = .283, p < .05). District facilitation and collegial support—two measures that indicate whether district leaders made contact with schools and witnessed the work on school-based partnership programs—explained more than twice the variance as the more distal measure of leadership structure (43 percent compared to 20 percent) in reports of schools’ progress on partnerships.

TABLE 4.3 Influence of District Leadership and Facilitation on Reports of Schools’ Progress in Family and Community Involvement

Source: 2004 Update surveys.

In open-ended comments about their work, district leaders for partnerships reported improvements in helping schools increase the involvement of parents with children around achievement, as in the following representative statements:

Programs are directed more at academics. New sites have become more into it. They seem to get it.

 

[We had a] 60% increase in school memberships [to work on partnerships], and more parent engagement activities are connected to student achievement goals at school sites.

In separate analyses, not reported here, we found that district leaders for partnerships who evaluated their district and school programs did more than other districts to help teachers involve parents with children to increase achievement in school subjects (β = .425, p < .01). Prior studies also found that when districts evaluated their programs, they showed a seriousness of purpose in increasing improving their leadership and facilitative activities (Epstein and Williams, 2003; Epstein, Williams, and Jansorn, 2004; Sanders, 2008). Over 30 percent of the variance in districts’ efforts to involve families with students on achievement was explained by districts’ commitment to communicate with all families and actions to evaluate partnership programs.

Asked how they evaluate their work on partnerships, district leaders explained that they asked schools to document the activities they conducted and parents’ participation. Most schools gathered parents’ reactions after each involvement activity. Some districts organized evaluations in systematic ways, as noted in these comments:

[We conduct] phone surveys, surveys in newsletters, focus groups.

 

[A] comprehensive survey is administered annually and carefully analyzed.

 

[Our program of] partnership is part of the strategic plan and is evaluated by staff, parents and administration.

Contrasting Correlates of District Leadership

Not every leadership action is equally important for the quality of district-level partnership programs. Analyses were conducted to “unpack” the above results. NCLB requires districts to have a parental involvement policy. In addition, NNPS asks district leaders to write a leadership plan each year that schedules their actions at the district level and in assisting schools on partnerships.

Table 4.4 shows that leaders with written plans were significantly more likely to fulfill other requirements in NCLB’s Section 1118 for district leadership on parental involvement. Those with a plan and schedule for actions were more likely to identify a budget for partnerships (r = .543, p < .001), conduct professional development (r = .317, p < .01), actively facilitate their schools (r = .552, p < .001), disseminate best practices (r = .440, p < .001), and conduct other activities to increase district-level and school-level capacities for productive parental involvement. Having a policy was not significantly correlated with any of the other actions by district leaders.

These patterns are due, in part, to the greater variation among districts in writing detailed plans than in having a policy. Although most districts (85 percent) had a policy, just over half (58 percent) wrote a detailed work plan in 2004. The results reinforce the importance for district leaders to go beyond the minimum of having a policy to increase the quality of their leadership and facilitation on partnerships.

DISCUSSION

This study presents the first quantitative analyses of whether and how well districts are addressing NCLB requirements for improving programs of family involvement. The data collected in 2004, as NCLB completed its second full school year, showed that most districts in NNPS had started to address NCLB’s requirements for district leadership on parental involvement. The results point to four policy-related conclusions that could help other districts organize more effective leadership for partnerships.

 

1. Writing a policy is important but not sufficient for districts to conduct viable partnership programs. Most districts in NNPS had formal policies on parental involvement and were trying to disseminate information to parents on their children’s achievement and on schools’ status in making adequate yearly progress (AYP), as required by NCLB. Fewer were addressing more difficult challenges of helping schools communicate with families who did not speak English and helping families become involved in ways that could increase students’ achievement in school subjects. Some others (14 percent) had taken no steps to directly assist schools in developing educators’ and parents’ capacities to create comprehensive school-based partnership programs.

TABLE 4.4 Contrasting Correlates of District Policies and Written Plans with NCLB Requirements

Source: 2004 Update surveys.

The results suggested that having a district policy on parental involvement was just one step on a much longer path to partnerships. Another document—a detailed plan for leadership and facilitation—was associated with the enactment of more NCLB requirements for district leadership on partnerships. In open-ended comments, district leaders listed the following typical goals for the next school year:

[We need to] assist buildings in fully implementing their action plans and to monitor the progress of implementations.

 

[We need to] get principals on board and help them recognize the value of family and community partnerships.

Even as they worked to communicate with families, districts in NNPS met new challenges. Some found that their communications about students’ test scores were not clear and understandable for large numbers of parents. For example, a clinical review with district leaders revealed that annual “school report cards” often were issued in print that was too small to read, placed in hidden locations on district and state websites, or distributed without needed explanations of educational terms and statistics. It was clear that having a policy on parental involvement was a first step on a long path toward excellent and equitable partnership programs.

 

2. A district leader for partnerships must be assigned to enact a district-wide partnership program. Each district in this study had a leader for partnerships who served as a “key contact” to researchers at Johns Hopkins University for guidance on their work on partnerships. By contrast, other districts may have policies for parental involvement but have no one assigned to lead this component of school organization and school improvement. This kind of “unstaffed mandate” would not be tolerated in schools working to improve their reading or math curricula, where curriculum coaches or consultants are expected. By contrast, many districts have lagged in assigning leaders for partnerships to guide schools in this work.

Assigning a leader for partnerships still was not enough to ensure high-quality partnership programs. District leaders must take action to improve their partnership programs. In this study, leaders varied widely in the number and quality of activities they conducted. Leaders did more to organize work and facilitate schools if they had strong collegial support, used research-based program development and evaluation tools and materials, and sustained their efforts over time. Further, leaders who directly assisted their schools were more likely to report that the schools were making good progress in their programs of family and community involvement.

There was wide variation and considerable room for improvement in the quality of all of these activities. Many district leaders seemed to be moving slowly in providing school teams with professional development on partnerships and encouraging and motivating schools to improve their programs from year to year. One leader explained why progress was slow:

Over the past 2-3 years, due to retirements and resignations, the person designated to lead this program (for the district) has changed (3 times). In addition the district has just rewritten its strategic plan. Consequently, not much progress has been made.

 

3. District leaders for partnerships need support from others to conduct district-wide partnership programs. Neither a district policy on partnerships nor an assigned leader was enough to ensure a high-quality partnership program. This study showed that collegial support from other district leaders, school principals, educators, families, and tools and guidelines offered by NNPS helped some district leaders for partnerships do more to assist schools and to report progress on partnerships. The results suggest that collegial contacts and using research-based tools for program development and evaluation may increase the seriousness of purpose of leaders’ work on partnerships.

Many district leaders for partnerships noted that they needed to keep improving their assistance to their schools. The comments reinforce this study’s findings that district leaders’ direct assistance to schools is linked to the progress that is observed in schools and to schools’ detailed plans for involving all parents in productive ways. The district leaders said that in the next school year they needed to:

... [have] more school contact to work with team development and planning

 

... [provide] staff development to all staff-administration, teachers, teacher assistants

The nested nature of support for involvement relies heavily on the district superintendent’s messages, as noted in this representative comment:

[Our superintendent should identify] partnership as a district priority by sending clear messages to administrators, participating in [partnership] activities at the school and district levels, and include the quality of partnership programs as part of administrators’ evaluations.

The district leaders recommended other actions that their superintendents should take to legitimate the district’s work on partnerships:

• Make public statements about the importance of partnerships.

• Give greetings at professional development sessions on partnerships for schools’ Action Teams for Partnerships.

• Mandate a detailed action plan for partnerships as one part of the annual school improvement plan.

• Expect other district administrators to understand and support partnerships.

• Make partnerships part of the annual evaluation of principals and teachers.

• Provide targeted funding at the district level and for each school for programs of partnership.

• Include the quality of partnership programs in the data collected to assess school improvement.

• Develop ties with community partners to support the schools.

In one district leader’s words, such activities would make partnerships an “unshakable expectation” for all schools in the district.

 

4. The four policy instruments embedded in NCLB Section 1118 are influencing leadership for parental involvement. This study suggests that NCLB’s mandates for partnerships are beginning to affect district leaders’ awareness and actions. The scales and measures showed that leaders were able to distinguish between mandates that they were and were not addressing. In written comments, respondents recognized the legitimacy of NCLB’s mandates by noting that they wanted to improve their programs in the next school year by providing more staff development on partnerships, getting more principals on board, and helping all schools fully implement their action plans for partnerships.

NCLB inducements in the form of Title I targeted funds are beginning to influence district leaders’ actions on family and community involvement. District leaders rated whether there were not enough funds for partnerships or whether their programs were adequately or well funded. More adequate funding was correlated with more district-level leadership activities (r = .433, p < .001) and with more actions to facilitate schools on partnerships (r = .363, p < .01).

NCLB requirements for capacity building were enacted by district leaders who conducted professional development on partnerships for school teams, including teachers, administrators, parents, and community partners and other workshops and presentations on family involvement for district colleagues. District leaders who provided team training for schools’ Action Teams for Partnerships reported higher quality partnership programs overall (r = .365, p < .004).

