Families, Educators, and the Family-School …futures/Christ.doc · Web viewFamilies, Educators,...

Family-School Partnerships 1

Families, Educators, and the Family-School Partnership:Issues or Opportunities for Promoting Children’s Learning Competence?

Sandra L. Christenson

University of Minnesota

Paper prepared for 2002 Invitational Conference: The Future of School Psychology, November 14-16, 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be directed to Sandra Christenson, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 or at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Families, Educators, and the Family-School Partnership:Issues or Opportunities for Promoting Children’s Learning Competence?

As a speaker at the 2002 Invitational Conference: The Future of School Psychology, I

was asked to: (a) outline critical issues that families face, or will face, in the 21st century relative

to schools and children, and (b) propose roles for school psychology, within constraints of the

shortage, to address these issues. The issues were to include the important role of parents in

education. With respect to these goals, I negotiated with the conference planners to add the

centrality of a quality family-school relationship to enhance the academic, social, behavioral, and

emotional learning of children and adolescents.

As a speaker, I want to thank the conference planners for this opportunity. I also want to

acknowledge that working with parents has been a topic present in previous efforts to examine

school psychological service delivery (e.g., Brown, Cardon, Coulter, & Meyers, 1982; Talley,

Kubiszyn, Brassard, & Short, 1996; Ysseldyke & Weinberg, 1981). Our myriad efforts as a

discipline – researchers, trainers, and practitioners – have resulted in “p” referring to partnership

more than parent at the beginning of the 21st century. It is my hope that this paper provides a

foundation for provocative discussion and new directions with respect to joining family and

school in a genuine partnership to promote the learning progress and engagement of all students.

Introduction

As I reflect on the past two decades of research and practices with respect to family

involvement in education, I am reminded of Charles Dickens phrase from A Tale of Two Cities,


“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . .” (p. 1). With respect to partnering with

parents/guardians to enhance the learning experiences and progress of children and youth, the

“best of times” is reflected in an increased awareness of: (a) the effect of family influences on

and contributions by families to children’s educational outcomes, (b) models for family

involvement, (c) the importance of establishing shared goals and monitoring child success, (d)

the characteristics of constructive, collaborative relationships for children with and without

disabilities in grades K-12, and (e) home and school-based activities to engage families in

education (e.g., Chen, 2001; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-

Avie, 1996; Epstein, 1995; Nord & West, 2001; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996; Swap,

1993). Although shared responsibility for educational outcomes is the rhetoric, school policies

and practices are not always aligned with this notion. Therefore, the “worst of times” is evident

daily across our schools in: (a) the extreme social and physical distance between some educators

and families, (b) diminished resources for implementing family-school programs, (c) challenges

reaching out to all families, many of whom are uninvolved but interested in their children’s

learning, (d) challenges related to addressing the needs of non-English speaking families and

children identified as English Language Learners (ELL), and (e) too little focus on the

interaction process (i.e., prerequisite conditions) that yields a strong relationship as various

activities are implemented (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Liontos, 1992).

Although I contend that much more is right than wrong with current family-school

relationships, our job is not done. Furthermore, I speculate that across our schools we have three

broad categories with respect to family-school relationships and children’s learning:

Relationships characterized as “smooth sailing,” “bridge building,” or “troubled terrain.” Often

a positive connection exists between parents and educators; other times, they are strangers “like


people from a different region of the country, each speaking the same language, but in a unique

dialect” (Merseth, Schorr, & Elmore, 1999, p. 6). Both parents and educators want to enhance

educational experiences for students; they want to create a culture for student success. Why then

is our job not done?

In part, the answer lies in understanding that strong family-school connections are

embedded in the demands of schooling and macrosystemic influences. For example, consider

the effect of the current landscape of educational reform on family-school interactions. In at

least 20 states, educators and parents face the effect of high stakes assessment on students’ grade

placement. Thus, many educators and parents are finding themselves facing decisions about

grade retention and/or social promotion, “either-or” decisions that do not guarantee effective

instructional programming. Eighteen states have high school exit exams and six others are

phasing in exams (not yet withholding diplomas) (www.ecs.org). Parents and educators are

concerned about the effect of these exams on drop rates. Also, as part of the No Child Left

Behind legislation ([email protected]), schools are being held accountability to

demonstrate improvement for all students, including those with learning and behavioral

challenges and highly mobile and homeless. Standards and accountability are excellent;

however, standards and accountability systems in the absence of supports and opportunities to

achieve are disastrous for many students, undoubtedly mostly for the students about whom

educators are most concerned, and coincidentally, often have the most difficulty connecting with

their parents. Consider also the effect of the belief system about the value and purpose of

education held by the family as well as the parents’ beliefs about appropriate parental roles and

responsibilities. Clearly a challenge is how to ensure family and school supports and

opportunities for student learning in academic, social, emotional, and behavioral domains.

http://www.ecs.org/


Consensus seems to be emerging that strong family-school connections are essential to

enhance children’s educational outcomes. Fifteen years ago, Dorothy Rich (1987, personal

communication) of the Home and School Institute in Washington DC opined, “Families and

teachers might wish that the school could do the job alone. But today’s school needs families and

today’s families need the school. In many ways, this mutual need may be the greatest hope for

change.” Her statement is highly relevant in 2002, a time when building social capital (Coleman,

1987), where it does not naturally exist, must be a goal.

There is a new awareness about the value of and a willingness to provide mesosystemic

support for children’s learning and development (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). There is also an

interest in promoting positive mental health by helping children learn, relate effectively with

others, and regulate their emotions. Thus, the focus of family-school connections is competence

enhancement – specifically the academic, social, behavioral, and emotional learning of children

and youth. Finally, there is greater appreciation for what constitutes the learning context for

students, moving from an exclusive focus on the classroom environment to encompass the other

“worlds” of children and youth. Ysseldyke and Christenson (2002) contend that it is important

for educators and parents to understand the concept of the total learning environment –

instructional support, home support, and home-school support – when creating successful

learning environments for students. Similarly, Christenson and Anderson (in press), stated, “The

learning context is composed of critical systems (child, home, school, peer, and community or

neighborhood) that affect academic, social, and emotional learning for students in grades K-12.

The learning context is an interwoven structure of circumstances and people that surround the

child across systems at a given point in time and over time. Of particular interest is the


“affordance value” of this context – or how the learning context facilitates or impedes child

adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling.”

Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, and Bloom (1993) have summarized three primary reasons

for the renewed interest and focus on the development of policies and programs to increase

family involvement in education. First, they suggest the cumulative impact of research findings

that underscore the importance of the home in contributing to children’s school progress cannot

be ignored. Parent involvement in schooling is positively associated with many benefits for

students and the kinds of benefits desired by educators - improvement in grades and test scores,

attitude toward schoolwork, behavior, work completion, participation in classroom activities, and

attendance. Also, what parents do to support learning (family process variables) predicts

scholastic ability better than who families are (family status variables). The power of out-of-

school time (community and peer influences) helps to explain school performance differences,

and home influences, especially during summer, are one differentiating factor between low and

high achievers (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Finally, the discontinuity students experience

between their school and home environments is another explanatory factor for lower school

performance (Comer et al., 1996; Phelan, Davidson, & Yu, 1998; Swap, 1993).

Second, they suggest that reform efforts focused on school and teacher practices such as

new curricula and strategies in the absence of parent support and reinforcement have not been as

successful in improving achievement as had been hoped. Greater social problems exist today

than existed several decades ago. Related to this is that intervention research has supported that

many child concerns and behaviors (e.g., ADHD, conduct disorders) are more successful when

addressed across home and school environments (August, Anderson, & Bloomquist, 1992;


Webster-Stratton, 1993) and that adolescents engage in less high-risk behavior if parent and

school connections are present (Resnick et al., 1997).

Third, dramatic changes in the structure and function of families has given rise to concern

about families’ capability to provide the conditions that foster children’s school progress. The

changing student population is particularly evident in urban areas, albeit changes are apparent in

first ring suburbs and rural areas throughout the United States. Parents from different ethnic

backgrounds view the purpose of education quite differently (Bempechat, 1998). Also, the

concepts of cultural and social capital are influential (Coleman, 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1991).

Growing number of parents have not had the benefit of a positive personal schooling experience

or are new immigrants to the United States. Consequently, they are unfamiliar with school

policies and practices. Less cultural capital makes it more difficult for them to support their

children’s learning and to navigate the educational system, particularly at the secondary level.

Additionally, the amount of time available for parents to support their children’s learning

(especially if it requires being present at school) and to interact with children about personal

matters is shrinking due to increases in single parent and dual income families. Referred to as

the erosion of social capitol, Coleman (1987) argued that the loss of quality student-adult

interaction and time was a primary reason for declines in school performance and for more

children being less well prepared for school tasks in kindergarten.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the

importance and value of parental involvement in education and actively is promoting roles for

parents in No Child Left Behind (nces.ed.gov; Partnership for Family Involvement in Education,

2000). Although I view this macrosystemic influence as positive, I also see an emphasis on how

to involve parents in education or tips for parents (Chen, 2001), causing me to question whether


this is the best way to conceptualize the connection between families and school. Rather than

educators asking how to involve uninvolved families, I prefer framing the family- school

connection in terms of enhancing learning competencies for students. A better question is: How

do we improve educational outcomes for students?

Children and youth perform better in school when they have supports and opportunities

to learn from their two primary contexts of development – home and school (Christenson &

Sheridan, 2001). Thus, I have argued that the benefits of working with parents as partners are

best explicated by the degree to which conditions that create or offer promise for enhancing

educational outcomes for students are present. Students’ adaptation to schooling depends in part

on the degree of support, opportunity to learn, and resources available to the child (Pianta &

Walsh, 1996). The benefits of family-school collaboration, which extend far beyond the notion

of involving parents in activities (e.g., home support for learning, volunteering), are many and

varied. They include the power of shared educational goals for countering information from

competing sources such as media and peers (Zill & Nord, 1994), maximizing opportunities for

students to learn at school and at home, building social capital for students through mutual

support efforts of families and educators, circumventing blame when children exhibit learning

and behavior difficulties in school, enhancing communication and coordination among family

members and educational personnel, maintaining home-school continuity in programs and

approaches across school years, sharing ownership and commitment to educational goals,

increasing understanding and conceptualization of the complexities of a child and his/her

situation, and pooling of resources across home and school, which increases the range and

quality of solutions, diversity in expertise and resources, and integrity of educational programs

(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).


