ERIC ED593896: Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships

2013·7.6 MB·English

by  ERIC

Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
Partners Education
in
A Dual Capacity-Building
Framework for
Family–School Partnerships
A publication of SEDL in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education
i
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
2013 © Copyright by SEDL
Funding for this publication is provided by the U.S. Department of Education,
contract number ED-04-CO-0039/0001.
ii
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
My vision for family engagement is ambitious…
I want to have too many parents demanding excellence in their schools.
I want all parents to be real partners in education with their children’s
teachers, from cradle to career. In this partnership, students and parents
should feel connected—and teachers should feel supported. When parents
demand change and better options for their children, they become the real
accountability backstop for the educational system.
—ARNE DUNCAN, U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, MAY 3, 2010
1
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................5
The Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships ....................7
The Challenge .................................................................................................7
Opportunity Conditions ...................................................................................9
Policy and Program Goals ...............................................................................10
Staff and Family Partnership
Outcomes .....................................................................................................11
The Three Case Studies ......................................................................................13
Stanton Elementary School ..............................................................................13
Boston Public Schools ....................................................................................16
First 5 Santa Clara County ...............................................................................19
Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................25
Endnotes ..........................................................................................................27
About the Authors .............................................................................................28
3

Introduction
For schools and districts across the U.S., family engagement is rapidly
shifting from a low-priority recommendation to an integral part of
education reform efforts.
or schools and districts across the U.S., fam- school leadership, a high-quality faculty, communi-
ily engagement1 is rapidly shifting from a ty engagement and partnerships, a student-centered
low-priority recommendation to an integral learning climate, and effective instructional guidance
part of education reform efforts. Family engagement for staff (See Figure 1 on page 6).6 In particular,
has long been enshrined in policy at the federal level research shows that initiatives that take on a partner-
through Title I of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary ship orientation—in which student achievement and
Education Act), which requires that Title I schools school improvement are seen as a shared responsibil-
develop parental involvement policies and “school– ity, relationships of trust and respect are established
family compacts” that outline how the two stakeholder between home and school, and families and school staff
groups will work together to boost student achieve- see each other as equal partners—create the conditions
ment.2 State governments are increasingly adding their for family engagement to flourish.7
voices to the chorus. As of January 2010, 39 states
and the District of Columbia had enacted laws calling
for the implementation of family engagement policies.3 Over 50 years of research links the various roles
In 2012, Massachusetts was one of several states to
that families play in a child’s education—as
integrate family engagement into its educator evalu-
ation system, making “family and community engage- supporters of learning, encouragers of grit and
ment” one of the four pillars of its rubric for evaluating determination, models of lifelong learning,
teachers and administrators.4
and advocates of proper programming and
placements for their child.
These policies are rooted in a wide body of research
demonstrating the beneficial effects of parental involve-
ment and family–school partnerships. Over 50 years of
research links the various roles that families play in a Given this research base, the increase in policies
child’s education—as supporters of learning, encour- promoting family engagement is a sign of progress
agers of grit and determination, models of lifelong toward improving educational opportunities for all
learning, and advocates of proper programming and children. Yet these mandates are often predicated on
placements for their child—with indicators of student a fundamental assumption: that the educators and
achievement including student grades, achievement test families charged with developing effective partnerships
scores, lower drop-out rates, students’ sense of personal between home and school already possess the requisite
competence and efficacy for learning, and students’ skills, knowledge, confidence, and belief systems—in
beliefs about the importance of education.5 Recent other words, the collective capacity—to successfully
work by the Chicago Consortium on School Research has implement and sustain these important home–school
also shown that “parent and community ties” can have relationships. Unfortunately, this assumption is deeply
a systemic and sustained effect on learning outcomes flawed. Principals and teachers receive little training
for children and on whole school improvement when for engaging families and report feeling under-pre-
combined with other essential supports such as strong pared, despite valuing relationships with families.8
5
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
Parents, meanwhile—particularly low-income and among educators and families to partner with one
