Empirical Support for Family Involvement in Education:
Success for All Students
Sandra
L. Christenson, Ph.D.
Dept. of Educational Psychology
School Psychology Program
350 Elliott Hall/75 East River Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
"Thirty
years of research show that greater family involvement in children's
learning is a critical link to achieving a high-quality education and
a safe, disciplined learning environment for every student. "
Strong
Families, Strong Schools, 1994, p. iii
Background
The
purpose of this handout is to summarize: (a) the empirical database
for family-school collaboration as a means for enhancing student outcomes,
and (b) some guidelines for program development.
We
know the central role that the home plays in children's school learning
has long been recognized; however, recent years have seen a surge in
the development of programs to increase family involvement in education
(Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993). Three reasons for this
are: (1) the cumulative impact of research findings that underline the
importance of the home in contributing to children's school progress;
(2) reform efforts focused on school and teacher practices, such as
new curricula and strategies, have not been as successful in improving
achievement as had been hoped; and (3) dramatic changes in the structure
and function of families has given rise to concern about families' abilities
provide the conditions that foster children's school progress.
There
has been an erosion of social capital within families and communities.
Social capital in the family refers to the presence of adults and frequency
of adult-child interactions about academic, social, and personal matters.
In the community, social capital includes norms of social behavior and
control, as well as family support networks. According to Coleman (1987),
the impact of the erosion of social capital is that a growing number
of children are unprepared to perform successfully in schools. Finn
suggests that addressing the question, "How can social capital
be generated where it does not naturally occur?", ought to be one
of the premier policy questions of the 1 990s. Family-school collaboration
offers promise for increasing social capital for students.
Family-school
partnerships are about students...about better school progress and performance
for students in grades K-12. Outcomes for students are considered broader
than achievement; they include several student outcomes, including graduating
from high school.
Educators
have always valued parent involvement in education. Currently, there
is more rhetoric than reality to parent involvement, which more recently
is referred to as family involvement. In a traditional approach much
emphasis is placed on parent involvement, or involving parents in ways
to address the school's agenda. Schools designate prescribed roles for
parents, which are often traditional roles such as volunteering, fundraising,
or helping with homework. These roles are described in the context that
parent help is needed to accomplish a task for the school; therefore,
parents are seen as desirable in specific situations. Another defining
feature of the traditional approach relates to the underlying assumption
that families and educators have separate roles and responsibilities
in educating and socializing children and youth. Because of the separate
responsibilities, there tends to be limited contact between educators
and parents, and often the contact is at prescribed times, such as parent-teacher
conferences or back -to-school nights. Often the contact is precipitated
by a child concern or crisis. In addition, one-way communication is
the norm; the direction of communication is mostly from schools to homes,
often in the form of school-determined recommendations for families.
Finally, it is helpful to examine who is involved when a traditional
approach is used. Generally, parents of primary grade children or those
for whom there is a match between the approach ( culture, attitude,
style, philosophy) of the school and the family tend to be most involved.
In this approach, educators measure success in terms of the number of
parents or which parents attend school functions and participate at
school.
The
goal of a partnership approach to family involvement in education is
to enhance the success of all children in school: to improve educational
experiences and outcomes for students. To do so, families and educators
recognize the need to share information and resources. Both home and
school are viewed as essential for children's optimal progress in school.
There is a recognition that two systems working together can accomplish
more than either system can accomplish separately, and that both families
and educators have legitimate roles and responsibilities in the partnership.
However, the emphasis is not on roles, particularly on the roles families
can play for education. Rather, the emphasis is on relationships; specifically,
how families and educators work together to promote the academic and
social development of students. Families and educators interact differently.
They model collaboration by listening to each other's perspective and
viewing differences as a strength, sharing information to co-construct
the big pictures about children's performance, respecting the skills
and knowledge of each other, and planning together and making decisions
that address parents', teachers', and students' needs. Interactions
are based in a problem-solving and no-fault orientation; the partners
are uninterested in "who is to blame for the problem" and
interested in "who is responsible for a solution." In sum,
a partnership approach: (a) focuses the goal of family involvement on
enhanced success for students, (b) develops a relationship based on
shared decision making and mutual contributions toward a common goal,
and (c) strives to provide students with a consistent message about
their schoolwork and behavior.
