Supporting Home-School Collaboration
Sandra L. Christenson
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.
- Dorothy
Rich
There
are no pat answers-developing partnerships between parents and schools
was found to be a difficult task requiring organizational, interpersonal,
and training skills. The process of joining schools and parents require
that each school ask: What forms of parent participation are desirable,
and what strategies can be employed to achieve them? Schools failed
to realize they needed to ask and to answer those questions based on
their particular school's needs, history, and resources. Schools came
to understand that there were no "pat" answers and that parent
participation needed to have parent-school collaboration as its ultimate
goal in order to be effective.
- Sharon
Lynn Kagan
One
of the best-kept secrets in Washington is that families are educators'
most powerful ally.
- Theodora
Ooms
Developing
partnerships between home and school to enhance the competence of children
and youth takes a concerted effort. Positive family-school connections
are not automatic, however, I would argue they are essential to children's
optimal success in school and must become a major focus within educational
restructuring efforts. There are new directions in parent involvement
which often require schools to change their practices. The quotes by
Rich (1987, p. 62) and Kagan (1984, p. 21) illustrate the current rhetoric
about family-school relationships, that is, the need for mutual support
and collaborative problem solving to address educational and developmental
concerns for children and youth. Educators' perceptions of family power
are challenged, perhaps by Ooms's (1991, p. i) quote. In this chapter,
I provide: (a) a definition and rationale for home-school collaboration;
(b) barriers to home-school collaboration and challenges for parents
and educators, which are framed as essential partnership principles;
and (c) content knowledge, such as guidelines for supporting home-school
collaboration and examples of home-school collaboration strategies and
process or "how-to" knowledge for developing home-school partnerships.
The literature on home-school partnerships has expanded tenfold in the
last five years, therefore, information in this chapter must be considered
a summary, and the reader is encouraged to read the resources noted
in the annotated bibliography.
Overview
Home-school
collaboration is an attitude, not simply an activity. It occurs when
parents and educators share common goals, are seen as equals, and both
contribute to the process. It is sustained with a "want-to"
motivation rather than an "ought-to" or "obliged-to"
orientation from all individuals (Christenson, Rounds, & Franklin,
1992). Hence, home-school collaboration is not: (a) parents only in
schools as volunteers, who are directed by the school's agenda; (b)
parents serving on advisory councils and educators not listening to
their needs or concerns; (c) parent-teacher conferences that are a one-way
exchange of information; (d) school-to-home contacts only when a student
is failing or no home-to-school contact when the parent is concerned;
(e) co-location of services with no collaboration; or (f) parent education
programs determined by educators to be important for parents (Collins,
Moles, & Cross, 1982). Home-school collaboration is not the delivering
of services to parents. Rather, home-school collaboration or meaningful
parent participation in education is the establishment of a mutual goal
or shared agenda between educators and parents to improve educational
outcomes for students. Ideally, home-school collaboration assumes parents
and educators act as advocates and decision makers in the schools and
that parents are key resources to improve their own children's education
and the schooling of all children (Fruchter, Galletta, & White,
1992).
Home-school
collaboration recognizes that educational outcomes are influenced by
events in the home, by events in school, and by the continuity between
home and school environments (Hansen, 1986). Thus, the child's opportunity
to learn includes what goes on in home and school, and the goal of home-school
collaboration is to create an ethos for learning across these environments.
Peter Usdan, President of the Educational Development Institute, provided
the most focused rationale for educators to create home-school partnerships
for student productivity in school. At the 1989 Presidential Summit,
Usdan reported that 91% of children's time from birth to age 18 is spent
outside of school (cited in Ooms, 1991). In addition, educators know
that there is "no pure" family or school time; a reciprocal,
mutually influencing quality exists between children's home and school
experiences.
The
empirical basis for developing home-school partnerships to enhance student
learning is strong (Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992). First,
benefits for all key stakeholders-students, teachers, parents, and schools-have
been described in numerous integrative literature reviews; however,
student outcomes are the primary reason for parents and educators to
form a partnership. Correlates of parent involvement include the following
student outcomes: improvement in grades, test scores, attitudes, self-concept,
and behavior; completion of more homework; higher rates of academic
engagement and attendance; and a reduction in suspension rates (Henderson,
1989). Home support for learning-or what Walberg (1984) has labeled
the curriculum of the home-"predicts academic learning twice as
well as the socioeconomic status of families" (p. 400). 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 viewing, expression of affection, interest
in children's academic and personal growth, delay of immediate gratifications
to accomplish long-term goals, realistic expectations and use of effort
attributions, and structuring learning opportunities at home. Sloane
(1991) succinctly described the conclusion by researchers about the
effect of 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)." Therefore, the
issue of equity is apparent. However, we know that home-based learning
programs have been successful in improving the educational status of
children across different grade and income levels (Graue, Weinstein,
& Walberg, 1983). Furthermore, we know that the benefits of home
support for learning are evident for a large nationally representative
sample of students. In their analysis of data from the National Educational
Longitudinal Study, Keith, Keith, Troutman, Bickley, Trivette, and Singh
(in press) found that parent involvement correlated with eighth graders'
success in all academic areas, in part, due to the increased homework
completed by students whose parents were involved in their schooling.
Because
much of the literature is correlational in nature, it is important to
remember that families are potential facilitators, not determinants,
of their child's success. What is most promising is that parent involvement
in education does not propose shifting educational responsibilities
from the school to the home. Rather, schools are more effective when
they involve the home and also teach effectively. Seeley (1985) has
captured the concept of partnership for learning well. He describes
partnership as a common effort toward a common goal and contends that
the product of education is not produced by schools-but by students
with the support of parents, teachers, peers, and community professionals.
How then can school psychologists work with families as partners to
enhance students' active engagement and productivity in schools? A primary
theme of this chapter is that the elements of collaboration and a problem-solving
approach between parents and educators are essential.
Basic
Considerations
Although
the importance of involving parents in schools is not a new idea, it
is important to recognize that schools in the U.S. are leaving an era
where parents have often been perceived as a nuisance or problem. Researchers
have shown that today's most effective schools are those that emphasize
a respect for family diversity and a desire to connect with all families
for greater student success (Swap, 1992). Parents and educators are
just beginning to learn about essential partnership characteristics.
Essential skills for school psychologists who facilitate home-school
collaboration include: knowledge about the functioning of systems, family-school
partnership principles, and home-school collaboration strategies; and
the ability to facilitate problem-solving. Respect for family diversity
and a belief that parents are partners in-not problems for- intervention
are essential. In this section, four broad features of the field, barriers
for parents and educators, and home-school partnership principles are
described.
Features.
It is important to recognize four features about home-school collaboration.
First, home and school are two microsystems that are used to operating
autonomously. This, in part, explains the blaming that occurs between
the two systems when a child is having-difficulty in school. It is much
easier to point "the finger of blame" at the other microsystem
when one knows only about the child's behavior in one microsystem. It
is much easier to make recommendations for the other microsystem when
one does not need to live with the consequences of the recommendations.
Second, home-school collaboration is not restricted to a specific area.