I contend, as have others, that relationships are integral to children’s school success in

academic, social, behavioral, and emotional domains. Pianta and Walsh (1996) emphasized

establishing shared meaning across home and school to move from a culture of failure to a

culture of success. Also, relationships have been viewed as a means to foster resilience – or to

enhance protective factors (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998). Relationships must be the focus of

school psychology practices if we aim to promote the learning success of children with and

without disabilities. To create and sustain relationships, we must consider the impact of systems

thinking, opportunity-focused attitudes and actions, and clarity about goals of family-school

connections for children’s learning. We must direct our efforts toward a process for creating a

constructive family-school connection for children’s learning.

Systems-ecological and developmental theory provides the framework for organizing the

reciprocal influences between home and school. When students are having academic or

behavioral difficulties in school, it is futile to debate whether the “cause” is at home, school, or

elsewhere. Rather, it is helpful to identify contributing factors, especially the student’s

opportunity to learn at school and outside school, and how the assessment-intervention link

empowers educators and parents in supporting the student to meet the task demands at school

(Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002). It is equally beneficial to maintain opportunity-focused rather

than problem-focused attitudes and actions. Quite simplistically, this contrast is represented by

the “glass is half full or half empty” philosophy. For example, there is no question that ethnic

diversity in schools has changed markedly in the past decade. Is this change an issue, one that

implies a barrier and/or a problem for which a solution must be found? Or, is this an opportunity

for school psychology to embrace the richness of culture and to learn how to enhance the success


of all students? Is this an opportunity for our discipline to make a contribution to close the gap

in educational outcomes for specific students?

Finally, school psychologists need to ask, Family involvement for what purpose? The

goal of family-school connections for children’s learning is to create a culture of success – one

that enhances the learning experiences, progress, and success of students. The construct of

engagement is promising. Although school personnel have underscored academic engagement

(i.e., time on task, academic learning time), I would suggest, that as school psychologists

interested in social and emotional learning, we must also consider students’ levels of cognitive

engagement (i.e., self-regulated learner, student responsibility, use learning strategies to

complete a task), behavioral engagement (i.e., participation – classroom and extra curricular,

attendance), and psychological engagement (i.e., identification with school, belonging, positive

peer relationships) – all of which are positive, significant low-to-moderate correlates of academic

achievement Christenson & Anderson, in press). Attention to the process for creating and

sustaining relationships with families to enhance student engagement at school and with learning

is essential. However, first we must understand the dramatic changes in the structure and

function of families (Kellaghan et al., 1993), changes that offer the discipline of school

psychology myriad opportunities to make a difference.

In this paper, I: (a) describe characteristics of children and families in America in 2002,

(b) delineate issues facing families, educators, and the family-school relationship, (c) summarize

opportunities relative to a process for creating stronger family-school connections for children’s

learning, and (d) articulate roles for school psychologists. The primary purpose of this paper is

to stimulate discussion. I look forward to your critique, and know that your additions and


modifications will result in an improved agenda for our discipline to make a difference in the

family-school promotion of academic, social and emotional leaning for children and youth.

Who are our Children and Families?

According to the sixth annual report to the Nation on the condition of children in

America, America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2002, there were 70.4

million children under age 18 in the United States, or 26 % of the population, down from a peak

of 36 % at the end of the baby boom (1964). Although children represent a smaller percentage

of the population today than in 1960, they are nonetheless a stable and substantial portion of the

population; children are projected to comprise 24 % of the population in 2020. Eight contextual

factors (child population, children as a proportion of the population, racial and ethnic

composition, difficulty speaking English, family structure and children’s living arrangements,

births to unmarried women, child care, and children’s environment) describe the changing

population and family context in which American children are living. For example, the foreign-

born population of the United States has increased dramatically over the past decades. In 1994,

15 % of children living in the United States had at least one foreign-born parent; by 2001 this

had increased to 19 % of children. Furthermore, the percentage of children whose parents have

less than a high school diploma is much higher among children with a foreign-born parent; in

2001, 42 % of foreign-born children with at least one foreign-born parent had a parent with less

than a high school diploma, compared with 35 % of native children with at least one foreign-

born parent and 11 % of native children with native parents. Racial and ethnic diversity of

America’s children is projected to increase more in decades to come. In 2000, 64 % of U.S.

children were white, non-Hispanic; 15 % were black, non-Hispanic; four percent were


Asian/Pacific Islander; and one percent were American Indian/Alaska Native with the number of

Hispanic children increasing faster than that of any other racial and ethnic group.

Some statistics represent challenges for schools, particularly in terms of supplemental

resources, which are needed but costly, to adequately address the learning needs of students and

their families. For example, five percent of all school-age children (ages 5 to 17) in the United

States in 1999 spoke a language other than English at home and had difficulty speaking English;

the number of children, which varies by region of the country, doubled since 1979. As of May 1,

2002, Minnesota’s school districts reported 48,680 minority language students who are English

Language Learners (ELL) (www.educ.state.mn.us/lep). Two thirds of the students in the

Minneapolis and St. Paul School districts were eligible for free and reduced lunch, and a quarter

or one third respectively received ELL services. School personnel want to reach out to these

families, but often find linguistic barriers to be overwhelming, given the availability and cost of

interpreters.

Supports for families raising children vary, and for some families are less than desirable.

For example, 65 % of mothers with children under age 6 and 78 % of mothers with children ages

6 to 13 are in the labor force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000). Additionally, more fathers

are raising children as single parents; the number of father single-parent households rose 62 % in

a decade, doubling from one to two percent of all household configurations

(www.contemporaryfamilies.org). In 2001, 61 % of children (i.e., 12 million) from birth through

age 6 (not yet in kindergarten) received some form of child care on a regular basis from persons

other than their parents, and about half of children in grades K-8 received non-parental child

care. However, availability of affordable child care is an issue; three percent of children in

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/

http://www.educ.state.mn.us/lep


grades K-3 and 25 % of children in grades 4-8 cared for themselves regularly before or after

school.

A survey conducted in Massachusetts found that 520,000 children have parents who want

more after school programming, with parents citing the following barriers: not enough programs

(51%), programs not affordable (34%), and mediocre quality of exiting programs (31%). A

majority of parents (69%) wanted school-based enrichment activities for all children until 6:00

PM, and believed additional tax dollars should be dedicated to create programs

(www.factsinaction.org). Such an effort would begin to address two other statistics. For one, we

know that children in the higher grades are more likely to engage in some kind of organized

before- or after-school activity than are children in the lower grades; however, low-income

children (less than $1500 per month) are half as likely to participate in sports, lessons, or clubs as

children from higher income families ($4500 or more per month). Second, monitoring of

child/adolescent behavior is a positive, significant correlate of school success (Steinberg,

Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991), and monitoring of high risk behavior is achieved with

age appropriate after school participation. Middle school youth left home alone after school

reported greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those who were in adult-

supervised settings (Dwyer, 1990).

One in six (11.6 million children) live in poverty and the number of parents a child lives

with is strongly linked to the resources available to children and their well-being. Also, more

than three-fourths of all poor children live in working families. Many children who are U.S.

citizens do not receive food stamps and other benefits because their parents, who are immigrants,

are unaware of the social system (www.childrensdefense.org). Children who live in a household

http://www.childrensdefense.org/

http://www.factsinaction.org/


with only one parent are substantially more likely to have incomes below the poverty line than

are children who live in a household with two parents (biological, step, or adoptive). In 2001,

69 % of American children lived with two parents, 22 % with only their mothers, four percent

only with their fathers, and four percent with neither of their parents. For the first time ever, less

than a quarter of American households consist of nuclear families

(www.contemporaryfamilies.org).

Two significant changes have occurred for families. One dramatic development is a

sharp increase in families headed by unmarried partners. Nationally, the number of unmarried

partners grew by 71 % in the 1990s. Additionally, 33 % of all births in 2000 were to unmarried

women. The second change related to affordable housing and shelter. In 1999, 35 % of U.S.

households (both owners and renters) with children had one or more of three housing problems:

physically inadequate housing, crowded housing, or housing that cost more than 30% of

household income. Homelessness is increasing, and identifying homeless and highly mobile

children and youths is required by the new Title 1 and McKinney-Vento legislation. During the

2001-02 school year, 11,840 (20.7% of registered students) of school aged children and youth

were estimated homeless in the Minneapolis Public Schools, and 3,218 (six percent of

enrollment) of school aged children and youth lived in shelters. The daily average for students

living in shelters was 600.

Twenty four indicators depict the well-being of children in four domains: economic

security, health, behavior and social environment, and education (America’s Children, 2002).

Selected statistics for the four domains are presented in Table 1; however, interested readers are

referred to www.childstats.gov/ac2002 (a 137 page document) for a more complete picture. The

economic security indicators document poverty and income among children and the accessibility

http://www.childstats.gov/ac2002

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/


of basic necessities such as food, housing, and health care. The health indicators document the

physical health and well-being of children by presenting information on their health status,

immunization coverage, death rates, and teenage births. The behavioral and social environment

indicators present information about the participation of youth in illegal or high-risk behaviors

(e.g., smoking, drinking alcohol, using illicit drugs, and engaging in serious violent crimes).

Finally, the education indicators examine how well we are succeeding in educating our children,

including preschoolers’ exposure to reading and early education, measures of student

achievement, rigorous course taking in high school, and indicators of how many young adults

complete high school and college.

Another way to describe the conditions of children’s lives in America is presented by the

Children’s Defense Fund (www.childrensdefense.org/keyfacts.htm). Twenty-five facts about

American children from the State of America’s Children Yearbook 2001 are listed in Table 2. As

school psychologists and other school personnel have known, the variability in children’s lives –

children who cross our school doors - is tremendous. Fortunately, some of the statistics are

alterable variables. For example, each day in America (based on 180 days of seven hours each)

2,543 public school students are corporally punished, 2,861 high school students drop out, and

17, 297 public school students are suspended.