Finally, system-changing actions were emerging. Many district leaders were using tools and materials to improve their work on partnerships and to help schools organize their programs and practices. Some were addressing challenges to help schools involve families who would otherwise be excluded from exchanges and decisions about their children’s education. Many were guiding schools to write annual goal-oriented action plans with activities that involved families with their children to improve achievement in reading, math, attendance, and other indicators of success in school, as directed by NCLB (see Hutchins et al., 2009, for district and school programs that apply research in practice and in award-winning programs at www.partnershipschools.org in the section “Success Stories”).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

Although this study provides new knowledge about district leaders’ work on partnerships in response to NCLB, it is limited by the lack of comparable data from districts that were not members of NNPS. We cannot say if or how well other districts are addressing NCLB requirements for parental involvement. The data provided some useful clues, however, because districts in this study varied widely in their leadership activities. Those that used fewer program development and evaluation tools, for example, conducted fewer leadership and facilitation activities and had weaker partnership programs. These districts may be more like many other districts that are struggling to enact NCLB requirements. Still, studies are needed of matched samples of NNPS and non-NNPS districts to clearly show whether targeted tools, guidelines, and networking on partnerships increase districts’ responses to NCLB requirements.

A second limitation is that this study examined only data from district leaders, not reports from the schools in these districts. Separate studies have shown that schools’ Action Teams for Partnerships that reported receiving support from their district leaders conducted more family involvement activities, reached more diverse families, and implemented more NCLB requirements for family involvement (see Sheldon 2005, 2008; Sheldon and Van Voorhis, 2004). New studies are needed that examine the “nested” systems of districts and their schools to learn whether and which district leadership actions contribute significantly to the quality of schools’ partnership programs, over and above what schools do on their own. With appropriate samples of schools nested within districts, researchers could use Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses to separate the independent effects of district policies and actions from the effects of leadership and support that occurs at the school level.

CONCLUSION

NLCB Section 1118 appears to be raising district leaders’ awareness of partnerships and encouraging leaders to take action. The regulations for parental involvement require attention to the structure of district leadership and to processes for planning, implementing, and evaluating programs and practices of partnerships at the district level and in all schools. In this study, data from districts showed that with time, collegial support, and helpful guidelines and tools, district leaders addressed more NCLB requirements for family and community involvement. By their actions, these leaders are showing that districts can meet the spirit and the letter of the law.

REFERENCES

Borman, K. M., P. W. Cookson Jr., A. R. Sadovnik, and J. Z. Spade. (Eds.). (1996). Implementing educational reform: Sociological perspectives on educational policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Burch, P., and J. Spillane. (2004). Leading from the middle: Midlevel district staff and instructional improvement. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Chrispeels, J. H. (1996). Evaluating teachers’ relationships with families: A case study of one district. Elementary School Journal 97: 179-200.

Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher 32: 3-12.

Cowan, K. T. (2003). Parental involvement. In K. T. Cowan and C. J. Edwards (Eds.), The new Title I: The changing landscape of accountability (pp. 139-149). Washington, DC: Thompson.

Darling-Hammond, L., and J. Bransford. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Datnow, A., L. Hubbard, and H. Mehan. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder: Westview.

———. (2005). Attainable goals? The spirit and letter of the No Child Left Behind Act on parental involvement. Sociology of Education 78(2): 179-82.

Epstein, J. L., and 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., and S. B. Sheldon. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad and R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE Handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Reading 2.2).

Epstein, J. L., and K. J. Williams. (2003, April). Does professional development for state and district leaders affect how they assist schools to implement programs of partnership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Epstein, J. L., et al. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Epstein, J. L., K. J. Williams, and N. R. Jansorn. (2004, April). Does policy prompt partnerships? Effects of NCLB on district leadership for family involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hutchins, D. J., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Promising partnership practices 2009. Baltimore: National Network of Partnership Schools, Johns Hopkins University. (See annual collections of practices at www.partnershipschools.org in the section “Success Stories.”)

Lauen, D. L. (2008). False promises: The school choice provisions in NCLB. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, and K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 203-226). New York: Routledge.

Learning First Alliance. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Baltimore: ASCD. www.learnignfirst.org/lfaweb/rp?pa=docanddocId=62.

Leithwood, K., and N. Prestine. (2002). Unpacking the challenges of leadership at the school and district level. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 42-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mac Iver, M., and E. Farley. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central office in improving instruction and student achievement. CRESPAR Report #65. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

McDonnell, L. M., and R. F. Elmore. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 157-184). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mickelson, R., and S. Southworth. (2008). When school choice leaves many children behind: Implications for NCLB for the Charlotte-Mechlenberg schools. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, and K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 227-241). New York: Routledge.

Pounder, D., U. Reitzug, and M. D. Young. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 261-288). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Public Law 107-110. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Congressional Record, 115 STAT. 1501-1505.

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

———. (2008). Using diverse data to develop and sustain school, family, and community partnerships: A district case study. Education Management, Administration, and Leadership 36: 530-545.

Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equations model of partnership program implementation and family involvement. Elementary School Journal 106: 171-87.

———. (2008). Getting families involved with NCLB: Factors affecting schools’ enactment of federal policy. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, and K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 281-294). New York: Routledge.

Sheldon, S. B., and F. L. Van Voorhis. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15: 125-48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Parental involvement, Title I, Part A: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.

DISCUSSION AND ACTIVITIES

The comments in this section extend and update the content of the readings in this chapter. Key concepts and results are summarized. Questions and activities are provided for class discussions, debates, and homework assignments. They may suggest other exercises, field activities, and research projects.

 

 

KEY CONCEPTS

1. State, district, and school policies on school, family, and community partnerships must be clear, comprehensive, flexible, and responsive to be implemented in ways that meet the goals and needs of students, families, and schools.

2. State, district, and school policies on school, family, and community partnerships require enactments or other official commitments to ensure adequate staff, funding, training, dissemination, and other support needed to implement the policies.

COMMENT

Policies and Enactments

 

 

Policies concerning school, family, and community partnerships must be clear and comprehensive, but also flexible. Good policies encourage state, district, and school programs to account for their starting points on partnerships and focus partnership practices on specific school and family goals for student success. Policies also should set high standards for excellent, ongoing programs of school, family, and community partnerships; they should specify ways to measure how well programs are implemented and progressing and whether and how well goals are met.

At the state and district levels, policies on partnerships should include explicit enactments for leadership, funding, professional development, and other assistance that will enable schools to implement the policies with family and community involvement plans and practices to engage all parents in their children’s education. As noted in Reading 4.1, policies without enactments are unfunded and unsupported, and will be unwelcome and ineffective.

State and district policies on partnerships must clearly outline how schools will be assisted to develop and evaluate partnership programs with training, funds, and other assistance, encouragement, and recognition from the state and district. The emphasis on assistance to schools is in contrast to top-down policies with rigid directives or prescribed activities that leave educators, parents, and students no flexibility to design programs or practices of partnership that they can call their own.

The seemingly simple guidelines for clear, comprehensive, flexible, funded, and facilitated policies are not as simple to implement as you might think. The readings, discussions, and activities in this chapter should help you to explore, critique, and consider policies for improving school, family, and community partnerships in states, districts, and schools.

 

 

ACTIVITY

Review State and District Policies

 

 

The sample policies (see Reading 4.2 in this chapter) show how state and district boards of education are working to promote the development of effective programs and practices of school, family, and community partnerships. Some of the sample policies include enactments outlining the actions taken to help districts and/or schools implement programs that fulfill the policies. It is useful to compare, contrast, and critique the samples to identify words and actions that you think are particularly important for producing good programs of school, family, and community partnerships at the state, district, and school levels.

a. Select and identify one state and one district sample policy in Reading 4.2 that interest you.

b. For each one, write your ideas on these questions.

1. Does the policy include reference to all six types of involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community) in any order? Explain.

2. Does the policy refer to the involvement of parents at all grade levels?

3. Does the policy focus family and/or community involvement on student learning and success in school?

4. Does the policy commit to helping districts and/or schools improve their partnership programs?

5. Discuss one other feature of each policy that you think is particularly important.

6. Give each policy an overall rating: E for Excellent, S for Satisfactory, or N for Needs Improvement. Explain why you rated the policy as you did.

c. Give your ideas of two ways to improve the policy you selected.

COMMENT

Changes in Technology

 

 

When Reading 4.1 was first published, there were no state or district websites on partnerships. A library or clearinghouse was a physical, not a virtual, place. Now, state departments of education and districts across the country use their websites to provide educators, parents, and the public with easy access to policies, publications, and other information on school, family, and community partnerships.

Some state and district websites are informative and understandable. Some are confusing to the extreme. It helps to see the difference. You may be in a position to assist district and state leaders to develop clear and useful websites for educators, parents, students, and the public.

 

 

ACTIVITY

Explore and Rate Websites

 

 

State Departments of Education Websites

a. Explore one of the following state department of education websites, and answer the questions on the next page. Search to find the state’s policy on parental involvement or school, family, and community partnerships and evidence that the policy is being supported. Some of these states’ policies are provided in Reading 4.2.

• California: www.cde.ca.gov

Click on “Specialized Programs.” Then use the search box to find “School, Family, and Community Partnerships.”

• Connecticut: www.sde.ct.gov

Follow the path from “Parents and Community” to “Family & Community Involvement and Youth Development Programs” to “School-Family-Community Partnerships.” See newsletters called Schools and Families and related documents. Or use the search box to find “School-Family-Community Partnerships.”

• Ohio: www.ode.state.oh.us

Use the search box to find “Family and Community Engagement.” See the state’s collection of promising practices on the website.

