Family-School Partnerships 17
Families, Educators, and the Family-School Partnership:
Issues or Opportunities for Promoting Children’s Learning Competence?
Sandra L. Christenson
University of Minnesota
Paper prepared for 2002 Invitational Conference: The Future of School Psychology, November 14-16, 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be directed to Sandra Christenson, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 or at
Families, Educators, and the Family-School Partnership:
Issues or Opportunities for Promoting Children’s Learning Competence?
As a speaker at the 2002 Invitational Conference: The Future of School Psychology, I was asked to: (a) outline critical issues that families face, or will face, in the 21st century relative to schools and children, and (b) propose roles for school psychology, within constraints of the shortage, to address these issues. The issues were to include the important role of parents in education. With respect to these goals, I negotiated with the conference planners to add the centrality of a quality family-school relationship to enhance the academic, social, behavioral, and emotional learning of children and adolescents.
As a speaker, I want to thank the conference planners for this opportunity. I also want to acknowledge that working with parents has been a topic present in previous efforts to examine school psychological service delivery (e.g., Brown, Cardon, Coulter, & Meyers, 1982; Talley, Kubiszyn, Brassard, & Short, 1996; Ysseldyke & Weinberg, 1981). Our myriad efforts as a discipline – researchers, trainers, and practitioners – have resulted in “p” referring to partnership more than parent at the beginning of the 21st century. It is my hope that this paper provides a foundation for provocative discussion and new directions with respect to joining family and school in a genuine partnership to promote the learning progress and engagement of all students.
Introduction
As I reflect on the past two decades of research and practices with respect to family involvement in education, I am reminded of Charles Dickens phrase from A Tale of Two Cities, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . .” (p. 1). With respect to partnering with parents/guardians to enhance the learning experiences and progress of children and youth, the “best of times” is reflected in an increased awareness of: (a) the effect of family influences on and contributions by families to children’s educational outcomes, (b) models for family involvement, (c) the importance of establishing shared goals and monitoring child success, (d) the characteristics of constructive, collaborative relationships for children with and without disabilities in grades K-12, and (e) home and school-based activities to engage families in education (e.g., Chen, 2001; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996; Epstein, 1995; Nord & West, 2001; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996; Swap, 1993). Although shared responsibility for educational outcomes is the rhetoric, school policies and practices are not always aligned with this notion. Therefore, the “worst of times” is evident daily across our schools in: (a) the extreme social and physical distance between some educators and families, (b) diminished resources for implementing family-school programs, (c) challenges reaching out to all families, many of whom are uninvolved but interested in their children’s learning, (d) challenges related to addressing the needs of non-English speaking families and children identified as English Language Learners (ELL), and (e) too little focus on the interaction process (i.e., prerequisite conditions) that yields a strong relationship as various activities are implemented (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Liontos, 1992).
Although I contend that much more is right than wrong with current family-school relationships, our job is not done. Furthermore, I speculate that across our schools we have three broad categories with respect to family-school relationships and children’s learning: Relationships characterized as “smooth sailing,” “bridge building,” or “troubled terrain.” Often a positive connection exists between parents and educators; other times, they are strangers “like people from a different region of the country, each speaking the same language, but in a unique dialect” (Merseth, Schorr, & Elmore, 1999, p. 6). Both parents and educators want to enhance educational experiences for students; they want to create a culture for student success. Why then is our job not done?
In part, the answer lies in understanding that strong family-school connections are embedded in the demands of schooling and macrosystemic influences. For example, consider the effect of the current landscape of educational reform on family-school interactions. In at least 20 states, educators and parents face the effect of high stakes assessment on students’ grade placement. Thus, many educators and parents are finding themselves facing decisions about grade retention and/or social promotion, “either-or” decisions that do not guarantee effective instructional programming. Eighteen states have high school exit exams and six others are phasing in exams (not yet withholding diplomas) (www.ecs.org). Parents and educators are concerned about the effect of these exams on drop rates. Also, as part of the No Child Left Behind legislation (), schools are being held accountability to demonstrate improvement for all students, including those with learning and behavioral challenges and highly mobile and homeless. Standards and accountability are excellent; however, standards and accountability systems in the absence of supports and opportunities to achieve are disastrous for many students, undoubtedly mostly for the students about whom educators are most concerned, and coincidentally, often have the most difficulty connecting with their parents. Consider also the effect of the belief system about the value and purpose of education held by the family as well as the parents’ beliefs about appropriate parental roles and responsibilities. Clearly a challenge is how to ensure family and school supports and opportunities for student learning in academic, social, emotional, and behavioral domains.
Consensus seems to be emerging that strong family-school connections are essential to enhance children’s educational outcomes. Fifteen years ago, Dorothy Rich (1987, personal communication) of the Home and School Institute in Washington DC opined, “Families and teachers might wish that the school could do the job alone. But today’s school needs families and today’s families need the school. In many ways, this mutual need may be the greatest hope for change.” Her statement is highly relevant in 2002, a time when building social capital (Coleman, 1987), where it does not naturally exist, must be a goal.
There is a new awareness about the value of and a willingness to provide mesosystemic support for children’s learning and development (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). There is also an interest in promoting positive mental health by helping children learn, relate effectively with others, and regulate their emotions. Thus, the focus of family-school connections is competence enhancement – specifically the academic, social, behavioral, and emotional learning of children and youth. Finally, there is greater appreciation for what constitutes the learning context for students, moving from an exclusive focus on the classroom environment to encompass the other “worlds” of children and youth. Ysseldyke and Christenson (2002) contend that it is important for educators and parents to understand the concept of the total learning environment – instructional support, home support, and home-school support – when creating successful learning environments for students. Similarly, Christenson and Anderson (in press), stated, “The learning context is composed of critical systems (child, home, school, peer, and community or neighborhood) that affect academic, social, and emotional learning for students in grades K-12. The learning context is an interwoven structure of circumstances and people that surround the child across systems at a given point in time and over time. Of particular interest is the “affordance value” of this context – or how the learning context facilitates or impedes child adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling.”
Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, and Bloom (1993) have summarized three primary reasons for the renewed interest and focus on the development of policies and programs to increase family involvement in education. First, they suggest the cumulative impact of research findings that underscore the importance of the home in contributing to children’s school progress cannot be ignored. Parent involvement in schooling is positively associated with many benefits for students and the kinds of benefits desired by educators - improvement in grades and test scores, attitude toward schoolwork, behavior, work completion, participation in classroom activities, and attendance. Also, what parents do to support learning (family process variables) predicts scholastic ability better than who families are (family status variables). The power of out-of-school time (community and peer influences) helps to explain school performance differences, and home influences, especially during summer, are one differentiating factor between low and high achievers (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Finally, the discontinuity students experience between their school and home environments is another explanatory factor for lower school performance (Comer et al., 1996; Phelan, Davidson, & Yu, 1998; Swap, 1993).
Second, they suggest that reform efforts focused on school and teacher practices such as new curricula and strategies in the absence of parent support and reinforcement have not been as successful in improving achievement as had been hoped. Greater social problems exist today than existed several decades ago. Related to this is that intervention research has supported that many child concerns and behaviors (e.g., ADHD, conduct disorders) are more successful when addressed across home and school environments (August, Anderson, & Bloomquist, 1992; Webster-Stratton, 1993) and that adolescents engage in less high-risk behavior if parent and school connections are present (Resnick et al., 1997).
Third, dramatic changes in the structure and function of families has given rise to concern about families’ capability to provide the conditions that foster children’s school progress. The changing student population is particularly evident in urban areas, albeit changes are apparent in first ring suburbs and rural areas throughout the United States. Parents from different ethnic backgrounds view the purpose of education quite differently (Bempechat, 1998). Also, the concepts of cultural and social capital are influential (Coleman, 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1991). Growing number of parents have not had the benefit of a positive personal schooling experience or are new immigrants to the United States. Consequently, they are unfamiliar with school policies and practices. Less cultural capital makes it more difficult for them to support their children’s learning and to navigate the educational system, particularly at the secondary level. Additionally, the amount of time available for parents to support their children’s learning (especially if it requires being present at school) and to interact with children about personal matters is shrinking due to increases in single parent and dual income families. Referred to as the erosion of social capitol, Coleman (1987) argued that the loss of quality student-adult interaction and time was a primary reason for declines in school performance and for more children being less well prepared for school tasks in kindergarten.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the importance and value of parental involvement in education and actively is promoting roles for parents in No Child Left Behind (nces.ed.gov; Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, 2000). Although I view this macrosystemic influence as positive, I also see an emphasis on how to involve parents in education or tips for parents (Chen, 2001), causing me to question whether this is the best way to conceptualize the connection between families and school. Rather than educators asking how to involve uninvolved families, I prefer framing the family- school connection in terms of enhancing learning competencies for students. A better question is: How do we improve educational outcomes for students?
Children and youth perform better in school when they have supports and opportunities to learn from their two primary contexts of development – home and school (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Thus, I have argued that the benefits of working with parents as partners are best explicated by the degree to which conditions that create or offer promise for enhancing educational outcomes for students are present. Students’ adaptation to schooling depends in part on the degree of support, opportunity to learn, and resources available to the child (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). The benefits of family-school collaboration, which extend far beyond the notion of involving parents in activities (e.g., home support for learning, volunteering), are many and varied. They include the power of shared educational goals for countering information from competing sources such as media and peers (Zill & Nord, 1994), maximizing opportunities for students to learn at school and at home, building social capital for students through mutual support efforts of families and educators, circumventing blame when children exhibit learning and behavior difficulties in school, enhancing communication and coordination among family members and educational personnel, maintaining home-school continuity in programs and approaches across school years, sharing ownership and commitment to educational goals, increasing understanding and conceptualization of the complexities of a child and his/her situation, and pooling of resources across home and school, which increases the range and quality of solutions, diversity in expertise and resources, and integrity of educational programs (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).
I contend, as have others, that relationships are integral to children’s school success in academic, social, behavioral, and emotional domains. Pianta and Walsh (1996) emphasized establishing shared meaning across home and school to move from a culture of failure to a culture of success. Also, relationships have been viewed as a means to foster resilience – or to enhance protective factors (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998). Relationships must be the focus of school psychology practices if we aim to promote the learning success of children with and without disabilities. To create and sustain relationships, we must consider the impact of systems thinking, opportunity-focused attitudes and actions, and clarity about goals of family-school connections for children’s learning. We must direct our efforts toward a process for creating a constructive family-school connection for children’s learning.
Systems-ecological and developmental theory provides the framework for organizing the reciprocal influences between home and school. When students are having academic or behavioral difficulties in school, it is futile to debate whether the “cause” is at home, school, or elsewhere. Rather, it is helpful to identify contributing factors, especially the student’s opportunity to learn at school and outside school, and how the assessment-intervention link empowers educators and parents in supporting the student to meet the task demands at school (Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002). It is equally beneficial to maintain opportunity-focused rather than problem-focused attitudes and actions. Quite simplistically, this contrast is represented by the “glass is half full or half empty” philosophy. For example, there is no question that ethnic diversity in schools has changed markedly in the past decade. Is this change an issue, one that implies a barrier and/or a problem for which a solution must be found? Or, is this an opportunity for school psychology to embrace the richness of culture and to learn how to enhance the success of all students? Is this an opportunity for our discipline to make a contribution to close the gap in educational outcomes for specific students?