Rather, home-school collaboration can be used to address a child-specific
academic, behavioral, or social concern, as well as systems-level concerns
such as homework, discipline, and school violence. Third, home-school
collaboration is considered a preventive rather than a remedial activity.
Although the best practices articulated in this chapter are applicable
to conflictual situations between home and school, the focus of home-school
collaboration is ongoing dialogue and support between parents and educators
to increase student success and, therefore, prevent conflict and alienation.
Fourth, home-school collaboration is not synonymous with parent-teacher
relationships. Clearly the parent-teacher relationship is critical to
student success and an important part of home-school collaboration.
However, home is conceived of broadly and refers to the primary caregiver
or the school contact individual in a student's home, which may be a
parent, grandparent, older sibling, or neighbor. Similarly, school refers
to educators, such as teachers, principals, and support personnel, all
of whom contribute to the success of students.
Barriers.
A basic consideration in supporting home-school collaboration is to
identify barriers for parents and educators. Liontos (1992) has identified
several barriers for parents and educators. Barriers for parents include:
feelings of inadequacy; previous bad experiences with schools; suspicion
about treatment from institutions; limited knowledge about school policies,
procedures, or how to assist with schoolwork; and economic (e.g., transportation,
daycare) and emotional (e.g., daily survival) constraints. Barriers
for educators include: educators' commitment to parent involvement;
dwelling on family problems (e.g., "These parents have too many
problems of their own to get involved."); crisis-oriented or negative
communication with parents; stereotyping parents as uneducated or dysfunctional;
and lack of training in ways to work with families as partners. It is
also important to think about barriers for the partnership, which include:
limited time for communication; frequency of ritualized contact (e.g.,
parent-teacher conferences, back-to-school nights); differences in parent-professional
perceptions; lack of funding; and lack of clarity about parents and
educators roles and responsibilities (Leitch & Tangri, 1988; Mendoza
& Cegelka, cited by Chrispeels, 1987; and Swap, 1993).
Educators'
practices for involving parents are key. Educators can invite parents
into the school or reach out to parents in their context or a neutral
site. A major barrier is that educators still want parents to come to
them, rather than going to the parents (Davies, 1991). According to
Epstein, if schools don't work to involve parents, then parent education
and income level are important for deciding which parents become involved.
If schools reach out to all parents, income level and parents' level
of education decrease or disappear as important factors. Based on her
research, Epstein speculates that "only a relatively small percentage
of parents have personal problems so severe that they cannot work cooperatively
with educators, given the proper assistance (cited in Jennings, 1990,
p. 21)." To develop partnerships between parents and educators,
barriers must be identified, acknowledged, understood, and systematically
removed. Barriers should be reframed as challenges for parents and educators,
who need time to engage in ongoing dialogue and problem solving about
children's needs.
Home-school
partnership principles. Five factors supported by the National
School Public Relations Association that were found in successful parent
involvement programs are: climate, relevance, convenience, publicity,
and commitment. In these programs, educators: (a) welcomed all parents
and, essentially, gave them the VIP treatment; (b) developed programs,
such as workshops, based on parent input and need; (c) removed transportation
and daycare barriers, making it more convenient for parents to be involved;
(d) communicated with parents in multiple ways, such as a prearranged
telephone chain, personal invitations, flyers, and newsletters; and
(e) were committed to working with parents, which meant it was a priority
school goal. Grassroot efforts to create partnerships consistently find
relevance of the program or parent ownership to be a critical variable
in parental involvement (e.g., Menning, 1993). Parents are involved
because it is their program and meets their needs with their child.
The nine family-school partnership principles delineated by Ooms and
Hara (1991) from the Family Impact Seminar in Washington, DC, underscore
the seminal importance of commitment by educators. Each principle is
illustrated with examples of school practices from the League of Schools
Reaching Out Project (Davies, 1991):
1.
Every aspect of the school building and general climate is open,
helpful, and friendly to parents. Examples include use of "Parents
are Welcome" signs and a parent center where parents meet and obtain
information on child development, schools, and home learning support.
2.
Communications with parents-whether about school policies and programs
or about their own children-are frequent, clear, and two way. Examples
include wall calendars with important school-related information and
home-learning activities, teachers calling home to introduce themselves
and giving parents a phone number and time when they can be reached,
and Friday folders sent home weekly and returned with parental comments.
Communication strategies are explained to all parents, not merely implemented.
3.
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. Examples include
schools developing learning contracts for students in collaboration
with and signed by parents and parents monitoring homework after parent
workshops on the topic have been conducted.
4.
The school recognizes its responsibility to forge a partnership with
all families in the schools, not simply those most easily available.
Examples include varying times for conferences or open houses to accommodate
needs of employed parents, conducting home visits and church visits
in minority and immigrant communities, and providing interpreters.
5.
The school principal and other administrators actively express in
words and deeds the philosophy of partnership with all families.
Examples include one inservice day per year to help educators learn
to work with families as partners or provision of daycare for special
events so parents can attend.
6.
The school encourages volunteer support and help from all parents
by providing a wide variety of volunteer options including those that
can be done from home and during non-work hours. An example includes
a school principal who announces that parents are necessary for student
success and the expectation that parents should provide some kind of
volunteer assistance to the school. A list of 30 different options for
parent choice was provided, and follow-up phone calls were made to obtain
optimal parent participation.
7.
The school provides opportunities for parents to meet their own needs
for information, advice, and peer, support. Examples include parent
support parent groups developed with PTA/PTO support and district funding
of parent centers.
8.
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. Examples include
a parent-educator committee to review and monitor the development of
a broad-based health and sexuality education program and the school
site council, as part of school-based management, to administer the
school's discretionary funds.
9.
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. Examples include collaboration
with community agencies for before- and after-school care on site and
a family services center in the school, which provides basic health
screening, counseling, adult literacy and education courses, and clothing
exchanges.
In
closing, it should be apparent from these principles that educators
need to examine their current practices with parents. The partnership
principles emphasize schools reaching out to all parents and initiating
efforts at every grade level to involve parents in learning activities,
school programs, and school-related decisions. Furthermore, a no-fault
model, where blame is not placed on either the home or school is emphasized.
New beliefs about parents and families are evident: all families have
strengths, parents can learn new techniques and care about their children,
and parents have important perspectives about their children (Liontos,
1992). Collaboration-or the forming of a relationship with parents-in
which parents and educators are responsible and agree to work together
is the belief that school psychologists must foster.
The
components of successful programs speak to the importance of creating
an infrastructure for education. Infrastructure refers to the formal
connection of schools to the rest of society-family, home, and environments
outside of school in which children spend most of their time (Rich,
1988). Rich suggests ways to build this infrastructure: launch a media
campaign about parents as educators, train teachers to work with families
as partners, provide ways for families to help each other (e.g., parent
support parent groups), involve senior citizens and the larger community,
and provide learning activities that families can use with children.
Clearly, the way families and educators interact will need to be altered.
Because there have been few links between home and school, collaboration
will not be easy. However, school psychologists who are interested in
developing and supporting home-school collaboration to increase student
success in school, will find they need both content and process knowledge.
Best
Practices
In
this section, content knowledge, including guidelines for supporting
home-school collaboration and examples of home-school collaboration
strategies, and process knowledge or recommended procedures for developing
home-school partnership programs are described.
Content
Knowledge: Guidelines for Supporting Home-School
Collaboration Based on intervention studies designed to develop home-school
partnerships conducted by myself and colleagues (Christenson, Thurlow,
Sinclair, & Evelo, 1993) and others (e.g., Davies, 1991), five essential
guidelines for supporting home-school collaboration are evident. Although
both parents' and educators' attitudes are integral to the success of
the partnership, researchers have shown that the school's attitudes
and practices are the stimulus for partnerships. School practices, or
how schools reach out to parents, were determined by Epstein and Dauber
(1991) to be more important determinants of parent participation in
education than were parents' educational, socioeconomic, or ethnic backgrounds.
Jean Krasnow (1990), who is associated with the League of Schools Reaching
Out Project, has described how schools-more than the families-are in
a position to create the conditions that erect barriers to greater parental
involvement. The guidelines illustrate the importance of educators thinking
of parents as partners in-not problems for-instruction and intervention.
A
belief in shared responsibility. Home-school collaboration depends
on a belief in shared responsibility for educational outcomes. Hulsebosch
(1989) defined the characteristics of teachers who are high and low
involvers of parents in education. She showed that low involvers believed
that home and school have separate responsibilities in the socialization
of children, described the negative influence of home events on school
life, and saw parent involvement activities as auxiliary to the real
world of the classroom. In contrast, high involvers believed classroom
activities should fit with children's home and experiences, described
parents in positive terms, and saw parents as an asset and basic element
of a child's education. Both high and low involvers perceived time and
effort as a "cost" of parent involvement, however, high involvers
indicated the effort was a necessary and important part of their work,
whereas low involvers implied the effort was an unnecessary add-on to
the real world of teaching.
Because
few schools have a policy that clarifies the essential role of families
in the education of school-age children and because there is little
consensus about the roles and responsibilities between parents and educators,
school psychologists must determine whether educators at their school
site believe in parents' meaningful participation in education. These
questions need to be answered: How would you characterize the belief
system about the relationship between parents and educators with respect
to children's school performance?, and Do educators believe in shared
or separate responsibilities?. Should the belief in shared responsibility
for educational outcomes not be present, the school psychologist may
want to provide staff inservice on the empirical basis for parent participation
(Henderson, 1989), curriculum of the home variables (Christenson et
al, 1992), and discuss Coleman's theory of families and schools vis-a-vis
the socialization of children.
Coleman
(1987) proposed that home and school provide different inputs for the
socialization process of children. One class of inputs, opportunities,
demands, and rewards, comes from schools. The second class of inputs,
attitudes, efforts, and conception of self, comes from the social environment
of the household. Educational outcomes result from the interaction of
qualities that the child brings from home with qualities of the school.
Schools do make a difference for children, however, they do not have
an equal effect on children. According to Coleman (1987): "Schools,
of whatever quality, are more effective for children from strong family
backgrounds than for children from weak ones. The resources devoted
by the family to the child's education interact with resources provided
by the school-and there is greater variation in the former resources
than the latter (p. 35)." Schools can reward, demand, and provide
opportunities for children to learn; however, Coleman views families
as providing the building blocks that make learning possible. Families
provide the "social capital" needed by schools to optimize
learners' outcomes. Coleman argues that the social capital in homes
is shrinking, in part due to the reduced availability of human capital
because of single parenting and multiple demands on adult lives. As
this occurs, school achievement will not be maintained or increased
if we simply replace these resources with more school-like resources-those
that produce opportunities, demands, and rewards. Rather, academic and
developmental outcomes for children need to be maintained or increased
by replacing them with resources that produce attitudes, efforts, and
conception of self-those qualities from the home that interact with
ones provided by the school.
Finally,
educators need to remember that parents do not want a hierarchical "professional-client"
relationship with schools (Lindle, 1989). Parents indicated a dissatisfaction
with school personnel w-ho are "too business-like," "patronizing,"
or "who talk down" to them. Parents want: (a) information
about their child's development and educational needs; (b) educators
to be a partner, which means parents and educators are equals, share
information about the child's performance and development, and share
resources to solve concerns; (c) a support network or an opportunity
to learn from and share with others (i.e., contribute); (d) training;
and (e) informal contact with educators or a chance to build a trusting
relationship (Peterson & Cooper, 1989).
Importance
of perspective taking. The degree to which parents and educators
engage in perspective taking and non-blaming influences the effectiveness
of the home-school partnership Parents and educators have multiple demands
in their lives, are very busy, and often are not available to each other
at a convenient time or in a convenient way, such as telephone. Swap
(1987) has articulately pointed out that the other's lack of availability
is too often interpreteted as a lack of concern for the student. In
addition, typical parent-school contacts are ritualized and ineffective
in achieving the goals sought in home-school collaboration: meaningful
dialogue and sharing of resources to enhance student learning. Parent-educator
contact at the 1 5-minute conference or back-to-school night do not
permit the development of relationships or contribute to effective problem
solving. Finally, differences in perceptions, as a function of the unique
aspect of the parent or educator role interfere with communication and
collaboration but are to be expected and need to be understood (Mendoza
& Cegelka, cited in Chrispeels, 1987). For example, educators are
expected to be fair to all children, whereas parents adopt an individualized
perspective, wanting what is best for their child. Educators become
"specialized experts," noting one aspect of a child's development,
while parents adopt a more diffuse orientation, focusing on the child's
ongoing development. Educators are expected to be effectively neutral,
to be able to distance themselves from the child. The parent role is
the antithesis of the educator role; emotional involvement is expected.
Neither parent or educator should "blame" the other for their
perceptions.
Differences
in attributed patterns may account for some of the difficulty parents
and educators have in dealing with school problems, delineating parent-teacher
responsibilities, and arriving at mutually agreeable solutions. Guttman
(1982) found that teachers attributed causes for problem behavior to
the child first, the parents second, and minimized or dismissed any
reasons associated with themselves. In contrast, parents attributed
responsibility almost equally to the child, teacher, and themselves.
Rich (1987) interpreted the emphasis teachers place on home life as
a recognition of the significance of the home as an educational environment
rather than as a deficit view of the child or blaming of the family.
This is most encouraging. The key in collaboration is to shift from
an emphasis on who is responsible for the problem to who is responsible
for the solution. This will occur when parents and educators think about
their relationship differently, one which moves from the concept of
relationships in terms of service delivery-of "provider" and
"client," of "professionals" and "target populations"-to
one of complementary efforts toward common goals. Seeley (1985) argues:
-
Partners
may help one another in general or specific ways, but none is ever
a client, because the relationship is mutual. Providers and clients
can deal with one another at arm's length, partners share an enterprise,
though their mutuality does not imply or require equality or similarity.
