To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Back to Graphic Version

Research Brief

Not Just Participants But Partners: The Impact of Family-Community Involvement By Rhonda Barton

Schools are redefining the role of families and community groups today. As Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davies (2007) point out, such partnerships have moved from the category of “luxury” to “necessity.”

The No Child Left Behind Act’s commitment to parent involvement is primarily driving the attitudinal shift. Under NCLB, parents are treated not simply as participants but “informed and empowered decisionmakers” in their children’s education (Gomez & Greenough, 2002, p. 1). Another motivating factor in forging stronger relations is a solid 30-year research base that consistently links meaningful family involvement to student success in school.

The most comprehensive research synthesis on this topic was completed by Henderson and Mapp in 2002. They summarized 51 studies—31 of which looked at the relationships between student achievement and parent-community involvement. The researchers concluded, “When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more” (p. 7).

Many of the studies showed that students with involved parents were more likely to have higher grades and test scores; enroll in higher level programs; be promoted; pass their classes; attend school regularly; have better social skills and improved behavior; graduate; and pursue postsecondary education. And, the benefits cut across socioeconomic class, ethnic/racial background, and parents’ education level.

Several studies pinpointed specific family involvement activities that make a difference. For example, teacher outreach to parents (holding personal meetings, sending materials home, and communicating about progress) was tied to consistent gains in students’ reading and math performance. Reading and math scores also went up as a result of workshops showing parents how to help their children at home.

When it came to engaging families from very diverse backgrounds, Henderson and Mapp found successful schools share three key practices:

• They focus on building trusting, collaborative relationships among teachers, families, and community members
• They recognize, respect, and address families’ needs, as well as class and cultural differences
• They embrace a philosophy of partnership where power and responsibility are shared (p. 7)

Five years after their synthesis was published, Henderson and Mapp—together with Johnson and Davies—put forth a rubric describing four versions of school-family-community partnerships (2007, p. 14):

• The Partnership School believes that all families and communities have resources to share; it does whatever is necessary to work together so every student is successful.
• The Open-Door School provides many different opportunities for parents to become involved; it asks for—and receives—help from the community.
• The Come-if-We-Call School believes there’s only so much parents can do and emphasizes parents’ role in helping children at home. It knows where to go in the community for help, but doesn’t access those resources on a regular basis.
• The Fortress School thinks that parents belong at home and that community groups should mind their own business.

While providing tools for developing so-called “Partnership Schools,” the authors stress that positive results aren’t automatic. Careful planning and program execution are needed to build relationships and trust.

The importance of developing trust between home and school has been explored by a number of researchers (Brewster & Railsback, 2003). In a study of Chicago schools, Bryk and Schneider (2002) found higher student achievement where staff members trusted parents and each other, as measured through the qualities of respect, competence, integrity, and personal regard. Teachers in schools with student scores in the top quarter exhibited high trust, while those in the lowest quarter showed little or no trust.

Similarly, Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, and Hoy (2001) looked at the link between trust and family involvement in a study of 47 Midwest elementary schools in a large urban district. They also discovered that students do better in schools where teachers report greater trust. And, they rated poverty more than ethnicity as a factor in hindering trust in urban schools. According to the researchers, “trust seems to foster a context that supports student achievement, even in the face of poverty” (p. 14).

Adams and Christenson’s (2000) survey of 1,234 parents and 209 teachers in a large suburban school district found both teachers and parents believed that improving home-school communication was “a primary way to enhance trust in the family-school relationship” (p. 491). They also reported that the kinds—rather than frequency—of interactions between parents and teachers were better predictors of trust and there was a significant correlation between trust and performance indicators like credits earned, grade point average, and attendance.

While three decades of studies indicate that school-family (and in some cases, community) partnerships can help boost student achievement, it’s clear that they can’t do the job alone. Family and community involvement must be coupled with high-quality initiatives to improve teaching and learning. Indeed, as an EdSource (2006) study of low-income California schools shows, factors such as experienced teachers and rigorous academic content can be more influential even where there’s a correlation between student performance and parents’ involvement.

REFERENCES

Adams, K.S., & Christenson, S.L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477–497.

Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003, December). Building trust with schools and diverse families: A foundation for lasting partnerships. By Request. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

EdSource. (2006, June). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.edsource.org/pdf/simstusumm06.pdf

Goddard, R.D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W.K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–7.

Gomez, R., & Greenough, R. (2002, October). Parental involvement under the new Title I & Title III: From compliance to effective practice. Topical Summary. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.nwrel.org/planning/reports/pi/pi.pdf

Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools.

Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.L., Johnson, V.R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale—The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York, NY: New Press.