• West Virginia: wvde.state.wv.us

Follow the sidebar link to “State Board” and then “Policies,” and scroll down to the links for “Policy 2200: Parent, Family, and Community Involvement in Education.”

• Wisconsin: dpi.wi.gov

In the left-hand navigation bar click on “Divisions & Teams” under “DPI Menu.” Under the heading “Division for Libraries, Technology, & Community Learning,” click on “Community Learning and Partnerships.” Then in the sidebar click on “Family-School-Community Partnerships.”

Or select a state that interests you that has a section of its website on family and community involvement to address the questions below.

1. Use the chart below. Give the name of the state’s Department of Education and the website URL.

2. Explore the website that you selected, and rate the features outlined in the chart.

3. Rate the website overall from A (Excellent/Informative) to F (Failing/ Headache-Producing).

4. Explain, in writing, two things that are clear and good about the website’s section or information on partnerships.

5. Write two recommendations that would improve this website, and explain why each improvement is needed.

State Department of Education and Website URL:

District Websites

b. Explore one of the following district websites, and answer the questions below. Search to find the district’s policy on parental involvement or school, family, and community partnerships and evidence that the policy is being supported. Some of these districts’ policies are provided in Reading 4.2.

• Anoka-Hennepin School District, MN: www.anoka.k12.mn.us

Hover over “Parents” in the menu at the top of the page, and then click on “Parent Involvement.”

• Buffalo Public Schools, NY: www.buffaloschools.org

At the top of the page, hover over “Parents,” and then click on “Family, Schools & Community.” In the sidebar click on “Parent Involvement.”

• Howard County Public Schools, MD: www.hcpss.org

Use the search box to find “Parent, Family and Community Involvement.”

• Middletown Public Schools, CT: www.middletownschools.org

Click on “Board of Education,” and follow links to “Policies & Bylaws.” Click on the link “Community Relations,” and then click on the link for policy #1110.1 (a PDF), and see the section “Parent Resources.”

• Naperville Community School District 203, IL: www.naperville203.org

Hover over “Parents and Students,” and then click on “School Family Community Partnership.”

• Pasco School District, WA: www.psd1.org

Hover over “Families,” and click on “School & Family Partnerships.”

• Saint Paul Public Schools, MN: www.spps.org

Hover over “Community” and then “Office of Community Relations,” and click on “Family and Community Involvement.”

Or select a school district that interests you that has a section of its website devoted to family and community involvement to address the questions below.

1. Use the chart on the next page. Give the name of the district and the website’s full URL.

2. Explore the website that you selected, and rate the features outlined in the chart.

3. Rate the website overall from A (Excellent/Informative) to F (Failing/Headache-Producing).

4. Explain, in writing, two things that are clear and good about the website’s section or information on partnerships.

5. Write two recommendations that would improve the website and explain why each improvement is needed.

NOTE: State and district websites change over time. Some connections may no longer be correct. If one URL is no longer functioning, find another state or district website for this activity.

ACTIVITY

Compare State and District Leadership on Partnership Program Development

 

 

The state policy initiatives recommended in Reading 4.1 also may be important leadership actions in school districts. State policies are written and programs organized to guide districts and schools in different geographic locations and political contexts within a state. District policies are written and actions taken to guide preschools and elementary, middle, and high schools serving diverse student and family populations to develop their partnership programs. Some state-level leadership strategies also may enable district leaders to help all schools develop effective partnership programs.

a. Photocopy Figure 4.1 on pages 354-355.

b. Write “yes” or “no” to indicate whether you think each entry (drawn from the outline for states in Reading 4.1) is appropriate for state and/or district leaders to enact their policies that support family and community involvement.

1. If yes for districts, explain one way in which the action might differ in a district compared to a state.

2. If no for districts, explain one reason why the action is not important or appropriate for district leaders for partnerships to conduct.

COMMENT

The Power of Linked Policies and Practices

 

 

States may take actions that encourage partnership programs whether or not they are guided by federal mandates or supported by federal funds. Districts may take actions that enable all schools to develop partnership programs whether or not they are actively supported by their state departments of education. Schools may develop programs of school, family, and community partnerships whether or not they are directly supported by their districts or states. Individual teachers may establish good partnerships with students’ families and communities whether or not they are guided or aided by their schools or by other policy levels and leaders.

Although each policy level may work on partnerships independently, research and exemplary practice suggest that programs are stronger and of higher quality when federal, state, district, and school policies; funding; and technical assistance are linked or “nested.” That is, programs are more effective in design and in results when federal policies support states, districts, and schools; when state policies support districts and schools; and when district policies enable schools to strengthen and sustain excellent partnership programs. The best connections will lead ultimately to improving programs at the school level, where educators, families, and students interact on a daily basis to help students learn and grow.

FIGURE 4.1 Policies and Activities Comparing State and District Policies

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1. On the one hand: Give two examples from readings in this chapter or from your experience that indicate why policies that are linked (or “nested”) across federal, state, district, and/or school levels are likely to create stronger and more effective programs to involve families and communities than do policies that are not linked or that are issued at just one level.

2. On the other hand: Give two examples of how a single school might establish a policy and effective partnership program even if its state and district are not actively supporting such actions.

3. What advice would you give to a district leader who is considering whether to (a) develop a district policy, guidelines, and assistance to help all schools in the district develop programs of school, family, and community partnerships, or (b) leave it up to each school to do this without district support? Draw from Reading 4.3 to list two recommendations you would give a district leader and the reasons for your advice.

COMMENT

Federal Leadership and Federal Guidelines

 

 

At the federal level, some policies of the departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, as well as other departments, concern connections among students, families, schools, and communities. Several programs have long histories of including family involvement among their required components.

Head Start, initiated in 1965, recognized that all families, including those with low incomes, are important in their children’s education. Head Start legislated roles and opportunities for parents in economically distressed communities to become involved in preschools, encouraged parents to volunteer or work as paid aides, and required parents to serve on advisory committees to be involved in policy decisions that affected their own and other children. Head Start programs included home visits to help families learn age-appropriate parenting skills and activities to support their preschool child’s learning and healthy development at home and to find health and other services in the community.

Follow-Through, initiated in 1967, attempted to continue Head Start’s emphasis on parental involvement and activities for children and families through the primary grades.

The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), initiated in 1975, required teachers and parents to cooperate in setting annual educational and developmental goals for children with special needs.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (also called Chapter 1 for a while and then Title I again) included guidelines and mandates for school and family partnerships that are congruent with the theory and framework in this volume. In its present form, Title I recognizes the importance of family involvement in the education of children who, because of educational and economic difficulties, are not doing well or are at risk of failing in school. This ongoing federal policy requires large districts to spend some Title I funds to develop positive partnership programs to include families in their children’s education in productive ways.

Along with Title I, other sections of ESEA (e.g., Even Start; Titles III, IV, V, and VI; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) include requirements or guidelines for home-school-community connections to improve students’ chances of success.

There have been two main problems in implementing federal guidelines and programs for home-school connections. First, educators in states, districts, and schools have not always understood the intent of the legislative language to establish coherent and important programs of partnership, and they faced no serious consequences for inaction. Second, in the past, the legislative guidelines led educators to separate Title I parents from other parents. The first problem stalled action and progress on partnerships in many locations. The second problem caused the separation and segregation of parents within schools, limiting the sense of community and contradicting the concept of partnerships. Although schoolwide Title I programs aim to create more cohesive school communities, the two historic problems still plague many Title I programs.

 

 

ACTIVITY

Find and Critique Federal Policies on Partnerships

 

 

Use the Internet to learn more about federal policies that include attention to parental involvement, community connections, or other aspects of school, family, and community partnerships.

a. Explore federal legislation, regulations, and other policy guidelines on www.ed.gov, the website of the U.S. Department of Education. Or explore the website of the departments of Labor, Commerce, or Health and Human Services for policies concerning connections among home, school, and community. Look for information on Titles I, III, IV, V, or VII; Head Start; Even Start; free- or reduced-price meals; or another policy that concerns the families of economically and educationally distressed children, children with special needs, or gifted and talented children.

b. Identify one federal policy that interests you.

c. Summarize and critique the policy (or section) you selected.

1. What does the policy require or request of a state, district, school, family, or community concerning school, family, and community partnerships?

2. Explain: Is the policy you selected clear? Is it flexible for diverse districts? Does it increase educators’ capacities to organize effective programs at the selected policy level?

3. In your view, what is one positive or negative feature of the policy for improving programs of school, family, and community partnerships in schools, districts, or state departments of education?

4. Describe one way that you would improve the federal policy that you selected.

FIELD EXPERIENCE

Federally Funded Programs and Policies

 

 

Interview one educator who is associated with a Head Start, Even Start, Title I, or other federally funded program for children and families in a school, district, or community location. This may be an individual interview or one conducted in class for and with all students.

a. Identify the program and the position of the person you are interviewing. Briefly summarize the goals of the selected program.

b. Ask the interviewee:

1. Does your program have a written policy and plan for school, family, and community partnerships?

a. If yes, briefly summarize the policy.

b. If no, briefly summarize the program’s approach to school, family, and community partnerships.

2. Are only federal funds used in this program, or are other funds also used to support the program and activities of school, family, and community partnerships?

3. Describe one of the program’s most effective and one of its least effective activities for family and community involvement.