Participants in effective partnerships may be strikingly different,
each contributing to the common enterprise, particular talents,
experiences, and perspectives, and sometimes having different status
within the relationship and control over aspects of the work to
be done. (p. 65). "
Negative
stereotypes about parents are destructive. Sometimes educators have
fixed ideas about what constitutes a good family and proper child rearing.
Most often middle-class families' behaviors and attitudes are preferred-educators
see these children as coming to school with the "right stuff."
Often educators perceive parents who are low income or nonwhite as deficient
(Heleen, 1989). It has been shown that working-class or poor parents
want their children to be successful in school but often do not understand
school procedures, expectations, and how to assist their children. Consequently,
these parents wait to be guided by educators. Educators have interpreted
parents' behavior from a deficit-oriented model and coined these parents
as apathetic or hard to reach. These parents see the school as hard
to reach. How do you think about families? Do you call them dysfunctional,
or do you understand that they are affected by adverse living conditions?
Do you identify family deficits or family strengths? All families have
strengths, however, families differ in their energy, time, knowledge,
and skills for assisting children. Similarly, it is time for parents
to understand the tremendous variability in student performance and
that the solution for school success does not reside in the microsystem
of the classroom.
School
psychologists will find reframing, developing programs to reach out
to all families, and increasing communication and contact between families
and educators helpful tools for addressing the need for perspective
taking in the partnership. Above all, they need to work actively to
stop stereotypes and negative attributions to home life. These conditions,
should they exist, suggest the need for information sharing and problem
solving between home and school.
The
importance of shared language.The degree to which the language
of schooling is shared with parents must be examined by educators. The
language of schooling includes grading practices, teacher expectations,
curriculum goals, and homework policies. Joyce Epstein ( 1992), Co-director
of the Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning,
has advocated a similar approach. She suggests that parent involvement
programs must make a strong connection with schooling and with the child
as a student. Results from a NASP-sponsored pilot parent interview study
indicated parents needed information on specific ways to help their
children at home (help with homework, how to talk about school, how
to monitor progress), what is happening at school (school activities,
child's progress, teacher expectations), school policies (sex education,
testing, grading, discipline), and how parents can be involved at school
(how to communicate with teachers, how to help with specific problems)
(Christenson & Garrettson, 1992).
The
means by which the language of schooling is shared must be examined
by educators. Exclusive use of print materials must be abandoned. Even
if parents can read, they often do not know how to apply the information
to their situation. The resulting effect is that parents may know they
should do something, but they do not know how. Parents are often told
want do to (e.g., help you child with homework), but not told how. Educators
provide parents with grades, but little information about how grades
are determined. It is time to share information about child and adolescent
development, school practices, home influences on learning, and ways
to promote children's progress and development with parents and educators
in multiple ways: print materials (newsletters, handouts, lending library),
classes/workshops, personal contact (home visit, school consultation),
technology (audio, video, cable, telephone), and parent support groups.
Sharing of information begins to create an infrastructure for education.
Parents
need to be socialized for their role as facilitators of their child's
school performance. Ames (1993), a researcher at the University of Illinois
with the Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning,
has shown that elementary school teachers who were high users of school-to-home
communications reported they more often felt they could reach difficult
students and help all students make progress. The school-to-home communications
included strategies and practices in three categories: information about
classroom learning activities (goals, curriculum, materials), information
about their child's progress (accomplishments, improvement, effort),
and direction to enable parents to help their children on learning activities
at home. Information was communicated through newsletters, phone calls,
personal notes, and work folders. Teachers' communications influenced
parents' feelings of comfort with the school which then influenced parents'
involvement in their children's learning. Like Ames, we have found that
middle school educators' communications influenced parents' feelings
of comfort with the school which then influenced parents' involvement
in their children's learning; the practices influenced the parents'
belief that they could influence their child, which then influenced
their involvement (Christenson et al, 1993).
The
focus of partnerships. Parents and educators come together when a child
becomes a student, therefore, education and development are the natural
link. Rich (1987b), Director of the Home and School Institute in Washington,
D.C., has shown "that parent participation is most widespread and
sustained when parents view their participation as directly linked to
the achievement of their children (p. 63)." Numerous interventionists
and researchers have found that parents are more interested and involved
when they learn ways to increase their child's success in school and
when contacts are personal. The focus of home-school collaboration,
I would contend, is to resolve school-based concerns about the educational
life of the child. Parents, teachers, and/or students can initiate communication
and a problem-solving dialogue about the educational concern. Based
on our systematic investigation of home-school collaboration, we have
found it helpful to: (a) invite parents to help solve a teacher's educational
concern for their child, (b) be tolerant of and nonjudgmental about
the ways parents indicate the; can help, and (c) provide information,
ongoing support. and consultation to parents as they learn how to assist
their child's school performance (Christenson et al, 1993). Ongoing
communication between home and school is focused on the degree to which
parents and educators, as facilitators of children's performance, are
achieving their goal.
Vosler-Hunter's
(1989) work on the Families as Allies Project is extremely relevant.
Parents of children with emotional and behavioral disorders and educators
participated in a number of training activities, out of which emerged
key elements of collaborative relationships: mutual respect for skills
and knowledge, honest and clear communication, two-way sharing of information,
mutually agreed upon goals, and shared planning and decision making.
These elements were most evident when problem solving was focused on
what links parents and educators-the child, and on the goal of their
efforts-increased competence of the child.
Options
and flexibility. Home-school collaboration works best when there
are many ways for parents to get involved and flexibility is encouraged.
Epstein (1992) describes six kinds of activities and illustrates that
parents can be involved in their child's education at school, at home,
and at home and school. Because of the multiple demands on parents'
lives, home-school collaboration has been more successful by negotiating
educational responsibilities with parents that can be completed at home
rather than expecting parents to participate at school (see next section).
Herein lies the problem: educators still want parents to come to school
rather than going to the parents.
Best
practices in home-school collaboration are based on the belief that
parents and educators share a goal, share information directed to attaining
the goal, share decision making, and share accountability for outcomes.
This means educators need to ask parents to become involved and to share
in the responsibility for their children's education. This means educators
need to admit that help is needed by parents to resolve some educational
concerns (e.g., school violence, destructive behavior). This means that
parents may need to understand why their participation is encouraged
by educators. This means parents do not need to be told how they must
help the school, rather parents need to be able to select from several
options. In short, best practices in home-school collaboration set an
expectation that parents will be involved, however, shared decision
making will direct how they are involved. Five variables-a belief in
shared responsibilities, a high degree of perspective taking, sharing
the language of schooling, establishing the mutual goal as student success
in school, and options for parent participation for learning exemplify
the attitude in which all activities must be delivered. In the next
section, home-school collaboration strategies are illustrated.
Content
Knowledge: Home-School Collaboration Model and Strategies
Content knowledge about home-school collaboration models and strategies
is needed to be able to support partnerships between parents and educators.
In this section, home-school collaboration models and strategies, trust-building
activities, and a parent-educator problem-solving structure are described.
Epstein's
Typology. Epstein (1992) developed a well researched model of
home-school collaboration that is characterized by six types of activities.'
