The NASP website will be unavailable on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 from 5pm to 8pm while we perform scheduled maintenance and upgrades.

We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.

Research-Based Practice

Family-School Collaboration Services: Beliefs Into Action

By Gloria E. Miller, Amanda Arthur-Stanley, & Cathy Lines

The recently adopted NASP Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (NASP, 2010a) consists of 10 domains of practice that describe the competencies of school psychologists to effectively support the positive educational, behavioral, and mental health outcomes of all students. Anastasia Skalski (2010), NASP Director of Professional Policy and Practice, recently pointed out that the adoption of this new model signals a wonderful advocacy opportunity to publicly talk about school psychologists' roles and responsibilities. The seventh domain of this model is a systems-level standard entitled, “Family–School Collaboration Services.”

School psychologists have knowledge of principles and research related to family systems, strengths, needs and culture; evidence-based strategies to support family influences on children's learning and mental health; and strategies to develop collaboration between families and schools. School psychologists, in collaboration with others, demonstrate skills to design, implement, and evaluate services that respond to culture and context and facilitate family and school partnerships and interactions with community agencies for enhancement of academic and social–behavioral outcomes for children. (NASP, 2010a, p. 23)

While the other nine domains also are closely tied to work with families this specific domain outlines the skills and training that school psychologists have to support effective family–school partnering. School psychologists have long promoted effective partnerships with families that build upon cultural strengths (Christenson, 2004; Rogers et. al, 1999). This professional commitment is rooted in our ethical standards:

School psychologists encourage and promote parental participation in designing interventions for their children. When appropriate, this includes linking interventions between the school and the home, tailoring parental involvement to the skills of the family, and helping parent gain the skills needed to help their children. (Standard II.3.10, NASP 2010b)

It was also a priority goal of the 2002 Future of School Psychology Multisite Conference.

Family–school partnering (hereafter referred to as FSP) focuses on student success. Family refers to all primary caregivers, school refers to all members of the school community, and partnering represents a conscious, collaborative, relational process that promotes trust and communication and leads to shared responsibility for student success (Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011). “School” could be placed in front of “family” to emphasize the responsibility of educators to include families (Christenson & Reschly, 2010). Building upon scientific advances in the field, the goal of this article is to elaborate and provide resources related to each facet of Domain 7.

School Psychologists Have Knowledge of Principles and Research Related to Family Systems, Strengths, Needs, and Culture

That FSP contributes to improved outcomes, not only for students but for educators and families, has been supported by more than 40 years of research (Christenson & Reschly, 2010). Esler, Godber, and Christenson (2008) recently summarized these findings as: (a) better student attendance and attitudes toward school, increased homework completion, and higher academic achievement; (b) enhanced morale and job satisfaction ratings among educators and more positive overall school evaluations; and (c) greater parental knowledge about school expectations and confidence in their ability to academically support their children. Professional resources that capture this vast literature include: three NASP position statements (NASP, 2005, 2006a, 2006b), a compendium of materials developed by the Future of School Psychology Task Force on Family–School Partnerships (Sheridan et al., 2007), numerous family-related articles in two best practice resources (Canter, Paige, & Shaw, 2010; Thomas & Grimes, 2008), specific texts for school mental health professionals (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011; Peacock & Collett, 2010), and the recently published Handbook of School–Family Partnerships (Christenson & Reschly, 2010).

Family–school partnering is not only backed by the National Parent Teachers Association (2009), it also is mandated in federal educational legislation. The first ever statutory definition of parental involvement was included in No Child Left Behind: “Participation of parents in regular, two-way and meaningful communication involving student academic learning; assisting in their child's learning, and serving as full partners in their child's education” (NCLB Action Briefs, 2004). Numerous sections of IDEA 2004 indicate that education for children with disabilities must

strengthen the role and responsibility of parents and ensure that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home. (Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act, 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1401(c)(5)(B))

The burgeoning empirical evidence, legal mandates, and ongoing calls for educational reform have contributed to a national paradigm shift that moves beyond parental involvement to build bridges between homes, schools, and communities. The most supportive linkages for students emphasize sustained continuity across home and school contexts (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). This shift denotes a change in the educational roles of families and school professionals and has led to expanded opportunities for school psychologists. Characteristics of this FSP shift are summarized in Table 1 (adapted from Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011).