4. Overall, how effective is this program in informing and involving all of the families that are eligible for its services?

5. What transitional activities help children and families move from this program to their next school?

6. What is one way that you would like to improve the way this program works with families and communities in the future?

c. Add one question of your own about the federally funded program you selected.

d. Document your questions and responses.

e. Write a reflective paragraph on the information you obtained on the nature and quality of the program and the contributions of federal funds to its work.

ACTIVITY

Identify Policy Instruments in ESEA

 

 

Reading 4.3 discusses four policy instruments (McDonnell and Elmore, 1991) that, at this writing, are embedded in the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in sections on parental involvement. The reading examines whether and how these different guidelines and requirements affect district leadership on partnerships and school-based programs of family and community involvement. The four policy instruments are mandates, inducements, capacity-building opportunities , and system-changing actions.

a. Use the search function at www.ed.gov to find the current Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

b. Examine all sections of ESEA that refer to parental involvement.

c. Document one example of the legislative language in one section of the law (give the identifying section code, and cite the content, or note “none”) that specifies or reflects:

1. A mandate (a requirement or regulation that must be fulfilled to comply with the law)

2. An inducement (a reward that encourages or a sanction that punishes particular actions)

3. Capacity building (a way to build new skills and knowledge for action on the topic)

4. System change (actions that permanently alter typical decision-making or leadership patterns on the topic)

d. Write a paragraph or two to tell which section and policy instrument in ESEA you think would have the strongest effects on district leaders’ actions to improve district-level and/or school-based programs of parental involvement and why.

COMMENT

Top-Down, Bottom-Up, or Side-by-Side Policy

 

 

There are recurrent controversies about the differences, benefits, and disadvantages of “top-down” versus “bottom-up” policies and directives. In several readings throughout this book, I suggest that the most important policies for school, family, and community partnership find expression in programs and practices at the school level. The readings and activities also suggest, however, that some federal, state, and district policies, leadership, activities, and support enable schools to develop skills and programs of school, family, and community partnerships.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

 

Use the information in this chapter and your experience to answer the following questions.

1. Do you think that a federal, state, district, or school policy can change educators’ and families’ attitudes and behaviors about school, family, and community partnerships? Explain your yes or no answer.

2. Give one example of “side-by-side” federal, state, district, and/or school policies that shows how leadership, investments, and practices of partnership across policy levels might affect the involvement of families and communities in their children’s education at the school level.

COMMENT

The Flow and Ebb of Policy and Practice

 

 

In the real world of education, the ebb and flow (or flow and ebb) of policies and practices may encourage or prevent the development of permanent partnership programs. It is common for policies and actions to be passed, revised, and then halted before the original goals are achieved.

In some states and districts, policies, leadership, goals, and activities for school, family, and community partnerships are started and stopped, delayed, limited in scope, or redirected because of leadership and staff changes, changes in “missions,” or budget cuts. In other states and districts, partnerships are maintained and expanded despite changes in personnel.

 

 

State Example

 

For example, at the state level, California’s Department of Education’s policy on parental involvement (included in Reading 4.2) was passed in 1989 and, with revisions, is still on the books. California was one of the first states to use research as the basis for a short, clear policy that named the six types of involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community) as components of school-based partnership programs (Solomon, 1991).

The original policy included detailed plans for state-sponsored staff development and assistance for district leaders and school teams to maximize the chances that the state policy would be enacted. After a good start, progress was slowed by politics and by serious budget cuts that affected the state’s options for fulfilling its plans for widespread, cost-free professional development. Later, the state reestablished and strengthened its policy and initiatives on partnerships.

California is a large state with over 1,000 school districts. It is not possible for a state office to order or control the work that occurs in all of these districts, large and small. However, it is important for this state and all states to have a policy that is meaningful to and can be customized and implemented in all districts and schools.

 

 

District Example

 

At the district level, Indianapolis provides an example of “flow and ebb” in leadership, policies, and practices of family and community involvement. In the 1980s, the Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) Parents in Touch office led the nation in district-level leadership on partnerships (Warner, 1991). Progress was seriously affected when key staff retired and the superintendent and other leaders changed more than once. These are common occurrences in school districts. Although some schools in IPS still refer to Parents In Touch as one of their school-based approaches, and although the district states its intention to develop effective partnership programs in all schools, IPS remains in a period of reconstructing district-level leadership, policies, and actions on partnerships.

 

 

No Need for Progress to Ebb

 

It should be noted that progress on partnerships is not always halted by changes in personnel and budget cuts. Several states and many districts working on partnerships experience changes in leaders and budgetary crises but continue to increase the quality of their partnership programs. Several factors support continuous program improvement, including clearly written policies; documented plans and activities; evaluations of progress; broad participation and expertise, so that new leaders may be drawn from those already working in the state or district; and attention to transitions, so that new leaders are informed about past successes and are able to build on the work of those who left.

For example, when its superintendent changed once in the early 1990s and then again, and when its leader for partnerships left and a new leader was appointed, St. Paul Public Schools in Minnesota maintained a clear vision about family involvement and increased efforts to improve home, school, and community connections in all schools. Similarly, despite leadership changes and budget woes, Buffalo Public Schools continued to assign leaders to guide schools to strengthen their school-based partnership programs. The new superintendents and leaders in these and other locations were able to learn about and expand the goals of their predecessors.

Personnel changes are guaranteed to occur in schools, districts, and state departments of education. Individuals move, are promoted, retire, or transfer to new assignments. Budgets are challenged as departments compete for limited funds. Even with these inevitable changes and challenges, state, district, and school investments in school, family, and community partnership programs can be protected and improved—just as reading, math, science, testing, and other programs continue despite the ups and downs of budgets and the comings and goings of leaders and staff.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

 

Think of the permanence and predictability of a reading, math, or testing program in schools, districts, or states. What might be done to organize ongoing programs of school, family, and community partnerships that will not disappear with staff or budget changes?

1. Select and identify a policy level—state, district, or school—that interests you.

2. Using the readings in this chapter and your experience, describe two structures, processes, or activities that you think would help prevent setbacks in the progress of partnership programs from staff or budgetary changes.

3. Explain why you think each idea might help stabilize or “institutionalize” a program of partnerships at the policy level that you selected.

COMMENT

What Are School, Family, and Community Partnerships Worth?

 

 

Programs of school, family, and community partnerships may be funded using a formula allocating a per-pupil expenditure or a lump-sum investment to support staff and program costs. Several years ago, I suggested a minimum per-pupil expenditure of $5, $10, and $25 at the state, district, and school levels, respectively, or minimum lump-sum investments of $100,000 per state, $50,000 per large district, and $15,000 per school to fund the leadership, development, training, implementation, evaluation, and continuous improvement of programs of partnership in states, districts, and schools (Epstein, 1991).

Since that initial modest proposal, my colleagues and I have collected data from states, districts, and schools on the levels and sources of their investments in staff and activities to develop comprehensive partnership programs (Epstein et al., 2009). The following comments and activities draw from those data to address the question: What are school, family, and community partnerships worth?

 

 

Exploring Funding Options: Per-Pupil Allocations

 

 

Imagine the following allocations for school, family, and community partnership programs at the state, district, and school levels:

• $0.15-$1 per student of state funds to be used at that level to fund salaries and benefits of a state director of partnerships and staff, state programs, and services for activities that assist districts and schools in their work on partnerships. State funds may support staff salaries and benefits, grants to districts and schools, training and other inservice education, and other state leadership functions.

• $5-$10 per student of district funds to be used at that level to fund salaries and benefits of district coordinator(s) and facilitator(s), district programs, and services to assist all schools in the district to develop expertise and programs of school, family, and community partnerships. District funds may support training and other inservice education, grants to schools, the dissemination of effective practices, and other district leadership functions. The district’s work should be coordinated with state policies and activities, when appropriate.

• $12-$20 per student of funds at the school level to support a program of activities planned each year by the school’s Action Team for Partnerships. This includes activities conducted on the six types of involvement designed to inform and involve all students’ families in their children’s education at school and at home. Each school’s program includes activities that are selected and tailored to meet important goals for student success and to meet the needs and interests of students and families. This may include a part-time, site-based coordinator, printed materials, refreshments, incentives, workshop presenters, website development, and other specific involvement activities. The school policies, programs, and practices should be coordinated with state and district policies and activities, when appropriate.

Any state, district, or school could justify investing more than the modest amounts suggested above, but few presently make even these minimal investments. Different formulas could be used, for example, if a district offers large grants to all schools to support activities in a written plan for partnerships, if districts fund full-time facilitators for partnerships in each school, or if districts include in their allocations for partnerships full-service program components such as school-site health, recreation, after-school, and other educational programs and services for children and families.

Another way to determine a reasonable per-pupil investment is to assign 1 percent of the total per-pupil costs to educate youngsters to fund all state and district leadership, training, and support activities and all school-based programs of school, family, and community partnerships. For example, if it costs $6,000 per student per year for a full educational program, then $60 per student would be divided to fund the state, district, and school programs of partnership. This would exceed the minimum allocations suggested above for the state, district, and school levels, but still would be a reasonable allocation for organizing, sustaining, and continually improving family and community involvement that supports student learning and success in school.