We
know there is an available critical mass for greater family involvement
in education. For example: (a) 40% of parents across the United States
believe they are not devoting enough time to their children's education;
(b) teachers ranked strengthening parents' roles in their children's
learning as the issue that should receive the highest priority in public
education policy in the 1 990s; (c) among students aged 10 to 13, 72%
said they would like to talk to their parents about schoolwork, 48%
of older adolescents (14-17 years old) agreed; and (d) 89% of business
executives identified lack of parent involvement as the biggest obstacle
to school reform (Strong Families, Strong Schools, 1994). The conditions
for enhancing family involvement in education are changing. Promise
for moving from "rhetoric to reality" for family involvement
may lie in the increased interest of key stakeholders.
Empirical
Basis for Family Involvement in Education
1.
We know the product of family involvement in education. Benefits
for all key stakeholders-students, teachers, parents, and schools-have
been described in numerous integrative literature reviews (Christenson,
Rounds, & Franklin, 1992). For example, when parents are involved
in schooling, we know that: (a) Students show improvement in grades,
test scores, self-esteem, attitudes, and behavior; complete more homework;
are more engaged in classroom learning activities; and have higher attendance
rates and greater post-secondary education, and a reduction in dropout
and suspension rates; and greater realization of exceptional talents;
(b) Teachers are recognized by parents for better interpersonal and
teaching skills, are evaluated higher on teaching performance by principals,
and indicated greater satisfaction with their jobs, requesting fewer
transfers; (c) Parents show a greater understanding of the work of schools,
improve their communication with their children in general and about
school work in particular, increase their communication with educators,
and are more involved in learning activities at home; and (d) Schools
are rated as more effective, and there are more successful school programs
(see Christenson, Hurley, Sheridan, & Fenstermacher, in press).
Parent involvement enhances positive home-school relationships, especially
in ongoing, problem-preventing ways (Rich, 1987). Given that the database
is replete with correlation studies, to attribute a causal link between
family environments and educational performance is unfounded.
Implication
for Intervention: Families are potential facilitators, not determinants,
of their children's educational success.
2.
We know that benefits for parents, teachers, and students differ
as a function of type of family involvement. Epstein (1995) has
developed a model of family-school partnerships that involves six types
of activities: parenting, communicating, volunteering, home learning
activities, shared decision making and governance, and community support.
What is clear, is parents can be involved in education, without coming
to school. She has demonstrated that expected results for key stakeholders
are different for different activities, and that student achievement
is not influenced by all types of involvement. For example, parenting
activities have resulted in improved attendance for students, greater
awareness of own and others' challenges in parenting for parents, and
more respect for families' strengths and efforts for teachers. Home
learning activities have resulted in greater homework completion or
gains in skills for students, increased knowledge of how to support
and help students at home for parents, and better design of homework
assignments and respect of family time for teachers. Finally, decision
making activities have resulted in awareness of representation of families
in school decisions for students, feeling of ownership of school for
parents, and awareness of parent perspectives as a factor in policy
development and decisions for teachers.
Implication
for Intervention: Different benefits are evidenced as a result of different
involvement activities. Options for family involvement are important
and need to be developed to address the needs of each site.
3.We
know home influences can differentiate high and low achievers. Sloane
(1991) succinctly described the conclusion by home-school researchers
about the effect of meaningful parent involvement on children's educational
performance when she stated, "It is now well accepted that the
home plays an important role in children's learning and achievement.
Some children learn values, attitudes, skills, and behaviors in the
home that prepare them well for the tasks of school" (p. 145, emphasis
added). The key word here is some; the issue of equity is apparent.