Families need support so that they can assist their children’s adaptation to the demands of

schooling. For example, the Center on Education Policy has collected information on the

percentages of students who pass state high school exit exams on the first attempt (www.ecs.org).

The data, which are recent, ranging from 2000 to 2002 across 14 states, vary from 58% to 95%

of students passing, depending on content of the exam. When percentages of students passing by

subgroups for three states in Math and English are examined, the findings reveal a range of 65%

http://www.childrensdefense.org/keyfacts.htm


to 82% of all students. Asian and White students perform well; however, the subgroups of

students that are well below the rate for the total population include Black and Hispanic students,

students on free/reduced lunch, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners.

Although selected findings from the Metropolitan Life Survey suggest many favorable

teacher and student perceptions about family involvement in education (Binns, Steinberg, &

Amorosi, 1997), there were notable differences in student responses as a function of grades in

school. For example, 84% of the 1036 high school students reported that their parents were

available to help with schoolwork. However, students who received mostly A’s and B’s (87%)

reported that their parents were available to help with schoolwork, whereas 24% of students who

received grades lower than C reported that their parents were unavailable to help with

schoolwork. Also, parental interest stood out. Although 80% of students reported their parents

were very, or somewhat, helpful with problems they were having with teachers, classmates, or of

an emotional nature, 54% of the 1035 secondary teachers reported that most or many parents

took too little interest in their children’s education, citing in particular, lack of parental support

as the most frequent obstacle for students completing schoolwork at home. These data along

with the gaps noted in outcome data collected by the National Center for Educational Statistics

and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) serve to identify populations with

whom the discipline of school psychology should take special note.

How is the picture painted by the statistics helpful? Clearly, many of the statistics

represent structural or status variables (i.e., demographic characteristics) over which educators

have little or no control. Despite this, the statistics allow us to identify individual or groups of

students for whom additional educational and psychological supports may be warranted to meet

the standards and expectations set by teachers and parents, and more recently No Child Left


Behind. To ignore the apparent gaps in educational outcomes for students is to “admire the

problem.” For example, consider the national dropout rates for nonwhite students compared to

white students or the fact that performance gaps in reading and mathematics on the Minnesota

Basic Skills Test exist between the highest scoring groups of students and those classified as

ethnic and racial minorities (Davenport & Davison, 2002).

I contend that how we, as school psychologists, conceptualize the statistics is critical. Do

we view the statistics in terms of a hopeless situation (e.g., poverty rates, ELL services) or an

attribution for poor school performance? Or do we view the statistics as an opportunity for

school psychologists, in collaboration with others, to make a difference for children, to help

children and youth develop learning competencies? Do we embrace the cultural and ethnic

diversity of our country as an opportunity to learn of new ways to educate students and support

students and their families? Do we dwell on the negative percentages – percent not having the

desired characteristic – or do we see the percentage of students for whom that is not true and set

a goal to include all students? For example, do we focus on explanations for the 13% dropout

rate or do we emphasize the 87% school completion rate, striving to create family-school

interventions that enhance the probability that 100% of students will complete high school with

skill sufficiency?

To ensure better outcomes for students, the discipline of school psychology can provide

leadership in identifying groups of students for systematic intervention [e.g., district data on

mandated tests, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data], designing

mesosytemic intervention programs (i.e., supports that are focused on alterable variables to attain

standards), and evaluating the effectiveness of the family-school programs, thereby adding to our


knowledge base of evidenced-based interventions (Gutkin, in press). This, of course, means we

have the wonderful opportunity to work with diverse families.

Issues Facing Families, Educators, and the Family-School Relationship

When students are not meeting the standards in school, and one in three students is

behind a year or more in school (www.childrensdefence.org) , educators often may say, “I never

see the families I want to see.” This comment reflects a serious omission, namely, an analysis of

how school and educator practices influence parent participation. Most often barriers or issues

for parents – reasons for lack of their involvement – are delineated. This is an incomplete picture

as barriers/issues exist for families, educators, and the family-school relationship with respect to

addressing children’s learning needs.

There are many ways to categorize issues, which extend far beyond the typical logistical

concerns, albeit important, of transportation and daycare. For example, the systems-oriented

categorization of issues by Liontos (1992) - for families, educators, and the relationship - is

particularly helpful because it suggests that issues/barriers are present for the partners and the

family-school relationship (see Table 3). Conceptualizing issues for each socializing system as

well as the relationship may serve to promote perspective taking and enhance the understanding

of constraints involved for all individuals.

There is some evidence for a systems-ecological perspective to explain the extent of

parental involvement in education. For example, Smith and colleagues (1997), found empirical

support for a model in which parental background and attitudes, teacher practices, and school

and neighborhood climate were contributors to involving parents as collaborators in their child’s

schooling, both at home and school. Their work lends support for working at a systemic level by


enhancing active communication, joint problem solving, mutual support, and recognition of

overlapping roles across parents and teachers. Similarly, Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, and

Apostleris (1997) have shown that teacher practices aimed at involving parents have the

strongest impact when other factors are in place, namely when parents see themselves as

teachers, efficacious, and the context is optimal for the parent. They defined parent involvement

as the dedication of resources by the parent to the child in terms of behavior (activities at home

and school), cognitive-intellectual (intellectually stimulating, enriching environment), and

personal (knowing about child progress, keeping abreast of what child is doing). Parents were

able to dedicate these resources provided the demands of their personal lives were reasonable

and their sense of self-efficacy was adequate; situations that do not map on automatically to the

conditions of all children’s lives.

As categorized in Table 3, issues for families, educators, and the family-school

relationship can be characterized in terms of structural aspects, which tend to dominate school-

based discussions, and psychological (i.e., attitudes) aspects. Both are important; however, the

former ensures access to parents and the latter reflects the interpersonal piece with parents or

quality of family-school interaction. It is important to note that these issues are not exhaustive

and there is no belief that they are weighted equally.

Issues are not necessarily negative. In fact, they can (and I would agree with my friend

and colleague Dr. Sue Sheridan) and do present an opportunity to change practices in a way that

increases perspective taking and understanding between families and educators. Thus, the good

news is that issues, if identified, understood, and thought of as opportunities, can lead to positive

service delivery changes. It is helpful to think of an issue as a problematic situation that requires


the attention and ideas of both parties. Doing so, often leads to changes in school practices for

reaching out to families or new roles and responsibilities for families.

Issues Facing Families

Issues experienced by families related to the schooling of their children are seminal to

educators’ developing sensitivity and responsiveness to families’ needs and desires for their

children’s schooling experiences. Research has been conducted to identify parental factors that

are related to involvement in education. Home and family factors include those that are

structural or status-oriented (e.g., SES, parental education, number of adults in the home;

Grolnick et al., 1997; Lareau, 1987; Stevenson & Baker, 1987), and psychological or process-

oriented (including parents’ role conceptions, sense of self-efficacy related to involvement,

attitudes toward education, expectations for their child’s performance, and what they say and do

to communicate these to the child; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

A cautionary note for interpreting research results is in order. Research on the

relationship between family factors and parental involvement should not be interpreted to mean

that all families sharing certain demographic features are identical on any dimension. In other

words, there is likely as much variability within demographic groups as between them. Results

of research must be interpreted with the understanding that all individuals within a group are not

equal or identical in terms of what they do or believe vis-à-vis children’s learning (Phinney,

1996). Furthermore, process variables have been demonstrated to be relatively more powerful

than status variables in predicting school outcome (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991; Scott-Jones, 1987).

Based on a review of 66 studies, Henderson and Berla (1994) concluded, as have others, that the

most accurate predictors of student success in school are the ability of the family, with the help


and support of school personnel, to create a positive home learning environment, communicate

high and realistic expectations for their children’s school performance and future careers, and to

become involved in their children’s schooling. All emphasize the value of education. And,

lower-income parents are involved when the school has an inclusive policy that values and

supports families (Lewis & Henderson, 1997).

Our quandary is that parents’ sense of self-efficacy and role construction are critical

variables (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Many individuals have discovered the kernel of

truth in Delgado-Gaitan’s (1991) belief that the difference between parents who participate and

those who do not is that those who do have recognized that they are a critical part in their

children’s education. If parents do not see how they impact their children’s learning, how does

this affect educators’ efforts to partner or create home-school coordinated interventions?

Issues for Educators

In practice, issues for parents receive the most attention; however, issues for educators

must be considered equally (see Table 3). Understanding and altering these issues are necessary

as most programs suggest that the responsibility for engaging parents in education lies with

educators. Many educators are also parents; consequently, they may face many issues as they

think about reaching out to all families.

At the school level, it appears that strong leadership and administrative support are

essential to increasing meaningful family involvement. Schools that are responsive to the needs

of parents, such as providing transportation and child care, report higher levels of parental

involvement. Likewise, those that are friendly and welcoming to parents report greater success

(Berninger & Rodriguez, 1989; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989). Schools can function


as an important liaison by linking families with other resources and providing parents support

that allows them to focus more of their energy to their child’s education (Smith et al., 1997). In

that school policies communicate expectations, guidelines, and incentives, they can serve as

macrosystemic influences on the type and frequency of parental involvement. For example,

school policies may provide guidelines for the frequency and type of home-school

communication, process of parent-teacher conferences, and expectations regarding other ways of

involving parents.

Some school practices “fail” families. For example, responding only in a crisis, defining

(and labeling) the family solely by structure (e.g., single parent”), and viewing the family as

deficient are far too common examples of school practices that result in an uncomfortable

atmosphere for discussion and interaction between families and school personnel. As a result,

there is too little outreach to families and children about whom school personnel are most

concerned.

Attitudes that characterize differences as deficits are often conveyed in schools. Schools

in America generally typify a culture characteristic of a middle-class, educationally-oriented,

Euro-American lifestyle. Furthermore, schools tend to perpetuate the values, norms, and

practices of individuals who “fit into” this culture. Families who differ are often seen as

“deficient” (Davies, 1993). In many cases, there is an overemphasis on labels. Common labels

often surround “what” parents and families are (such as uneducated or poor) or what they are

failing to do (how they are failing their children) as defined by the school’s agenda.