 

 

Exploring Funding Options: Lump-Sum Allocations

 

Another funding alternative is based on the allocation of a lump sum for partnerships. States, districts, and schools may allocate new funds or reallocate existing funds to support staff salaries and benefits, grants, training, and other activities to ensure that there are leadership and funds for the development of district-level and school-based partnership programs. Table 4.5 summarizes the range of investments reported by schools, districts, and states in the National Network of Partnership Schools in 2007. The reported average investments indicate that:

• state leadership and support for programs of partnership averages about $211,000 (median of $175,000);

• district leadership and support for programs of partnership average about $214,000 for districts with more than 30 schools, and proportionately more or less for larger and smaller districts (median of $65,000);

• school leadership and support for programs of partnership averages about $6,000 for schools with 400-800 students and proportionately more or less in larger or smaller schools (median of $2,000).

Combining the per-pupil expenditures for parental involvement programs in Table 4.5 across all three policy levels indicates that all states, districts, and schools could begin to build comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships for a total of about $30 per student per year. This remarkably reasonable level of funding may be drawn from funds that are available in federal, state, and local programs that already are targeted to school, family, and community partnerships for student success. The estimates suggest that all states, districts, and schools can afford to identify leaders and support the development of programs that fulfill basic goals for improving school, family, and community partnerships.

Table 4.5 also shows that, at this writing, states, districts, and schools are using many sources of funds to cover their programs of school, family, and community partnerships to increase student success in school. Some funds come from federal, state, and local programs that include requirements and recommendations for family and community involvement (e.g., Title I; Title III; Title IV, including Safe and Drug Free Schools; Title V on choice and innovative programs; Title VI on flexible approaches for increasing student achievement and effective rural schools; and others). For example, Title IV funds for Safe and Drug Free Schools may be used for prevention activities, including home, school, and community connections to improve and maintain good student attendance, behavior, and learning. Title VI funds may be applied creatively to improve curricular connections in school, family, and community partnerships, such as improving designs of homework, enriching the curriculum through volunteers, creating community-based career development and job shadowing programs, and other attention to school subjects. Title VII funds may be applied to programs that help students with limited English to increase school skills, including connections with families to motivate student learning.

TABLE 4.5 Levels and Sources of Funds for Programs of Family and Community Involvement in Schools, Districts, and States

¹ Source: Update surveys of schools, districts, and states in the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. School data are from 1998 and are corrected for inflation to reflect 2007 dollars. District and state data are from 2007 Update surveys.

States, districts, and schools also use general funds, donations from parent associations, and grants and donations from businesses, foundations, community groups, and other sources. Funds from all sources are combined or blended to support state coordinators, district facilitators, activities planned by school Action Teams for School, Family, and Community Partnerships, and other personnel and program costs.

 

 

Funding Options: Other Factors

 

The number of districts in a state, the number of schools in a district, and the number of students and families in a school all may affect funding formulas. For example, a state with over 400 school districts with an average of 7 schools in each will need a different plan and funding formula than a state with 50 districts with an average of 60 schools in each. Consider the following hypothetical states.

State A has about 400 districts that average 10 schools per district (ranging from 1 to 50 schools per district across the state).	State B has about 50 districts that average 60 schools per district (ranging from 10 to 100 schools per district across the state).
This state will need more staff and leader ship activities at the state level or by region to assist all districts and schools to orga nize and develop their expertise and pro grams of partnership. In small districts, with fewer than 15 schools, part-time lead ers for partnerships may assist the schools. In very small districts (e.g., fewer than 5 schools) school leaders may work relatively independently, with state, regional, or other organizational support (e.g., service providers), as needed.	This state will need only one or two full-time professional staff at the state level, adequate support staff, and a budget to assist districts and schools with their leadership and work on school, family, and community partnerships. Large districts in this state will need a full-time-equivalent facilitator to assist every 15-30 schools to develop and maintain their partnership programs.
In State A, state leadership (with assistance from various organizations) may be more complex than in State B.	In State B, district leadership may be more complex than in State A.

Both hypothetical states need to identify a state leader for partnerships who will write a plan to organize state leadership activities, including some of the actions outlined in Readings 4.1 and 4.2. Each state will need to develop within-state, interdepartmental connections among programs that include attention to families and communities. Other state and regional organizations, intermediate staff development units, and universities also may take leadership roles at the state and/or district levels to help districts and schools develop their knowledge, skills, and programs of partnership.

Districts in each hypothetical state must identify a leader on partnerships and related program costs, and all schools will need adequate funding each year to support activities planned by their Action Teams for Partnerships. The level of support needed will depend on the size of the district or school, goals for students, student and family needs, the community context, and other factors.

 

 

Summary of Funding Options

 

There are many possible formulas for per-pupil or lump-sum allocations at the state, district, and school levels to support the real costs of developing and maintaining programs of school, family, and community partnerships at all three policy levels. Decisions will vary based on the conditions and needs in large and small states, districts, and schools. However derived, a reasonable plan for adequate funding is needed in every state, district, and school to ensure that all students’ families are welcome in their children’s schools and are informed about and active partners in their children’s education at all grade levels. The examples of alternative funding plans force attention to such questions as:

• How much is it worth to develop and maintain productive school, family, and community partnerships so that all families are involved in their children’s education across the grades?

• Where will the money come from, and how will it be spent?

• Who will decide?

• How will results of the investments be evaluated?

• How will investments and programs be sustained?

ACTIVITY

Design a Feasible Plan for Funding Partnerships

a. Select and identify one state, district, or school that interests you.

b. List its name, location, and size (e.g., number of districts, schools, and/or number of students served). This information may be obtained on the Internet (e.g., nces.ed.gov), by phone, or in federal, state, or local directories, or through other sources. Or use the following hypothetical information:

New State has 100 school districts and approximately 1,600 schools. Every district, including New District, has 10 elementary schools (grades K-5) with 300 students in each school; 4 middle schools (grades 6-8) with 750 students in each school; and 2 high schools (grades 9-12) with 1,500 students in each.

c. Working with the information in this chapter, create a realistic funding plan for school, family, and community partnerships for the state, district, or school that you selected.

1. Begin with a paragraph summarizing the philosophy or policy on which you will base your funding plan. Consider these requirements:

a. The program you outline must enable educators, parents, and community members to work together in ways that support student success in school.

b. The program and budget you describe must enable each school to build its capacity to plan, conduct, and maintain partnerships with all families, not just a few.

2.

a. Outline the funding approach you will use (i.e., per-pupil expenditure or lump-sum allocation); at least five sample activities that you will fund at the state, district, or school level that you selected; and the level of funding you recommend for one year to support the activities you outlined.

b. Give details on the allocations you recommend for staff salaries and benefits, training workshops, grants, and other activities in your comprehensive program of partnerships.

d. Optional class activity: In class, present and critique classmates’ funding plans. Discuss:

1. Are the funding estimates realistic?

2. What would the plan permit and exclude in a full program of partnerships?

3. Do you think that the plan could be implemented in the school, district, or state you selected? Why or why not?

COMMENT

Partnerships Start at Birth

 

 

Parents As Teachers (P.A.T.) is a long-standing early education intervention program that grew from a 1981 pilot program in Missouri to a nationally replicated model. The program was designed to serve all families of infants and very young children, not just those with high-risk characteristics. P.A.T. prepares parent educators who make a series of home visits each year to help participating families understand child development from birth to age three so that their children are ready to learn in school. Services include home visits, screening to monitor children’s development and to identify and reduce risks to healthy development, parent education, group meetings for parents, and play experiences for children in a community center. In Missouri, one early estimate of the cost of the pilot P.A.T. program was $210 per family, with $170 coming from the state and $40 from local funds. Since the early 1980s, costs have increased to cover the salaries of parent educators and program costs, though the program is rarely fully funded to serve all families, as originally intended. P.A.T. remains a popular program that is part of early childhood education policies in many states and districts.

Early evaluations of P.A.T. suggested positive effects on parents’ attitudes and confidence and on children’s readiness skills and social development, fewer undetected hearing problems, and reduced effects of risk conditions on children’s language development (Pfannenstiel, Seitz, and Zigler, 2002; Pfannenstiel and Seltzer, 1989). Research is needed on how children in P.A.T. proceed through their educational careers and whether and which families continue to be involved in their children’s education after their children start elementary school.

P.A.T. is one of many successful early education programs that assist families and their infants and toddlers. A logical next step for all such programs is to ensure that information for families about child and adolescent development and parental involvement in education continues as children progress through the elementary and secondary grades. This would require the kinds of policies and practices featured in Readings 4.1 and 4.2 that outline how state and district leaders can help all schools develop and maintain effective partnership programs that aim to increase student success in school.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1. Give two reasons why it is important for a state to focus on families of children from birth to age three, as in P.A.T. and similar programs.

2. Give two reasons why it is not enough to focus on families of children from birth to age three in organizing home, school, and community partnerships.

COMMENT

Chart a District’s Progress in Developing Partnership Programs

 

 

Reading 4.3 and other studies indicate that district policies are necessary but not sufficient for schools to build capacity to organize their own partnership programs. Rather, district leaders who are expert on partnership program development have two responsibilities: to conduct activities at the district level that benefit all schools and to conduct activities that guide each school to develop effective programs of family and community involvement. School-based partnership programs increase the options for all students’ families to be involved in their children’s education at every grade level in ways that support student success in school.

