ERIC EJ1111063: Strengthening Relationships with Families in the School Community: Do School Leaders Make a Difference?

2016·0.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

Strengthening Relationships with Families in
the School Community: Do School Leaders
Make a Difference?
Maria S. Quezada
School principals can play a key role in family engagement by believing in the leadership capacity
of parents and viewing families as partners in their school community.
Many family engagement successful partnerships between
programs logically focus families and schools is the school
on providing training and principal. Even with comprehensive
support for parent leaders, giving parent leadership training, sustain-
them the skills and knowledge able family engagement initiatives
necessary to effectively partner with cannot truly take hold without
schools. Yet in implementing family buy-in, shared understanding, and
engagement programs, I have found a structure for parent engagement
again and again that the key to at the school level.
Maria S. Quezada is the project director of Project 2INSPIRE at the California Association for
Bilingual Education.
VUE 2016, no. 44 23
A FOCUS ON CULTURALLY the idea of empowerment. . . .
RESPONSIVE PARENT Co-powerment is communication
ENGAGEMENT that seeks to lift the confidence,
energy, and agency of another
For over twenty years, I have worked person, self, and the relationship. It
in programs providing parent leader- is lifting the power of self and others.
ship training to bilingual families in The better we become at co-power-
Southern California, first as the ing, the more we grow deeper
director of the Multifunctional relationships that develop our power
Resource Center (MRC) at the Center to create positive personal, family,
for Language Minority Education and and community change.
Research (CLMER) at California State
University, Long Beach, and since When we used this culturally respon-
2000, at the California Association for sive process, we were inspired by the
Bilingual Education (CABE). Because transformation experienced by the
we work with parents who are cultur- parents attending our institutes – espe-
ally, linguistically, and racially diverse, cially after they had attended several
the sessions are grounded in a sessions. Parents who never shared or
“community learning theory” (CLT) participated in the early discussions
approach, developed by Roberto would freely and confidently do so dur-
Vargas (2008) and J. David Ramirez ing the final sessions; parents shared
(2010), a cultural strategy that uses that they were more active in ensuring
diversity-responsive processes and their child was getting on track for
activities essential for developing the college. We were creating and fostering
critical relationships that provide the a sense of community, belonging, and
foundation for individual and commu- personal power among the parents
nity empowerment, action, and change. attending the sessions. Project staff
developed a greater understanding of
The CLT approach includes acknowl- the families and became more adept at
edging and building on existing addressing the cultural, linguistic,
cultural “funds of knowledge,” or social, economic, and political barriers
what Yosso (2005) and others call they faced. They created activities that
“community cultural wealth.” It also engaged parents through the use of art
introduces Vargas’s (1987) concepts and metaphors, creating a safe place to
of the Unity Principle, which seeks to share their lives and aspirations for
build a sense of conocimiento (“Who their children. The parents recognized
am I?” “Who is s/he?” and “Who are that we were reaching out to them in
we?”) and unity through shared power a very different way than schools
and trust. Using this process, we learn usually did.
about each person and the lived
experiences that have given them
cultural capital and wisdom that is SCHOOL-LEVEL BARRIERS
now shared with others. Knowing TO PARENT ENGAGEMENT
individuals at a deeper level brings
When I became the chief executive
confianza (confidence and trust) to
officer of CABE in 2000, we continued
work together in unity and power.
to offer the parent institutes, as well as
In his work in communities, Vargas
a parent center, at our annual confer-
(2013) has also introduced us to the
ence. As the CEO, I often ran into
concept of “co-powerment,” a practice
“transformed” parents who had
that he believes is:
previously attended our institutes.
more collaborative than the hierar- Many of them were frustrated and in
chical relationships often implied by some cases “militant” because they
24 Annenberg Institute for School Reform
were going back to schools that were treatment schools and eighteen control
not transformed. Schools did not schools were randomly selected to
honor the role that parents can play participate in this study.
in schools and share an understanding
During the first year, we developed a
that parents are their children’s first
three-level curriculum. The control
teachers. Some parents had learned
schools did not receive any of the
that the school budget required
seesions that were provided in the
approval of the school site council, but
treatment schools. Parents at the
their school only asked them to sign
eighteen treatment schools received
the budget without the opportunity to
twelve three-hour modules at the
review or comment on it. The knowl-
Mastery level and eighteen three-hour
edge and skills they learned in our
modules for the trainer-of-trainers
earlier institutes were not deep enough
Expert level, both rooted in the CLT
to work through the barriers created in
approach. Because of our experience
some schools that were not prepared to
with previous programs, we wanted to
“engage” parents in a meaningful and
create a program where, at the end of
partnering way.
