June 2004

Q: We are trying to build more collaborative relationships between our schools, families, and community agencies. What research has been done in this area that may give us some guidance?

A:Schools can be places where relationships with parents and the community grow and strengthen for students, as well as school personnel. The school can serve as a source for relationship-building by creating a responsive, caring environment. Schools are also in a position to assess the needs of parents and the community in forging new relationships (Billig, 2002). In addition to promoting academic success, a school's mission should include preparing students for successful jobs, citizenship, and overall positive physical and mental health (Oakes, Quartz, Ryan & Lipton, 2000). Throughout the 1990s, new school-community-business partnerships were being established that involved schools joining with businesses and other organizations to expand school resources and community support for students and teachers (http://www.state.nj.us , 2004). Relationships between schools, businesses, and communities must include repeated and significant interactions that help to develop a sense of community affiliation. Through understanding each entity's mission, goals, and practices, a common ground emerges, and relationships form.

Epstein and Hollifield (1996) suggest we use a new theoretical perspective that not only guides more targeted research on school-family-community partnerships, but also provides a foundation for developing and implementing comprehensive partnerships. Earlier sociological theories proposed that social groups are most effective if they have separate goals, missions, and responsibilities. The theory of overlapping spheres of influence challenges this notion and proposes that families, schools, and communities are most effective if they have overlapping or shared goals, and responsibilities for children. As these "spheres" overlap more or less, they represent the conditions or designs that can work to maximize student success in the school.

Epstein and Hollifield (1996) introduce into this theory, a framework of six types of involvement that are the basis of a comprehensive partnership program.

1. Parenting: Assist families with parenting and child rearing skills, understanding child and adolescent development, and setting home conditions that support children as students at each age and grade level. Assist schools in understanding families.
2. Communication: Communicate with families about school programs and student progress through effective school-to-home and home-to-school communications.
3. Volunteering: Improve recruitment, training, work, and schedules to involve families as volunteers and audiences at the school or in other locations to support students and school programs.
4. Learning at Home: Involve families with their children in learning activities at home, including homework and other curriculum-linked activities and decisions.
5. Decision-making: Include families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy through PTA/PTO, school councils, committees, and other parent organizations.
6. Collaborating with the Community: Coordinate resources and services for families and the school with businesses, agencies, and other groups, and provide services to the community.

First Area of Focus for These Relationships: Policy

The development of productive school-family-community connections has become a common policy initiative in schools and districts. Epstein and Sheldon (2002) report that over 90% of school districts surveyed had at least one policy-supporting parent involvement. The research confirms that when families and communities work together, students do better in school (Chavkin, 2000). A study conducted in 1990 by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory looked at the seven essential elements of promising family and community involvement programs in five southwestern states. The two most important elements identified were written policies and administrative support for family involvement. The other five elements were: training for staff and families, a partnership approach in every aspect of the program, two-way communication, networking within and outside the district, and evaluation. It was further noted that because schools have unique features that make them resistant to change, policies about family and community involvement are necessary.

Chavkin (2000) also makes a strong case for the development of clear goals, evaluation, and expected outcomes. It is suggested that we evaluate the effectiveness of these partnerships by looking at seven elements: flexibility, intensity, continuity, universality, participation, coordination, and comprehensiveness. It is also necessary to address the barriers that exist between the different governance structures of schools and community agencies. There can be conflicting regulations, forms, payment structures, budget cycles, confidentiality rules, and reimbursement policies. It may require additional time, and coordination to work out some of these issues. Memorandums of agreement between the various agencies may need to be developed.

It is also necessary to examine the diversity within systems. Families have been changing dramatically over the last 20 years, and the typical family structure has been replaced with single parents, blended families, dual career families, extended families, and nontraditional parent roles. Communities have also experienced change to more culturally diverse populations, and communities are dealing with a variety of economic variables that are impacting schools and families.

In a major study conducted in 1995, Studies of Education Reform: Parent and Community Involvement in Education , several recommendations for policy developments were made: Student success is the integral theme of any policy; policies should be directed at linking families with resources in the school and the community that lead to student success; policies at all levels should support school-family-community partnerships; policies should be written so as to allow flexibility at the local level; increased funding is not necessarily the key to success; and policy should allow for the provision of financial and nonfinancial resources.

Next month's answer will address communication issues related to these partnerships.

Reference/Resources List

Billig, S. (2002). Involving middle-graders' parents. Middle Matters, 10, 42-45.

Chavkin, N. (2000). Family and community involvement policies: Teachers can lead the way. Clearing House, 73, 287-291.

Epstein, J. and Hollifield, J. (1996). Title I and school-family-community partnerships: Using research to realize the potential. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, I, 263-278.

National Network of Partnership Schools: Epstein's Six Types of Involvement. (2004). Retrieved May 10, 2004 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/sixtypes.htm

National Network of Partnership Schools: Partnership Program. (2004). Retrieved May 10, 2004 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/program2.htm

Oakes, T., Quartz, K., Ryan, S., and Lipton, M. (2000). Civic virtue and the reform mill. Education Week, 19 .