An important "triangle" of research findings that address
inequality for students exists (Christenson, 1995). We know parents,
regardless of educational level, income status, or ethnic background,
want their children to be successful in school. We also know that many
parents are uncertain about how to help their children with schoolwork,
how to support their children's schooling, and what their role is vis-a-vis
their children's education. Many parents say they would be willing to
spend more time on activities with children if educators gave them more
guidance (Epstein, 1991). And, we know that what schools do to reach
out to parents, or what schools do to involve parents, is a strong predictor
of parent involvement. School practices were a stronger predictor of
parent involvement than were parents' educational level, income status,
or ethnic background (Epstein, 1991). All parents want information from
schools-particularly about how schools function, child/adolescent development
and learning requirements, and parents' role in supporting their children.
Implication
for Intervention: Families need information about children, school policies
and practices, and what they can do to assist their children as learners
to be active partners. Schools can address inequity for students.
4.
We know that family process variables are considered more important
than family status variables for student outcomes (Christenson et
al., 1992; Kellaghan et al., 1993). Family process variables (what parents
do to support learning) predict scholastic ability better than do family
status variables (what families are). Kellaghan et al. (1993) report
that social class or family configuration predicts up to 25% of variance
in achievement, while family process variables (e.g., discuss homework,
consistent routines) predict up to 60% of variance in achievement. Furthermore,
the considerable variation in family environments within social class
has led to the conclusion that what parents do vis-a-vis their children's
education is more important than who they are.
What
matters the most for student achievement is the degree to which parents
are able to provide positive educational experiences for their children
(Milne, 1989). Across several studies of families with varying income
and ethnic backgrounds, the presence of three factors in homes was strongly
associated with student achievement: strong, consistent values about
the importance of education; willingness to help children and intervene
at schools; and ability to become involved (Mitrsomwang & Hawley,
1993, cited in Henderson & Berla, 1994). Milne (1989) states, "Family
structures are not inherently good or evil per se; what is important
is the ability of the parent to provide proeducational resources for
their children-be they financial, materials, or experiential."
Implication
for Intervention: Families across income levels support their children's
education.
5.
We know the curriculum of the home or the specific things families
do to facilitate their children's educational success (i.e., family
process variables). According to Walberg (1984), the curriculum
of the home includes: informed parent-child conversations about everyday
events, encouragement and discussion of leisure reading, monitoring
and joint analysis of television watching, expressions of affection,
interest in children's academic and personal growth, and delay of immediate
gratification to accomplish long-term goals. In his intensive observational
study of the home environment of ten high-achieving and ten low-achieving
secondary-level students, all of whom were low-income and African-American,
Clark (1983) identified the home variables that differentiated high
and low achievers. Family life of high-achieving, low-income students
was characterized by frequent dialogues between parents and children,
strong parental encouragement of academic pursuits, warm and nurturing
interactions, clear and consistent limits, and consistent monitoring
of how time was spent. Parents of high achievers felt personally responsible
to help their children gain knowledge and basic literacy skills, communicated
regularly with school personnel, and were involved in school functions
and activities. Both parents' attitude (i.e., l expect you to do well
in school) and behavior (i.e., l will communicate with school and support
your learning) toward schooling for their children were evident. These
findings have been replicated in numerous other studies with children
and families across socioeconomic levels and from different ethnic backgrounds
(Kellaghan et al., 1993). Based on an extensive review of 160 articles,
parent expectations and attributions, structure for learning, home affective
environment, discipline orientation, and parent participation in educational
activities were identified as five family factors that influenced student
achievement and whose effects may be altered through intervention (Christenson,
Rounds, & Gorney, 1992). Which family process variables are most
critical for enhancing academic outcomes have been identified by Peng
and Lee (1992, cited in Henderson & Berla, 1994). Parental educational
expectations, talking with students about school, providing learning
materials, and providing learning opportunities outside of school showed
the strongest relationship with student achievement.
Implication
for Intervention: Active parent support for learning contributes to
the educational status of children. Educators have much information
to share with parents about the crucial role they play in the school
success of children and adolescents.
6.