the study, the schools would be left
As an organization that advocates for with “parent experts” who had the
equitable programs for English learners capacity to maintain the program at
and their families, CABE firmly the conclusion of the grant. We had
believes that families are a child’s first also learned that when families from
teacher, and that they have the capacity the same school work together, they
to be strong partners with schools form supportive social relationships
(Dantas & Manyak 2011). Being in
“
a leadership role and with a deep
commitment to engaging families and
parents, I was searching for a way to,
at minimum, lessen the frustration felt
by parents who could not make Many parent leaders were frustrated because
“
inroads into their children’s schools.
they were going back to schools that did not
In 2003, my colleagues and I submitted
a proposal for a Parent Information honor the role that parents can play or share
Resource Center (PIRC) grant from the
U.S. Department of Education’s Office an understanding that parents are their
of Innovation and Improvement. We
were successful in obtaining the grant children’s first teachers.
funds, and we were on our way to
search for the best way to serve our
parent communities. In 2006, CABE
secured a second PIRC grant – this
one with a statewide focus – to further
that can provide a protective function
develop our parent engagement
for families who face many challenges
program. Since this federal grant
(Ramirez 2010; Yosso 2005; Hender-
included funding to conduct research
son et al. 2007). This is especially true
on family engagement, we had the
for immigrant families, who often
opportunity to not only design a
lack the support of extended families
culturally responsive program for
and feel they are isolated in their
communities of color, but to also really
communities.
look into the impact the program was
having on parents and their children’s The basic research question was,
academic achievement. Eighteen “Did the students whose parents
Maria S. Quezada VUE 2016, no. 44 25
attended the Mastery and Expert level PREPARING SCHOOL LEADERS
sessions have an increase in achieve- AND STAFF FOR FAMILY
ment?” Our study showed that they
ENGAGEMENT
did have significant growth over other
students at the treatment and control When we secured a federal Investing in
schools. Another surprising result was Innovation (i3) Development grant2 in
that English learners whose parents 2012 to study parental engagement,
attended the parent leadership develop- we were able to put all of our previous
ment sessions also learned more learning to the task. We have laid a
English than students at the treatment strong foundation for the program by
schools whose parents hadn’t attended making sure that our previous short-
the program sessions, as measured by comings in designing a program for
the gains on the California English engaging parents were carefully
Language Development Test. considered. The i3 Project 2INSPIRE
Family, School & Community Engage-
Despite these gains, we once again ment Program now includes
found a key ingredient to be missing professional learning for everyone at
from the program: the school leader. the school; a strong emphasis on
While the principals were pleased with fostering relationships among the
the outcomes for parents, they did not principal, teachers, and other parents;
fully understand – nor did we make and the development of a yearly plan
provisions for working specifically on for parental engagement where parents
– the knowledge and skills of the help plan, monitor, and evaluate the
school leader that are necessary to plan, and where parent leadership
engage the families at the school and development is only one of the compo-
to forge those important relationships. nents – not the total program.
There were “bright spots” in about
half of the eighteen schools, where the The new program, which involves ten
principals saw the power of having schools at three districts in southern
parents “join the team.” The principals California, offers professional develop-
at these schools1 shared, during ment for school leaders, teachers, office
individual interviews, the changes they support staff, and parents. The school
saw in the parents at their school. They leader and district representatives have
spoke of how the parents were “chang- attended a two-day session on parent
ing the dynamics” of teacher-to-parent engagement research, strategies, and
interactions, and that parents had practices and a two-day session on
learned how to communicate effec- cultural proficiency in schools by noted
tively with them, so they were able to experts (Michelle Brooks, Karen
express their views about what changes Mapp, and Randall Lindsay). They
were needed at the school. However, also have attended a two-day session
the research project was not designed on the Action Team for Partnerships
to collect survey information to (ATP) model led by Joyce Epstein and
document these changes. have written their action plan for
parental engagement for their school
(Epstein et al. 2002). In our previous
1 Part of the criteria used in the selection
attempts at designing programs for
of the schools in the 2006–2011 study
were what we called “readiness factors” parents, we learned that unless there is
for parental engagement. We felt it was a structure and shared understandings
important to have schools that were not as to how to engage parents at the
dealing with many other challenges and
school level, the likelihood of sustain-
could participate fully in the program.
2 F or more on the i3 program, see http:// ing the program is minimized.
www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.
html?exp=0.