Concomitantly, there is a lack of attention to personal characteristics of a parent or family

(“who” they are) and what they do to support their children. In fact, parents who experience

diverse ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, linguistic, and educational backgrounds are involved in


the lives of their children, regardless of whether or not they are formally involved in their school

life (Bempechat, 1998; Edwards, Fear, & Gallego, 1995). Furthermore, many families are

involved in the education of their children, albeit in ways that school personnel may not consider

because they see no concrete outcome or product (Wright & Smith, 1998).

A focus on status variables (e.g., educational level, income, family structure) rather than

individuals and actions often leads quickly to stereotypes and preconceived judgments. We fail

as educators when we form conclusions based on what we believe families need. This is

heightened when we fail to consider how families may be supporting their children’s education

already. For example, educators may believe that families need help supporting their children’s

homework, when they may not need that form of assistance at all. Rather, other forms of

assistance, such as how to best communicate with teachers or understand school policies or

practices, may be necessary. In such scenarios, it is the schools, not the families, who fail

students.

Our quandary for the relationship is that school personnel, as the formal educators, are

considered the stimulus for creating connections with parents, the informal educators

(Bronfenbrenner, 1991). If educators portray an attitude that families are “dysfunctional,” how

can a constructive partnership for children’s learning occur (e.g., Cavell, 2000)?

Issues Facing the Family-School Relationship

The responsibility for sustaining relationships for children’s learning is shared between

parents and educators. Although parents and educators prefer and strive for collaborative

relationships, in practice, many issues face the development of this kind of relationship (see

Table 3). In addition to those listed, the impact of limited assessment and intervention that


focuses on family and schools as contexts for children’s development and learning (i.e., thinking

systemically) is a primary issue facing the quality of family-school interaction. Consider also

how the different perspectives held by parents and educators influence communication between

families and educators. For example, parents are (and should be) concerned with their child’s

individual progress and needs. Educators are (and should be) focused on the progress and needs

of the whole class or group. This difference must be discussed, understood, and valued by

parents and educators as they create assessment-intervention links for individual children or the

probability of communication difficulties, often reflected in blaming and finger pointing, are

heightened.

Elements of collaboration include mutual respect for skills and knowledge, honest and

clear communication, open and two-way sharing of information, mutually agreed upon goals,

and shared planning and decision making (Vosler-Hunter, 1989). These elements are very easy

to verbalize, but often difficult to implement in practice. Parents and educators want to

communicate and collaborate; however due to the frequency of ritualized contacts (e.g., back to

school night, 15-20 minute elementary or 5 minute arena style secondary level parent teacher

conferences) there is far to little time for dialogue and problem solving (Swap, 1987). There is

no question that the structure and frequency of our interactions are issues for establishing quality

family-school relationships. Another critical issue is how the role of funding mechanisms for

children’s services precludes honest communication about referrals for services.

The issues described and listed in Table 3, can be conceptualized as problem-focused -

ones that seems insurmountable for connecting family and school for the benefit of children’s

learning. The issues can also be conceptualized as opportunity-focused – ones that provide

school psychologists with an expanded role for meeting our role as consultants for creating


successful learning environments. School psychologists, I would argue, are in an ideal position

to provide consultation and leadership with respect to how school personnel can create

constructive family-school relationships for children’s learning (i.e., the process).

Opportunities Relative to the Process of Joining Families and Schools

There is consensus that a new social contract between families and schools – one that is

partnership-oriented - is needed (Lewis & Henderson, 1997). According to Christenson and

Sheridan (2001), families and schools working as partners refers to:

A student-focused philosophy wherein educators and families cooperate, coordinate, and

collaborate to enhance learning opportunities, educational progress, and school success

for students in four domains: academic, social, emotional, and behavioral.

A belief in shared responsibility for educating and socializing children – both families

and educators are essential and provide resources for children’s learning and progress in

school. Options for active, realistic participation are created.

An emphasis on the quality of the interface and ongoing connection between families and

schools. Creating a constructive relationship (how families and educators work together

in meaningful ways) to execute their respective roles in promoting the academic and

social development of children and youth is important.

A preventive, solution-oriented focus, one where families and educators strive to create

conditions that facilitate student learning, engagement, and development.

Process variables that influence the quality of family-school connections for children’s learning

are integral to the success of this new social contract. Equally important is leadership; creating

family-school partnerships requires time and a concerted effort, one which I would encourage


school psychology to consider an exciting opportunity to enhance outcomes for students and to

provide supports for meeting established educational standards.

Four A’s – approach, attitudes, atmosphere, and actions – represent conditions necessary

for quality family-school interactions (see Table 4). Prerequisite conditions consist of approach,

attitudes, and atmosphere; they must be addressed for actions to be implemented effectively and

enhance outcomes for students. Typical school-based practices have focused on the

implementation of activities, driven by the question: How can we involve families? Offering

parent involvement activities devoid of a healthy family-school relationship have yielded less

than desired levels of active parental participation, particularly for some families.

An activity in the absence of critical prerequisites for collaboration is insufficient for

enhancing student outcomes. Focusing on process variables is important for partnering with

parents; perhaps more important than implementation of specific parent involvement activities in

isolation. Activities provide good ideas; however, not all good ideas work in every parent-

student-teacher context. A goal in selecting activities to enhance children’s and adolescent’s

academic, social, and emotional learning is to achieve a match or goodness of fit for the parent,

teacher, and student. Thus, the approach taken, attitudes parents and educators hold about each

other, and atmosphere for collaboration, set the stage for effective intervention practices to work.

School personnel who attempt to put interventions into place in the absence of constructive

attitudes and a healthy atmosphere will experience limited success.

Approach: The Framework for Interaction with Families

As argued elsewhere (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001), the framework for interaction with

families – or the approach – that is supported by several theories and research findings views


parents as essential, not merely desirable, for children’s optimal performance in school. This

approach focuses on systems perspectives; the access, voice, and ownership of parents and

educators are essential for promoting success of students with and without disabilities. For

example, consider the potential impact of parents’ and educators’ access (i.e., rights to inclusion

in decision making processes), voice (i.e., feeling that they were heard and listened to at all

points in the process), and ownership (satisfaction with and contribution to any action plan

affecting them) during family-school meetings. Critical questions for educators include: What

approach will be used to foster positive family-school connections for children’s learning? How

can the approach be communicated and implemented flexibly to allow for different or unique

situations?

Systems-ecological and developmental theory provides the broad framework for organizing

the reciprocal influences between home and school. Our goal is to understand development-in-

context by noting the relevance for child outcomes of “immediate settings” (i.e., microsystems)

and the “larger contexts” (i.e., mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems) in which the immediate

settings are embedded, focusing on reciprocal relationships among systems rather than on the

properties or practices characteristic of one system, and attending to the individual’s perception

and meaning of a given situation to make sense of the variability in the circumstances in which

children live and learn (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1992). The power of macrosystemic variables are

particularly relevant for family-school partnerships. The macrosystem encompasses the concept

of “a cultural repertoire of belief systems” (Bronfenbrenner, 1992, p. 228). To Bronfenbrenner,

the belief systems of the significant individuals in a child’s world (e.g., value of school) create a

context that influences family goals and practices, and ultimately child behavior and


performance. With respect to schools, legal mandates (e.g., No Child Left Behind, IDEA) are

macrosystemic influences that affect school-based policies and practices.

Other theoretical underpinnings for this approach exist. Coleman (1987) theorized

schools do make a difference for children; however, they do not have an equal effect on children

because educational outcomes result from the interaction of the qualities that the child brings

from home and experiences in school. According to Coleman, there is greater variation in

family resources than school resources for children’s learning. Basically, some, but not all,

children learn attitudes, skills, values, and behaviors at home that prepare them well for the tasks

of school (Sloane, 1991). Also, his notion that home and school provide different inputs for the

socialization process of children has significant implications for school psychologists to foster

motivational, not only academic, support for learning. One class of inputs - opportunities,

demands, and rewards - comes from schools; the second class of inputs - attitudes, effort, and

conception of self - comes from the social environment of the household.

Pianta and Walsh (1996) underscore the quality of relationships, represented in the

pattern of family-school interactions over time or the shared meaning that is created for the

purpose of supporting children’s learning. Specifically, they delineated the relationship in terms

of the child/family system interacting across school years with the school/schooling system.

They have denoted a clearer understanding of risk for school failure by extending the discussion

beyond status characteristics (e.g., poverty) to include the effect of the quality of family-school

relationships, or lack thereof, as a primary contributing factor to level of child risk. For

example, they opined that children are educated in low-risk circumstances if the child/family

and schooling systems are functional; home and school communicate, providing children with

congruent messages about their learning. In contrast, high-risk circumstances occur when


children derived meanings from home or school that resulted in conflicting emotions,

motivations or goals.

Risk is distributed across systems as is resilience, which is not a property of children, but

resides in the interactions, transactions, and relationships among the multiple systems that

envelop children. Children’s level of academic, social, and behavioral competence cannot be

understood or fostered by locating problems in child, family, or school in the absence of a focus

on the dynamic influence of relationships among the systems. Therefore, the kind of question

that will advance our knowledge of students’ academic, social, behavioral, and emotional

outcomes is: How are resources of the child and the learning context (total learning environment)

organized to respond to problems or help the child meet developmental demands or demands of

assigned tasks in school over time? Collectively, the work of these researchers and theoreticians

underscore the critical nature of continuity across socializing systems and the cumulative effect

of positive transactions between the child/family and schooling systems for educating children.

Practically speaking, a partnership orientation is congruent with the notion that parents

are essential. Fantuzzo, Tighe, and Childs (2000) have defined partnership as shared goals +

contributions + accountability. Note that the significant role of the student in learning outcomes

is not lost or minimized. Rather, students, in transaction with others, are active participants in

their learning (Sameroff, 1983). As noted by David Seeley in his book, Education Through

Partnership, “the product of education---learning---is not produced by schools, but by students

with the help and support of schools, parents, peers, and other community resources” (1985, p.

65).