To fulfill both responsibilities, district leaders must take the following steps on the path to partnerships:

Step 1.	Write a policy.
Step 2.	Build knowledge at the district level. Identify a leader for partnerships.
Step 3.	Implement district-level activities, such as conducting workshops for parents or compiling a handbook of ideas.
Step 4.	Assist schools on request.
Step 5.	Take initiative to help every school create an Action Team for Partnerships.
Step 6.	Provide all school teams with needed professional development and support to help them organize, implement, evaluate, and sustain their partnership programs.
Step 7.	Assist schools on a regular schedule, organize ways for schools to share their best activities, and conduct midyear or end-of- year activities to address challenges and discuss solutions.
Step 8.	Evaluate the quality of district and school programs and effects of partnerships in order to improve programs from year to year.

 

Most districts start this work with steps 1, 2, and 3 but never get to steps 5 through 8.

 

 

FIELD EXPERIENCE

Discuss a District’s Progress on Partnerships

 

 

Select and identify a school district with at least 10 schools that is of interest to you. Arrange to interview one district leader (a district leader for partnerships or other administrator) and one principal from the district. Or invite a district leader and a principal from a local district to class for a group interview.

a. Ask the district leader:

1. Does your district have a policy on parental involvement or school, family, or community partnerships?

a. If yes, what is one feature of this policy?

b. If no, why is there no policy on partnerships?

2. Is there a district leader who is expert on partnerships to oversee work at the district level and in the schools?

a. If yes, what are this leader’s responsibilities at the district level and in aiding schools to develop their own site-based partnership programs?

b. If there is no leader, who in the district is responsible for advancing family and community involvement?

3. What is one strong district leadership activity for family and community involvement conducted this year?

4. How should your district’s partnership program improve in the next year or two?

5. Add at least one question of your own.

b. Ask the school principal:

1. Does your school implement the district’s policy on partnerships, or does the school have a separate and different policy? Or both? Or none?

a. If it has any policy, please explain how this policy is shared with teachers, parents, and student.

b. If it has none, please explain whether a written policy would help your school strengthen its partnership program.

2. Does the school have an Action Team for Partnership or an equivalent committee that organizes a plan, implements activities, and evaluates its outreach to engage all parents in useful ways each year?

3. How do district leaders assist your school to improve its partnership program?

4. What is one strong activity for family and community involvement in your school?

5. How does your school’s partnership program need to improve in the next year or two?

6. Add at least one question of your own.

c. Document the questions and responses. Indicate which step (see steps 1-8) the district is working on to build its leadership on partnerships.

d. Reflecting on the responses from the two interviewees, write a reflective paragraph telling whether this district is at an early or advanced stage in developing district-level and school-based partnership programs.

COMMENT

District Policies: Focus on Choice

 

 

Some states and districts have policies about school choice and about school, family, and community partnerships. As discussed in Reading 4.1, school choice and partnerships are simultaneously linked and separate policies. They are linked because choice involves families in major decisions about where their children will attend school or which program within a school a child will elect. They are separate because choice is a discrete event that may or may not be followed by other opportunities for ongoing involvement.

Many states and districts have policies that permit, encourage, or require families to choose their public schools within or across school districts. In various places, parents may choose magnet schools, charter schools, career academies, and other special schools or programs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. At the time of this writing, districts were required to allow parents to choose new schools for their children if, over two years, the current school failed to make adequate progress on state achievement tests. Policies that enable parents to choose their child’s school are designed to build students’ talents and interests, increase competition among schools and improve the quality of school programs, respond to court orders for racially integrated schools, or meet other policy goals.

Some policies on school choice are clear and equitable. Others are murky and do not inform or involve all families about the choices they may make. In some cases, parents do not receive timely information about their choices. Sometimes, information is not written in languages that parents and students can understand.

Parents need information on the consequences of different choices for their children’s learning, transportation, and special programs. Changing schools entails changing friends and locations. The new schools may not have programs that meet the needs of particular children and could be a poorer match than the current school. The choice process is, in fact, complicated. Information and processes on choice must be clear, equitable, and timely.

After the choice of a school is made, every school must inform and engage all families to support their children’s learning and development. This requires each school to have a comprehensive program of school, family, and community partnerships that involves all parents every year as students proceed through school.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1.

a. How might choosing a school increase the involvement of families?

b. How might choosing a school decrease the involvement of families?

2. Select and identify the level of schooling (elementary, middle, or high school) that interests you. Suppose a family moved into a new community with a child entering the level of schooling you selected.

a. Write three questions you think a parent should ask in the new community if public school choice were an option. Note to whom each question should be addressed. Explain why each question is important to a parent.

b. Write three questions you think a parent should ask in the new community if all students were assigned to their schools and there were no options for school choice. Note to whom each question should be addressed. Explain why each question is important to a parent.

c. Optional class activity: Discuss the concerns parents may have about the choice or assignment of schools. Whose responsibility (e.g., district administrators, school leaders, others) is it to address these issues?

Organizations’ Policies for Preparing Educators

 

States and districts are not the only leadership units that write policies and guidelines on school, family, and community partnerships. Professional organizations, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2009), the National Association of State Boards of Education (2009), and the National School Boards Association (2003), recognize the importance of programs of partnership to increase student success in school and to reduce school dropout rates.

Accrediting and professional organizations also have policies and recommendations on partnerships that influence education and practice. Following are two examples.

 

 

New Teachers: NCATE Standards for Teacher Credentials

 

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2008) includes a standard for parental involvement for candidates for teaching and for teacher preparation institutions. The standards aim to ensure that new teachers understand and are prepared to involve families in their children’s education. For example, NCATE’s standards for preparing elementary teachers include the following goals for teachers’ professionalism:

 

Professional Growth, Reflection, and Evaluation. Elementary teachers are aware of and reflect on their practice in light of research on teaching, professional ethics, and resources available for professional learning; they continually evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families, and other professionals in the learning community and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

 

Collaboration with Families, Colleagues, and Community Agencies. They know the importance of establishing and maintaining a positive collaborative relationship with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth, and well-being of children. (Standard 5.2)

 

Explanation. Candidates understand different family beliefs, traditions, values, and practices across cultures and within society and use their knowledge effectively. They involve families as partners in supporting the school both inside and outside the classrooms. They involve families in assessing and planning for individual children, including children with disabilities, developmental delays, or special abilities. Candidates understand schools as organizations within the larger community context and the operations of relevant aspects of the systems in which they work. They also understand how factors in the elementary students’ environments outside of school may influence the students’ cognitive, emotional, social, and physical well-being and, consequently, their lives and learning. Candidates participate in collegial activities designed to make the entire school a productive learning environment and develop effective collaborations with specialists.

Similarly, in outlining what middle school teachers should know and be able to do, NCATE (2008) states: “Middle school teachers understand how prior learning experiences and family backgrounds influence young adolescent learning. They form relationships with the students’ families and community to create a collaborative learning experience.”

Experienced Teachers: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

 

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) defines what an experienced, exemplary teacher should know and be able to do. One standard specifies that excellent teachers establish family partnerships. For example, in the outline for the Early Adolescence/Generalist Certificate (NBPTS, 2001), the following standard describes how experienced teachers in the middle grades should work with families and communities to help students succeed:

Standard XI: Family Partnerships

Accomplished generalists work with families to achieve common goals for the education of their children.

Explanation. In explaining how teachers “clearly signal through word and deed the importance of families as partners with the school in their children’s education,” NBPTS explains how exemplary teachers cultivate family support for their children’s education:

Accomplished generalists understand that active, involved, and informed families create a network that supports vital, effective instructional programs. They see collaboration with parents as an essential tool in providing students with the support, motivation, and understanding they desire and need. Teachers effectively communicate with families about their children’s accomplishments, successes, and needs for improvement, including means for attaining higher goals. They ensure that this communication extends to families whose primary language is not English. Teachers search for ways to share the school’s objectives and expectations for its students, as well as the rationales for assignments. Teachers interpret and discuss students’ work as well as report cards and test scores in a manner that gives parents an accurate portrait of their children’s progress. They can discuss course selection and consequences, including the importance of planning for high school and future education. They work constructively with parents to help their children develop good learning habits and study skills, complete homework, set goals, and improve performance. As necessary, they assist families in finding additional resources and services outside the school, such as health care, counseling, and child care.

Teachers who apply for NBPTS certification must submit a portfolio with four entries that demonstrate their best practices, one of which shows their accomplishments outside of the classroom—with families, the community, or colleagues—and how that entry affects student learning. Every NBPTS certificate includes one standard for family and community involvement, making clear that exemplary teachers conduct productive partnerships to increase students’ success.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

 

Compare and contrast the NCATE guidelines for new teachers and the NBPTS guidelines for experienced teachers on practices to involve families and communities in children’s education.

1. How might the NCATE and NBPTS guidelines encourage new and experienced teachers to develop and conduct activities to involve the families and communities of the students they teach? Give two ideas of how each of the guidelines might influence an individual teacher’s practice.

2. How might the NCATE and NBPTS guidelines encourage teachers to contribute to their schools’ partnership programs, beyond the work they do with the families of their own students? Give two ideas of how each of the guidelines might influence teachers to work collaboratively with others at their schools.

3. How might the NCATE and NBPTS guidelines encourage teacher education programs to provide undergraduate courses for new teachers and advanced graduate courses for experienced teachers to develop knowledge and skills to involve families in their children’s education? Give one idea of how each of the guidelines might affect teacher education.