26 Annenberg Institute for School Reform
We also felt it was important to Partnerships (Mapp & Kuttner 2013)
provide teachers with sessions on are becoming evident in actual
building relationships with families, practices of the program.
so every year we have Roberto Vargas
Because of the strength-based,
facilitate a seminar introducing CLT to
collaborative leadership development
teachers participating in our program.
program that provides families the
During our spring 2015 meeting with
necessary tools to participate more
district and school leaders, teachers
fully in the education of their children,
suggested that office staff, and even our
school leaders are recognizing that
parent leaders, could benefit from
parent leadership is important. On a
attending alongside the teachers in
yearly survey given at the beginning of
learning how to build relationships.
each school year, principal responses
Therefore, school teams attended our
have steadily increased on a survey
October 2015 CLT session, which
item that asks them whether this
proved to be very effective, giving
description applies to their school:
teachers, office staff, and parents the
“Families and staff have opportunities
opportunity to learn about each other
to learn together how to collaborate to
and form vital relationships. Project
improve student achievement.” Out of
staff reported that after this session,
the ten principals participating in our
they felt the climate at the school was
program, in Year 1, three indicated
much more inviting. A principal at one
that this statement was “a great deal or
of the i3 schools also reported that an
a lot like our school”; in Year 2, it was
amazing thing had happened: an
five principals; and in Year 3, it was
especially irate parent, who had a
eight principals.
two-year battle with a teacher, had
apologized to the teacher and pledged School leaders are recognizing the
to work on their relationship. positive benefits of having a critical
mass of parent leaders who work as a
Teachers are also improving their
team and have reached out to them to
perceptions of parents. In the first i3
form a stronger relationship, which has
survey of teachers, 55 percent of
really added value to their schools. For
classroom teachers said they felt that
example, one principal reported that
their students’ parents helped their
the parents came to her to tell of their
children learn. In Year 2, 78 percent of
concern that the library was closed and
school staff indicated that parents at
not available for the children. The
their school who are actively engaged
principal explained that she did not
have a positive impact on student
have the funds to pay for someone to
learning, and by Year 3, that number
reorganize the books into the new
had increased to 88 percent of school
reading levels. The parents stepped up
staff. The i3 research project is docu-
and worked as a team, and the library
menting all of these activities and
was available two months later.
changes in the schools.
Events like these are happening even in
schools with a large number of families
LESSONS LEARNED
with racially, ethnically, and economi-
The i3 Project 2INSPIRE schools are cally diverse backgrounds. In at least
working with families to forge those seven of the ten schools, the parents
important relationships and partner- have developed the skills, knowledge,
ships needed for school and student and confidence needed to negotiate the
success. The concepts and outcomes multiple roles – supporters, encourag-
presented in the Dual Capacity-Build- ers, monitors, decision-makers,
ing Framework for Family School advocates, collaborators – of effective
Maria S. Quezada VUE 2016, no. 44 27
family engagement (Mapp & Kuttner tary the best it can be. The school
2013). District staff, school leaders, doesn’t belong to any one person or
teachers, and other school staff are any one group – Martin Elementary
learning that given relevant informa- belongs to all of us whose children
tion about schools, families can study here and all who work at the
participate fully in school activities and school to teach the children.
functions. Schools are learning to
respect and honor families’ existing
Measuring Principal Support for
knowledge and their potential contri-
Parent Leadership
butions to the work of schools. As one
principal participating in our i3 One thing all of our schools have
initiative said: learned is that engaging families is
a process, and the first step is to
At their LCAP3 parent meetings,
demonstrate a commitment to family
parents and community members
engagement as a core strategy to
had a chance to receive an update on
improve teaching and learning, as
the school’s goals and performance
Jeynes (2011) states: “A school can run
and to voice their ideas about how
a parental engagement program with
they could further support students
great efficiency, but parents can easily
in their academic growth and overall
discern whether their participation is
well-being at the school. Parents
welcome and whether their input is
attending had the chance to collabo-
warmly received.”
rate in small groups and chart their
ideas under each of the three LCAP One of the measures we use to docu-
goals: Teaching and Learning, ment progress in working with the
Enrichment and School Climate, schools is feedback about the program
and Safety. Each small group of from the parent specialists who provide
parents had a facilitator that the parent leadership sessions at the
supported them in sharing their schools every week. In these parent
ideas. Many of the facilitators were leaders’ responses to the question of
other parents who participated in the rating the principal’s support for the
Project 2INSPIRE parent leadership program (1= strong, 2= supportive,
development classes. 3= developing and 4= weak), they
reported that five of the ten principals
These parents are now leaders on the
in the i3 project are “strong” support-
campus, creating positive change and
ers and are effectively engaging their
supporting our students in many
families, two of the school leaders are
roles, including being members of
“supportive,” and three others are
our School Site Council and English
“developing” their skills.