Finally, a focus on students’ use of in- and out-of school time is a descriptive way to

encourage shared responsibility for learning outcomes. Ysseldyke and Christenson (2002) have


confirmed conditions (instructional support for learning, home-support for learning, and home-

school support for learning) that enhance the probability students will be optimally successful in

school and/or engaged as learners. Conceptualization of research findings in this manner

provides parents and educators with a common language for discussing students’ learning

progress and performance and increases understanding of the multiple influences for children’s

school success. The degree to which children’s family and school contexts are learning

environments, and complementary (not symmetrical) roles are created, represents a much

needed, new perspective for advancing educational outcomes for students.

Opportunities for school psychology. Adopting the perspective that families and the

family-school relationship are essential for the optimal performance of children and youth in

school, provides new opportunities and exciting challenges for the field of school psychology to

frame psychological and educational outcomes for children and youth in terms of a partnership.

Educators often ask: How can schools get families to support their values and practices?

Coincidentally, families often ask: How can families get schools to be responsive to their needs

and aspirations for their children? Together they seldom ask: How do we work together to

promote the educational experiences and learning opportunities, and progress and performance,

of students and/or this student? With respect to assessment and intervention practices, we can

actively include parents as assessors and presenters of reports (Harry, 1993) and maximize the

power of the target student’s use of in-school and out-of-school time with mesosytemic

interventions (e.g., Galloway & Sheridan, 1994). Throughout the assessment-intervention link,

school psychologists can model the relevance of a quality family-school partnership by fostering

bi-directional communication, enhancing problem solving across home and school, encouraging

shared decision making, and reinforcing congruent home-school support for students’ learning.


Attitudes: The Values and Perceptions Held about Family-School Relationships

Working constructively with parents is an attitude---not solely an activity to be

implemented. And yet, schools tend to be activity driven, despite the fact we know gaining the

cooperation and collaboration of parents is not primarily a function of the activities provided.

Rather, working as “partners” is way of thinking about forming connections between families

and schools. Forming connections means developing an intentional and ongoing relationship

between school and family designed to directly or indirectly enhance children’s learning and

development, and to address the obstacles that impede it (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). It is

not about how educators can “fix the family.” Critical questions for educators include: What

attitudes about family involvement, and among teachers, parents, and students, are evident? How

can positive attitudes be enhanced to promote healthy home-school relations?

Attitudes are among the most salient and powerful precursors to healthy partnerships with

parents. Constructive attitudes, which adopt a collaborative stance and make the relationship a

priority, allow school personnel and parents to ask: How can we work together to address a

concern or shared goal? The development of positive and constructive attitudes between parents

and educators is the responsibility of both educators and parents. Attitudes can be positive and

promote effective relationships, or they can be negative and preclude constructive relationships.

The good news is that parent and teacher attitudes for working as partners are known, and

existing attitudes can be altered or modified.

In collaborative relationships, there is shared ownership for identifying and working

toward solutions and goals. Likewise, there is recognition of and respect for individual and

cultural differences in developing and adapting to changes that come out of mutual and shared


decision making. Collaboration involves both equality – the willingness to listen to, respect, and

learn from one another, and parity – the blending of knowledge, skills, and ideas to enhance the

relationship, and outcomes for children. Thus, parents and teachers “share joint responsibilities

and rights, are seen as equals, and can jointly contribute to the process” (Vosler-Hunter, 1989, p.

15). There is a commitment to interdependence; that is, parents and educators in collaborative

relationships depend on one another equally and reciprocally (Welch & Sheridan, 1995). One

person cannot achieve to the best of his or her ability and contribute fully without the other. That

is, teachers cannot bear the sole responsibility for educating children to their greatest capacity

without the active involvement of families, and vice versa.

In collaborative patterns of interaction, there are clear and flexible boundaries. Each

individual (parent, teacher, school psychologist) defers to the other in their respective domain,

works together in a reciprocal and complementary fashion, and complements each other’s efforts

(Power & Bartholomew, 1987). Three important characteristics of collaboration identified by

Power and Bartholomew include: (a) the understanding of inherent constraints of systems; (b)

the lack of rigid roles and responsibilities but clearly defined boundaries; and (c) the opportunity

to voice concerns without being perceived as a “problem” by the other parties. A helpful

nonjudgmental attitude is to assume that parents (and educators) are doing the best they can.

Families and children are going to be at different points with respect to their connection to

schooling and learning, and some families are dealing with unique situations that make it

extremely difficult for them to be involved and available.

In practice, constructive attitudes are demonstrated and modeled by parents and educators

when they: (a) listen to one another’s perspective; (b) view differences as strengths; (c) focus on

mutual interests; (d) share information to co-construct understandings and interventions; (e)


respect the skills and knowledge of each other by asking for ideas and opinions; (f) plan together

and make decisions that address parents’, teachers’, and students’ needs; (g) share in decision

making about a child’s educational program; (h) share resources to work toward goal attainment;

(i) provide a common message about schoolwork and behavior; (j) demonstrate a willingness to

address conflict; (k) refrain from finding fault; and (l) commit to sharing successes (Christenson

& Sheridan, 2001).

Opportunities for school psychology. The distinction between constructive and

destructive attitudes in the family-school relationship offers new opportunities and exciting

challenges for the field of school psychology. School psychologists are in an ideal position to

embrace the attitude that the family-school relationship is a priority. There is no question that

extra time is required to collaborate with parents; however, the benefits of establishing shared

goals and delivering a unified message to students about the value of school and learning are

(and must be considered by parent and educators) to be worth the effort. Collaboration is seen as

an evolving process that enables parents and educators to develop better educational

programming. We know that behavioral and academic difficulties for students do not

“disappear” with one problem-solving session or intervention. Sometimes home and school will

work together within and across school years to continue to address mutual concerns and provide

mutual support for enhancing the learning progress of children and adolescents. Thus, educators

working as partners with parents this year strengthen the partnership for subsequent years. As a

discipline, we can help to answer:

What kinds of family-school interactions and experiences will be beneficial in

creating and reinforcing constructive attitudes?


With respect to the role of problem solving, how can school psychology provide

leadership in terms of creating and implementing problem solving structures that

include perspective taking, learning from each other, and sharing constraints of each

system?

Second, school psychologists can reinforce that positive working relationships are

fostered when educators accommodate parents by beginning where they are, not where educators

think parents should or could be. Sensitivity to differences for parents in terms of their time,

skills, and knowledge helps to avoid harsh judgments. Before concluding what is going on,

educators can strive to understand parental perspectives and desires. Some questions we, as a

discipline, should strive to answer are:

How can school psychologists reach out to parents who are identified as “hard to

reach” for the purpose of learning what would help them foster their children’s

learning competence?

How can school psychology learn from and be responsive to the needs of parents

whose children are not being successful in school and/or parents of groups of children

who represent “gaps” in educational outcomes at a national level?

Atmosphere: The Climate in Schools for Families and Educators

An atmosphere that facilitates collaborative, family-school partnerships is one that is

characterized by trust, effective communication, and a mutual problem-solving orientation

(Christenson, 1995). Quality family-school interactions result in participants feeling more

connected, optimistic, respected, and empowered with respect to supporting the student’s overall

learning progress (CORE Model; Minke, 2000). It is the responsibility of both educators and


parents to communicate openly and honestly to build a climate conducive for meaningful and

effective interactions on behalf of children. However, of particular importance is the degree to

which educators have examined the school climate to ensure that it is welcoming and inclusive

for all families. In a recent study of ethnically diverse parents’ perspectives of welcoming

environments in an urban school district in the Midwest, 85% of parents (N=240) reported

feeling very welcome at their child’s school (Zorka, Godber, Hurley, & Christenson, 2002). The

researchers found that parents overwhelmingly identified relationship variables as the most

significant determinants of welcoming school environments. Furthermore, parental perspectives

did not vary as a function of ethnicity (white vs. nonwhite) or educational service delivery

(regular vs. special education); however there were significant differences as a function of school

level (elementary vs. secondary). Elementary schools were viewed as more welcoming on

several dimensions.

Schools want parents involved, but involvement depends on parents being invited,

informed and feeling included. Unfortunately, not all school practices invite, inform and include

families - especially for families where cultural capital (i.e., knowledge of school policies and

practices) is low. Critical questions to be addressed are: In what type of atmosphere will

families, educators, and students interact? How can the atmosphere facilitate a constructive

home-school interface?

A prerequisite to any effort to involve parents in educational partnerships is an

atmosphere characterized by trust (Haynes, Ben-Avie, Squires, Howley, Negron, & Corbin,

1996). Adams and Christenson (1998) have defined trust as “confidence that another person will

act in a way to benefit or sustain the relationship, or the implicit or explicit goals of the

relationship, to achieve positive outcomes for students” (p. 6). We know trust is an intangible


characteristic that develops over time with repeated contact and exposure. However, we also

know that trust building between home and school often runs counter to practices in schools

wherein quick and efficient solutions are sought. In many such circumstances, efficiency is

valued over the interaction process that requires time to build trusting relationships and get to

know one other. Too often parental involvement is initiated in the midst of a crisis situation, such

as when a child’s behavior at school becomes uncontrollable. Trust between parents and

teachers in such situations is vital to yield a positive outcome for the student (e.g., the

development and implementation of an intervention plan to address the behavioral concerns). If

trust between home and school has not already been established, the intentions, communications,

and subsequently, outcomes for the student will be less than optimal.

It is a reality that some families may be willing to trust school personnel more readily

than others, particularly if they are accustomed to the traditional practices and norms established

in schools. Family members who vary in terms of culture, values, or language may appear more

hesitant to interact freely and openly. “One-shot” events or interactions with family members do

not allow educators to learn about family beliefs, practices, values, or preferences. They do not

allow families to explore their feelings about the school microsystem, or their comfort level with

adults in that environment who may be different from them on a number of important

dimensions. And, they do not provide ongoing opportunities to allow parents and educators to

learn from and about each other, increase acceptance of each other, and build trust with each

other. Many parents may avoid interfacing with school personnel due to their own feelings of

insecurity or uncertainty about what the school promotes or believes. They may view the school

as an institution that is static, unwelcoming, distant, and inflexible. This is particularly likely for


parents whose previous experiences with schools and other agencies have been adversarial,

intimidating, or otherwise uncomfortable.