It is critically important for school psychologists to recognize that
these six activities, if all implemented, would constitute a comprehensive
home-school collaboration program. Epstein found that to implement such
a program is a process that involves planning and ongoing support over
a three-to-five year period. In addition, it is essential to think of
how these activities can be implemented at each grade level. There is
a dramatic decline in parent participation after fourth grade, despite
evidence that successful parent participation at secondary levels occurs
when schools reach out to parents (Cross et al., 1982). Each type of
involvement is defined and indirect and direct service activities of
how school psychologists could provide ongoing support for home-school
collaboration are provided.
Type
1 - Basic Obligations of Families refers to the responsibilities
of families for their children's health and safety, parenting and child-rearing
skills at each age level, and positive home conditions for learning
at each grade level. It is critical for educators to be sensitive to
families' customs and cultures and provide information with the understanding
that families differ in their energy, time, knowledge, and skill level
for applying the information. Indirect service activities include: Help
schools provide information on parenting skills, child development,
grade-level expectations, homework policies, and ways to build positive
home learning conditions through printed materials, videotapes, workshops,
parent support programs, and a lending library. Help schools to create
a parent/family center (Johnson, 1993). Direct service activities include:
Counsel
parents about specific ways to support students' learning and behavior
in school, make home visits, and conduct workshops on ways to maintain
healthy child development and school success across grade levels.
Given
the diversity of America's families, school psychologists should not
expect families to automatically understand their basic obligations
or the curriculum of the home. To establish a shared responsibility
for learning outcomes for students, schools must communicate this direct
message: (a) children achieve more with home support for learning; (b)
home support for learning can be provided in a variety of ways, and
these are some examples (e.g., the restaurant menu approach); and (c)
we want to work with you to increase our communication about your child's
school progress and schoolwork. Schools must allow parents to decide
how they can participate-or what role they can play. Finally, educators
must remember that some families need only information, and others need
information and ongoing support as they learn how to assume an active
role in their child's schooling. For some families it is essential to
determine what resources and support the family will need to fulfill
their responsibility (Christenson et al; 1993)
Type
2 - Communication from the school refers to the responsibilities
of schools for communications from school to home about school programs
and children's progress in forms and words all families can understand
and for options for home-to-school communications. Indirect service
activities include: Help develop frequent, efficient, and a variety
of forms of all communication that are understood by all parents (memos,
good news phone calls, report cards, conferences). Develop a structure
for effective parent-teacher conferences, a routine phone calling/contact
system, and a structure for contacting parents at the first sign of
a problem. Direct service activities include: Meet with parents to explain
school programs and children's progress. Develop unique communication
strategies for non-literate parents and communicate in parents' first
language. Facilitate conferences and family-school meetings to develop
interventions to improve child's school success and grades, and create
cooperative relationships between parents and educators. Maintaining
effective lines of communication is the most basic element of supporting
home-school partnerships. The following list illustrates ways in which
schools have changedtheir practices:
-
The
welcome sign is inviting.
-
Educators
emphasize goals for or the skills they want to teach the child rather
than the problems or deficits of the child in the school context.
-
Parents
are invited to help solve the school-based concerns, and parental
input is actively encouraged.
-
Educators
do not tell parents what to do (e.g., help your child with homework)
but are prepared to guide and show parents how to structure study
time at home.
-
Educators
communicate at the first sign of a concern. Canter and Canter (1992)
provide a helpful structure for teachers to use when contacting
parents at the first sign of a concern. The structure includes six
steps: statement of concern described using specific, observable
behaviors; steps taken by the school to solve the concern; parental
input about the concern; summary of new way to approach the concern;
expression of confidence about resolving the concern if home and
school work together; and establishing a follow-up time for contact.
-
Ask
teachers to provide four positive contacts to parents in varied
areas: curriculum. good deed, child's progress, and child's strengths.
Parents are invited to visit the classroom.
-
Establish
an ongoing contact system for all families. These have included
homework hot lines; use of electronic technology, such as the TransParent
School Model (Bauch, 1988); and school-to-home progress reports/newsletters
that provide parents with information about the classroom activity,
child's progress, and ways parents can help reinforce child's learning
(Ames, 1993). Some schools have used a notebook for all students
to increase communication between school and home. Assignments and
teachers' and parents' comments are recorded. The power of the notebook
system is that it is used school wide.
-
Provide
ways for all parents to learn about school policies and teachers'
expectations. Strategies include orientation nights offered at multiple
times, handbooks with designated policies, personal contacts for
families who do not attend, and monthly workshops to discuss the
language of schools (testing, grading practices, discipline, monitoring
students' progress).
-
Reach
out to families who do not attend or whose children are considered
potential problems. Schools conduct home visits or make phone contacts
to invite parents to participate, to determine reasons for their
lack of attendance (e.g., work conflicts, transportation), and to
articulate that children produce more in school when parents and
educators work as a team (Together Everyone Achieves More). Canter
and Canter (1992) provide a structure for teachers to use when contacting
a parent whose child is considered a potential problem student.
Teachers are encouraged to call after a few weeks of school and
to use this structure: statement of concern (e.g., I want this to
be the best year for Tom); parental input about last year; parental
input about this year; explain parental support is valued and critical;
and express confidence that working together will help the student.
Type
3 - Volunteers refers to those who assist teachers, administrators,
and children in classrooms, parent rooms, or other areas of the school;
to those who assist at home; and to those who come to school to support
student performance and events. Indirect service activities include:
Organize parent volunteer program to assist teachers, administrators,
and children in classrooms. Ensure that schools vary schedules so all
families can participate as volunteers or audience. Direct service activities
include: Train volunteers to increase their effectiveness. Ensure that
transportation and daycare are provided for families. Encourage parents
to attend school performances or other events. Contact parents who do
not attend scheduled conferences or need follow-up contacts. Develop
a buddy system to remove the barriers of transportation or alienation
for some parents.
Volunteering
by parents in schools is a traditional form of parent involvement and
one which schools value highly, but because of parents' working schedules,
requires educators to alter their practices slightly. Also, it is important
to differentiate volunteering from establishing a shared responsibility
for children's learning. At the beginning of the school year, schools
often send home a list of needed volunteer activities in the hopes of
recruiting parents. This approach indicates parents are desirable, but
this approach does not emphasize partnership. When schools invite parents
to share in the responsibility for their child's school performance
by indicating that efforts from school and home toward a common goal
are known to produce better outcomes for students, schools are saying
parents are essential, not merely desirable, to promote student success.
Therefore, when schools send home the list of volunteer activities,
a simple introductory sentence emphasizing the essential roles parents
play in achieving position outcomes turns the volunteer list into an
example of partnership effort.