limited-English-proficient parents—face multiple another around student success. Based in existing
barriers to engagement, often lacking access to the research and best practices, the “Dual Capacity-
social capital and understanding of the school system Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships” is
necessary to take effective action on behalf of their designed to act as a scaffold for the development of
children.9 Without attention to training and capacity family engagement strategies, policies, and programs.
building, well-intentioned partnership efforts fall flat. This is not a blueprint for engagement initiatives,
Rather than promoting equal partnerships between par- which must be designed to fit the particular contexts
ents and schools at a systemic level, these initiatives in which they are carried out. Instead, the Dual
default to one-way communication and “random acts of Capacity-Building Framework should be seen as a
engagement”10 such as poorly attended parent nights. compass, laying out the goals and conditions neces-
sary to chart a path toward effective family engage-
This paper presents a new framework for designing ment efforts that are linked to student achievement
family engagement initiatives that build capacity and school improvement.
Figure 1: Five Essential Supports
The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research11
2.
PROFESSIONAL CLASSROOM
CAPACITY
LEADERSHIP
as the Driver
for Change
4.
STUDENT- 5.
CENTERED INSTRUCTIONAL
LEARNING GUIDANCE
CLIMATE
3.
PARENT-
COMMUNITY
TIES
From Community Social Capital and School Improvement, (slide 4) by P. B. Sebring, 2012. Paper presented at the National Community
and School Reform Conference at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Copyright ©University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR). Reprinted by SEDL with permission from the author, Penny Bender Sebring, CCSR.
6
The Dual Capacity-Building
Framework for Family–School
Partnerships
The following section provides a brief explanation of the Dual
Capacity-Building Framework and its components.
he Dual Capacity-Building Framework (See families. A monitoring report issued in 2008 by the
Figure 2 on page 8) was formulated using U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary
the research on effective family engagement and Secondary Education found that family engage-
and home–school partnership strategies and ment was the weakest area of compliance by states.12
practices, adult learning and motivation, and leader- According to the 2012 “MetLife Survey of the American
ship development. The Dual Capacity-Building Frame- Teacher,” both teachers and principals across the coun-
work components include: try consistently identify family engagement to be one
of the most challenging aspects of their work.13 A com-
1. a description of the capacity challenges that must mon refrain from educators is that they have a strong
be addressed to support the cultivation of effective desire to work with families from diverse backgrounds
home–school partnerships; and cultures and to develop stronger home-school
2. a n articulation of the conditions integral to the partnerships of shared responsibility for children’s out-
success of family–school partnership initiatives and comes, but they do not know how to accomplish this.
interventions; Families, in turn, can face many personal, cultural, and
structural barriers to engaging in productive part-
3. a n identification of the desired intermediate capaci-
nerships with teachers. They may not have access to
ty goals that should be the focus of family engage-
the social and cultural capital needed to navigate the
ment policies and programs at the federal, state,
complexities of the U.S. educational system,14 or they
and local level; and
may have had negative experiences with schools in the
4. a description of the capacity-building outcomes for past, leading to distrust or to feeling unwelcomed.15
school and program staff as well as for families. The limited capacity of the various stakeholders to
partner with each other and to share the responsibility
After outlining these four components, we present for improving student achievement and school perfor-
three case studies that illustrate and further develop mance is a major factor in the relatively poor execution
the Framework. The case studies feature a school, a of family engagement initiatives and programs over the
district, and a county whose efforts to develop capaci- years.16
ty around effective family–school partnerships embody
the Dual Capacity-Building Framework. Contributing to this problem is the lack of sustained,
accessible, and effective opportunities to build
capacity among local education agency (LEA) staff
The Challenge
and families. If effective cradle-to-career education-
Many states, districts, and schools struggle with how al partnerships between home and school are to be
to cultivate and sustain positive relationships with implemented and sustained with fidelity, engagement
7
Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
Figure 2: The Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family–School Partnerships
Lack of opportunities Lack of
Ineffective
for School/ opportunities for
Family–School
THE Program Staff to Families to build
build the capacity Partnerships the capacity for
CHALLENGE
for partnerships partnerships
Process Conditions Organizational Conditions
• Linked to learning • Systemic: across the organization
OPPORTUNITY
• Relational • Integrated: embedded in all
CONDITIONS • Development vs. service orientation programs
• Collaborative • Sustained: with resources and
• Interactive infrastructure
To build and enhance the capacity of staff/families in the “4 C” areas:
POLICY AND
• Capabilities (skills and knowledge)
PROGRAM • Connections (networks)
• Cognition (beliefs, values)
GOALS
• Confidence (self-efficacy)
School and Program Families who
Staff who can can negotiate
• Honor and recognize multiple roles
FAMILY
families’ funds of • Supporters
AND STAFF knowledge Effective • Encouragers
CAPACITY • Connect family Family–School • Monitors
engagement to • Advocates
OUTCOMES Partnerships
student learning • Decision Makers
Supporting Student
• Create welcoming, • Collaborators
Achievement
inviting cultures & School
Improvement
8