School Psychologists Have Know ledge of Evidence-Based Strategies to Support Family Influences on Children's Learning and Mental Health

Prevalent models of family–school partnering are rooted in an underlying theoretical approach known as ecological systems theory, where child development is viewed as a function of maturation as well as the independent and joint influence of family, school, and community socialization environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). FSP researchers, strongly influenced by this theory, have examined the role of FSP and how it fits within daily life routines at home and at school. Prevalent models include Epstein's overlapping spheres of interpersonal relationships (1995, 2001); Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler's (1995, 1997) examination of the underpinnings of parents' decisions to become and remain involved in their children's school; and Christenson and Sheridan's (2001) interconnected conditions that influence family–school partnerships (i.e., the Four As: Approach, Attitude, Atmosphere, and Action).

Despite the mounting research evidence linking FSP to positive student outcomes, there is still a persistent and significant disconnect between what happens in the schools and what happens in the home. We agree with Peacock and Colette (2010) who suggest that

… this is not due to a lack of interest on the part of school personnel or the parents. Rather, inadequate attention has been paid to the translation of evidence-based interventions for use in the schools and limited information on the “nuts and bolts” of home/school collaboration. (p. 1)

Careful, strategic planning is needed to ensure a seamless, integrated approach that serves the whole school as well as individual students and families. A multitiered FSP framework has been forwarded to represent a preventive hierarchy of progressively more “intense” and individualized communication, intervention, and evaluation strategies (Christenson, 2010; Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011).

Shared beliefs and values about the vested interest of families and schools and their joint contribution to positive student outcomes are the foundation of this model. Staff self-reflection surveys are helpful tools to assess such family-centered beliefs and practices (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). At the Tier 1, or universal level, FSP strategies create a climate where families and school personnel feel welcomed and respected, and where they trust each other. This involves sharing expectations about schooling and inserting partnership language into every conversation (e.g., “Let's think about this together”). Strategies are developed to: (a) build strong relationships by creating ways for families and school professionals to meet, listen, and respect each other's contributions; (b) create welcoming settings by addressing environmental factors and recognizing alternative approaches to support a student's success; (c) increase two– way communication through regular and varied interpersonal exchanges and by recognizing all partnering efforts; and (d) promote educated partners who feel competent and confident about their own and each others' role in nurturing a student's learning and development (Lines, Miller, & Arthur-Stanley, 2011). School-wide screening can help identify potential hurdles that interfere with successful FSP, such as time, logistics, limited skills, low self-confidence, language differences, or prior conceptions of home–school collaborative experiences (Jakubowski, Miller, Hughes, Nguyen, & West, 2011). Universal FSP strategies are sufficient for a vast majority (i.e., over 80%) of families, students, and staff, and this often mitigates the need for more intentional upper-tier FSP strategies.

Upper tier, or targeted-intensive FSP strategies, entail focused team decision-making to enhance student success. Such efforts may be needed for 5%–20% of the school population and involve assessments of implementation fidelity and progress monitoring (Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007). Educators and parents work together to identify meaningful goals; to embed interventions within daily routines through environmental adjustments, adaptations, or modifications; and to increase communication about a child's progress (Bayat, Mindes, & Covitt, 2010). If targeted efforts are not deemed effective, more intensive collaborative teaming among school, family, and community members occurs to resolve misunderstandings; stabilize personal, family, or school crises; and develop a strengths-based “system of care” or “wraparound” resources and interventions (Eber, 2003). At this level, authentic partnerships between educators and families are essential and may include special education determination or services.