ACTIVITY

Explore State Requirements for Teaching Credentials

a. Locate on the Internet or otherwise obtain a copy of the requirements for teacher, administrator, or counselor credentials from a state that interests you. Identify the state and credential that you selected.

1. Do the requirements explicitly specify competencies in involving families and communities in children’s education? If yes:

a. List the requirements for competencies in partnerships.

b. Do you think these requirements are adequate for preparing the educator to work productively with families? Explain why or why not.

c. Suggest one change that you believe would improve the requirements.

If no:

a. Do the requirements implicitly refer to family and community involvement (e.g., refer to teaching culturally diverse children, which implies also working with students’ families)?

b. Create a state requirement concerning school, family, and community partnerships that you believe would be important for the professional credential you selected.

c. Explain why you think your recommendation is important and attainable.

b. Obtain a current catalog for your college or university.

1. List the required and elective courses offered in education that would prepare future teachers, administrators, or counselors to understand students’ families and have skills to work with family and community partners in students’ education.

2. Do you think the available courses are adequate for preparing teachers, administrators, counselors, or other professionals to conduct effective programs of family and community involvement?

a. If yes, give two reasons why you think so.

b. If no, suggest two additions, revisions (e.g., changes in course titles), or other changes that you think would improve the courses and content on partnerships.

Other Policy Issues

 

Many other important and provocative policy-related questions have emerged as the field of school, family, and community partnerships has grown. This section discusses a few policies and proposals that could affect state, district, and school policies on school, family, and community partnerships.

 

 

COMMENT

Laws that Enable Parents Who Work Outside the Home to Attend Parent-Teacher Conferences and School Meetings

 

In 2007, 12 states and the District of Columbia passed laws that require employers to allow employees who are parents to take leave time to attend their children’s school meetings and events. The laws differed in how “leave time” was defined and regulated, including which employers must comply by size of business, which employees are eligible, the number of hours covered, which school meetings qualify, how employers are notified for approval, whether parents use paid or unpaid time, and other factors.

One report identified the states as California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhodes Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont (A Better Balance, 2007). At least 13 other states (Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) have designed, are reviewing, or may reconsider similar legislation.

For example, among the early laws on this topic:

• A 1990 law passed by the state legislature in Minnesota permitted workers who are parents to use up to 16 hours of accrued vacation time, sick leave, or other arranged time to attend parent-teacher conferences or other meetings related to their own children’s education or to attend to their children’s illnesses.

• A similar bill in California (AB 2590, Chapter 1290 in the Statutes of 1994, expanded in 1997) specified that employers with 25 or more employees should allow each employee (parents, grandparents, or guardians) up to 40 hours of time to participate in their children’s schools using vacation time, personal or sick leave, compensatory time, or leave without pay.

• By contrast, a 1992 policy in Virginia pertained only to parents who were employees of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The law provided paid leave of up to eight hours per year, credited to full-time employees each year, with proportional awards of leave time to part-time employees to meet with teachers, attend functions, or volunteer at school. This policy was designed to serve as a model for large businesses in the state to duplicate to demonstrate their commitment to families, children, and schools. Similarly, Tennessee’s first law pertained to state employees.

Reports from Minnesota and other states suggest that flexible leave policies promoted greater involvement of parents in their children’s education, including more communication with their children’s teachers and more involvement of fathers. Research suggests why and how this happens.

An early study by Espinoza (1988) found that employers’ typical short-term leave policies affected the involvement of employees who were parents. He studied a phone company where women in clerical jobs were not permitted to take less than a full day of unpaid leave when they wanted to attend parent-teacher conferences. In addition, nonmedical, unexcused absences worked against them when they were considered for transfers and promotions. Thus, the women were doubly disciplined by a loss of pay for more time off than they needed to attend conferences at their children’s schools and by penalties for taking time off. They had to balance these factors with the personal and family benefits of attending the conferences to demonstrate good parenting and to learn more about their children’s progress and success in school.

Most parents in blue-collar jobs still face difficulties and penalties at work if they take time from work to attend parent-teacher conferences or to volunteer at their children’s schools. Most white-collar workers have greater flexibility with compensatory time, flexible leave time, or other arrangements to attend conferences or other meetings and to volunteer, with no loss in pay and no penalties for their actions. Although mothers attend most of these activities, more fathers in white-collar jobs with flexible work conditions participate in school conferences and activities than do fathers in blue-collar jobs that impose more rigid work rules and penalties for absences (Espinoza, 1988).

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1. What changes in behavior, actions, or attitudes might result from state laws that require employers to permit employees who are parents to attend parent-teacher conferences or other required school meetings?

a. Describe one result that you would expect (regardless of state).

b. Explain why you would expect the results you described.

ACTIVITY

Examine an Employer’s Support for Family Involvement in Education

 

Does your state, place of employment, or a local company with over 100 employees have laws or guidelines that permit workers to take time to attend parent-teacher conferences or other meetings at their children’s schools? Use the Internet and other reference materials, or interview a local employer about this issue.

A. Identify the employer you selected (e.g., state or business) and your method of inquiry. Address section B-1 (below) if the employer has a parental leave policy and B-2 if not.

B-1. If the employer you selected permits parental leave for meetings at children’s schools, report the following:

1. Describe the formal or informal guidelines and requirements for parental leave.

2. Are the guidelines used by employees? In what ways or why not?

3. Do you think the current guidelines are adequate and clear?

a. If so, how do the guidelines benefit the participating families, students, schools, communities, and the employer?

b. If not, how would you improve the guidelines or their applications? OR

B-2. If the state or business you selected does not permit parental leave:

1. Write a hypothetical guideline that you think is clear, fair, and workable for the state or business you selected.

2. Explain why the components you included are important for families, students, schools, communities, and the employer.

C. Whether or not guidelines about parental leave exist:

1. Give one example of an activity that a school might conduct to adjust the schedule of conferences, meetings, and events to accommodate parents who work full-time or part-time during the day or evening.

2. Give one example of an activity that a community organization or group (e.g., faith-based organization, neighborhood group) might conduct to assist working parents or single parents to maintain involvement in their children’s schools.

COMMENT

Communicate in Languages that Parents Understand

 

 

Most federal, state, and district policies call attention to the need to create positive partnerships with all families, including those who do not speak or read English well. In some cases, information from school to home needs to be written more clearly in English. In other cases, information needs to be in the languages that parents speak and read at home.

For example, policies to improve the education of children who are limited in English proficiency could be applied to the families of these children. Policies also are needed to communicate with parents who are limited in their proficiency with English, even if their children speak English well. In a modest proposal, I suggested (Hidalgo, Siu, and Epstein, 2004) that the Lau v. Nichols (414 U.S. 563, 1974) decision, which required schools to provide non-English-speaking students with equal opportunities to learn in a language they could understand, should be reworded to reflect the results of research on school, family, and community partnerships, as follows (added text is in italics):

Where the inability of parents of school children to speak and understand the English language excludes the children from effective participation in the education program, the school district must take affirmative steps to open its instructional program to these parents and their children.

The proposed revision recognizes that language barriers between parents and teachers—like barriers between children and teachers—impede the equal participation of children in educational programs. If parents cannot understand their children’s teachers, classroom programs, and communications from the school, then parents cannot effectively guide their children, monitor their work and progress, raise questions or concerns with teachers, or act as advocates for their children. Without clear and understandable communication, parents cannot effectively evaluate the quality of the schools or the education of their children.

The suggestion to extend Lau v. Nichols to apply to communications with parents as well as to instruction for children raises questions about schools’ responsibilities to ensure that appropriate communications are conducted with all parents, whether or not their children are limited in English proficiency. Indeed, the 2002 NCLB’s Section 1118 supported this call for more equitable, understandable communications with all parents. The law required states, districts, and schools to communicate policies and involvement practices with all parents “in a language the parents can understand,” but added “to the extent practicable.” This is a reasonable qualification, but even in schools that serve families who speak many different languages at home, educators, parents, students, and community members are developing innovative ways to inform and involve all families with neighborhood translators, high school student bilingual interpreters, foreign language media, and other connectors (Hutchins et al., 2009). See examples in the section “Success Stories” at www.partnershipschools.org.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1. Do you think it is necessary to ensure two-way communications with non- English-speaking parents and those whose English is limited? Give two reasons why or why not.

2. As states, districts, and schools work to comply with federal and state legislation to communicate with all parents, educators and their family and community partners will have to develop and implement creative practices with parents who do not speak or read English well or speak other languages at home. Give two examples of practical activities that could inform and involve families who do not speak or read English well.

COMMENT

Equity in Out-of-School Activities

 

 

Students gain knowledge and build cultural capital when they engage in and enjoy activities, events, and services in school and in their communities. In recent years, after-school programs have become more common, but they do not serve all students at any age or grade level.

Some families cannot afford the transportation, admission fees, lessons, and dues that more affluent families easily invest in their children’s education outside of school. Federal, state, and local “vouchers” or certificates could be created for educational and cultural activities that support and enhance children’s school learning and development. An “enrichment voucher”—a kind of “food-for-thought stamp”—could be distributed to families who cannot presently provide their children with supplementary learning and talent development activities after school. The subsidies could be funded by governmental or community agencies and distributed to families whose children are eligible for free or reduced-price meals in school. These enrichment vouchers would help families support their children’s participation in educational experiences and activities in their communities.