We know that gains in student performance are greater when microsystemic
intervention (home and school), in contrast to microsystemic intervention
(classroom only), is used. For example, Heller and Fantuzzo (1993)
demonstrated that fourth- and fifth-grade African-American students
who received reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) and parent involvement (Pl)
evidenced greater math gains than similar students who received only
reciprocal peer tutoring. Based on teacher ratings, students in the
RPT and Pl group demonstrated better work habits, higher level of motivation,
more task orientation, less disruptive behavior, and were more interpersonally
confident.
Implication
for Intervention: A synergistic effect is achieved when home and school
intervene in a coordinated way.
7.
We know that the degree of match between home and school environments
is a contributing factor for students' school success. With respect
to academic outcomes, Hansen (1986) demonstrated achievement gains from
third to fifth grades for those students who experienced congruence
in rules and interaction styles across home and school environments.
He found that the greater the discontinuity between home and school,
the more students' academic grades declined. He also found that there
was no preferred classroom or home type; rather, the match in the message
received by students between home and school contexts was the critical
factor for children's academic success. With respect to behavioral outcomes
for students, the extensive work of Reid and Patterson (1989) with aggressive
children and youth illustrates the generalization of child behavior
across home, peer, and school contexts. After reviewing the family's
effect on cognitive, social, and motivational aspects of student behavior
and their relationship to classroom performance, Hess and Holloway (1984)
concluded that consensus between home and school about the goals of
education is essential to counter information from competing sources,
such as television and peers, and that discontinuities between families
and educators compromise the effectiveness of either parents or educators
as socializing agents.
Implication
for Intervention: The relationship between home and school and/or the
degree to which students receive a consistent message about their school
performance and progress may be the more important target for intervention.
8.
We know that the degree to which the home is an educative environment
can be used to predict the mean academic achievement across states (Barton
& Coley, 1992). Eight indicators of the home as an educative environment
were used to predict the mean achievement of students in 37 states and
the District of Columbia on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Three factors over which parent exercise authority-student absenteeism,
variety of reading materials in the home, and excessive television watching-explain
nearly 90% of the difference in performance between high- and low-achieving
states. Also, Clark (1990) found that high-achieving students in grades
K-12 in an urban setting spent approximately 20 hours a week engaged
in constructive learning activities outside of school.
Implication
for Intervention: Students' use of out-of-school time influences their
academic achievement.
9.Successful
programs (i.e., those that improve student performance) are comprehensive,
well planned, and provide options for family involvement (which allows
schools to be responsive to family diversity). Studies that correlate
levels of parent involvement with gains in student achievement invariably
find that the more extensive the involvement, the higher the student
achievement. In programs that are designed to be full partnerships,
student achievement not only improves, it reaches levels that are standard
for middle-class children (Comer & Haynes, 1991). Children who are
the farthest behind make the greatest gains (Henderson & Berla,
1994). Therefore, family-school partnerships are seen as a potent way
to reduce the achievement gap between children from low- and high-income
families. However, we also know that students from high-income families
achieve greater educational attainment (e.g., college) than students
from low-income families when both groups are highly involved. This
has been attributed to the ability of the high-income family to negotiate
or manage the educational system. And, we also know that home-school
partnerships are for all children. To focus implementation of partnerships
only on low-income children defies what is known about the importance
of consistency of influence for child outcomes.
Implication
for Intervention: Family involvement in education is not an "extra."
Programs require leadership and time. Family-school collaboration must
be integrated with all school activities.
Implementation
Guidelines
1.
We know there are myths that must be broken for family-school partnerships
to be implemented successfully. For example, some educators believe
that parents who are nonwhite are involved less in their children's
schooling than are parents who are white. Kerbow and Bernhardt provide
data from the 1988 National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88)
that show that low-income, African-American and Hispanic parents display
significantly higher levels of school involvement than white or Asian
parents with similar levels of income and education (cited in Schneider
& Coleman, 1993). Also, parents' involvement in education drops
off dramatically at the secondary level, and many educators believe
that high-school students do not want their parents involved. In a recent
survey completed by Epstein and Connors (1994), 82% of high-school students
agreed that parent involvement was needed at the high-school level.
Eighty percent of parents indicated they wanted to be more involved;
more than 50% of students indicated they wanted their parents involved.
