CDE Summer Symposium 2011
Family-School Partnering: From Add-On to Core
Family-School Partnering
Research to Practice
Executive Summary
Time

During the school years, students spend 70% of their waking hours outside of
school (Clarke, 1990).
Student Achievement
 Students with partnering parents, no matter what their income or background,
are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, attend regularly,
graduate, and pursue postsecondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
 Generalization of school program learning occurs more readily when families
are involved (Sheridan, 1997).
 Specific home and “out-of-school, coordinated” actions which improve
student achievement are as follows: (1) frequent family discussions about
school; (2) families encouraging their children regarding schoolwork; (3)
providing resources to help with schoolwork; (4) supervision of homework,
TV viewing, after-school activities (Marzano, 2003).
 Programs and interventions that explicitly engage families in supporting their
children’s learning at home are linked to higher student achievement, as are
those related to engaging families in specific skill development (Henderson &
Mapp, 2002).
 Student attributes directly related to achievement, such as effective learning
behaviors and beliefs about education, are directly influenced by familyschool partnering in student’s learning (Hoover-Dempsey, Whitaker & Ice,
2010).
Every Family, Every Student
 All students benefit from family-school partnering, including those who are at
the secondary level and those who experience differences in culture, learning,
and economic status (Jeynes, 2005, 2007).
 All parents, regardless of educational level, income status, or ethnic
background, want their children to succeed in school and desire information as
to their role (Christenson, 1995).
 School practices (such as frequent communication and having meaningful
roles for parents) are a stronger predictor of parent involvement than parent’s
educational level, income status, or ethnic background (Epstein, 1991).
Challenges and Solutions
 Educator and family challenges and solutions in partnering together for
student success are similar; they include needing explicit role expectations for
sharing responsibility, self-confidence, skills, workable logistics, authentic
invitations, and mutually respectful relationships (Hoover-Dempsey, Whitaker
& Ice, 2010).
CDE Summer Symposium 2011
Family-School Partnering: From Add-On to Core
Applying the Research to Improve Student Outcomes











Universal Tier
Encourage every family to systematically and frequently discuss school,
supervise homework and after-school time, encourage high expectations,
and reinforce student effort
Describe administrator, teacher, student, and family partnering roles
Request home learning coordination from every family and educator,
stated clearly from leadership; provide information on research and
standards; explain and use achievement data; invite partnering
Foster ongoing two-way communication between families and teachers
Offer families choices in what can work best within their routines and
knowledge at home, tying to culture and language preferences
Ask families what they need to support learning at home, follow up
frequently, and offer liaison support for questions and support of efforts
Link home and school efforts for students by including them in planning,
communicating, and reinforcing learning
Define homework roles and responsibilities for families and educators,
always focusing on student success and ongoing teaming; problem-solve
whenever needed
Targeted and Intensive Tiers
Design home-school interventions that focus on specific, measurable
outcomes based on joint data
Include regular, mutual monitoring of student progress, with shared
discussion and planning, using data
Follow up regularly to problem-solve, encourage, and continue familyschool education; include community resources as needed
References
Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools: What is the role of the school psychologist? School
Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118-132.
Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside school is critical.
Public Welfare (17-23).
Epstein, J.L. (1991). Paths to partnership: What can we learn from federal, state, district, and school
initiatives. Phi Delta Kappa, 72 (5).
Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family &
Community Connections with Schools.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Whitaker, M.C., & Ice, C.L. (2010). Motivation and
commitment to family-school partnerships. In S.L. Christenson & A.L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook
of school-family partnerships (pp. 30-60). New York: Routledge.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school
student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student
achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82-110.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
CDE Summer Symposium 2011
Family-School Partnering: From Add-On to Core
Sheridan, S.M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical bases of conjoint behavioral consultation. School
Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119-133.