Learner Advisory Committee. The
conversations consisted of high-qual- The principals identified as strong
ity, informed ideas and empowered supporters are realizing that, as school
all involved to make Martin Elemen- leaders, they also have the skills,
knowledge, and confidence to create
welcoming and inviting learning
3 Local Control Accountability Plans
communities for their families and
(LCAPs) are part of California’s new local
control funding formula, which dictates parents. For example, as part of an
that districts obtain input from parents and assignment in the Expert level training,
the community on their school plans. See
parents are asked to make presenta-
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.
tions to the teachers at a staff meeting.
asp.
At two schools with principals who are
“strong” supporters, principals not
only encouraged their parent leaders to
28 Annenberg Institute for School Reform
present what they were learning to the At another school with a “developing”
teachers, but they worked alongside principal, parents report that they
the parent specialist to prepare a continue to feel like they are on the
parent team from each of the four i3 “outside” of the school; the principal
schools in the district to make a has parents at her school busy with
presentation to the school board about tasks, but when it comes to deciding
the i3 Project 2INSPIRE program. what happens at that school, the
These two principals attended the parents do not have a voice. This
district meeting along with the parents principal completed the school’s ATP
and spoke of how proud they were of plan on her own, without bringing in
the parents at their school. When one the parent leaders who attended the
of the principals was transferred to a ATP session with Joyce Epstein. The
new school, some of the parent leaders parents do not feel that they can have
from her previous school “transferred” a relationship that is based on mutual
with her. respect at this school. In her study of
school leadership and family engage-
On the other hand, the three school
ment, Auerbach (2009) reports that
leaders who are “developing” seem to
many principals “named ‘relationship
see many barriers to the engagement of
building’ as part of their vision of
parents at their school. In an individual
parent involvement, but few could
interview, one of these principals told
be observed actually engaging in it
us that the parents at their school “just
with parents.”
won’t do those types of activities,”
referring to the presentations for
teachers at staff meetings. In discussing Parent Involvement vs.
the fact that our program’s “expert and Parent Engagement
advanced” parent leaders facilitate the
Mapp (2010) talks about a paradigm
parent leadership development sessions
shift that is needed to redefine what it
for other parents, one of the “develop-
means to engage parents, and Ferlazzo
ing” principals stated, “I am not sure
(2009) outlines important distinctions
if the parents at my school can ever
in the way families become partners in
manage being a facilitator and present
the school, describing the differences
the technical information we cover in
between involvement and engagement:
the modules after they graduate from
our Expert level.” It was interesting for When we’re engaging parents, the
me to hear this comment, because three parent is considered a leader or a
of the four parent specialists who work potential leader who is integral to
with the i3 project schools are actually identifying a vision and goals. He/she
parent leaders from our former PIRC encourages others to contribute their
project, serving as proof that parents own vision to that big picture and
can rise to high levels when given the helps perform the tasks that need
chance. In fact, parents at this princi- to be achieved in order to reach
pals’ school have demonstrated their those goals.
leadership abilities in other ways,
The following matrix is an adaptation
creating an Earth Day event for the
of his main points. It gives us a way to
kindergarten classes and making
see the differences more clearly and
project t-shirts.
then compare the engagement features
found in our schools between “strong”
principals and those who are “develop-
ing” their skills to fully engage the
parents at their school.
Maria S. Quezada VUE 2016, no. 44 29
PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT
When schools involve parents they are When schools engage parents they are
leading with their institutional self-interest leading with the parents’ self-interests
and desires. (their wants and dreams) in an effort to
develop a genuine partnership.
When we’re involving parents, school When we’re engaging parents, school
staff can fall into the role of a social staff act more as community organizers
worker who does things for parents, or who help parents do things for them-
who tends to tell them what they should selves, and who elicit from parents ideas
be doing with their child. about what parents and school staff could
be doing to better help their child and
their community.
When we’re involving parents, schools When we’re engaging parents, schools
tend to focus on supporting students by support students by developing parent
strengthening and assisting school relationships and often working with
programs and priorities. parents to improve their local communities.
When we’re involving parents, the parent When we’re engaging parents, they are
is generally directed towards completing challenged to do something about what
tasks selected by the school staff – or the they feel is important to them. Staff learn
parent may be a client who receives what parents believe is important through
services and information. developing a relationship.
“
that their support and the relationship
they developed with them over the last
two years is making a difference.