Only 32% of the teachers, however, felt it was their responsibility
to involve Parents.
Implication
for Intervention: Assumptions build walls between parents and educators.
Parents, educators, and students need to engage in dialogue (not monologue)
and suspend judgments about each other.
2.
We know the existing barriers for developing home-school partnerships.
Some are: time; cultural/language; lack of a supportive environment
(e.g., poverty, limited access to services); attitudes/misperceptions;
training, inability to help with schoolwork; lack of responsiveness
to parental needs; and negative experiences with schools, teachers or
parents. Lack of teacher and administrator training has been identified
as a key barrier to the implementation of programs. Teachers need guidance
and information, as very few colleges and school systems provide new
and experienced teachers with coursework in working with families as
partners.
Common
barriers to the development of partnerships is our narrow conceptualization
of how parents can be involved (Weiss & Edwards, 1992) and lack
of clarity about roles and responsibilities between families and educators.
Also, another barrier is our conceptualization of who is involved. Teacher-parent
relationships are not synonymous with home-school partnerships. Although
the teacher is the linchpin for successful programs, other educators-school
psychologists, counselors, social workers, principals, home-school liaisons,
etc.-must be available to actively support family involvement in education.
Similarly, our conceptualization of home must be stretched to include
older siblings, extended family, and neighbors...someone who can serve
as a primary contact for the schools.
Implication
for Intervention: For a program to be successful, we must work to systematically
remove identified barriers.
3.
We know the development of home-school partnerships to enhance children's
learning requires a deliberate effort and leadership. Successful
programs are based on essential partnership characteristics (trust,
reciprocity) and are an integral part of the ways schools function.
There is no one prescription; rather educators and parents, as co-facilitators
of children's development, must ask: What forms of parent participation
are desirable and feasible; and what strategies can we employ to achieve
them (Kagan, 1984)? We also must ask parents and teachers about the
resources they need to maintain the partnership (Christenson, 1995).
Principles of an effective home-school partnership, as identified by
The League of Schools Project (Davies, 1991) are:
-
Every aspect
of the school building and general climate is open, helpful, and
friendly to parents.
-
Communications
with parents-whether about school policies and programs or about
their own children-are frequent, clear, and two-way.
-
Parents are
treated by teachers as collaborators in the educational process.
Parents' own knowledge, expertise, and resources are valued as essential
to their child's success in school.
-
The school recognizes
its responsibility to forge a partnership with all families in the
school, not simply those most easily available.
-
The school principal
and other administrators actively express in words and deeds the
philosophy of partnership with all families.
-
The school encourages
volunteer support and help from all parents by providing a wide
variety of volunteer opportunities including those that can be done
from home and during non-work hours.
-
The school provides
opportunities for parents to meet their own needs for information,
advice, and peer support.
-
Parents' views
and expertise are sought in developing policies and solving school-wide
problems; in some schools parents are given important decision-making
responsibilities at a policy level.
-
Schools recognize
that they can best help parents provide a home environment conducive
to children's learning if they facilitate their access to basic
and supportive services.
Both
parent and educator input is needed to develop effective programs. Home-school
teams provide a way to develop, modify, and maintain family involvement
in education. Epstein has developed a planning process involving what
she refers to as an action team. The action team, comprised of teachers,
parents, and other support personnel, develop, implement, and evaluate
the partnership program; it is integral to strengthening partnership
for children and youth. Throughout development, the team is concerned
with who (or which families) are being excluded by current outreach
activities. Most programs take three-to-five years to develop fully.
Implication
for Intervention: Partnership principles have been identified and serve
as a road map for others to use. The use of a home-school team is an
effective way to provide leadership.
4.
We know effective communication is the foundation of all family involvement
in education. Good communication between families and schools is needed
to: share information about children's progress, needs, and interests;
establish shared goals for children's education; inform parents of what
is expected in terms of student behavior and achievement; inform teachers
of what parents expect relative to curriculum and discipline; inform
parents of classroom activities and events; avoid misunderstandings;
and help parents understand how to reinforce school instruction at home.