Data from two studies examining parent and teacher differences in trust are informative

with respect to the role of teacher attitudes within the family-school relationship (Adams &

Christenson, 1998; 2000). Because teacher and school practices have been shown to be a strong

predictor of parent involvement (Dauber & Epstein, 1993), a critical concern raised by their

findings is how teacher attitude can serve as a deterrent to parent involvement. In general, the

researchers found that parent trust of teachers was significantly higher than teacher trust of

parents at elementary, middle, and high school grade levels; however, significant differences

between parents and teachers emerged only at elementary and high school levels. They also

found that parent trust for teachers was significantly higher at the elementary than the middle or

high school levels, and teacher trust for parents was significantly higher for elementary than for

high school teachers. Regardless of school level, parents and teachers identified communication

and parental dedication to education as important means to increasing mutual trust between

families and schools, and satisfaction with the parent-teacher relationship was a predictor of trust

for both parents and teachers. Finally, parent trust for teachers was a significant, positive

correlate of credits earned per year, GPA, and attendance for students in grades 9 – 12, although

the amount of variance accounted for was very low (i.e., 4%).

Effective communication, considered by many as the foundation of all family

involvement in education, sets the tone for a positive atmosphere or “climate building” between

family and schools. According to Weiss and Edwards (1992), an underlying goal of

communication is “to provide consistent messages to families that the school will work with

them in a collaborative way to promote the educational success of the student” (p. 235).


Accordingly, all communications should strive to convey at least four consistent themes to

families: the desire to develop a working partnership with families, the crucial nature of family

input for children’s educational progress, importance of working together to identify a mutually

advantageous solution in light of concerns, and clarity about conditions that foster students’

academic, social, behavioral, and emotional learning. Of the 8 guidelines for communication

that have been articulated by Christenson & Sheridan (2001), three deserve particular emphasis:

ensuring that parents have needed information to support children’s progress; creating formal

and informal opportunities to communicate and build trust between home and school, which is

the “essential lubrication” for more serious intervention; and underscoring all communication

with shared responsibility between families and schools (e.g., discussing co-roles, partnership

agreements).

Communication must inform parents about the policies and practices of schools, ways to

enhance students’ learning and development, and monitoring students’ progress. In a study

sponsored by the National Association of School Psychologists, parents (regardless of income

level, ethnicity, or their child’s academic and behavioral performance) overwhelmingly indicated

they would use information on how schools function (e.g., how grades are earned, scheduling,

transitions, homework) to assist their children’s school performance (Christenson, Hurley,

Sheridan, & Fenstermacher, 1997). In fact, the top 11 of 33 parent involvement activities (with

the exception of establishing before and after school programs) were oriented toward informing

parents about school and student learning and behavior. Also, on our Early Truancy Prevention

Project implementing Check & Connect, a school engagement model, with 363 elementary

students at high risk for school failure, parents have overwhelmingly reported that they desire

more information about their children’s ongoing progress and performance in school (Lehr,


personal communication). Finally, we must be concerned about “disconnects” between home

and school perspectives and practices. For example, a recent national study (Chen, 2001)

revealed discrepancies between schools’ and parents’ reports on school practices, particularly

related to conveying information and including parents in decision making. For each school

practice, public K-8 school personnel were more likely than parents to indicate that schools used

the practice. Our concern must be focused on why educators’ practices are not informing parents

as intended.

Adopting a mutual problem-solving orientation or shared decision making is yet another

opportunity to communicate effectively with families, particularly in terms of providing

optimistic and realistic messages about students’ learning competence. Effective communication

not only informs, but it invites parents to participate and includes parents in decision making.

Problem solving structures provide an opportunity for bi-directional communication, view

parents and school personnel as resources for addressing educational concerns, and help to foster

optimism about what the partners can accomplish by working together.

Opportunities for school psychology. Creating an atmosphere for effective collaboration

provides new opportunities and exciting challenges for the field of school psychology. School

psychologists (and educators) must be concerned both about access to and relationships with

families. Consider the following:

The potential impact of leadership by school psychology to ensure that ample trust

building events between parents and schools (e.g., multi-cultural potlucks/student

celebrations, principal’s hour, family fun nights, committees designed to address home-

school issues, workshops where parents and school personnel learn together) occur before


serious decisions are made with respect to educational programming (e.g., special

education placement, grade placement).

The potential impact of leadership by school psychology to address home-school

communication in terms of streamlined system-wide strategies (regular progress reports,

contact time and person) as well as teacher specific or individual strategies (for unique

situations) on blaming.

The potential impact of leadership by school psychology to ensure that all families, even

those with limited contact with schools and/or negative personal experience with schools,

understand the language of schooling (i.e., how schools function).

The potential impact of school psychology to remove obstacles for families that

inadvertently discourage active participation (e.g., provide information systematically to

parents about children’s school performance and resources (materials, consultation time)

to assist student learning).

The potential impact of leadership by school psychology in fostering shared

responsibility for educational outcomes by inviting parental assistance to resolve school-

based concerns, helping parents foster personal goals for children and youth, and finding

out what parents desire to fulfill their commitment to their children’s educational success.

The potential impact of leadership by school psychology for describing service delivery

to parents in a non-pejorative way, i.e., one that focuses on the kinds of supports parents

would find helpful to assist their child’s learning. Parental needs vary; perhaps there are

parents who need information (i.e., information only), need attention to unique situational

demands/circumstances in the family context (i.e., information + attention), and need

support on an ongoing basis (i.e., information + attention + support).


The potential impact of leadership by school psychology for working with diverse

families to ensure they, and their children, feel connected at school and with learning. We

have much to learn from families. For example, what does the purpose of education mean

to families from varied cultural backgrounds? How do families see their roles vis-à-vis

their children’s schooling? How can we truly embrace (and help others to) cultural

differences and address the needs of non-English speaking families or parents of students

identified as English-Language Learners?

Actions: Strategies for Building Shared Responsibility

Partnerships to enhance student learning outcomes and experiences require shared goals

+ shared contributions + shared accountability. Specific actions must be implemented to foster

partnerships; a concerted effort is required. Critical questions include: What actions will be

taken to achieve a balanced, collaborative relationship to address learning for students? How

will these actions address the primary goal of promoting partnerships for children’s learning?

Christenson and Sheridan (2001) have described in detail seven broad actions to enhance

family-school connections for children’s learning: garnering administrative support, acting as a

systems advocate, implementing family-school teams, increasing problem solving across home

and school, identifying and managing conflict, supporting families, and helping teachers improve

communication and relationships with families. Actions are purposefully distinguished from

activities, because actions focus on the relationship or connection between family and school for

children’s school performance, whereas activities represent a narrow focus on how to involve

families in education. Thus, actions are oriented toward building shared responsibility for

educational outcomes. To be successful in this goal, school personnel must consider pre-


requisite conditions that set a tone for partnership, namely the approach adopted toward the role

of families, the degree to which constructive attitudes between families and educators exist, and

the atmosphere or climate present for participation and interaction between families and

educators in their particular school context. Approach, attitudes, and atmosphere are the

“backdrop” for successful application of actions.

Opportunities for school psychology. Actions to build a strong connection for children’s

learning with families, including diverse families, abound and present the discipline of school

psychology with new opportunities and exciting challenges. Consider the following:

What would an analysis of current school practices for working with or interacting with

families reveal? I suspect such an analysis would reveal infrequent use of practices that

focus on family and schools as contexts for children’s development and learning (e.g.,

bi-directional communication strategies; routine articulation of clear parent, teacher, and

student roles and responsibilities for improved outcomes during parent-teacher

conferences, family-school problem solving meetings, and IEP meetings or in the form

of a system-wide partnership agreement or contract).

How might school psychology work with other school personnel and parents to develop

a comprehensive infrastructure for family-school collaboration at the district level? For

example, the Family Resource Coalition has suggested three levels: school readiness,

developmentally appropriate constructive family-school relationships K-12, and school-

linked/integrated services. In the future, I speculate that school readiness will be an even

more critical area than it is at present. We must find ways to impact early language

development to foster greater school success for students (Hart & Risley, 1995).


Using our evidence base (Christenson, 2000), how might the discipline provide

leadership to promote home and school support for learning? For example, schools tend

to emphasize the value of academic support for learning. As psychologists, and given our

knowledge base, we should also be concerned about motivational support for learning.

Bempechat (1998) has cogently called for parents and teachers to make education and

learning a priority, arguing that motivational support for learning (encouraging student

effort, reinforcing the value of learning, persisting in the face of challenge, structuring

time for studying) is critical to socialize students as learners.

Many opportunities for the discipline of school psychology to work with families have

been explicitly stated or implicitly suggested throughout this paper. From my viewpoint, the

impact of our discipline will be greater if we can hone in on fewer rather than more roles. Very

importantly, given the shortage of school psychologists, we need to be thoughtful and methodical

in how we proceed.

Roles for School Psychology

At the beginning of the 21st century, school psychologists can have a truly significant

impact on student engagement with learning, learning experiences, and educational outcomes for

all students. We can focus our efforts on the “affordance value” of students’ total learning

environment – or how the family-school context facilitates or impedes students’ adaptation to

challenges and demands of schooling. We must attend to critical macrosystemic influences such

as the effect of No Child Left Behind and high school exit exams on the learning status of

individual and groups of students as well as the national focus on teaching students to read,

which includes working with parents (i.e., Reading First). We must understand the belief


systems of families, and be sensitive to the kinds of information and supports they desire to

assist their children in meeting educational standards. And reinforcing resources families bring

to achieve the standards is also important.

I believe a viable way to think of our roles is in terms of those for the discipline of school

psychology and those for a school psychologist. What impact can we have as a discipline? As

school psychologists at a district level? As a school psychologist at a building level?

Roles for the discipline of school psychology. This is the “best of times” for the

discipline of school psychology to embrace exciting opportunities to expand our roles by

espousing the value of family and school contexts for optimal learning (i.e., thinking

systemically), working to close gaps in educational outcomes for specific students and groups of

students, and providing leadership in working with diverse families. I would encourage our field

to make family-school partnerships a priority in our assessment and intervention practices. Also,

as systems thinkers, I hope we would react to the reports on percentages of students passing

required tests disaggregated by schools. These reports may serve to demoralize many teachers

and certainly do not include parental responsibility for educational outcomes.