Type
4 - Learning activities at home and connections to curriculum refers
to parent-initiated, child-initiated, or teacher-initiated ideas to
monitor, discuss, or assist children at home on learning activities
that are coordinated with children's class work. Indirect service activities
include: Provide inservice training to teachers on home learning activities
and other ways to involve parents with children's class work. Help schools
provide information on how to monitor homework, grade-level expectations,
and practice and enrichment activities. Teachers Involve Parents in
Schoolwork (TIPS) is a helpful resource (Epstein, Jackson, Salinas,
& Associates, 1991) Direct service activities include: Meet with
groups or individual parents to share strategies to increase student
success in school. Plan, coordinate, and monitor interventions implemented
by parents and teachers. The positive evidence for home-based learning
programs (Graue et al., 1983) is strong, and parent-educator problem-solving
meetings (see next section, this chapter) often serve as an entree for
additional consultation and case management by the school psychologist.
Type
5 - Decision making, committee, advocacy, and other leadership roles
refers to parent participation in decisions in PTA/PTO, advisory councils,
other committees or groups at school, or independent advocacy groups.
Indirect service activities include: Help schools create participatory
roles for parents and community members in PTA/PTO, advisory councils,
Chapter I, and committees. Direct service activities include: Train
parent representatives in decision-making skills, collaboration, and
ways to communicate with other parents about school improvement activities.
Facilitate development of basic policies on curriculum, homework, and
assessment. Successful home-school collaborative efforts often use the
Type 5 activity. In a review of programs, Kagan (1984) noted that an
essential element of successful endeavors is that both parents and educators
realized that home-school collaboration must be a goal of their efforts.
Schools have implemented home-school teams to plan school events, develop
policies that require home and school support for successful implementation
(homework, discipline, and to resolve school-based, system-level concerns
(e.g., school violence). For these teams to be successful, a problem-solving
orientation is necessary.
Two
examples illustrate the power of a home-school team to focus on educational
concerns. Referred to as the Comer Process, The School Development Program
was developed in 1968 by James Comer, a psychiatrist at Yale, in collaboration
with other colleagues at Yale and educators in the New Haven Public
Schools (Comer, 1980). Because of the dramatic success of this project
in terms of improving academic and social outcomes for students, the
program has been replicated in over 100 public schools. Critical components
of the program include: School Management and Planning Team (SPMT),
Mental Health Team, Parent Participation Program, and Curriculum and
Development. The SPMT is comprised of a team of two teachers, three
parents, and one mental health specialist directed by the principal
to establish policy and strategic planning across the key stakeholders
in the school. The team coordinates school functions and maintains the
focus on partnership and problem solving. The Mental Health Team is
composed of a school psychologist, a social worker, and a regular and
special education teacher. This team meets to address referrals and
concerns, and also provides systematic training to parents and teachers
about ways to promote social and behavioral competence in students.
The Parent Participation Program offers many family-school events, employs
parents as classroom assistants, and helps establish school policy by
electing three representatives to the SPMT. Finally, curriculum and
child development needs are met by providing monthly seminars in ways
parents and educators can emphasize the academic and social skills acquisition
of students. Parents and educators engage in mutual learning experiences
on this project. A true partnership means the partners listen to each
other, engage in ongoing dialogue about improving student success and
development, and realize that problems can be solved by working as a
team.
On
the Partnership for Success Program (Christenson et al., 1993), a home-school
team referred to as PATHS, Parent and Teachers Heading to Success, was
developed for parents and educators to share information and perspectives,
engage in ongoing dialogue about ways for parents and educators to assist
each other, and to maintain a shared agenda for their efforts: the success
of children in school. The team has developed a parent center and techniques
to increase and improve home-school communication, developed and implemented
a sex education program, and discussed homework policies. After two
years, signs of finger pointing between home and school temporarily
surface when a new concern is addressed. What is encouraging is that
team members realize mutual support, sharing of information, and problem
solving, not blame, are the answer, and the finger pointing ceases.
Type
6 - Collaboration and exchange with community organizations
refers to school actions and programs that provide or coordinate student
and family access to community and support services. Also, collaborations
with businesses, cultural organizations, and other groups to improve
school programs for children and services for families to support their
child rearing and guidance of children as students are included. Indirect
service activities include: Consult with teachers and administrators
about forming business partnerships and community linkages to promote
student success in school and family resource centers of school-linked
services to meet children's needs through health and social service
agencies. For example, Education Sunday refers to workshops for parents
about school issues delivered at church. Direct service activities include:
Develop resources and a referral network. Develop a family resource
center which provides family education, counseling, tutoring, food shelf
and clothing, and routine medical care. These services are often provided
by community-based professionals in collaboration with schools.
* Definitions
for the six types are provided verbatim from Epstein (1992), pp. 503-505.
Trust-Building
Events. Because of barriers that may exist for parents and educators,
trust-building activities may be essential before other collaborative
efforts (e.g., Type 4) may be successful. Trust-building activities
allow parents and educators to "find friendly faces in the crowd"
and provide socializing experiences for parents and educators. Weiss
and Edwards (1992) refer to these activities as climate-building activities.
Examples of activities include: grade-level bagel breakfasts, multicultural
potluck dinners, and family's evening out (movies, skating, gym night).
There is no limit to the kinds of activities (except for lack of creativity!)
that allow educators and parents to get to know each other on an information-sharing,
non problem-oriented basis. Many of the communication strategies qualify
as trust-building activities, also.
Parent-Educator
Problem Solving. Maintaining a problem-solving, non-blaming
interaction style with parents is essential. Parents and educators need
to meet to share information of common concern at a system level (e.g.,
school violence) and on an individual level (e g. child academic or
behavioral performance). Effective meetings are based in non-blaming
interaction and a problem-solving orientation and structure (Sheridan
& Kratochwill, 1992; Weiss & Edwards, 1992). I have modified
the structures provided by these individuals and have developed a parent-educator
problem-solving sequence that has been implemented in elementary and
middle schools to design collaborative interventions to address a myriad
of school-based concerns (attendance, academic, behavior). Although
the steps are clearly delineated, problem solving is a concept more
than a structured sequence that must be adhered to as delineated. I
expect that school psychologists will modify the steps while retaining
the essential characteristics of information sharing and sharing of
resources to achieve a goal. The stages are:
-
Introduction
Stage
1.
Rapport Building. This step is critical and, in a sense,
related to trust building. Know the student, know the concerns,
and know several positive attributes of the student. Welcome parents
to the school. Mention a positive attribute of the student.
2.
Describe the school-based concerns. These concerns can be
teacher-, parent-, or student-initiated, however, most often they
are teacher-initiated. The concern is described in specific, behavioral,
observable language. This statement reflects the child's current
level of performance which is usually considered to be problematic.
-
Reframe
the problematic behavior. Reframing is a helpful strategy
for building a partnership with parents. We know that parents
wait to be directed by schools and want to know how to help
their child be successful in school. By reframing problematic
behavior to a learning goal, the desired behavior from the child
has been specified. At this point, invite parental assistance.
Educators indicate they will work to teach Tom the academic,
social, or behavioral skills, however, they believe Tom will
learn these skills faster if the parents can join the team of
educators to also teach these skills. Parents indicate whether
they want to be involved.