Both
frequency and content of the messages are important. Home-school partnerships
are dependent on communication of the right message: "that mutual
respect and interdependence of home, school, and community are essential
to children's development" (McAlfee, 1993).
To
this end, some guidelines and specific practices for establishing and
maintaining two-way communication between home and school are:
-
Communication
between home and school is characterized by a positive orientation
rather than a deficit-based or crisis orientation. Practices include:
good news phone calls about child performance and improvement, inviting
parents' reactions to school policies or procedures, and contacting
parents at the first sign of a pattern of declining grades or behavior.
-
Develop and
publicize a regular, reliable home-school communication system that
increases the potential for two-way communication. Specific practices
include varied means of contacting parents, telephone tree, system-wide
use of a home-school communication/assignment notebook, and designating
parental responsibility for contacting a specified school contact.
-
The focus of
communication and dialogue between parents and educators is on children's
performance. Specific practices include: use of electronic technology;
school-to-home-to-school communications involving classroom activities,
progress, and a suggested activity for parents; a home-school notebook;
and family-school meetings with students present.
-
Ensure that
parents have the information they need to support their children's
educational progress. Specific practices include: several orientation
nights with follow-up contact for nonattendees, parent support parent
groups to disseminate information about children's school performance
(e.g., how to monitor educational progress), and home visits if
needed. With these efforts, there is a clear message as to what
teachers, students, and parents must do to help foster children's
school success. Home-school contracts as compacts are an excellent
way to clarify roles and responsibilities and, if implemented appropriately,
serve as a tool of communication between parents, educators, and
students. A piece of paper with signatures and no ongoing dialogue
about specific goals, etc., will not result in improved student
achievement.
-
Informal opportunities
to communicate and build trust between home and school are created.
Specific practices include: multicultural potluck dinners, grade-level
bagel breakfasts, family fun nights, committees designed to address
home-school issues, and workshops where parents and school personnel
learn together.
-
All
communication must underscore a shared responsibility between families
and schools for educational outcomes. Specific practices include:
communicating the essential nature of family involvement for student
outcomes or sharing the curriculum of the home.
Implication
for Intervention: Communication between home and school should emphasize
the essential nature of family involvement in education.
Closing
Comments
In
closing, family-school collaboration is an attitude, not merely an activity.
The goal of family-school collaboration is to change the interface between
home and school (Weiss & Edwards, 1992) to support students as learners.
It occurs when partners share common goals and responsibilities, are
seen as equals, and contribute to the collaborative process. Family-school
partnerships are characterized by reciprocity, two-way communication,
mutual support, learning at home and at school, and shared decision
making between home and school for the benefit of students' development
(Swap, 1993).
Empirical
support for family-school collaboration as a means for enhancing student
outcomes is strong. Given the database, two points, based in speculation,
seem important. First four variables-continuity between home and school,
cumulative experiences across environments over time, effect of modeling
by adults of the importance of learning, and the degree to which parents
recognize the power of their role as teachers-seem essential to student
outcomes. Second, the time period for school-family connections is 13
years, beginning in kindergarten. The database investigating families'
effect on cognitive, social, and motivational aspects of student behavior
and their relationship to classroom performance (Hess & Holloway,
1984) and the impact of family environments on language development
(Hart & Risley, 1995) points to a need to begin the 1 3-year connection
between family and schools sooner. What would the time period of 3-to-16
years produce?
There
is a national effort to increase meaningful family involvement in education,
the goal of which is to enhance positive educational and developmental
outcomes for children. The 8th National Education Goal is: "Every
school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement
and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth
of children." Furthermore, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard
Riley announced the formation of a nationwide partnership to support
the goal of greater family involvement in children's learning. The U.S.
Department of Education has joined with the 45-member National Coalition
for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE) to promote the central role
of the family in inspiring children to learn and achieve. These efforts
represent the importance of building an infrastructure for educational
outcomes (Rich, 19880. (Secure a copy of Strong Families, Strong Schools
by calling 1-800-USA-LEARN)