Our discipline can be instrumental in serving groups of students who are performing less

well than desired in our schools by creating constructive family-school partnerships to enhance

their performance, and hopefully achieve the intended consequences of implementing No Child

Left Behind or high school exit exams. As revealed by the statistics presented in this paper, we

have “gaps” in national educational outcomes. I encourage our discipline to work to embrace

with a vengeance the goal of program development and evaluation to close the gaps in

educational performance for student subgroups.


I hope our discipline will embrace working with diverse students and families, seeing this

as an incredible opportunity to make a difference in students’ learning experiences and

outcomes. In a grant writing experience this summer, I repeatedly heard from professionals at

technical assistance centers and from principals in elementary and middle schools that the most

challenging situation with respect to training needs was helping school personnel work

effectively with families from diverse backgrounds. Diversity is broad and varied, including

characteristics related to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, culture, and sexual

orientation. I hope the discipline of school psychology will embrace the concept of diversity and

strive to build capacity for families and school personnel to work together through knowledge

development and skill building opportunities.

Roles for the school psychologist. School psychologists can be very effective systems

consultants with the regards to the development of quality family-school relationships and

family-school collaborative programming. We have the capacity to consult about a process for

creating and sustaining quality family-school relationships across schools years. We have the

capacity to implement family-school teams in our schools to: (a) ensure parents’ and educators’

input to resolve meaningful student concerns, (b) create a model for ongoing data-based

problem-solving in the school, and (c) establish congruent family-school practices that promote

students’ learning. We have the capacity to implement and evaluate the effect of family-school

interventions on students’ academic, social, emotional, and behavioral learning. And, school

psychology practitioners play a major role in helping to ensure that family-school interventions

are contextualized; “one size does not fit all.” The process for creating family-school

connections for children’s learning that was articulated will be successful to the degree that it fits

the specific student-family-school context.


In no way would I discourage school psychologists’ involvement in direct services to

families. In fact, I wish school psychologists had greater opportunity to view the child/family

system as their primary client (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). However, I recognize that services to

families will vary across school contexts. In some schools, they may be a luxury; in some

schools they will undoubtedly be oriented toward reaching many parents, whether through

groups or parent support parent programs; and in other schools, consultation with individual

families may be a reality. Without a doubt, a major contribution the school psychologist can

make is to ensure that families have accurate information about their children’s school progress

and resources to assist their children. We can model inviting parents, informing and being

informed by parents, and including parents to reach learning goals for students.

A caveat about family-school partnerships. I agree with Pianta and Walsh (1996) that

children are educated in low risk circumstances when there is communication and congruent

family-school messages about students’ learning goals, expectations, and supports. As a

discipline, however, I think we would be remiss to conceptualize family-school partnerships as a

panacea for improving educational outcomes; what students and teachers do daily is paramount.

Although the benefits of family engagement with schooling is quite clear, we need also to

understand under what circumstances a family-school connection may not be beneficial.

Closing Comments: The Future

It is time to raise the bar for all children’s performance in school; creating family-school

partnerships is a viable way to enhance academic achievement and positive mental health of

youth. As stated previously, it is my hope that school psychologists will take the initiative to

raise the bar for students’ performance in school by heeding John Fantuzzo’s (1999) advice to


make “partner” a verb with all families, including those whose children may be doing less well

than desired or feel disengaged from the schooling process. With leadership, families and

educators can be partners in education and co-promoters of child and adolescent outcomes. In

doing so, they are also partners in prevention of school failure for children and youth.


References

Adams, K.S., & Christenson, S.L. (1998). Differences in parent and teacher trust levels:

Implications for creating collaborative family-school relationships. Special Services in the

Schools, 14(1/2), 1-22.

Adams, K., & Christenson, S.L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship:

Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of

School Psychology,38(5), 477-497.

August, G.J., Anderson, D., & Bloomquist, M.L. (1992). Competence enhancement

training for children: An integrated child, parent, and school approach. In S. L. Christenson & J.

C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social

competence (pp. 175-192). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Bempechat, J. (1998). Against the odds: How “at-risk” students EXCEED expectations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bernigner, J. M., & Rodriguez, R. C. (1989). The principal as a catalyst in parental

involvement. Momentum, 20(2), 32-34.

Binns, K., Steinberg, A., & Amorosi, S. (1997). The Metropolitan Life Survey of the

American Teacher 1998: Building Family-School Partnerships: Views of Teachers and Students.

New York: Louis Harris and Associates.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1991). What do families do? Part 1. Teaching Thinking and

Problem Solving, 13(4), 1, 3-5.


Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp.

187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Brown, D.T., Cardon, B.W., Coulter, W.A., & Meyers, J. (Eds.). (1982). The Olympia

proceedings. School Psychology Review, 11(2).

Cavell, T. A. (2000). Working with parents of aggressive children: A Practitioner’s

Guide. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Chen, X. (2001). Efforts by public schools to involve parents in children’s education: Do

school and parent reports agree? (NCES #076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

Christenson, S.L. (1995). Supporting home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J.

Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 253-267). Washington, DC:

National Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson, S. L. (2000). Families and schools: Rights, responsibilities, resources, and

relationship. In R.C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The Transition to kindergarten (143-177).

Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Christenson, S.L., & Anderson, A. R. (in press). The centrality of the learning context for

students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review.

Christenson, S.L., Hurley, C.M., Sheridan, S.M., & Fenstermacher, K. (1997). Parents'

and school psychologists' perspectives on parent involvement activities. School Psychology

Review, 26(1), 111-130.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential

connections for learning. NY: Guilford Press.


Coleman, J. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, August-September,

32-38.

Comer, J.P., Haynes, N.M., Joyner, E.T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole

village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dauber, S.L., & Epstein, J.L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in

inner city elementary and middle schools. In N.F. Chavkin (Eds.), Families and schools in a

pluralistic society (pp.53-72). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Davenport, E, & Davison, M. (2002). The Minnesota Basic Skills Test: Performance gaps

on the reading and mathematics tests from 1996 to 2001 by gender, ethnicity, limited English

proficiency, individual education plans, and socio-economic status. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, Office of Educational Accountability.

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From Portugal to Boston

to Liverpool. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-72).

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in the schools: A process of empowerment.

American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46.

Dwyer, K.M. (1990). Characteristics of eighth grade students who initiate self-care in

elementary and junior high school. Pediatrics, 86(3), 276-292.

Edwards, P. A., Fear, K. L., & Gallego, M. A. (1995). Role of parents in responding to

issues of linguistic and cultural diversity. In E. E. Garcia, B. McLaughlin, G. Spodek, & O.

Saracho (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood

education (pp. 141-153). New York: Teachers College Press.


Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.

Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A

multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376.

Galloway, J., & Sheridan, S.M. (1994). Implementing scientific practices through case

studies: Examples using home-school interventions and consultation. Journal of School

Psychology, 32, 385-413.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of

parent involvement in schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538-548.

Gutkin, T. (Ed.). (in press). Miniseries on evidence-based interventions in school

psychology, School Psychology Quarterly, 17.

Harry, B. (1993). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system:

Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Haynes, N.M., Ben-Avie, M., Squires, D.A., Howley, J.P., Negron, E.N., & Corbin, J.N.

(1996). It takes a village: The SDP school. In J.P. Comer, N.M. Haynes, E.T. Joyner, & M.

Ben-Avie (Eds.), Rallying the whole village: The Comer Process for reforming education (pp.

42-71). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Haynes, N.M., Comer, J.P., & Hamilton-Lee, H.M. (1989). School climate enhancement

through parental involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87-90.

Henderson, A.T., & Berla, N. (Eds.) (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is

critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in

Education.


Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in

their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.

Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B. & Bloom, B.S. (1993). The home environment

and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The

importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Liontos, L.B. (1992). At-risk families and schools: Becoming partners. Eugene, OR:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.

Lewis, A. C., & Henderson, A. T. (1997). Urgent message: Families crucial to

school reform. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.

Merseth, K.K., Schorr, L.B., & Elmore, R.F. (1999, September). Schools, community-

based interventions, and children’s learning and development: What’s the connect? The CEIC

Review, 8(2), 6-7, 17.

Minke, K.M. (2000). Preventing school problems and promoting school success through

family-school-community collaboration. In K.M. Minke & G.C. Bear (Eds.). Preventing school

problems – Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (377-420). Bethesda,

MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Moles, O. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles

and openings. In Chavkin, N. (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 21-49).

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Nord, C.W., & West, J. (2001). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in their children’s

schools by family type and resident status. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Yu, H.C. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family,

peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?

American Psychologist, 51(9), 918-927.

Pianta, R., & Walsh, D.B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing

sustaining relationships. NY: Routledge.

Power, T.J., & Bartholomew, K.L. (1987). Family-school relationship patterns: An

ecological assessment. School Psychology Review, 16(4), 498-512.

Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.M., Jones, J.,

Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L.H., & Udry, J. (1997).

Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on adolescent

health. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 (10), 823-832.

Sameroff, A.J. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In P. H. Mussen

(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 237-293). New York: Wiley & Sons

Scott-Jones, D. (1987). Mother-as-teacher in the families of high- and low-achieving

low-income Black first-graders. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 21-34.

Seeley, D. S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral

consultation: A procedural manual. New York: Plenum.


Sloane, K.D. (1991). Home support for successful learning. In S.B. Silvern (Ed.),

Advances in reading/language research: Vol. 5. Literacy through family, community, and

school interaction (pp. 153-172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Smith, E.P., Connell, C.M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J.M., Hurley, A., & Walker,

S.N. (1997). An ecological model of home, school, and community partnerships: Implications

for research and practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 339-360.

Steinberg, L., Mounts, N.S., Lamborn, S.D., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Authoritative

parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 1(1), 19-36.

Stevenson, D., & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school

performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Swap, S. (1987). Enhancing parent involvement in schools. New York: Teachers college

Press.

Swap, S.M. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice.

New York: Teacher College Press.