“
Principals who see parents as leaders and
The “developing” principals, while
they are reporting that they have a
give them the space to use their newly
relationship with parents, seem to
be operating in the old paradigm of
developed skills tell us that their parents
“involving” parents. These principals
are providing more services to parents
are transformed.
and offering them opportunities, such
as “coffee with the principal,” to
dialog with them or introduce topics
they want to share with parents.
Although they have the best intentions
In looking at the dynamics of the i3 for the parents at their school, they
schools, it seems that those five have not shifted their perspective about
principals considered “strong” sup- what parents are capable of doing.
porters have begun to make that This diminishes the role parents have
paradigm shift from involvement to in their school community.
engagement as Ferlazzo describes.
They see parents as leaders and have
given them the space to use their newly
developed skills as parent leaders.
These principals tell us that their
parents are transformed and have seen
30 Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Confidence in Relationship Building In the i3 project we have seen shifts in
and Belief in Parent Capacity principals’ perceptions of parents. It
usually comes about when there is an
For school leaders, building relation-
event at the school where parents have
ships with parents is not an easy task.
taken the lead and carry out the event
It takes nurturing and persistence in
in a very professional manner and with
order to develop and gain trust with
great results. This then triggers a
the families in the school community,
change in the perception and they
yet these relationships are of the
begin to trust that parents have the
utmost importance (Cunningham,
ability and knowledge. This success
Kreider & Ocón 2012). Strong family,
also leads to a measureable change in
school, and community engagement
the principals’ own confidence to let
programs reach out to families and
this happen. Those school leaders who
engage them in true partnerships,
recognize that parents are assets and
challenging parents to learn and apply
resources for their school will see their
the necessary supports for their
schools change and become better, and
children’s learning at home or school.
as a result, will see a positive impact on
It is a shared-responsibility, integrated,
student learning and well-being.
sustained, and family-strengthening
approach that truly engages parents
and fosters the relationships between
schools and the home. We see this in REFERENCES
schools when the school leader is
confident in developing relationships Auerbach, S. 2009. “Walking the Walk:
with the families in the school. Portraits in Leadership for Family Engage-
ment in Urban Schools,” The School
What is becoming evident in our work
Community Journal 19, no. 1:9–32.
is that families who have participated
in the i3 Parent Leadership Develop- Cunningham, S., H. Kreider, and J. Ocón,
ment Program have the tools they need J. 2012. “Influence of a Parent Leadership
to feel connected to the school, Program on Participants’ Leadership
understand how the school functions, Capacity and Actions,” School Community
and participate in the school more Journal 22, no.1:111–124.
readily. The missing link in some
Dantas, M., and P. Manyak. 2011.
schools is for school leaders to truly
Home-School Connections in a Multicul-
believe that parents – especially those
tural Society: Learning from and with
who have taken on the challenge of
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
becoming parent leaders – are an asset
Families. New York: Routledge.
to the school.
Epstein, J., M. Sanders, B. Simon, K.
Salinas, N. Jansorn, and F. VanVoorhis.
2002. School, Family, and Community
Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Ferlazzo, L. 2009. “Parent Involvement or
Parent Engagement,” Learning First
Alliance blog (May 19), http://goo.gl/
Iycuhz.
Maria S. Quezada VUE 2016, no. 44 31
Henderson, A., K. Mapp, V. Johnson, and
D. Davies. 2007. Beyond the Bake Sale:
The Essential Guide to Family-School
Partnerships. New York: The New Press.
Jeynes, W. 2011. “Parental Involvement
Research: Moving to the Next Level,” The
School Community Journal 21, no. 1:9–18.
Mapp, K. L., and P. J. Kuttner. 2013.
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-
Building Framework for Family-School
Partnerships. Austin, TX: Southern
Educational Development Laboratory.
Mapp, K. L. 2010. “Setting the Stage:
Reframing Family and Community
Engagement,” address given at the National
Policy Forum for Family, School and
Community Engagement (November 9),
Washington, DC.
Ramirez, J. D. 2010. “Building Family
Support for Student Achievement: CABE
Project INSPIRE Parent Leadership
Development Program,” The Multilingual
Educator (March), http://goo.gl/YFFBg6.
Vargas, R. 2013. “Co-powerment,”
Rockwood Leadership Institute blog
(January 10), http://goo.gl/YYlxWO.
Vargas, R. 2008. Family Activism: Empow-
ering Your Community, Beginning with
Family and Friends. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Vargas, R. 1987. “Transformative Knowl-
edge: A Chicano Perspective,” In Context,
A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable
Culture 17:48–53.
Yosso, T. 2005. “Whose Culture Has
Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion
of Community Cultural Wealth,” Race,
Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1:169–91.
32 Annenberg Institute for School Reform