Family and Community Engagement Practice:
Early Childhood Home Visit
A home visit is a useful strategy to employ with a family of a student of any age. Effective home visits
focus on educational issues relevant to the student, such as introducing a student to a new program,
helping a student transition to the next grade level or explaining evaluation results to families. The focus
of the home visit described in the example below is welcoming a young child and family into pre-school
or Kindergarten.
Which educators might try this practice?
Classroom-based teachers, pre-K to Kindergarten
Who is this practice designed to support?
Parents and/or guardians of young students
(pre-K and Kindergarten)
What are the potential outcomes of implementing this
practice?
1. A positive relationship with the child’s family is
established.
2. Parents are knowledgeable about the program that
their child will be entering.
3. The teacher learns about the child’s previous
experiences in other early childhood programs.
4. The teacher learns about the child’s strengths and
interests.
How does this practice support student learning?
 Home visits allow teachers to welcome both students
and families to the school and help to initiate a
positive relationship between home and school.
 If a child and family have been involved in an early
intervention, a home visit can help the family
transition into a child-centered public school
preschool program.
 Home visits are opportunities for teachers to observe
the home environment and to talk with families in a
comfortable, familiar and secure environment.
 Providing a description of curriculum helps families
learn how to support their child’s learning at home.
Keeping Track of Family Engagement
Engaging families and the community is a
key component of the educator evaluation
framework in Massachusetts. Educators
collect evidence of practice related to one or
more of the Standards of Effective Teaching
Practice, including Standard III: Family and
Community Engagement.
The PCEI Advisory Council recommends
thinking about three different types of
evidence when reflecting on family and
community engagement practices: (1)
evidence of planning, (2) evidence of
implementation, and (3) evidence of followup.
The reverse side includes examples of these
types of evidence for early childhood home
visits as well as a map connecting this
evidence to the Model Teacher Performance
Rubric used in the evaluation process and
the Massachusetts Family, School and
Community Partnership Fundamentals
created by the PCEI Advisory Council.
Where can I learn more?
The Parent and Community Education and Involvement Advisory Council recommends the following
resources:
 Families as primary partners in their child’s development and school readiness. Baltimore,
Hepburn, K.S.,(2004). MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation,
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485897.pdf.
 The Parent-Teacher Home Visiting Project, http://www.pthvp.org.
 The Best Resources for Learning About Teacher Home Visits
http://engagingparentsinschool.edublogs.org/2011/10/10/the-best-resources-for-learning-aboutteacher-home-visits.
Developed by the Parent and Community Education
and Involvement (PCEI) Advisory Council
Updated May 2015
Evidence of PLANNING
Documentation of transition planning meeting with early intervention
Invitation and communication with family to set date and time for visit
Outine for home visit, including agenda, questions to ask and information to
share
Evidence of IMPLEMENTATION
Home visitation documentation report
With parental permission, observation of home visit by supervisor
Written feedback from supervisor
Feedback from family such as a survey, evaluation or list of questions asked
Evidence of FOLLOW-UP
Thank you note and plans for future contact with family
Documentation of subsequent home visits or other parent-teacher contact
Educator reflection on home visit experience
EVIDENCE MAP
A single practice yields evidence related to many aspects of the model performance rubric and the
Fundamentals. The map below will help educators make important connections.
Model Rubric, Standard III: Family and
Community Engagement
A. Engagement Indicator
1. Parent/Family Engagement
Corresponding Indicators from the Massachusetts Family,
School and Community Partnership Fundamentals
Fundamental 1: Welcoming All Stakeholders
 Indicator A

 Indicator B

   Indicator C

 Indicator D
B. Collaboration Indicator
Fundamental 3: Supporting the Success of Children
 1. Learning Expectations
 Indicator A

 Indicator B
Fundamental 4: Advocating for Each Child and Youth


 Indicator D
Fundamental 3: Supporting the Success of Children
 2. Curriculum Support

 Indicator C

 Indicator D
Fundamental 4: Advocating for Each Child and Youth


 Indicator A
C. Communication Indicator
Fundamental 2: Communicating Effectively
1. Two-Way Communication
Indicator A
Fundamental 5: Sharing Power and Responsibility
2. Culturally Proficient

   Indicator A

Indicator B
Fundamental 2: Communicating Effectively


Indicator D
This practice also yields evidence related to elements of the Model Teacher Rubric under Standards I
and II, including:
 I.A.2 Child and Adolescent Development
 II.B.3 Student Motivation
 II.C.1 Respects Differences
 II.D.3 Access to Knowledge
Developed by the Parent and Community Education
and Involvement (PCEI) Advisory Council
Updated May 2015