-
Focus
on solutions. The facilitator of the meeting (usually the
school psychologist states that the purpose of this meeting
is to come up with a doable plan of action. something we all
agree with and can help to implement. The tone here it to note
that we aren't here to blame anyone or look for responsibility
for the problem. Rather, we are here to determine responsibilities
for solutions to the concern.
-
Identification
Stage
1.
Identify all concerns and perceptions. Parent, student, and
teacher perceptions as they relate to the school-based concern need
to be shared. There needs to be a realization that perceptions will
differ or what my colleague, Jim Maddock, in Family Social Science
at the University of Minnesota, refers to as, "truth comes
in versions." Individuals observe the student in different
settings. It is possible that other concerns will surface.
2.
Identify a mutual goal for the student. After the information
sharing session, several goals may be expressed. It is important
to arrive at consensus. Which goal will both parents and educators
work on? There may be goals that either partner will take responsibility
for and merely inform the other partner.
3.
Check for understanding. Because many issues will be discussed,
it is important to recap the discussion by describing the discrepancy
between problematic behavior and desired behavior for the child.
Parents' and educators' efforts now focus on ways to work together
to teach the desired behavior.
-
Solution
Stage
1.
Possibilities for a solution. Because parents wait to be
guided by educators, it is our experience that parents are relieved
when educators are prepared to mention several possibilities for
solution. These should include what can be done at school and home
and should be presented as a restaurant menu. Brainstorming should
be used to expand this original menu. The key is to find what parents
and teachers can realistically implement.
2.
Select an idea. It is important for parents and teachers
to indicate what they want to try to resolve the concern. After
their selection, the school psychologist should ask, "What
resources or support would you like to have as you try this idea?"
For example, the school psychologist should be prepared to offer
consultation, reading materials, contact with other parents, etc.
This question is important because it normalizes the notion of parents
needing help around schooling issues (e.g., structuring learning
time, supporting reading at home). It is an empowering statement
because the focus is on promoting opportunities for parents to recognize
their strengths, set their own agendas, and make constructive changes
in their lives.
-
Implementation
Stage
1.
Describe the doable plan. It is important to recap the roles and
responsibilities of teachers. parents, students, the school psychologist,
and others.
2.
Implementation phase. During this time, it is important for the
school psychologist or another individual to systematically contact
the parents to discuss any concerns and to provide ongoing support
and consultation.
3.
Evaluate the plan. The intervention plan is successful if the discrepancy
between problematic and desired behavior is closed or if the learning
goal is achieved. If the goal is not achieved, no one is to blame.
It simply was a lousy plan, and the team needs to reconvene to modify
the intervention. If the goal was achieved, find a way to celebrate!
In
summary, content knowledge for developing effective home-school partnerships
for learning includes partnership variables, home-school collaboration
options trust-building activities, and parent-educator problem solving.
Problem solving is the systematic tool to alter the interface between
home and school in a way to increase connectedness and minimize distance.
Process
for Developing Home-School Partnerships
Time
is a factor when implementing a home-school collaboration strategy vs.
a home-school collaboration program. Training and leadership are required
for both, however, to develop a comprehensive home-school collaboration
program takes three-to-five years to plan and implement. In contrast,
school psychologists working with individual parents could more quickly
develop home-school collaboration interventions.
Kagan
( 1984) reminds us that best practices for developing programs are characterized
by site-specific development and leadership. Each school must ask two
questions: What forms of parent participation are desirable and feasible?
and What strategies can be employed to achieve them? Other questions
that schools must consider throughout the development phase appear in
the literature. Examples include: What is the school's definition of
parent involvement? Is this the same as parents and community professionals?
Do teachers recognize the family as a system for teaching and learning?
What are high-priority problems in the school climate, and how can parents
and educators address them? Has the school district made a fiscal commitment
to development of programs? Does the majority of the staff believe in
the benefits of home-school collaboration? For which groups of parents
would educators say, "You will never get them involved!"?
Best practices suggest that schools need to create a team of parents
and educators who are interested in answering these questions.
Epstein
(personal communication, 1991) recommends a helpful process for developing
home-school partnerships. First, educators, with parental input, are
encouraged to identify strong school practices that involve parents
at each grade level. Second, educators are encouraged to specify the
kind of involvement that will be developed in year 1, 2, or 3 (or 4
or 5 if the process is lengthened). Throughout the development process,
educators must ask, "How might more parents, different parents,
or all parents be involved or better informed?" Effective home-school
collaboration programs and policies are based on the notion of shared
responsibility for educational outcomes; therefore, the roles of the
state department of education, school district administration, educators,
parents, and students are specified. It is important for school psychologists
who provide the necessary leadership in this area to be knowledgeable
about different strategies. These strategies need to be tailored to
the needs of parents and educators at each school site. Furthermore,
according to Epstein ( 1992), school psychologists would have to draw
upon several roles and skills, including: synthesizer of information
about home-school collaboration at each grade level; disseminator of
good ideas to assist the team to improve practice; coordinator of plans
for action, including multi-year plans; facilitator/trainer to support
educators implementation of new programs; demonstrator of promising
and successful practices; communicator with parents; and evaluator of
programs. Throughout the process, parents and educators must realize
that home-school collaboration is not an end but a means to the end
of promoting student success and positive attitudes towards learning.
Training
of teachers and administrators in practices that reach out to all families
is an essential prerequisite and a viable role for school psychologists.
The major point is that home-school partnerships to promote student
success require a concerted effort and leadership. While they do not
happen automatically, there is solid literature base and resources to
provide the basis for successful implementation of such programs.
Summary
Although
home-school partnerships to enhance student learning are not the norm,
there is much rhetoric and interest in developing partnerships. In this
chapter, the positive outcomes for all key stakeholders, particularly
students, was used to provide the rationale for creating home-school
partnerships for the success of all students. Features of, barriers
to, and principles of home-school collaboration were described. Best
practices were described in terms of: (a) content knowledge for guidelines
supporting home-school collaboration and home-school collaboration strategies,
and process knowledge for developing programs. Best practices are characterized
by viewing parents as partners in-not problems for-success of students.
To this end, educators are challenged in this chapter to view parents
as their allies, which requires them to: (1) ask parents to become involved
and share responsibility for their children's education, (2) admit help
is needed to resolve some school-based concerns, (3) change their beliefs
about parents described as at-risk or uninvolved, (4) overcome barriers
that maintain distance, and (5) engage in schools reaching out strategies.
Home-school partnerships to enhance student learning will become the
norm when a concerted effort is made to engage parents and educators
in sharing goals, sharing information, sharing decision making, sharing
resources, and sharing accountability for student's educational progress.
References
Ames,
C. (1993). How school-to-home communications influence parent beliefs
and perceptions. Equity and Choice, 9(3), 44-491.
Canter,
L. & Canter, M. (1991). Parents on your side. Santa Monica,
CA: Lee Canter & Associates.
Chrispeels,
J.A. (1987). The family as an educational resource. Community Education
Journal, 14, 10-17.
Christenson,
S.L. & Garrettson, B. (March 1992). What do families want from
schools? National Association of School Psychologists Annual Meeting.