Enrichment or talent development vouchers could cover payments for children’s and parents’ transportation and admissions to museums, zoos, science centers, and aquariums; dance, music, theater, and other performances; sports activities; and other community cultural activities, classes, and events. The mix of after-school, summer, weekend, vacation, and evening activities would supplement the school curriculum, promote students’ success in school, and help develop students’ special talents and skills. In addition to traditional after-school programs (which are not available in all communities or for all students), innovative, well-designed enrichment programs could provide care and learning opportunities for children while their parents are at work. In addition, unlike traditional after-school programs, the enrichment vouchers would enable parents and children to attend some activities, events, and programs together as a family on evenings and weekends and during holidays and vacation periods.

 

 

Why Vouchers for Community Enrichment Activities Are Needed

 

 

Recognized Need by Parents. In several surveys of families of elementary, middle, and high school students, the workshop topic of most interest to parents was: “How do I help my child develop his or her talents?” This was of particular interest to parents with low incomes who know that their children have special, sometimes hidden, talents that must be discovered and nourished. Many families need to know where or how to gain access to community enrichment programs and services, but may not be able to afford to do so.

 

Evidence of Long-Term Positive Effects. Studies of middle and high school students and families indicate that student and family visits to museums during the middle grades have long-term effects on student success in high school, even after prior achievement scores are taken into account (Bodilly and Beckett, 2005; Catsambis, 2001; Griffin, 2004). The results suggest that cultural and educational activities may have lasting value for student success in school, but only some students have opportunities to benefit from these experiences.

 

Unresponsive Community Schedules. Some communities and schools create opportunities for families and children to participate in enriching educational and cultural community activities. These include free days at zoos and museums, community fairs, “first nights” for family New Year’s Eve celebrations, and other special events and festivals on holidays and weekends throughout the year. Unfortunately, many families with low incomes and limited English skills do not hear about these offers, do not have transportation to get to them, or do not feel welcome and comfortable at the events. The opportunities are often inaccessible to families and students who need them most. For example, free days at art, science, or history museums may be scheduled when children are in school or when parents are at work, making it difficult or impossible for children and families to attend.

In sum, there are major inequities in opportunities for student learning outside of school and for developing skills and talents that help define who students are as individuals and as members of their communities. How might more equal access to enriching and educational events and opportunities in communities be provided? Enrichment or talent development vouchers is one idea. Expansion of effective after-school programs is another.

Schools, families, and communities must think together in new ways to enrich and extend students’ experiences after school, on weekends, and during summer and other vacations, including family cultural activities in their communities. In the absence of direct federal, state, or local subsidies to families for the educational and cultural enrichment of their children, federal, state, or local tax credits or other incentives might be offered to community organizations, agencies, cultural groups, businesses, and others who organize such programs for children and their families.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS

1. Do you think communities should offer free admission and transportation to enrichment activities to: a. Students who cannot afford these fees? Explain your views. b. Families who cannot afford these fees? Explain your views.

2. In your home community, which community groups, cultural organizations, businesses, and others might be able to support “enrichment vouchers” for children and for families? Describe one strategy that one of the groups you listed might conduct to enact this modest proposal for all or some students and families.

ACTIVITY

How Do Policies Link to Programs, Practices, and Results of Partnerships?

 

 

The readings, comments, questions, and activities in this chapter suggest that federal, state, district, and school policies are needed to sustain strong school-based programs of family and community involvement that engage all parents in their children’s education. Policies may affect the results discussed in Part 1 (Chapters 1, 2, and 3) of this volume. Among other results, four major findings of the research studies were:

• More parents become involved when welcoming schools have well-planned goal-linked partnership programs that involve families and the community in ways that support student success in school.

• Teachers are more positive about their work and about family and community involvement in schools that have effective partnership programs.

• All communities have resources that could support students’ social, emotional, physical, and talent development and academic achievement in school.

• Students are more successful in school, and more students graduate from high school on time, if their families and communities support their learning and development at every grade level.

a. Write a sentence or two to explain how a good policy at any one level—federal, state, district, or school—could affect each of four results listed above.

b. Write a sentence or two to explain how good and linked policies at all four levels—federal, state, district, and school—could strengthen each of the four results listed above.

ACTIVITY

Read and Report More about State and District Policies on Partnerships

 

 

To increase your understanding of policies on partnerships, read at least one article, chapter, or book listed below, or choose a recent, important publication on federal, state, district, or school policies on school, family, and community partnerships.

a. Identify the article, chapter, or book that you selected, the policy level it addresses (federal, state, district, or school), and its full bibliographic reference.

b. Write a one-page summary of the publication. Include a brief overview of the main topic(s) or question(s) that are raised in the publications, data (if any), and main results or conclusions.

c. Write a one-page critique of whether and how the selected publication is useful to educators or policy leaders for improving programs of school, family, and community partnerships.

d. Write two questions that you think should be asked to extend the work that you read. Explain why you think each question is important for improving policies of partnerships.

READING LIST FOR THIS ACTIVITY

Federal Policies

Appleseed. (2006). It takes a parent: Transforming education in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Moles, O. C. (2005). School-family relations and student learning: Federal education initiatives. In E. N. Patrikakou et al. (Eds.), School-family partnership for children’s success (pp. 131-147). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sadovnik, A. R., J. O’Day, G. Bohrnstedt, and K. Borman. (Eds.). (2008). No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy. New York: Routledge. (See Section IV, “School Choice and Parental Involvement,” chapters 10-14.)

Schneider, B. (1996). School, parent, and community involvement: The federal government invests in social capital. In K. Borman, P. Cookson, and A. Sadovnik (Eds.), Implementing federal education legislation (pp. 193-213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

State Policies

M-Pac. (2005). A shared responsibility: Recommendations for increasing family and community involvement in schools. Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education. www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/familylit/mpac/.

National PTA. (2009). State laws on family engagement in education. Chicago: Author.

Redding, S., and P. Sheley. (2005). Grass roots from the top down: The state’s role in family-school relationships. In E. N. Patrikakou et al. (Eds.), School-family partnership for children’s success (pp. 148-163). New York: Teachers College Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2009). Develop district and state leadership for partnerships. In J. L. Epstein et al. (Eds.), School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.; pp. 235-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

District Policies

Chavkin, N. F. (1995). Comprehensive districtwide reforms in parent and community involvement programs. In B. Rutherford (Ed.), Creating family/school partnerships (pp. 77- 106). Columbus: National Middle School Association.

Henderson, A. T., K. L. Mapp, V. R. Johnson, and D. Davies. (2007). Scaling up: Why can’t all schools in a district create strong partnerships with families? In A. T. Henderson, K. L. Mapp, V. R. Johnson, and D. Davies, Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships (pp. 219-250). New York: the New Press.

Sanders, M. G. (2008). Using diverse data to develop and sustain school, family, and community partnerships: A district case study. Education Management, Administration, and Leadership 36: 530-545.

Westmoreland, H., H. M. Rosenberg, E. Lopez, and H. Weiss. (2009). Seeing is believing: Promising practices for how school districts promote family engagement. Chicago: National PTA and Harvard Family Research Project.

School Policies

Chrispeels, J. H., and K. J. Martin. (2002). Four school leadership teams define their roles within organizational and political structures to improve student learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 13: 327-365.

Edwards, P. A. (2004). Children’s literacy development: Making it happen through school, family, and community involvement. Boston: Pearson.

McKenna, M., and D. J. Willms. (1998). The challenge facing parent councils in Canada. Childhood Education 74: 378-382.

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

REFERENCES

A Better Balance. (2007). Fact sheet: Educational leave. New York: The Work and Family Legal Center.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2009). Resolutions. www.aacte.org.

Bodilly, S., and M. K. Beckett. (2005). Making out-of school time matter: Evidence for an action agenda. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

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.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Paths to partnership: What we can learn from federal, state, district, and school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan 72: 344-349.

Epstein, J. L., et al. (2009). School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Espinoza, R. (1988). Working parents, employers, and schools. Educational Horizons 66: 62-65.

Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education 88: 59-70.

Hidalgo, N., S-F. Siu, and J. L. Epstein. (2004). Research on families, schools, and communities: A multicultural perspective. In J. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.; pp. 631-655). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hutchins, D. J., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Promising partnership practices 2009. Baltimore: National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University.

McDonnell, L. M., and R. F. Elmore. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 157-184). Albany: State University of New York Press.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2009). Partners in prevention: The role of school-community partnerships in dropout prevention. Arlington, VA: NASBE.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2001). Early adolescence generalist standards, second edition. Arlington, VA: Author. (See www.nbpts.org for certificate requirements for all subjects and grade levels.)

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, D.C.: Author. (See www.ncate.org, and click on “Standards” and then “Program Standards.”)

National School Boards Association. (2003). Guiding principles for business and school partnerships. Arlington, VA: The Council for Corporate and School Partnerships.

Pfannenstiel, J. C., V. Seitz, and E. Zigler. (2002). Promoting school readiness: The role of the Parents as Teachers Program. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field 6: 71-86.

Pfannenstiel, J., and D. Seltzer. (1989). New parents as teachers: Evaluation of an early parent education program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 4: 1-18.

Solomon, Z. P. (1991). California’s policy on parent involvement: State leadership for local initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan 72: 335-362.

Warner, I. (1991). Parents in touch: District leadership for parent involvement. Phi Delta Kappan 72: 372-375.