Talley, R.C., Kubiszyn, T., Brassard, M., & Short, R.J. (Eds.). (1996). Making

psychologists in schools indispensable: Critical questions and emerging perspectives.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Vosler-Hunter, R.W. (1989). Changing roles, changing relationships: Parent and

professional collaboration on behalf of children with emotional disabilities. Portland, OR:

Portland State University, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s

Mental Health.


Webster-Stratton, C. (1993). Strategies for helping school-age children with oppositional

defiant and conduct disorders: The importance of home-school partnerships. School Psychology

Review, 22, 437-457.

Weiss, H.M., & Edwards, M.E. (1992). The family-school collaboration project:

Systemic interventions for school improvement. In S.L. Christenson & J.C. Conoley (Eds.),

Home-school collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 215-

243). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence-

enhancement and prevention programs. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. A.

Renninger (Vol. Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th

ed., pp. 877-954). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Welch, M., & Sheridan, S.M. (1995). Educational partnerships: Serving students at risk.

San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Wright, G., & Smith, E.P. (1998). Home, school, and community partnerships:

Integrating issues of race, culture, and social class. Clinical Child and Family Psychology

Review, 1, 145-162.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Christenson, S.L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of Academic

Behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Weinberg, R.A. (Eds.). (1981). The future of psychology in the

schools: Proceedings of the Spring Hill symposium. School Psychology Review 10(2).

Zill, N., & Nord, C.W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a

changing economy and an individualistic society. Washington, DC: Child Trends.


Zorka, H., Godber, Y., Hurley, C., & Christenson, S.L. (2002, February). The School

Welcoming Study: Diverse Parent Perspectives on Welcoming School Environments. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago.


Table 1Selected Statistics of Children and Families______________________________________________________________________

Economic Security Indicators In 2000, 16 percent of children lived in families with incomes below the poverty

threshold, which represents the lowest poverty rate among children since 1979. The percentage of children who had at least one parent working full time, all year has

steadily increased from 70 percent in 1980 to 80 percent in 2000. In 2000, 18 percent of children lived in households reporting any level of food insecurity.

Health Indicators By 2000, 70 percent of children living in poverty and 85 percent of children living at or

above poverty were in very good or excellent health. The birth rate for adolescents continued to decline in 2000 to 27 births per 1,000 females

ages 15 to 17, representing the lowest rate ever recorded.

Behavior and Social Environment Indicators Cigarette use among 8th and 10th graders shows continued indications of decline from

2000 to 2001; however, daily smoking rates did not change significantly for high school seniors.

Since 1993, the violent crime victimization rate and the violent crime offending rate for youth ages 12 to 17 has decreased by 63 and 67 percent respectively.

Education Indicators In 2001, 58 percent of children ages 3 to 5 were read to daily by a family member;

however the rates varied as a function of mother’s educational level (73 percent of children whose mother’s graduated from college; 42 percent whose mothers did not finish high school).

In 1999, among children ages 3-5 not yet enrolled in kindergarten, those with multiple risk factors (i.e., status variables) were generally less likely than those without risk factors or with only one to engage in literacy activities frequently with their families.

In 2000, 87 percent of young adults had completed high school with a diploma or an alternative credential (e.g., GED).

In 2001, 33 percent of high school graduates ages 25-29 had earned a bachelor’s or a higher degree. Although white, non-Hispanic were more likely than nonwhite students to earn degrees, the percentage of black, non-Hispanic college graduates increased from 14 percent in 1985 to 20 percent in 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________ Source: America’s Children (2002). www.childstats.gov

http://www.childstats.gov/


Table 2Twenty-five Key Facts About America’s Children__________________________________________________________________________

1 in 2 will live in a single parent family at some point in childhood 1 in 3 is born to unmarried parents 1 in 3 will be poor at some point in their childhood 1 in 3 is behind a year or more in school 1 in 4 lives with only one parent 2 in 5 never completes a single year of college 1 in 5 was born poor 1 in 5 is born to a mother who did not graduate from high school 1 in 5 has a foreign-born mother 3 in 5 preschoolers have their mother in the labor force 1 in 6 is poor now 1 in 6 is born to a mother who did not receive prenatal care in the first three months of

pregnancy 1 in 7 has no health insurance 1 in 8 lives in a family receiving food stamps 1 in 8 never graduates from high school 1 in 8 is born to a teenage mother 1 in 12 has a disability 1 in 13 was born with a low birth weight 1 in 15 lives at less than half the poverty level 1 in 24 lives with neither parent 1 in 26 is born to a mother who received late or no prenatal care 1 in 60 sees their parents divorce in any year 1 in 139 will die before their first birthday 1 in 1,056 will be killed by guns before age 20

Source: Children’s Defense Fund (2001). www.childrensdefense.org


Table 3Issues for Families, Educators, and the Family-School Relationship________________________________________________________________________

FamiliesStructural Issues

Lack of role models, information, and knowledge about resources Lack of supportive environment and resources (e.g., poverty, limited access to

services) Economic, emotional, and time constraints Child care and transportation

Psychological Issues Feelings of inadequacy Adopting a passive role by leaving education to schools Linguistic and cultural differences, resulting in less “how to” knowledge about

how schools function and their role Suspicion about treatment from educators Experiencing a lack of responsiveness to parental needs

EducatorsStructural Issues

Lack of funding for family outreach programs Lack of training for educators on how to maintain a partnership with families Time constraints

Psychological Issues Ambiguous commitment to parent involvement Use of negative communication about students’ school performance and

productivity Use of stereotypes about families, such as dwelling on family problems as an

explanation for students’ performance Stereotypic views of people, events, conditions, or actions that are not descriptive

of behavior, but portray a casual orientation. Doubts about the abilities of families to address schooling concerns Fear of conflict with families Narrow conception of the roles families can play

Family-School RelationshipStructural Issues

Limited time for communication and meaningful dialogue Communication primarily during crises Limited contact for building trust within the family-school relationship Limited skills and knowledge about how to collaborate Lack of a routine communication system


Limited understanding of the constraints faced by the other partner

Psychological Issues Partial resistance toward increasing home/school cooperation Lack of belief in a partnership orientation to enhance student learning/ development

influences interactions A blaming and labeling attitudes that permeates the home/school atmosphere A win-lose rather than a win-win attitude in the presence of conflict. Tendencies to personalize anger-provoking behaviors by the other individual. Misunderstanding differences in parent-educator perspectives about children’s

performance Psychological and cultural differences that lead to assumptions and build walls Limited use of perspective taking or empathizing with the other person Limiting impressions of child to observations in only one environment Assumption that parents and teachers must hold identical values and expectations Failure to view differences as a strength Previous negative interactions and experiences between families and schools Failure to recognize the importance of preserving the family-school relationship

across timeSources: Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Liontos, 1992; Moles, 1993; Weiss & Edwards, 1992.

Table 4A Process for Creating and Sustaining Family-School Relationships for Children’s Learning


__________________________________________________________________________

Approach: The framework for interaction with families Parents are viewed as essential, not merely desirable, for children’s optimal learning

outcomes. The family-school relationship impacts students’ academic, social, behavioral, and

emotional learning. The power of the synergistic effect of home and school and the interaction of different

inputs or resources for socialization of the child as a learner is considered. Positive habits of learning are maximized when there is congruence across home and

school about the value of education and support for educational programming. There is less risk for school failure when shared goals and meaning are established over

time. The engagement of the student with the support of home, school, and peers is critical.

Attitudes: The values and perceptions held about family-school relationships An attitude that embraces collaboration as a central mode of operating. An attitude that parents are integral to attaining optimal educational goals for students. An attitude that maintains the focus of the family-school connection on student progress

and success. An attitude that considers the effect of mutual influences (“ no pure school time or home

time”) on student performance in school. An attitude that values sharing information about the child’s academic and social

behavior across settings to “co-construct” the bigger picture. An attitude that encourages active parental involvement in decision making; educators

invite, inform, and include parents to help address concerns for students’ learning. An attitude that promotes problem solving and no-fault interactions, and suspends

judgment and jumping to conclusions. An attitude that fosters a positive and strength-based orientation – parents and teachers

are doing the best they can. An attitude that reflects there are no problematic individuals (parents, teachers or

students), only a problematic situation that requires the attention of the student, home, and school, all for the benefit of the student.

An attitude that preserving the family-school relationship is paramount. An attitude that emphasizes perspective taking across home and school. A “win-win” attitude in the presence of conflict is essential---the needs of parents,

teachers, and students must be considered in educational programming.

Atmosphere: The climate in schools for families and educators A climate that aims to build trust between families and schools. A welcoming climate focuses on relationship building. Use of bi-directional communication strategies that stress working together to improve

educational outcomes for groups of and individual students. A climate that ensures parents are invited, informed, and included in decision making.


A climate that stresses parents’ and educators’ access, voice, and ownership in decision making.

A problem-solving, non-blaming climate that fosters hope and optimism for children’s learning.

Actions: Strategies for Building Shared Responsibility Garnering administrative support. Acting as a systems advocate. Implementing family-school teams. Increasing problem solving across home and school. Identifying and managing conflict. Supporting families. Helping teachers improve communication and relationships with families.

___________________________________________________________________________ Source: Christenson & Sheridan (2001).


Author Notes

1. Several sections of this paper are drawn word for word from the book, Schools and families: Creating essential connections for children’s learning, co-authored by my friend and colleague, Dr. Susan Sheridan. I also want to acknowledge her thoughtful comments during my preparation of this paper.

2. The statistics for this paper have been drawn from the indicated web sites. To avoid any misrepresentation, I have reported them in almost all cases word for word as indicated from the specific source.

3. The author is aware that funding for school psychology positions is linked to federal special education dollars; however, the author is also aware that discretionary funds are being used to fund positions in schools, presumably because the school psychologist is “indispensable” in fostering better adaptation to the learning environment or outcomes for students.

4. The terms parent and family have been used interchangeably in this paper. Also, the author recognizes that many students live with guardians and extended family such as grandparents. All terms should be thought of as potential individuals with whom educators build a relationship to enhance children’s learning.

Families, Educators, and the Family-School …futures/Christ.doc · Web viewFamilies, Educators,...

Documents

Transcript of Families, Educators, and the Family-School …futures/Christ.doc · Web viewFamilies, Educators,...