Nashville, TN
Christenson,
S.L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student
achievement: An avenue to increase students' success. School Psychology
Quarterly, 7(3), 178-206.
Christenson,
S.L., Thurlow, M.L., Sinclair, M., & Evelo, D. (1993). The Partnership
for School Success Project. Unpublished manuscript.
Coleman,
J.S. (August-September 1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher,
32-38.
Collins,
C.H., Moles, O., & Cross, M. (1982). The home-school connection:
Selected partnership programs in large cities. Boston, MA: Institute
for Responsive Education.
Comer,
J.P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project.
New York: Free Press.
Davies,
D. (l991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships
for student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 376-382.
Epstein.
J.L. (1992). School and family partnerships: Leadership roles for school
psychologists. In S.L. Christenson & J.C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school
collaboration: Enhancing children's academic & social competence
(pp. 499-515). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Epstein,
J.L. & Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices
of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The
Elementary School Journal 91(3), 289-306.
Epstein,
J.L., Jackson, V.E., Salinas, K.C., & Associates (1991). Manual
for teachers. Teachers involve parents in schoolwork (TIPS). Baltimore,
NID: Center on Families, Communities. Schools, and Children's Learning.
The Johns Hopkins University.
Fruchter,
N., Galletta, A., & White, J.L. (1992). New directions in parent
involvement. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development,
Inc.
Graue,
M.E., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H.J. (1983). School-based home instruction
and learning: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Educational Research,
76(6), 351-360.
Guttmann,
J. (1982). Pupils', teachers', and parents' causal attributions for
problem behavior at school. Journal of Special Education, 76,
14-21.
Hansen,
D.A. (1986). Family-school articulations: The effects of interaction
rule mismatch. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4),
643-659.
Heleen,
O. (1989). Involving the "hard to reach" parent: A working
model. Equity and Choice, 4, 60-63.
Henderson
A. (1989). The evidence continues to grow. Columbia, MD: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hulsebosch,
P.L. (April 1989). Significant others. Teachers' perspectives on
relationships with parents. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Jennings,
L. (August 1990). Parents as partners: Reaching out to families to help
students learn. Education Week, 9(40), 23-32.
Johnson,
V.R. (September 1993). Parent/family centers in schools: Expanding outreach
and promoting collaboration. Research and Development Report No.
20. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and
Children's Learning. Johns Hopkins University.
Kagan,
S.L. (1984). Parent involvement research: A field in search of itself.
Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education.
Keith,
T.Z., Keith, P.B., Troutman, E., Brickley, P.G., Trivette, P.S., &
Singh, K. (in press). Does parent involvement affect eighth-grade student
achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology
Review
Krasnow,
J. (1990). Building parent-teacher partnerships: Prospects from the
perspective of the Schools Reaching Out Project. Boston, MA: Institute
for Responsive Education.
Leitch,
L.M. & Tangri, S.S. (1988). Barriers to home-school collaboration.
Educational Horizons, 66, 70-74.
Lindle,
J.C. (1989). What do parents want from principals and teachers? Educational
Leadership, 47(2), 8- 10.
Liontos,
L.B. (1992). At-risk families and schools. Becoming partners.
University of Oregon. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
College of Education.
Menning,
E. (1993). New Mexico's family development program and the crucial three
steps to parent involvement. Family Resource Coalition Report (No.
2). Chicago, IL.
Ooms,
T. & Hara, S. (1991). The family-school partnership: A critical
component of school reform. Washington, DC: The Family Impact Seminar.
Peterson,
N.L. & Cooper, C.S. (1989). Parent education and involvement in
early intervention programs for handicapped children: A different perspective
on parent needs and the parent-professional relationship. In M.J. Fine
(Ed.), The second handbook on parent education. Contemporary perspectives
(pp. 197-236). New York: Academic Press.
Rich,
D. (1987a). Teachers and parents: An adult-to-adult approach.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Rich,
D.(1987b). Schools and families: Issues and actions. Washington,
DC: National Education Association.
Rich,
D. (1988). Bridging the parent gap in education reform. Educational
Horizons, 66 (2), 90-92.
Seeley,
D.S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Sheridan,
S.M. & Kratochwill, T.R. (1992). Behavioral parent-teacher consultation:
Conceptual and research considerations. Journal of School Psychology,
30, 117-139.
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.
Swap,
S.M. (1987). Enhancing parent involvement in schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Swap,
S.M. (1992). Parent involvement and success for all children: What we
know now. In S.L. Christenson & J.C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school
collaboration. Enhancing children's academic & social competence
(pp. 499-515). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Vosler-Hunter,
R.W. (1989). Families and professionals working together: Issues and
opportunities. Focal Point, 4(1), 1-4.
Walberg,
H.J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi
Delta Kappan. 65
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 & social competence (pp. 215-243). Silver Spring, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Annotated
Bibliography
Christenson,
S.L. & Conoley, J.C. (Eds.) (1992). Home-school collaboration:
Enhancing children's academic and social competence. Silver Spring,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
In
this 24-chapter book, programs and models for the 90s are provided in
8 chapters and practical approaches for use with different populations
and concerns are described in 12 chapters. In the remaining chapters,
the theoretical and empirical bases for developing partnerships, community
resources, and leadership roles for school psychologists are described.
Fruchter,
N. Galetta, A., & White, J.L. (1992). New directions in parent
involvement. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development,
Inc.
The
results of a study examining new directions in parent involvement in
school districts across the country are reported. Eighteen recently
developed programs or reforms for preschool - grade 12 are described
and include such programs as Comer's School Development Program, Levin's
Accelerated Schools Program, Davies's League of Schools Reaching Out,
Parents as Teachers (PAT) program, Megaskills Program, etc. Excellent
reference and resource lists are provided.
Liontos,
L.B. (1992). At-risk families & schools. Becoming partners.
University of Oregon. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management,
College of Education.
This
150-page manual is an excellent, readable synthesis of theory, research,
and specific programs about home-school collaboration for at-risk populations.
Topics include communication, home as an educative environment, school
readiness, home learning, and decision making. Particular emphasis is
placed on early intervention, dropout prevention, and supporting and
strengthening families. Elements of successful programs and information
on reaching families is detailed.
Moles,
O. C. (1993). Building home-school partnerships for learning. Workshops
for urban educators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).
This
sourcebook is designed to give educators new information and strategies
for working with parents and to strengthen learning activities at home
that support learning at school. It contains five workshops and related
materials for local staff development activities in elementary and middle
schools. Topics include: family life, school programs and teacher practice,
and district policies that facilitate home-school partnerships. Although
the sourcebook is directed to urban educators, the material applies
equally well to suburban and rural education.
Swap,
S.M. (1993). Developing home-school-partnerships: From concepts to
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Background
information includes the benefits of parent involvement, barriers to
parent involvement, and models of home-school relationships. Based on
a new vision for a partnership model, Swap articulates two-way communication
strategies, conferencing strategies, shared decision making strategies,
and home support for learning strategies. Strategies for developing
partnerships on a limited basis and in a comprehensive fashion are described.