This hierarchical FSP model maps easily onto current school reform initiatives designed to promote student success (i.e., response to intervention or RTI, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005; multitier system of supports, U.S. Department of Education, 2009; and positive behavioral interventions and supports or PBIS, Sugai et al., 2005). Indeed, in Colorado, family and community engagement is one of six RTI implementation components and multiple training materials have been developed for all stakeholders (CDE, 2008a, 2008b, 2009).

School Psychologists Develop Effective Collaboration Between Families and Schools

School Psychologists, in Collaboration With Others, Demonstrate Skills to Design, Implement, and Evaluate Family–School Partnering Services

Final Words

Reference

Allen, J. (2007). Creating welcoming schools: A practical guide to home–school partnerships with diverse families. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Bayat, M., Mindes, G., & Covitt, S. (2010). What does RTI (Response to Intervention) look like in preschool? Journal of Early Childhood Education, 37, 493–500.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Canter, A., Paige, L., & Shaw, S. (2010). Helping children at home and school III: Handouts for families and educators. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family–school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33, 83–104.

Christenson, S. L. (2010, September). Engaging with parents: The power of information, responsiveness to parental need, and ongoing support for the enhanced competence of all students. NASP 2010 Distinguished Lecture, Communiqué, 39(1), 20–24.

Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. (2010). Handbook of school–family partnerships. New York, NY: Routledge.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Colorado Department of Education. (2008a). Guidelines for identifying students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/SLD_Guidelines.pdf

Colorado Department of Education. (2008b). Response to intervention (RtI): A practitioner's guide to implementation. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/rti/ToolsResourcesRtI.htm

Colorado Department of Education. (2009). Family & community partnering: “On the team and at the table.” Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/rti/FamilyCommunity Toolkit.htm

Curtis, M., Castillo, J. M., & Cohen, R. M. (2008). Best practices in system-level change. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 887–902). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Eber, L. (2003). The art and science of wraparound. Bloomington, IN: Forum on Education, Indiana University.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ervin, R. A., & Schaughency, E. (2008). Best practices in accessing the systems change literature. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 853–874). Bethesda: MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Esler A. N., Godber, Y., & Christenson, S. (2008). Best practices in supporting home–school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 917– 936). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367–376. Future of School Psychology Multi-Site Conference. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~futures/home.html

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36, 1, 45–56.

Garcia Coll, C., & Chatman, C. (2005). Ethnic and racial diversity. In H. Weiss, H., Kreider, M. E. Lopez, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Preparing educators to involve families: From theory to practice (pp. 135–142). London, UK: SAGE.

Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

González, N., & Moll, L. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641. Holloway, S. D., Fuller, B., Rambaud, M. F., &

Eggers-Pierola, C. (1997). Through my own eyes: Single mothers and the cultures of poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.

Hoover-Dempsey. K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

Ingraham, C. L. (2005). Cross-cultural consultation. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 139–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Jakubowski, L., Miller, G. E., Hughes, C., Nguyen, V., & West, A. (2011, June). Strategies to address common barriers to family school partnerships. Colorado Society of School Psychologists Newsletter, Denver, CO.

Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York, NY: Springer.

Kaiser, A. P., & Stainbrook, A. T. (2010). Family– school partnerships and communication interventions for young children with disabilities. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school–family partnerships (pp. 287–311). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consultation: Applications in prevention and intervention systems. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1673– 1686). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychology.

Lines, C., Miller, G. L., & Arthur-Stanley, A. (2011). The power of family–school partnering (FSP): A practical guide for school mental health professionals and educators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gloria E. Miller, PhD, is a professor in the Child, Family, and School Psychology Program within the Morgridge College of Education at the University of Denver (Colorado). Amanda Arthur-Stanley, PhD, is a practicing school psychologist with the Cherry Creek School District in Greenwood Village, CO. Cathy Lines, PhD, NCSP, is the former mental health coordinator for the Cherry Creek School District in Greenwood Village, CO. She currently serves as an RTI consultant for the Colorado Department of Education and adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver.