Spring/Summer 2015 Volume 25, Number 1

Spring/Summer 2015 Volume 25, Number 1 Academic Development Institute

School Community Journal Spring/Summer 2015 Volume 25, Number 1 School Community Journal Advisory Board Paul J. Baker Illinois State University Normal, Illinois Alison A. Carr-Chellman Penn State University University Park, Pennsylvania James P. Comer Yale Child Study Center New Haven, Connecticut Rollande Deslandes Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres Quebec, Canada Patricia Edwards Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Joyce L. Epstein Center on School, Family & Community Partnerships Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland Patricia Gándara UCLA Graduate School of Education Los Angeles, California Raquel-Amaya Martínez González Universidad de Oviedo Oviedo, Spain Anne T. Henderson Annenberg Institute for School Reform Washington, D.C. Esther Sui-Chu Ho The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, China Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey Peabody College at Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee Sam Redding, Executive Editor Lori G. Thomas, Editor William H. Jeynes California State University, Long Beach Witherspoon Institute Princeton, New Jersey Hazel Loucks National Education Association Edwardsville, Illinois Karen L. Mapp Harvard Graduate School of Education Cambridge, Massachusetts Denise Maybank Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Toni Moynihan-McCoy Corpus Christi Independent School District Corpus Christi, Texas Eva Patrikakou DePaul University Chicago, Illinois Janice M. Rosales School District 45, DuPage County Villa Park, Illinois Diane Scott-Jones Boston College (retired) Boston, Massachusetts Loizos Symeou European University-Cyprus Nicosia, Cyprus Herbert J. Walberg Hoover Institution at Stanford University Chicago, Illinois Heather Weiss Harvard Family Research Project Cambridge, Massachusetts Roger Weissberg University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, Illinois

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Spring/Summer 2015 Volume 25, Number 1 Academic Development Institute

ISSN 1059-308X 2015 Academic Development Institute Business and Editorial Office School Community Journal 121 N. Kickapoo Street Lincoln, IL 62656 USA Phone: 217-732-6462 Fax: 217-732-3696 Email: editor@adi.org Requests for Manuscripts School Community Journal publishes a mix of: (1) research (original, review, and interpretation), (2) essay and discussion, (3) reports from the field, including descriptions of programs, and (4) book reviews. The journal seeks manuscripts from scholars, administrators, teachers, school board members, parents, and others interested in the school as a community. Editorial Policy and Procedure School Community Journal is committed to scholarly inquiry, discussion, and reportage of topics related to the community of the school. Manuscripts are considered in the four categories listed above. Note: The journal generally follows the format of the APA Publication Manual, 6 th Edition, which includes new information on how to cite online sources in the reference list. Please make sure electronic links cited are accurate and active. Use italics rather than underlining. Do not use tabs to format paragraphs or tables; please use the Insert Table function for tables. Color for tables or figures is acceptable (as long as the color is helpful and not distracting). Contributors should send, via email attachments of electronic files (in Word): the manuscript, including an abstract of no more than 250 words; a one paragraph description (each) of the author(s); and a mailing address, phone number, fax number, and email address where each author can be reached to: editor@adi.org The cover letter should state that the work is not under simultaneous consideration by other publication sources. A hard copy of the manuscript is not necessary unless specifically requested by the editor. As a refereed journal, all submissions undergo a blind peer review as part of the selection process. Therefore, please include the author s description and other identifying information in a separate electronic file. Further submission instructions may be accessed on our website: http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Subscription to the School Community Journal School Community Journal has been published twice annually since 1991 Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter. School Community Journal is now a free, open access, online-only publication. Therefore, we are no longer accepting subscriptions. If you would like to receive a free email notice when new journal issues are posted online, contact editor@adi.org and ask to subscribe to journal notices. Please include your mailing address, also. The archives of the journal may be accessed (free) at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx

Contents Recognizing Community Voice and a Youth-Led School...9 Community Partnership in the School Climate Improvement Process Megan Ice, Amrit Thapa, and Jonathan Cohen Parent Involvement Facilitators: Unlocking Social Capital Wealth...29 Margaret M. Ferrara Who Really Cares? Urban Youths Perceptions of Parental...53 and Programmatic Support Desireé Vega, James L. Moore III, and Antoinette Halsell Miranda Stories to our Children: A Program Aimed at Developing...73 Authentic and Culturally Relevant Literature for Latina/o Children Luis Rosado, Carla Amaro-Jiménez, and Ivonne Kieffer Contributions of School-Based Parenting and Family Literacy...95 Centres in an Early Childhood Service System Kathryn Underwood and Marion Trent-Kratz Preparing Special Education Teachers to Collaborate With Families...117 Margo Collier, Elizabeth B. Keefe, and Laura A. Hirrel Race/Ethnicity and Social Capital Among Middle- and...137 Upper-Middle-Class Elementary School Families: A Structural Equation Model Stephen J. Caldas and Linda Cornigans Viewing Generativity and Social Capital as Underlying Factors of...157 Parent Involvement Sharon Stevens and Nimisha Patel

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 6

Editor s Comments This issue begins with an article by Ice, Thapa, and Cohen describing how some high school students helped to survey community members as part of their district s school climate improvement process. Next, Ferrara examines social capital built in and by a cohort of Parent Involvement Facilitators working with the families of urban ninth grade students to increase their chances of graduating on time. Vega, Moore, and Miranda report on the results of interviews with urban youths to determine who they saw as supporting them in their educational pursuits; the students defined support in various ways and identified both family members and college preparatory program (i.e., Upward Bound) staff as influential. Rosado, Amaro-Jiménez, and Kieffer share a report on an inspiring and creative collaboration that engaged Latina/o families in writing stories for their children. To determine if Parenting and Family Literacy Centres in Ontario were providing useful and integrative services to families of young children, Underwood and Trent-Kratz queried parents through surveys and focus groups. Another unique program is examined by Collier, Keefe, and Hirrel, who describe how graduate students learned more than any textbook could convey by visiting families of students with disabilities in their homes. They further explain how this program underwent recent changes due to funding cuts, but future professional development is being made possible by technology. The final two articles have some commonalities both used Structural Equation Modeling to test aspects of social capital among families, with some thought-provoking results. First, Caldas and Cornigans take a look at social capital and its interaction with race/ethnicity among families who are fairly well off financially. Second, Stevens and Patel explore the interaction of social capital and adults development of generativity as underlying factors supporting parent involvement. Happy reading! Lori G. Thomas June 2015

Editorial Review Board Jeffrey A. Anderson Indiana University, Bloomington Ji-Hi Bae Sungshin Women s University, Seoul, Korea Pamela Hudson Baker George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Jerold P. Bauch Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Brian R. Beabout University of New Orleans, LA Philip E. Bernhardt University of Denver, CO Michael L. Boucher, Jr. FL Gulf Coast University, Ft Myers Corey Bunje Bower Niagara University, NY Mary L. Cavey Chicago (IL) Public Schools Cheng-Ting Chen Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan Susan DeMoss School Administrator, Oklahoma City, OK Tina Durand Wheelock College, Boston, MA Stewart W. Ehly University of Iowa, Iowa City Karen Estep Lincoln Christian University, Lincoln, IL Margaret Ferrara University of Nevada Reno Laureen Fregeau University of South Alabama, Mobile Alyssa R. Gonzalez-DeHass Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL Deborah Halliday Montana Office of Public Instruction, Helena Diana Hiatt-Michael Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA Brian Holland Consultant, Silver Spring, MD Pat Hulsebosch Gallaudet University, Washington, DC Hui Jiang Ohio State University, Columbus Toni Griego Jones University of Arizona, Tucson Arti Joshi The College of New Jersey, Ewing Kate Gill Kressley Consultant, Portsmouth, NH Robert Leier Auburn University, AL Lusa Lo University of MA, Boston Vera Lopez Arizona State University, Tempe Angela Louque California State University, San Bernadino Pamela Loughner Consultant, Huntingdon Valley, PA Marga Madhuri University of La Verne, CA Helen Janc Malone Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, DC Kate McGilly Parents as Teachers National Center, St. Louis, MO Oliver Moles Social Science Research Group, LLC, Rockville, MD Shadrack Msengi Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Judith Munter University of Texas at El Paso Marilyn Murphy Temple University, Philadelphia, PA Mary M. Murray Bowling Green State University, OH Osamha M. Obeidat Hashemite University, Jordan Reatha Owen Illinois Association of School Boards, Springfield Reyes Quezada University of San Diego, CA Pablo C. Ramirez Arizona State University, Glendale Cynthia J. Reed Truman Pierce Institute, Auburn, AL Timothy Rodriguez University of Toledo, OH Mavis Sanders University of Maryland, Baltimore County Steven B. Sheldon Johns Hopkins University, MD Lee Shumow Northern Illinois University, DeKalb Martha Strickland Penn State Capital College, Middletown, PA Loizos Symeou European University, Nicosia, Cyprus Nathalie Trépanier University of Montreal, QC, Canada Elise Trumbull Independent Consultant, Mill Valley, CA Courtney Vaughn University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City Patricia Willems Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL Jianzhong Xu Mississippi State University, MS

Recognizing Community Voice and a Youth-Led School Community Partnership in the School Climate Improvement Process Megan Ice, Amrit Thapa, and Jonathan Cohen Abstract A growing body of school improvement research suggests that engaging all members of the school community, including community members and leaders, provides an essential foundation to successful school improvement efforts. School climate surveys to date tend to recognize student, parent/guardian, and school personnel voice but not the voice of community members. The Community Scale and the youth-led School Community Partnership Process acknowledges the perceptions of community members and the importance of school community partnership. This process engages secondary students to be active co-learners and co-leaders. The Community Scale is a short survey that asks community members about their perception of the school climate, the level of school community partnership, and the extent to which they would be interested in learning about and supporting the school s improvement goals. In the School Community Partnership Process, students are involved in administering this survey to various sectors of the larger school community. The results are then used to develop partnerships between community organizations and the school. This paper details one school s experience piloting the Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process. The aim of this study was to better understand community members perceptions of school climate and their level of interest in working with schools to improve it. Key Words: school climate, school community partnerships, Community Scale, community voice, youth leadership, high school students, improvement School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 9

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Introduction Students in K 12 schools and their teachers need parents/guardians and even community members to be partners in the process of supporting students healthy development and capacity to learn socially, emotionally, and civically as well as intellectually (Fullan, 2011; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Patrikakou, Weissberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005). School leaders generally appreciate that school community partnerships provide an essential foundation for school life and student learning, but this is rarely a central goal for improvement efforts today (Epstein et al., 2008). School community partnerships tend to be talked about more than practiced in American K 12 public education for many reasons. Often, the importance of establishing school community partnerships is overlooked, as district leaders and principals are faced with enormous pressure to meet academic standards (Renée & McAlister, 2011). Many school leaders are unclear about how to practically achieve this goal (Cohen, 2014). More importantly, school leaders are unclear about how to foster a long-lasting relationship with the community. School climate reform has been described as a process that ideally engages the whole village to support the whole child (Cohen, 2011). School climate evaluations allow principals to let students, parents, and school personnel know that their perception of the school s strengths and needs and their goals for the school are valued. A growing body of school improvement research suggests that engaging all members of the community to be intrinsically motivated co-learners and co-leaders creates the essential foundation for successful school improvement efforts (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Fullan, 2011, 2014; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010; Tucker, 2011). School climate survey evaluations serve as an engagement strategy as well as a means of establishing baseline and outcome measures of a school s strengths and needs: socially, emotionally, civically, and intellectually (Cohen, 2012). Current school climate surveys identify student, parent/guardian, and school personnel voice but not the voice of community members. The Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process recognize the perspective of community members by seeking their outlook on school community partnership and on school climate with the goal of using these results to spark development of such partnerships. The process also develops secondary students leadership, civic, and research skills by having them administer a short survey to various sectors of the larger school community, including political leaders, artists, and public safety officers (Cohen & Dary, 2012). This short survey asks community members about their perceptions of the local school 10

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP community partnership and to what extent they would be interested in learning about and supporting the school s improvement goals. It also asks them to share their perceptions of the school s overall climate. This paper describes one school s experience in using the Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process to build meaningful bridges between their school and the larger school community. This school was chosen because of their administration of a school climate survey to students, parents, and staff annually. Due to the superintendent s strong commitment to school climate reform and the district s clearly defined community borders, this school was expected to serve as a good example of the School Community Partnership Process. Before we detail the development of this scale and explain the process, we would like to summarize research on school climate reform in general and school community partnership in particular. Trends in School Climate Reform School climate refers to the quality and character of school life 1 (National School Climate Council, 2007). An effective school climate improvement process engages students, parents/guardians, school personnel, and even community members in a meaningful, democratically informed process of learning, co-leadership, and school improvement (see Appendix A for a more detailed definition of school climate improvement process). School climate reform has garnered growing support and endorsement from federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009), Institute for Educational Sciences (Dynarski et al., 2008), and the U.S. Department of Education (2011, 2013). There are a range of factors contributing to growth in interest in school climate reform. These include a robust and growing body of experimental as well as correlational and ethnographic research that underscores that school climate positively impacts safety and effective violence prevention efforts, student dropout rates, teacher retention, and academic achievement over a three to five year period (for a recent summary of this work, see Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D Alessandro, 2013). There is a robust body of educational, sociological, and socioeconomic research that supports the notion that student learning and youth development are positively shaped not only by effective school family partnerships (e.g., Henderson et al., 2007; Patrikakou et al., 2005) but also by the social networks and norms of the larger community and by engaged and collaborative partnerships (Adelman & Taylor, 2005; Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006; Glickman & Scally, 2008; Putnam, 2001; Renée & McAlister, 2011). Epstein et al. (2002) identifies six types of actions that support successful family and community 11

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL partnerships, including parenting guidance, clear communication, volunteer opportunities, encouraging learning at home, inclusive decision making, and collaboration with the community. Although a common belief is that the extent of community organizations school support is largely financial, there are many ways that community organizations can support schools. DeHavilland Associates (2007) identifies various types of community support, including financial, goods and services, volunteers, mentors, talent development, student services, instruction, expertise, and advocacy. Although school climate reform is grounded in the notion that all in the community need to be co-learners and co-leaders in a democratically informed manner (National School Climate Council, 2007, 2012), as noted above, school climate measurement and improvement efforts to date focus on students, parents/guardians, and school personnel within the school (Clifford, Menon, Gangi, Condon, & Hornung, 2012; Gangi, 2009; Haggerty, Elgin, & Woolley, 2010). Leiter (1983) interestingly examined through a questionnaire how school personnel s perception of community dissatisfaction affected the school environment. School personnel reported on whether the community trusts and supports the school. McCracken and Miller (1988) similarly explored the perceptions of teachers in rural schools regarding community school relationships through interviews, specifically asking them about community members expectations, esteem, and support for teachers. Community members thoughts on school community partnerships were garnered through interviews in a study where both urban and rural teachers and stakeholders in the school community in Cyprus were asked to what extent they believe teachers and community members should work together (Anaxagorou, 2007). Communities that Care created the Communities that Care Youth Survey, which measures risk and protective factors that influence communities adolescent populations, and suggested using the results of the survey to guide community improvement (Arthur et al., 2007). Most recently, a school district in South Dakota has developed a short survey for community members to share their thoughts on the school system and the way it shares information with them (Wischmeyer, 2013). However, a reliable and valid tool that quickly and comprehensively measures community perceptions of school climate and school community partnership has yet to be developed. Development of the Community Scale The Community Scale was developed by the National School Climate Center (NSCC) to incorporate school community partnership into school climate assessment and to recognize the importance of community voice. Other surveys 12

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP of community members perceptions on schools and community resources were researched and reviewed. A set of questions related to school climate perception was drawn from NSCC s Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI, v. 3.0; Guo & Higgins-D Alessandro, 2011) and was included to assess the reliability of community members perception of school climate and further communicate to community members the importance of their voice to schools. Through acknowledging the importance of school community partnerships and community members perspectives, one can mobilize the whole village to support student engagement and learning. This initial version, Community Scale (v. 1.0), is a short survey (25 items) that invites community members to record their impressions of their local school climate, the level of school community partnership, and the extent to which they are interested in learning about school climate evaluation findings and in helping in the school s improvement efforts. The Community Scale was developed to complement and extend the scope of the CSCI, which captures the perceptions on school climate dimensions of students, parents/guardians, and school personnel. The CSCI is a reliable and valid measure of school climate and the only comprehensive school climate survey that has been recognized and recommended in the three current independent reviews of school climate surveys (Clifford et al., 2012; Gangi, 2009; Haggerty et al., 2010). Although the Community Scale was designed to be used with the CSCI, it can be used as a stand-alone survey or with any other school climate survey. Aims of the Study The main goal of this project was to learn about the process of administering a survey to community members regarding school community partnerships and school climate through a student engagement/leadership project and the effect of this process on school community partnerships. We hope to gain a better understanding of community organizations perceptions of their public schools and their willingness to support school improvement efforts. This paper describes the process, the challenges, and the findings from the Community Scale in a small, suburban school district in Connecticut. The Process Sample This pilot study was developed as a collaboration between a small, suburban school district in Connecticut and NSCC. The researchers in this study include a team of three people from NSCC plus six students and one coordinator from the traditional high school. 13

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL The school district surveyed serves a population of roughly 7,000 people, the majority of whom are Caucasian. The district comprises residents with diverse income levels as it also has a transient summer population that owns some of the shoreline property. The district includes one public high school (Grades 9 12), as well as an elementary (K 4) and a middle school (5 8). All schools also administered the CSCI (v. 3.0) to parents, staff, and students. The superintendent of the district also provided her assistance to the project. 14 Capturing the Process Participating students and the coordinator shared their perceptions of the process through weekly phone calls and emails between the coordinator and the research team. The research team created a list of questions regarding the process to guide the coordinator in describing and improving the process (see Appendix B for process questions for the coordinator). The students created a report for the research team with their thoughts on the process and their suggestions on ways to optimize the process. The research team also met with the students and the coordinator following the completion of the project for a focus group and filmed their reflections on the process. Coordinator and Student Recruitment The superintendent for the district selected an educator from the high school to coordinate and lead the Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process. She selected a teacher who played many roles within the school (e.g., Teen Leadership instructor, social studies teacher, driving instructor, etc.), who was committed to improving school climate, and who had a relationship with parents as well as students. The research team advised the coordinator to recruit as diverse a representation of the student body as possible. Students were recruited from a Teen Leadership course that is focused on providing students with skills and training in the areas of personal responsibility, leadership, emotional intelligence, public speaking, and other similar social skills that students need in today s complex environment. Of the students in this course, the coordinator reported that roughly half of the students he discussed the project with agreed to participate. The coordinator limited participants in the project to those who were highly interested to ensure the highest quality of work on the project. In total, six students participated in the project and ranged from 10th to 12th grade levels. As the project began towards the end of the school year, the coordinator made sure to recruit sufficient students who would be available to continue work on the project the following fall. The coordinator shared that the level of student engagement in the project seemed more important than the number of students involved in the project.

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP Student Orientation and Preparation The research team provided the coordinator with important points regarding school climate to cover as well as a list of questions that community members might ask students and ways to respond to these questions. The coordinator met with the six participating students and explained the project, school climate, and the scale with them in detail; the process took approximately two hours for each orientation. The coordinator met with one to three students at a time due to challenges in finding a time to meet with all six students at one time. Students then practiced explaining school climate and the project as well as administering the survey to other teachers within the school. Students expressed concern that community members might be unwilling to answer demographic questions. The coordinator and research team prepared them to explain to community members why these demographic questions are included and how and when the personal information will be used. The coordinator also met with the parents of the students to discuss the survey and its purpose and reported that the parents were delighted to see their children involved in this project. Community Mapping With the use of planning resources from the research team, the coordinator led students in identifying organizations within their community in specific sectors. The sectors are detailed in the survey in Appendix C and include categories such as business, social services, higher education, faith-based organization, civic organization, and so on. The coordinator found that students were easily able to identify organizations and could identify a personal contact at an organization in every sector. Questions did arise about including organizations outside the town proper but that served the community, organizations that didn t fit neatly into a sector, and community members that were neither parents nor from an identified community organization. In all three instances, the research team and the coordinator decided to include the community members. The research team learned that the definition of community might be more complex than anticipated and that it is important to consider the perceptions and support of citizens who may not be community leaders. Community Outreach As there is no single way to best engage people from each organization, the research team suggested multiple methods, such as emailing, cold calling, visits, and enlisting the help of people with contacts within the organization. The superintendent for the district primed community members to be invested in the effort. The coordinator, along with students, also met with the Town 15

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Selectman 2 and asked him to publicize the project to community members. The students and coordinator attended whole community events, like a Memorial Day parade, to reach community members from all sectors at one time. The coordinator and students researched organizations meeting times and arranged meetings with community members to administer the Community Scale, making use of personal contacts within organizations. The majority of outreach was in-person, as they found email and telephone contact having a lower response and engagement rate. Community members that responded were largely Caucasian (77%), had lived in the community for five or more years, and identified as parents, faith-based organization members, public safety officials, and/or members of civic/leisure organizations. 16 Administration to Community Members The survey underwent a few revisions during this initial pilot administration process based on feedback from the students. The actual statements and questions within the survey, however, remained consistent for all community members. As for administration, in some instances, students attended community organizations regularly scheduled meetings. At these meetings they described the project and asked organization members to complete the survey, usually using paper surveys. The survey took approximately 10 minutes for community members to complete, although many organization leaders asked for additional surveys to distribute to their colleagues to complete at their leisure. This led to the addition of short bullet points about the project for the community members to read if they were self-administering the survey. The students reported that many community members did not feel like they knew enough about the schools to answer some questions. This finding led the research team to add the option of selecting I don t know as a response to many questions. Students and the coordinator reported that community members were very hesitant to give out contact information. This finding led to the addition of a specific question asking community members if they would like to be contacted. This also led to students learning that they had to be more assertive in asking for this information. The coordinator added, Familiarity has proven to be a key element. When the community representative knows the student, their family, or me, they have shown an incredible allegiance to the participation of the survey. It took approximately two months to administer the survey to all sectors of the community. Data Collection Data was collected on paper or online through the use of an online survey system and tablets. In most cases the data was collected on paper, and students

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP later entered the responses into the online survey system. Once that was done, the research team could easily update the students on the number of responses by sector of the community. Data Analysis Data was analyzed manually by the research team using SPSS 20 and MS Excel. Means and response distributions were calculated. The research team provided students with demographic data/graphs and a summary of responses to the survey items. The researchers also provided the coordinator with the school s personnel, parent, and student school climate survey results (Comprehensive School Climate Inventory v. 3.0) for the elementary, middle, and high school in the district. Finally, the research team provided the students and the coordinator with suggestions for ways community members could contribute to school climate improvement in various areas of school climate as well as ways to present survey data and next steps to community members through an outline and PowerPoint slides. Findings Although these findings only represent the perceptions of community members who responded to the survey in one town, they do show that many community members are willing to respond to surveys about school climate and school community partnership, and they do show an interest in supporting school climate improvement efforts. In total, 127 community members responded to the survey; 20 community agencies were surveyed. Respondents included all sectors of the community, such as public safety, parent, civic/leisure activities, philanthropic organization, youth leader, higher education, school board, business, elected official, health/mental health, arts, media/entertainment, public library/agencies, faith based, and social services. The largest population of respondents (20%) primarily identified as parents, with the next largest populations being health/mental health (12%) and business (10%). The data shows that most community members (52%) reported that the school district has improved somewhat over the past five years. As for public schools nationally, most community members felt that public schools have either stayed the same (34%) or improved somewhat (37%). A majority of community members (59%) were interested (i.e., opted a lot and a little 3 ) in supporting school climate improvement efforts. Only 15% of community members were not at all or not really interested in working with educators and/or students to support the school s improvement efforts. A majority of community members (76%) felt that community members take a little or 17

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL a lot of responsibility for ensuring quality public schools in their community. Finally, most community members (90% responded a lot and a little ) would be in favor of students in their school community spending class time on community projects. Only 4% of community members would be not a lot or not at all in favor of students spending class time on a project in their community. Community members who were primarily affiliated with higher education were most interested in supporting school improvement efforts, but the majority of community members from the different sectors were interested in supporting school improvement efforts. Three sectors of the community were, on average, not really or not at all interested in supporting school improvement efforts: elected officials, members of faith-based organizations, and members of social services organizations. Community members scored the school most positively on having clear rules and norms, in particular on the question, In our public schools there are clear rules against physically hurting other people (for example, hitting, pushing, or tripping), and community involvement, such as whether the school works with the community and joins in community activities. Community members scored the school least positively on leadership ability, in particular on the question, Working relationships among staff in this school make it easier to try new things and social and civic learning, in particular for the question, In our public schools, educators talk to students about moral values (for example, responsibility, fairness, and respect). Please see Appendix C for Community Scale v. 1.0 and community members responses to specific questions to that version. The revised version (Community Scale v. 2.0) is available from the authors upon request. Data Presentation and Utilization After receiving their in-depth findings from the research team, the students shared this information with the school community and the broader community. The students found that it was more effective to meet with community organizations individually rather than invite all organizations to attend one meeting. They reported that community members appeared to take a potential collaboration with the school more seriously after hearing about their findings. The students also reported that the community members praised the school for their active community involvement. The students and the community members ideas for collaborative opportunities between community organizations and the school included creating a calendar with school events to distribute to the community, providing free admission for senior citizens to school events, inviting students for classes at the public library, and organizing student visits 18

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP to the businesses to increase awareness of resources and employment opportunities. Through their school, the students attended a training (not led by this research organization) on the National School Climate Standards and presented this information to middle and high school students at their school and at a conference on student leadership. Although community members have not taken concrete steps yet to support school climate improvement, many are interested and are planning to continue working with the school to figure out the best ways to collaborate. In total, the process began in May 2013 and, although an ongoing process, the pilot project was largely completed by December of the same year. Guide Development A Guide for Student and Educational Leaders was developed (Cohen & Dary, 2012) to provide detailed service learning suggested procedures and strategies that support middle and/or high school students taking the Community Scale survey to their community. The research team revised the guide for the coordinator and for the students (Cohen & Dary, 2012) using feedback from the participating students and coordinator. This guide was designed to lay out the steps involved in the process and to offer suggestions as to the best way to carry out the project. The guide (National School Climate Center, 2013) now details how students can be leaders in (a) administering the Community Scale to sectors of the community, (b) understanding findings and how they compare with and apply to school climate findings, and (c) meeting with community members to talk about how they can support a school s improvement efforts. Limitations Although this scale and process has been developed after thorough research and careful consideration, it has currently only been piloted once. The students and coordinator did not track how many people were asked to take the survey. This was challenging to track, as many times students would meet with a contact person who might then share the survey with others at that organization. Therefore, it was hard for the students to know how many total people were asked to take the survey. Moreover, the experiences of the coordinator and students during this pilot project are informative, but they do only reflect the experience of one population with the administration and analysis of the Community Scale. The school and community surveyed in this study are distinct in several potentially significant ways, and thus their experience might differ from that of other schools 19

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL and communities with different unique characteristics. We imagine that differences in urban, suburban, and rural location, size of the district, and school resources and support could all affect the ease of administration of this scale by students. In addition, the School Community Partnership Process does not suggest making it mandatory for community members to take this survey. Therefore, community members who are more invested in supporting schools may be more likely to respond to the survey than community members who are not interested in supporting school improvement, skewing the findings. As the school began this process in the late spring, the process may have taken them longer because there were several months when they were on vacation and not available to work on this project. Finally, there might be other actors in the process (e.g., type of leadership of the school, socioeconomic makeup of the community) that might be influencing both the survey process as well as the findings and might not be true in other cases. Conclusion and Implications The Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process are certainly feasible and informative. Community members are interested in supporting school improvement efforts. Students are capable of administering surveys to community members and find the experience valuable. However, community members perception of school climate was highly variable and often seemingly influenced by the media. This information and the students and coordinator s feedback regarding the challenges and successes of the process of administering the Community Scale to community members provides valuable information for future iterations of these tools. The goal of this Community Scale and School Community Partnership Process is to strengthen community involvement in schools to in turn improve school climate and student engagement. Community school partnerships can be developed and strengthened in many ways. The Coalition of Community Schools, for example, focuses on planning that recognizes that district leadership and school-based teamwork are critical for structuring, designing, implementing, evaluating, and continually improving programs of family and community engagement (Epstein et al., 2002). Professional development on partnership program components are provided and tailored to each school improvement plan. Each school s goal-linked Action Plan for Partnerships includes family and community involvement activities to help the school and its students meet specific academic goals, behavioral goals (e.g., attendance, behavior, reducing bullying, improving postsecondary planning), and the goal of a welcoming school climate (Epstein et al., 2008). 20

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP This project has been quite significant in the sense that it has led to the development of the Community Scale as well as the Guide for the students and educators. Due to the importance of community school partnerships, we will continue to enhance this scale in making it a valid and reliable tool. We plan, in further iterations of the Community Scale 4, to not only focus the assessment on the extent and ways in which the school and community work together but also ways to continue to share school climate findings with community members. We also suggest that the school and community members brainstorm collaboratively regarding ways for them to work together to support school improvement efforts. Endnotes 1 The Council recommends that the terms climate, culture, supportive learning environments, and/or conditions for learning be used interchangeably. What is most important is that practitioners and/or researchers use operationally definable terms. 2 One of a board of officials elected in towns of all New England states except Rhode Island to serve as the chief administrative authority of the town. 3 Please note that a little was used in the sense of somewhat. The response scale used was: Not at all, Not a lot, neutral/undecided, a little, and a lot. 4 For example, please see Community Scale v. 2.0, available from the authors upon request. Although version 1.0 was used for this project, version 2.0 was developed as part of the refinement process after the completion of this project. References Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2005). The school leader s guide to student learning supports: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Anaxagorou, G. (2007). Teachers and community stakeholders perceptions about school community relations in Cyprus. International Journal About Parents in Education, 1(0), 53 58. Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Brooke-Weiss, B. L., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Measuring risk and protection in communities using the Communities that Care Youth Survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(2), 197 211. Berg, A., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community and family engagement: Principals share what works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/communityandfamilyengagement.pdf Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 21

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Clifford, M., Menon, R. Condon, C., & Hornung, K. (2012). Measuring school climate for gauging principal performance: A review of the validity and reliability of publicly accessible measures. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www. air.org/files/school_climate2.pdf Cohen, J. (2011). Jonathan Cohen on school climate: Engaging the whole village, teaching the whole child. The Challenge, 16(4), 1 8. Retrieved from http://www.edpubs.gov/document/ed005207w.pdf?ck=9 Cohen, J. (2012). Measuring and improving school climate: A pro-social strategy that recognizes, educates, and supports the whole child and the whole school community. In P. M. Brown, M. W. Corrigian, & A. Higgins-D Alessandro (Eds.), The handbook of prosocial education (pp. 227 252). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Cohen, J. (2014). School climate policy and practice trends: A paradox. A commentary. Teachers College Record (ID Number: 17445). Cohen, J., & Dary, T. (2012). The Community Scale: A service learning guide for educators and students supporting school community partnerships. Unpublished paper, National School Climate Center, New York, NY. DeHavilland Associates. (2007). Community/school partnerships: A national survey. Retrieved from http://www.dehavillandassociates.com/dehavilland_partnershipreport_0207.pdf Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout prevention: A practice guide (NCEE 2008 4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=9 Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., Williams, K. J. (2008). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Seminar Series Paper No. 204). Victoria, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education. Retrieved from http://edsource. org/wp-content/uploads/fullan-wrong-drivers1.pdf Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gangi, T. A. (2009). School climate and faculty relationships: Choosing an effective assessment measure (Doctoral dissertation). St. John s University, New York, NY. Glickman, N. J., & Scally, C. P. (2008). Can community and education organizing improve inner-city schools? Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 557 577. Guo, P., & Higgins-D Alessandro, A. (2011, October). The place of teachers views of teaching in promoting positive school culture and student prosocial and academic outcomes. Paper presented at the Association for Moral Education annual conference, Nanjing, China. Haggerty, K., Elgin, J., & Woolley, A. (2010). Social emotional learning assessment measures for middle school youth. Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/library/2013/12/9/social-emotionallearning-assessment-measures-for-middle-school-youth 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. Leiter, J. (1983). Perception of community dissatisfaction and school organizational structures. American Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 45 61. 22

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world s most improved school systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety. com/downloads/reports/education/how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems- Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final.pdf McCracken, J. D., & Miller, C. (1988). Rural teachers perception of their schools and communities. Research in Rural Education, 5(2), 23 26. National School Climate Center. (2013). The Community Scale: A service learning guide for educators and students supporting school community partnerships, version 2 (Unpublished paper). New York, NY: Author. National School Climate Council. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines, and teacher education policy. Retrieved from http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/schoolclimate-challenge.pdf National School Climate Council. (2012). The school climate improvement process: Essential elements (School Climate Brief, No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/policy/sc-brief-v4.pdf Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2005). School family partnerships for children s success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Community-based social capital and educational performance. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), Making good citizens: Education and civil society (pp. 58 95). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Renée, M., & McAlister, S. (2011). The strengths and challenges of community organizing as an education reform strategy: What the research says. Community Organizing as an Education Reform Strategy Series. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 357 385. Tucker, M. S. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Mobilizing for evidence-based character education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/charactered/mobilizing.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Supportive School Discipline Initiative: Transforming school climate through trauma informed practices. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Guide for developing high-quality school emergency operations plans. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students. Wischmeyer, B. (2013, October 1). Survey helps district assess schools: Parents, others respond on quality, leadership, budget. ArgusLeader.com. Authors Note: We are grateful to the superintendent of the district (referred to in this study), the educator/coordinator, and all the students from the high school involved in this project for their amazing help and support. Megan Ice is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in clinical psychology at Long Island University Brooklyn. She is interested in working clinically with children and adolescents to help improve their mental health. She worked for two years as a research associate at the National School Climate Center where she conducted research on social and emotional learning in schools. 23

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Amrit Thapa is the research director at the National School Climate Center (NSCC). He is also an affiliated researcher at the Center for Benefit Cost Studies of Education at Teachers College and a representative to the United Nations for The Institute of Global Education. His research interests include school climate, economics of education, and international education. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Thapa at NSCC, 341 West 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10018, or email athapa@ schoolclimate.org Jonathan Cohen is the co-founder and president of the National School Climate Center and a practicing clinical psychologist. He is a leading expert on school climate and has worked in and with K 12 schools for over 35 years as a teacher, program developer, school psychologist, consultant, mental health provider, and psycho-educational diagnostician. Appendix A: The School Climate Improvement Process Defined* School climate improvement is an intentional, strategic, collaborative, transparent, and coordinated effort to strengthen school learning environments. Democratically informed decision making constitutes an essential foundation for the school climate improvement process. Based on our members collective experience partnering with schools, the Council defines an effective school climate improvement process as one that engages all stakeholders in the following six essential practices: 1. The decision-making process is collaborative, democratic, and involves all stakeholders (e.g., school personnel, students, families, community members) with varied roles and perspectives (e.g., teacher, nurse, social worker, administrator, bus driver, secretary, maintenance staff, as well as nontraditional student leaders and disempowered parents). 2. Psychometrically sound quantitative (e.g., survey) and qualitative (e.g., interviews, focus groups) data are used to drive action planning, intervention practices, and program implementation to continuously improve dimensions of school climate. Data are collected regularly to evaluate progress and continue to inform the improvement process. 3. Improvement goals are tailored to the unique needs of the students and broader school community. These goals are integrated into overall school reform/renewal efforts, thereby leveraging school strengths while facilitating the sustainability of the improvement process over time. 4. Capacity building among school personnel promotes adult learning in teams and/or professional learning communities to promote collective efficacy and staff skills in providing whole child education. 5. Curriculum, instruction, student supports, and interventions are based on scientific research and grounded in cognitive, social emotional, and ecological theories of youth development. Interventions include strength- and risk-based practices and programs that together represent a comprehensive continuum of approaches to promote healthy student development and positive learning environments as well as address individual student barriers to learning. 24

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP 6. The improvement process strengthens (a) policies and procedures related to learning environments, and (b) operational infrastructure to facilitate data collection, effective planning, implementation, evaluation, and sustainability. *National School Climate Council, 2012. Appendix B: Process Questions for Coordinator For all questions, the reasoning behind the decision and feedback on how it worked would be useful. Prep How did you select students to participate in the project? o Did students in class have to participate? How old were the students? How often did the students meet to work on the project? When did the students meet to work on the project? Where did the students meet to work on the project? Will additional students be recruited for the fall to analyze and present on the data? How many students were involved in the project? Orientation Were there any challenges to explaining school climate and the goals of the project to students? Did any common questions arise that it would be useful to prepare other educators for? Did any students decide to no longer participate after attending the orientation? How long did it take to prepare them? Mapping the community How did you identify organizations and community members in each sphere to reach out to? What was challenging about identifying community members to reach out to? Preparing students to go out into the community How did students prepare to go out into the community and speak with community members? Role plays? Research on the organization? What were students biggest concerns about going out to the community? How did you address these concerns? Reaching out to the community What size groups did you break them into? How did you break students into groups? How did you assign groups to community members? Did adults accompany the students to go speak with community members? Did students provide their own transportation to go speak with community members? Were students required to take turns leading the interaction with the community member? Did all outreach occur during the assigned project time or did some outreach occur on weekends and other unscheduled time when the students were a part of the community? 25

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Did students use paper surveys or tablets? What was difficult about identifying community members to speak with? How many times did you have to reach out to community members before speaking to someone? What percentage of community members you spoke with agreed to participate in the survey? How did students reach out to community members? Email, phone, in person, etc. o If you used email, phones, what line/email did you use? Did you as educator respond to any return emails or phone calls? Were any spheres of the community particularly hard to get in touch with? What made it easier to reach community members and encourage them to participate? For example, past partnerships with the school, personal connections, etc. Were students asked any questions they felt unprepared for? Did many students have personal connections to the identified organizations before reaching out to them? What spheres were students more or less comfortable reaching out to? Why? How did you support them? Data collection and input Did community members express any confusion or concerns with the questions? Were students unsure ever how to input a response? If they used a tablet, were there any difficulties with getting the survey to work? After data collection and input How did you wrap up the project with the 12 th graders who wouldn t be there to see the project through in the fall? What was more challenging than you had expected? Is there anything you wish you had done differently? If so, what? What would you have liked more information or guidance on? How did the process feel time-wise? Did students feel like it was moving too slowly? Did it feel rushed? Were there any unexpected outcomes of this project? What was challenging for you in letting the students take the lead on this project? Where did you see the students struggling the most? Where did you see the students really excelling? Would you have liked more resources, such as worksheets, activities, etc. to guide sessions with students? 26

COMMUNITY VOICE AND PARTNERSHIP Appendix C: Community Members Responses to Community Scale v. 1.0 Factor Rules and Norms Rules and Norms Rules and Norms Physical Security Physical Security Social and Civic Learning Social and Civic Learning Social and Civic Learning Respect for Diversity Respect for Diversity Respect for Diversity Respect for Diversity School Connectedness & Engagement School Connectedness & Engagement School Connectedness & Engagement Question In our public schools, there are clear rules against physically hurting other people (for example, hitting, pushing, or tripping). In our public schools, adults will stop students if they see them physically or verbally hurting others. In our public schools, there are clear rules against insults, teasing, harassment, and other verbal abuse. Question Mean Factor Mean 4.20 4.04 3.99 4.04 3.95 4.04 Our public schools are safe. 3.92 3.91 The schools yard and areas around our public schools are safe. Our public schools intentionally and helpfully work to promote social, emotional, and civic as well as intellectual/academic learning. In our public schools, students discuss issues that help them think about how to be a good person. In our public schools, educators talk to students about moral values (for example, responsibility, fairness, and respect). Adults who work in our public schools treat one another with respect. Our public schools teach students to respect differences in others. Adults in our public schools respect differences in students (for example, gender, race, culture, etc.). Students in our public schools respect each other s differences (for example, gender, race, culture, etc.). I have good relationships with members of the school community. 3.91 3.91 3.86 3.85 3.88 3.85 3.80 3.85 3.85 3.89 3.94 3.89 3.97 3.89 3.79 3.89 4.01 3.90 I am a helpful member of the school community. 3.78 3.90 Our public schools have many extracurricular activities/programs that engage a wide range of students. 4.07 3.90 27

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Appendix C, continued Factor School Connectedness & Engagement School Connectedness & Engagement Physical Surroundings Physical Surroundings Physical Surroundings Leadership Leadership Leadership Community Involvement Community Involvement Community Involvement Question Our public schools try to get families and the community to participate in school activities. People are proud to be a part of our public schools community. Question Mean Factor Mean 3.94 3.90 3.89 3.90 Our public schools are kept clean. 4.11 3.90 Our public schools are physically attractive. 4.00 3.90 Our public schools have enough supplies (for example, books, papers, and pencils). Adults in our public schools seem to work well with one another. Working relationships among staff in this school make it easier to try new things. Adults who work in our public schools support one another. In our public schools, educators are willing to work with the community to support positive youth development. In our public schools, educators work with the community to support positive youth development. 3.58 3.90 3.85 3.84 3.70 3.84 3.96 3.84 3.97 3.96 3.94 3.96 Our public schools join in community activities. 4.01 3.96 Note: The means for the factors were calculated by averaging the ratings of respondents who did choose to rate how strongly they agreed with the statements within that factor. The scale was 1 - Strongly Disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Neutral, 4 - Agree, and 5 - Strongly Agree. 28

Parent Involvement Facilitators: Unlocking Social Capital Wealth Margaret M. Ferrara Abstract This case study provides an overview of a family outreach intervention that supports student retention in school through a school home communication link. This intervention structure, which employs staff appropriately called parent involvement facilitators (PIFs), is one that school districts have employed to facilitate family engagement in schools and to help parents build their sense of efficacy to support their children s success in school. The intention of the PIF is to provide direct services to families whose child or children are identified as at risk of not completing high school. What has not been studied is how this outreach program works in terms of family support, especially for those in an urban setting with language complexities, and how it helps provide social capital to the family and also to the PIF in this reciprocal process of working together to help the children complete high school. Key Words: parent involvement facilitators, at-risk indicators, ninth grade Introduction Students who drop out of school face many negative consequences including decreased pay, higher unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, and even early deaths (Donahue, 2011; Martin & Halperin, 2006). Moreover, dropouts cost the nation billions of dollars in lost wages and taxes, welfare benefits, and costs associated with crime (Martin & Halperin, 2006). Dynarski et al. (2008) gave a number of recommendations for dropout prevention, School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 29

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL including using existing data to identify students who are at risk of dropping out and pairing at-risk students with adults in the school for addressing academic and social needs, communicating with the families, and advocating for the student (Dynarski et al., 2008, p. 16). Many school districts have instituted dropout identification and intervention programs based on the work of Dynarski and others, such as the Building Bridges consortium in Washington state (2011) and the Consortium on Chicago School Research (Allensworth & Easton, 2007). By considering factors such as performance on standardized tests, number of credits earned, attendance, and other issues associated with school failure, school districts are able to determine which students are at risk of dropping out. Typically, this is largely based on quantitative data. While data have power in substantiating cases that create public interest and press, data do not provide the total complex picture for dropout prevention (Larson, 2007; Somers & Piliawsky, 2004). This case describes an intervention that marries two interventions suggested in the Dynarski report: at-risk identification, and adult support in the school linked to the family, namely, a parent involvement facilitator (PIF). The role of the PIF is to serve as a communication link with families whose children are not on target to graduate from high school and to provide select families with updates on the progress of their children (e.g., attendance, achievement scores) during the school year (Howland, Anderson, Smiley, & Abbott, 2006). The term select is used because the students of these parents have been identified as at high risk of not completing high school. This risk index places elementary, middle, and high school students along a continuum from no risk to high risk to facilitate early identification and, even more importantly, early intervention to prevent these students from dropping out of school. The risk indicators alone are not enough to reduce dropout statistics. The indicators merely sound an alarm; listeners must hear and respond. This means that interventions are typically conducted on a case by case basis. Theoretical Perspective of the Case Parents play an influential role in the academic and social success of their children; yet, there is an inverse relationship in parent involvement as students move through middle school and high school (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005). It is a time when some students, teachers, and parents need more collaboration. Unfortunately, it is also a time when parents have a less visible presence at the school. Teachers, too, in secondary schools tend to experience a sense of disconnect from families (e.g., Brooks, 2009; Ferrara, 2009; Feuerstein, 2000) and a lack of communication between the classroom and the home setting 30

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS (Brooks, 2009; Eberly, Joshi, & Konzal, 2007). For some families, the school is an intimidating place. In some cases, it is also a time when parents are trying to understand their role as a parent and reach a level of confidence in helping their children learn (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). There appears to be a positive carry-over influence, however, when parents are involved. Various studies (e.g., Lee & Burkham, 2002; Trusty, 1996) have shown that secondary students tend to earn higher grades, set higher career goals, and have fewer discipline problems when parents are involved in school during the middle and high school years. Parents have reported that they need more guidance on how to involve themselves in their children s education during the secondary years (Gould, 2011), but this is not always possible for teachers, who report limited time and expertise to work with parents of secondary students (Kelly, 2014). On the other hand, family support is most challenging during the high school transition time. Transition to high school is a growing area of study in educational research as well as a targeted area of prevention and intervention programs in K 12 educational institutions (Chen & Gregory, 2009). Students who have already demonstrated at-risk behaviors in middle school become even more vulnerable to falling detrimentally behind in the critical first year of high school (McCallumore & Sparapani, 2010). Researchers (e.g., Green et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2005) also recognize from three decades of studying this issue that families play an important role in their children s transition. The question that has challenged researchers and educators alike is how to support families most effectively during their children s secondary school learning experiences to help students complete their high school education. Raising the Question This case study captures a close look at PIFs who provide a direct link to parents whose children are at varying degrees of risk of dropping out of school at the critical grade level ninth grade (Neild & Balfanz, 2006). In this case, the PIFs have the power of the language of the families Spanish and understand the stories of the families based on personal cultural experiences. The PIFs also bring a special human element to the home and bridge a communication gap that cuts through the educanese lingo of education and a complex data literacy that confronts families when they want to understand, How are my children doing in school? A question raised in any such study is: Are we talking about an intervention that is targeting parents, students, or families? (Dufur, Parcel, & Troutman, 2013). In the case of this study, the target is the family. The intervention, however, begins with the parent or guardian. The intent is that the impact of the program moves into the family structure so there is a collaborative team the school and the home. 31

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Researchers identify a number of early signposts to identify students at risk of dropping out absenteeism, mobility, and academic failure that can lead to a pattern of disengagement identifiable as early as middle school (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2006; Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007; Neild & Balfanz, 2006). Furthermore, personnel in school districts are capable of recognizing at least half of future dropouts by the end of sixth grade and three-quarters of them by ninth grade. These early warning signs serve as points of reference linked to achievement, attendance, and behavior, and help put targeted programs and strategies into place early (Balfanz et al., 2007). Researchers (e.g., Balfanz et al., 2007; Dynarski et al., 2008; Hill & Tyson, 2009) have suggested that reforms need to be put in place at the points where students transition from one level of schooling to another. Setting up students for successful transitions to elementary, middle, and high school involves taking into account not just students academic needs but also their needs for social supports and clear expectations for college and career goals (Balfanz & Bridgeland, 2007; Sanders, 2009). One of the first steps to set dropout prevention into motion is to have multiple interventions available. In other words, one size does not fit all because of the complexity of dropout causality. Lehr (2004) reports that most dropout prevention strategies can be categorized into five types: personal/affective (individual counseling); academic (tutoring); school structure (reducing class size or creating an alternative school); work-related (vocational training or volunteer work); and family outreach (home visits). This case provides an overview of one of these prevention strategies, family outreach, and its degree of effectiveness. The PIF structure is a strategy school districts have employed to facilitate family engagement in schools and to help parents build their capacity to work with the complexities of the school system. In this case, the task of the PIF is to provide support beyond the family link by also serving as a teacher support and as a data gathering person for record keeping about student progress (Sanders, 2008, 2009). What has not been studied with this outreach program is the degree to which these strategies work in terms of families, especially those in an urban setting with language complexities. Equally as interesting is the question of how this program personally impacts the PIFs, providing social capital to themselves and their own families in the process. Ultimately, the purpose of this case study is to look more in depth at the PIF program from the lens of the facilitator in relation to the parent to see what creates the elements of social wealth. The intent is to gain an understanding of how the family and PIF not only work together, but also how each one works to gain a stronger collaboration to support the student and help build his or her resiliency to stay in school to graduate. 32

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS These questions helped guide this exploration: What are essential dispositions and necessary behaviors that are important in a PIF? What effective strategies serve as collaborative interventions for the PIFs and families to use to help students to stay in school? Using the theory of social capital, what has been learned to date about this program that can be shared with others who want to use this intervention? What are other unintended outcomes that have made a difference in using this intervention? The overall purpose of this case study is to provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of a program that builds parents efficacy to help their at-risk students stay on track for high school graduation through one-on-one support. The Meaning of Social Capital and Parent Involvement Social capital, as defined by Coleman (1988), is explained as a source of wealth and power that is inherent in society based on one s network of connections. More simply explained, social capital is composed of two general elements: the social relationships that one possesses, and the degree to which the individual has quantity and qualities in those relationships and their resources (Portes, 2000). To be successful in a school environment, families need to have learning resources and a wealth of social capital to help with achievement goals. Many families lack these resources; they are not engaged in schools or the community and are limited by lack of proficiency in English, economic wealth, or technology. Coleman goes on to explain one of the resources of social capital is the resource of information channels. These are social relationships that help one acquire information, such as finding out what an excellent school is or how to access educational opportunities at a signature charter school in the school district. Ultimately, social capital wealth enhances human capital. The family and the community play a key role in fostering the development of social capital. Family background is analytically separable into three different parts: financial capital, human capital, and social capital, all of which are necessary. Coleman (1988) explains these parts; in a simplistic form, human capital is measured by parents education. Social capital is evaluated by the relationship between children and parents (and other family members). It gives children access to the adult s human capital and depends on both the parents physical presence and the personal attention they give their children. If parents human capital is not complemented by social capital embodied in family relations, it is irrelevant to the child s educational growth that the parent has a great deal, or a 33

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL small amount, of human capital (Coleman, 1988, p. 110). Beyond the family, social capital is found in relationships outside the home and with the parents relationships with the institutions of the community, in this case, the school. The understanding of the importance of cultural capital has been brought into focus through the work of Lee and Bowman (2006) as well as Croninger and Lee (2001). These researchers have noted that teachers are critical resources who provide students with social capital, that is, tools to help them be successful in school to graduate. Beyond this work, other researchers have looked beyond the classroom and explored other forms of capital within the school setting: principals (Fullan, 2014), other students (Gottfredson & DiPietro, 2011), families (Crosnoe, 2004), and, as in this study, support personnel (Fritch, 2000). The Case Method to Capture the Essence of Social Capital Connections In order to capture the voices of the PIFs heard in this study, the researcher used a case study format (Stake, 2005) supported by a comprehensive research data analysis guided by Denzin and Lincoln (2005). The study took place over a period of three years to enable the researcher to gain rich, substantive data from multiple perspectives (PIFs usually stayed with the program for an average of a year) and informal statistical reports. Triangulated data were drawn from notes based on discussions with PIFs, recorded interviews with school facilitators (e.g., school counselor, assistant principal), and scripts used for conference presentations over the three years. Notes and interviews were verified for accuracy. Themes, chronologically ordered, emerged from the discussion notes and were used to compare perceptions of the PIFs on a yearly basis over the three-year period. Data from these various sources were further collapsed to analyze lessons learned from the study. The word parent and family were used interchangeably in some sessions in the first semester and less in the second semester of this study. By year three, contacts were typically noted in reports as mother rather than parent or father. This was because much of communication work was based on using the telephone; mothers typically answered the phone more frequently than fathers. Also mothers phone numbers were more readily provided as contacts as compared to the phone numbers of the fathers. The qualitative design used for this program analysis consisted of three data points to build a rich case: (1) broad analysis of data collected through PIF tracking tab to identify the frequency and nature of PIF contact with parents; (2) discussion sessions with PIFs to understand what strategies were being used 34

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS to engage families; and (3) PIF reflective writings on what they learned about themselves and the process of working with students and their families. To a lesser degree, interviews with school facilitators and the first year program supervisor were used to provide additional descriptions to enrich this case study. Student Identification Based on Risk Indicators The PIF program studied here took place in a large school district in the western United States with a population of 63,000 students. Some ninth grade students were identified as at risk of dropping out by five risk indicators based on the work of Balfanz et al. (2007). In the first year, students from 12 comprehensive high schools were identified as candidates for the program. These were students who had a history of at least three of these criteria: non-proficiency on eighth grade standardized test scores in English Language Arts/mathematics; poor attendance; changing schools in the past year; retained for two years in the same grade; and a record of being suspended from school at least once in the past year. For each of these risk indicators, students received a rating based on a rubric assigning 0, 1, or 2 points for attendance, transiency, retention, and CRT scores. The risk index of suspension was based on a score of 0 (never suspended) or 1 (suspended). Each student receives a composite risk index score at the conclusion of certain school years (Grades 1 6; Grade 7 9; Grade 10; Grade 11 12). Students in this study were identified using this risk index at the end of their eighth grade year and placed in risk order from most at risk to least at risk. Those most at risk were the students and families who were targeted to receive support in their ninth grade year through the PIF intervention. Role of the Parent Involvement Facilitator and Training Support Twelve schools in the school district participated in the first year, and eight continued into the second and third years of the program (Crain, Davidson, & Ferrara, 2013a; Ferrara, Crain, & Davidson, 2013). In the first year of the program, the school district, along with a community agency, secured funding through Americorps for 12 part-time PIFs and a full-time field coordinator. The field coordinator s role was to work closely with the PIFs to increase their proficiency in using the school district data software and teaching the software to parents. Additionally, the field coordinator monitored the workstations for grant compliance and PIF support. The PIFs were selected for their position based on their knowledge of working with parents, their bilingual ability 35

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL (Spanish-speaking), and their time availability (20 hours per week during school time). Even though not all 12 schools had a high Hispanic population, the families targeted in these schools were largely Hispanic. The PIFs received some training in using the parent portal system and in understanding the characteristics of an at-risk learner through school district professional development staff. Their main role was to contact as many parents as possible (given the phone numbers that each school had available) and to help parents understand how to access the parent portal. It was also important for the PIFs to enter all of their attempts, contacts, and follow-up contacts on the parent portal system. All PIFs received an initial training at the school district s personnel computer lab and training facility. During this initial training, FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) law, school policies, and employment issues were discussed. A large part of the training time was centered on learning the school district s software program. Additionally, the PIFs were shown their student list. After reviewing these lists, the PIFs were given training on family issues and dynamics, resources available, and basics in contacting the identified families. In addition to this initial training, every PIF attended a required semimonthly meeting with the grant administrator. When ongoing training was provided by the school district, PIFs had the opportunity to interact with one another to share insights and methods in helping families. Changes were made for the second year of the study based on feedback from the PIFs and school administrators after the first year of the study. First, in the second year, the school district narrowed the number of schools to eight but increased the number of hours that a PIF was assigned to a school to full-time (40 hours). The number of hours of training for the PIFs was increased to four days before they began their assignments at their schools. The PIFs received training in using the electronic portal system (Basic Infinite Campus), the parent portal data tab for Infinite Campus, FERPA and mandated reporting, understanding high school graduation requirements, and the multiple school district websites. They also received several professional development workshops on family engagement, family school partnerships, the intent of the re-engagement centers (high school dropout prevention initiatives), relationship building with hardto-reach families, and how to handle conflict. Only a few of the PIFs returned in year two, mainly because the others did not have the time necessary for the position or had elected to take another higher paying position. A more concentrated effort was made in the second and third years to help PIFs reach data-driven decisions based on high-risk indicator data. Data were reviewed at the beginning of each semester. These data included the number of at-risk students in each of the targeted ninth grades in the eight schools at the beginning and the midpoint of the year. Data also included student mobility, 36

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS number of families reached from one semester to another, and percentage of families reached. The PIFs in years two and three also participated in a field trip to their assigned school and were introduced to the faculty and staff. An important difference, too, was that the PIFs were assigned to a school administrator, which added another positive impact. In many schools, the freshmen dean was chosen as the supervisor, while a few chose the head counselor. Either configuration allowed the PIF to be closely aligned with ninth grade students at each school. At the beginning of each school year, PIFs receive a list of incoming highrisk ninth grade students and are asked to contact as many of their parents as possible to work to build a positive relationship with them, to help them understand how to access the parent portal, and to link them to any additional family supports they might need to ensure students successful continuation in high school (e.g., tutoring, translation services, financial support for families, counseling). All PIFs were required to document which students families they contacted using the school district s student information data tracking link to the school district parent portal system. The information entered included a description of the outcome of the contact (e.g., family was linked to supports; no call back from family) and any additional notes the PIF had about the contact with the family. PIFs scheduled semi-monthly meetings with their community liaison and other facilitators involved in parent programs in the school district to share insights and challenges in their roles. Data Collection Opportunities Three times a year during PIF training sessions, each of the PIFs from Grades 8 12 took part in one-hour personal experience discussions. In order to build a rich data understanding, the transcripts from the individual interviews and discussions were read in their entirety at least twice, with marginal notations indicating short phrases, ideas, or key concepts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Coding was completed for all sentences and phrases of each participant in order to capture the essence of what the participant shared. After the initial coding, each participant s data file was filtered to identify common codes. This study employed this method of triangulation by incorporating individual interviews, discussion notes, member checks, and archival program documents. The case study also utilized data source triangulation (Stake, 1995) by conducting discussion sessions at three different periods of the year. Through these systematic steps, a picture of the challenges and successes of PIFs became clearer over time. 37

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Other data collected over the three-year period were analyzed as an ongoing process. In the first year, the PIF supervisor provided insights on the relationships and challenges in the start-up of the program. In the second and third years, data were included in this case from presentations at the national level (e.g., American Educational Research Conferences). In year three, two informal interviews with school-based facilitators were included to provide a broader perspective of the impact of the program at the school level. Unfolding the Evidence: Looking More Closely at the Parent Involvement Facilitator One of the eye-opening lessons learned quickly was that the role of the parent involvement facilitator was unique. Those who were successful in the position had qualities beyond the basic job description of being able to speak Spanish. In years two and three, they worked 40 hours a week in this role and became skilled in entering data in the school district reporting system. The most significant quality of being a successful PIF was demonstrating a high level of caring about students and their families. The PIFs who left their position after a few months were those who found the job too challenging. They reported that it was a task that required persistence, as they were required to make phone calls on a daily basis, be highly organized in maintaining details, and remain flexible in working in a school setting with multiple interruptions and unanticipated expectations. One of the PIFs aptly described her role as very important, and she clarified this by sharing her personal experience: (Note: all comments as verbatim) My parents did not have the support to finish school, and I had the support of my brothers. If there are older siblings in the family, they can provide support. It can be others too like my cousins. I moved here from California. I made it happen because I had my siblings to help me finish school. When asked the question, What is the most outstanding characteristic you have that makes you a highly successful PIF? the frequent answer was the ability to communicate. Because PIFs were able to speak Spanish, they also noted this as important. As one added, I can understand the language, and this helps me understand the perspective of the family. Other attributes frequently cited during the three years that this question was asked were empathy, persistence, patience, respect, and the ability to suspend judgment. Ironically, these criteria were those identified early on by PIFs as necessary qualities to be successful in this position. 38

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS An assistant principal acting as a supervisor at one of the schools where there was a PIF program in place added some other qualities: I use to think it was important to be a graduate of this school. Now, I would say that is not crucial It is the work ethic and able to work as a team member and have follow through They [PIFs] need to be able to handle tough conversations and know how to refer the parent to someone else. One of the ways that the PIFs were able to describe the qualities of the role was answering a retrospective question at the end of the experience: What advice would you give a new PIF for next year? Have patience because even through parents do not do this intentionally, they can be rude. Be open sometimes we need to keep the problems in the office, and we need to separate the problems and not internalize what happens in the position. Try to help and follow up in whatever circumstances it would be. Keep reaching out it takes a certain amount, of course, because some parents are not as welcoming. Try to not tell parents the same story of how the students is not coming to school or not doing well in school. They are tired of hearing the same story. The student tells his parents that he is doing fine, but the teacher does not like him. Be a safe listener listen to what you can do and cannot do. Those who worked with PIFs identified an important quality in them: the belief that they could make a difference in families. While the PIFs themselves did not verbally identify it, this quality was reaffirmed in their sharing of stories of their daily interactions and how they provided natural counseling with their families. One PIF who is a social worker helped a parent with community resources when her child was arrested: The parent did not know what to do first or next. I just helped the family get the resources they need to get through the crisis. Now, the student is back in school. As with any program, this one also faced challenges in hiring and retention. Each year, at least one to two of the PIFs left the position midway through the year. Sometimes, it was the challenge of working in the role. More frequently, the PIF found a position that paid more money or was closer to his or her home. Because the job was during school hours, it was a challenge for a PIF who was also attending the local community college or university. By the third year of the program, retention issues were minimal. This was attributed to lessons learned in the first two years, more selectivity in the hiring of the 39

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL PIFs, and closer matching of the qualities of the PIF to the expectations of the schools in which they were placed. What Strategies Do PIFs Use to Engage Parents of At-Risk Students? Even though the PIFs received training in their roles, it was a role that was primarily learned on the job. In the first two years, training was limited to school district workshops provided to all new employees, namely, using the parent portal and data entry systems, FERPA, and sexual harassment training. In the third year, the PIFs attended some targeted workshops using case studies with discussions (Walker, 2012) during which they watched or read the case and suggested ways to address issues related to a family conference scenario. The most powerful sessions, however, were those where the PIF shared stories with each other about their roles. Such side-by-side sharing provided rich data about strategies that were working and those that they needed to change in order to collect data or to support families and students in the program. An early awareness insight that PIFs typically reported, especially after they had been in their position for two to three months, was the importance of building relationships. The PIFs described how many of these relationships evolved from a personal software training opportunity for the parent to a trusting relationship. One of the PIFs described the relationship in this way, Once the parent realized I was a resource and support, they would listen to me, and many would return my phone call. Another PIF emphasized the importance of trust: The PIF needs to build trust with parents. The PIFs want to help the parents and the families. They want to help families understand that they are not there just to represent the schools but to help the students get back on track. The hard part is connecting to the parents and to help them understand they are not the police or [alleviating] the fears that the parents might have. That is the biggest challenge. In addition to building trust, the PIFs over the three years recognized the importance of persistence. One of the PIFs explained this through the perception of the parents, At first, parents do not think they need help and then one day, they come to you and ask what can they do. One PIF described persistence as being motivated by the time requirement in the job description: to complete the 1,700 hours. That is a lot of work, and you have to know you ve done something with that. It is how I measure effectiveness with success. Another realized the importance of patience: Parents will get angry 40

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS because their children are not doing well, and I will try to help them overcome their anger so that their children will have another chance. The bottom line is how well the student is doing in terms of grades. As one PIF reports, I measured success based on how many parents I was able to pass on information like grades. I also recognized that I needed to just do my best I know that I was going to try to provide a contact, and if a parent does not want to have help, I still try to give it my best talk to them about their situation and give them an idea of what to do. One of the most consistent strategies shared over the three years is the acknowledgement that all families need to be treated with respect. I did not want to enter into that judgmental circle; I just want to get into their shoes, [know] what they are doing, and what is not working. The outcome, as one PIF explains is I have empathy for parents and students, not because I have children. I have learned to suspend judgment and not to jump to a conclusion but wait and be respectful for parents as they share their stories with you. Finally, the theme of personal connections and a growing relationship also carried into the PIFs direct contact with students. One of the PIFs recognized that a student chose not to attend a class. She and the student worked out a plan to walk to the class so the student would not skip. This PIF reported that the student eventually passed the class. Another PIF echoed the impact of personally connecting with students and shared her work with a family to help them get their daughter to school. The PIF persisted with her communication, and the student started coming to school on a regular basis. This evolving relationship was also apparent when working with the school staff and being seen as a valuable contributor to the school community and school goals for students. The school facilitator reported that the PIF was part of the team. She was invaluable, and we were in constant contact, and her voice was very important. Sometimes, a school relationship was bumpy as described by one of the PIFs. These were small but annoying issues, like not having a dedicated space in the office or having to serve as a translator when a parent, who was not English speaking, came to the office and there were a need for a Spanish translation. These were issues that were more frequent in the first year and minimal by the third year. As the facilitator admitted, There was a misunderstanding, and we did not understand the intent of the role of the PIF. Since that time, and with open communication, the role of the PIF has been clearly defined, and these issues have been resolved. By the end of the school year, PIFs viewed their successes working with families as growing and progressing, eventually believing that they could have an impact on student outcomes. It is this belief and acknowledgement that they are making a difference which makes the challenges faced in their roles easier to overcome. 41

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL What Is Working and Not Working To Date? One would be remiss in excluding data that showed what was taking place in the school district in terms of the question asked: Did this program work? This answer is: to some degree; it had a positive impact on contacting parents. In year one, PIFs had 1,333 interactions with parents of 651 students, 16% of which were initiated by parents. In year two, 3,529 contacts were made to 800 students (17% initiated by parents). In year three, a total of 3,147 contacts were made to 845 high-risk students (27% initiated by parents). The number of times a family was contacted varied considerably, from as few as one time to as many as 49 times in 2012 2013. PIFs provided a wide range of support to families, with the largest support provided in the areas of attendance, grades, the parent portal, and tutoring across all years. In fact, in 2012 2013, 31% of all contacts related to grades; 19% of contacts were related to attendance; 13% were related to teaching families to use the parent portal to check their students grades, and 3%, helping students with credit recovery. The rest of the contacts were related to information about programs that were being provided by Parent University (e.g., English Language Learners, understanding assessment data, high school graduation requirements). The portal helped the PIFs be more specific about the nature of their contacts, and by the third year, the PIFs were more aware, too, of programs that the school district was offering to support families. When the PIFs were asked which type of contacts yielded the most success, it was in those where parents were informed about the positive success their child was having in school. This was usually a phone call that a PIF made to share academic success like the passing of a test or completion of a project. As noted previously, students in the school district receive risk index points partially based on their attendance. Students who miss 9.5 days of school (excused or unexcused) receive one point on the index, while students who miss 22.5 days or more receive two points on the index. In this study, 1,104 students were identified in this way at the beginning of the school year. At the end of the ninth-grade year, only 717 (65%) of PIF students were considered high risk because of their attendance. These findings indicate that although the number of students contacted by PIFs who were at risk because of their attendance declined from the start of the year to the end of the year, attendance issues continued to remain a major concern among high-risk students. In the first year, approximately 545 students (45%) supported by PIFs earned five credits or more during the school year and were considered ontrack for graduation. In the second year of the program, 675 (53%) of at-risk students earned enough credits to achieve sophomore status. In the third year 42

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS of the program, 651 (59.2%) of students were considered on-track in terms of their credits. The percentage of credit deficient students contacted by PIFs differed substantially from school to school, with some schools ending the year with only 30% of students credit deficient, while others continued to have as many as 58% of students credit deficient (Crain et al., 2013b). However, all high schools experienced a positive decline in the proportion of their students who were considered credit deficient at the end of their freshman year from 2011 2012 to 2012 2013, perhaps indicating the PIFs became more involved. By the end of the year, the majority of students supported by PIFs improved their attendance and were on-track to graduate. Findings from parent portal log-in data indicated that parents contacted by PIFs were significantly more likely to log into the portal even one year after their participation in the PIF program and that parent portal log-ins were positively associated with credit attainment and attendance. Again, these preliminary correlational findings do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, but they do provide data to further pursue in future studies. Strategies and Outcomes That Emerged From the Intervention Data analysis of PIF contacts show that PIFs provide a wide range of support to families, from serving as a liaison between the school and home to providing information on logging into the parent portal to helping students connect to credit recovery systems. These preliminary analyses indicate that there are mixed correlations between increased PIF contact and students credit accrual and attendance. These findings, rather than a reflection on the quality of PIF contact, are most likely indicators of which students PIFs tend to devote the most time and of how much support severely credit deficient and truant students need to stay on-track for graduation. An invaluable strategy that helps PIFs stay motivated and informed is having discussion times with other PIFs during the year. During these discussions, many of the PIFs reported that building trusting relationships with families was not instantaneous; it required both patience and persistence. Once trust and strong relationships were built, PIFs realized they could work effectively with families to develop solutions for obstacles students faced. PIFs also found that sharing their reflections on their capacity to engage families helped them acknowledge that they had gained valuable skills to partner with families as the semester progressed. Much of the PIFs success also depended on school administrators and their ability to support each PIF in meaningful ways. When a PIF had the support of an administrator, he or she was able to focus on outreach and support to families as opposed to doing routine clerical work. When 43

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL PIFs felt included as members of the school staff, they also reported the ability to make valuable contributions to formulate school goals and promote student progress. PIF program data suggest individualized support with at-risk families helps build both the efficacy of the PIF and the target families. This collaborative outcome helped support students in staying on track for graduation. The Power of the Human Contact as Social Capital Over the three years, the voice of the PIF has helped show the power of human contact. Social capital exists in relationships and provides a network of support between families, teachers, and staff; between families and the community; and, in this case, between families and the PIFs. When families use the resources available to them, their well-being is improved. It helps create a success story, that is, a high school education or even a university degree. What has happened, according to Coleman (1988), is that life challenges (e.g., poverty, increased mobility, a decline in family affiliations) decreased social capital in some families. Coleman warned that social capital that exists in families is different from school resources. Schools need to provide children from resource-weak families with experiences that approximate those provided by homes and communities that are rich in social capital (Powell, 1989). The voices of the PIFs have been built on PIF comments over time, which serve as building blocks of evidence and support the power of this program. The most power lies in its essence and outcomes of communication. These findings back research developed by the Harvard Family Research Project and highlighted by the work of Allen (2009). When asked, What qualities do you have that make this program and your link with parents work? the PIFs shared many unique thoughts: 44 Communication, because I have good communicating skills with parents. Native ability, because I understand their perspectives with others. I had trouble with school. I ve been there myself. I have empathy for parents and students not because I have children; I know where the resources are and where to find help for parents. Ask parents to suspend judgment and to not jump to a conclusion but wait and be respectful for parents as they share their stories with you. The PIFs also shared their level of importance of being part of a team paired with the parents in supporting and helping students be successful in school and complete their high school education: I have been calling a family because one of the sons was failing and had low test scores. I talked to his dad who told me that he never saw this,

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS and I told him about his grades. The dad was divorced and did not know what to do. I suggested he meet with the counselor. I set up a meeting with the counselor. He and the counselor met, and he wrote me to let me know how helpful it was, and he was working more closely with his son. By the third year, follow-up communication, such as between this father and the PIF, was a more frequently cited story. It was also more common by the third year to hear how the PIFs supported families through community resources, especially as there was a substantial rise in the number of families in homeless support programs in the school district: One of the students had been missing a lot of school because the family was evicted, and they were staying at a motel. The student s mom tried to get transportation to the new school, but she was having trouble filling out the paperwork and contacting the counselor. I contacted the counselor and helped the student and his mom get the paperwork started. The counselor then helped them get some bus passes, food, and clothes. I contacted the mom yesterday, and she said that her son is going to school and doing ok. More support from school staff was in place by the third year. At one school, the PIF, counselor, and the other parent liaison not assigned to the PIF program collaborated on ways to encourage families to come to the school: I have been working with parent nights and getting more help to get the word out. I have been letting parents know that I am there to support them. I have good support with the administration, and we have meetings each week to talk about the families and their children. Another PIF shared a strategy that brings in both the students and their families with an end goal in mind high school graduation: I am participating in a graduation program, which is the second or third Wednesday of every month. We meet with parents from 7:30 until 9 AM. The invitation is for freshmen and sophomores, and the phone call goes out in Spanish and English. The goal is to try to recruit more Hispanic parents. The site supervisor tries to have a session in Spanish. She helps the parents by going over the students transcripts and discussing student grades. More and more parents seem to be comfortable coming to school. Other programs are now in place in several of the schools where the PIFs are assigned. These are typically afterschool tutorial programs to help students who have not passed a subject during the first semester or are presently earning a D or an F in one of their core content areas of English, mathematics, science, 45

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL or social studies. Some of the PIFs have started to play a role in supporting the afterschool programs as tutors or as those who encourage students to attend these sessions. One PIF uses the afterschool program as a goal with the intent of helping students on his call list reduce their number of F s: We have 22 kids in the program, and our goal is to have 50 in the program. The student is suppose to attend the number of sessions based on the number of Fs he or she received on the first semester report card. So, if a student failed three classes, he is supposed to come to all three sessions, and so forth. There are subs for afterschool transportation. One of the students did so well in the program; he was failing, and now he is passing with straight A s and able to take on the courses through another program to replace the failed course. The facilitators learned invaluable things through the exchange of information, also highlighting the importance of social capital in this program: I enjoyed the experience working with families because you learn different things from families different values and different ways of doing things. For example, parents from Central America are very different. When they bring their transcripts and birth certificates to school, it looks different. In Mexico, they base grades on numbers and number from 1 to 10. Parents do not understand percents and letter grades that we use in the U.S. Also, students take 10 classes in the other countries sometimes, and in the U.S.; the student only takes six or seven classes a day. Here in the U.S., it is a longer school day, but in Central America, students go from 8:00 12:00 or 1:00 5:00. Students go to college to prepare for a career. It is harder to get into college in Central America than it is in the United States. Also interesting is what happens to the PIFs. The PIFs report the program has impacted their lives and their future career goals. Some complete the year and then enter the community college to begin their studies in various fields related to education. This is well-captured by one of the PIFs who is completing his student teaching experience at the university: I contacted an advisor and the secretary at the university. They put me in contact with the Latino Research Center. I contacted the Director of the Spanish Department. I talked to a professor to get into classes and met them to work out my schedule. I was finally accepted to the Spanish Master s program, and now, I am finishing up my teacher certification. 46

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS The Final So What? If this study were reported as a quantitative study, it might appear that the PIF program is not working. The numbers, however, do not tell the whole story. What happens when and if the student moves into tenth grade? This intervention targets one grade level and after ninth grade, the student becomes part of the larger data set of students who continue through high school, hopefully with a low risk index and needing fewer interventions. When PIFs were asked about parent follow-up support for their children after the ninth grade intervention, they provided some unique insights they had shared with their parents. In a discussion group, the PIFs agreed that it was important to have parents continue to stay informed. Help the parents find options like the 211, a national call center for human service support, and other options and build on these as they go. An insightful suggestion was to make sure that parents find ways to have personal space and time set aside to get to know the teachers and to try to monitor the child s grades and build a working relationship with their children and the school. The case also brings out the importance of data literacy. If data do tell a story, even though it is a complex one in terms of understanding at-risk indices and variables that are linked to dropout predictions, these data do need to be understood and discussed on a frequent basis. Simply looking at statistics two or three times a year yields limited findings. It is especially difficult if the data are reduced to a few categories like attendance or credits attained overall. Data from a program such as this have multiple sources. This paper does not focus on quantitative data, not because data do not exist, but because the lens in this paper is on a point of intervention the parent involvement facilitator. This study uses a more naturalistic inquiry method guided by the case study structure and explores lessons learned about how a group of parent involvement facilitators played a role in providing parent support for helping their children stay in school. Training became more focused after the first year, and group discussions were held on an informal basis to touch base with the PIFs to see how everything was going, the supervisors reported. These informal discussions helped focus follow-up discussions with the PIFs on their personal self-awareness of strategies to work with their families on the phone and in person. This case study helps capture the stories of these discussions over time. The bottom line is the question, Did this make a difference in keeping students in school and helping them persist to graduation? The answer is that it depended on the risk level of the students. The higher the risk, the less likely it remains that students are completing their education. The less likely the risk, the more likely it is for at-risk students to continue to the next grade. 47

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Of course, the PIF program alone is not the cure-all for the complex task of addressing and making significant changes in a large, urban school with a population of students from diverse cultures. What the PIFs shared in their focus groups is a belief that they are playing a meaningful role in the lives of at-risk families and helping build relationships between schools and families. Data on the PIF program suggest that individualized support with at-risk families that helps build their efficacy to support their child s learning through monitoring may be a start in designing a successful model for helping at-risk students stay on track for graduation. Any success needs to build on more data, and to date the voice of the parents has not been captured in the program in a formalized way. Parents have informally shared their enthusiasm for the phone calls and school visits during the past few years. A video has been developed that captures the story of one of the parents whose child has been successful through the support of the program. More formal methods of data collection are anticipated to be in place by the end of the fourth year to bring the parent s voices more clearly into this intervention. The study also explores a question that was raised by Dufur and his colleagues (2013) in a research article entitled, Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? The findings from this case study indicate that enhancing the links between home and school by empowering parents with both data and a human connection has the potential to unlock social capital that can help students succeed in school. It is a powerful start to improving a complex issue. References Allen, J. (2009). Effective home school communication. FINE Newsletter, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/effective-home-schoolcommunication Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public High Schools: A close look at course grades, failures, and attendance in the freshman year. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/what-matters-staying-trackand-graduating-chicago-public-schools Balfanz, R., & Bridgeland, J. (2007). A plan to fix dropout factories. More students will stay if school is harder, safer, and more relevant. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1123/p09s01-coop.html Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high-poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 11(2), 143 159. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1102_2 Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & MacIver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223 235. doi:10.1080/00461520 701621079 48

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS Brooks, S. (2009). A case study of school community alliances that rebuilt a community. School Community Journal, 19(2), 59 80. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork. org/scj.aspx Building Bridges. (2011). Developing a dropout early warning and intervention system. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/gate/buildingbridges/pubdocs/dewisguide-final.pdf Chen, W., & Gregory, A. (2009). Parental involvement as a protective factor during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 53. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S94 S120. Crain, D., Davidson, L., & Ferrara, M. M. (2013a, October). Risk indicators and family involvement liaisons. Presentation at the New York City Board of Education Parent Involvement Seminar, New York, NY. Crain, D., Davidson, L., & Ferrara, M. M. (2013b, November 2). Risk indicators and Parent Involvement Facilitators: Data, collaboration, and success building strategies. Presentation at the Nevada Education Research Symposium sponsored by REL West, University of Nevada, Reno. Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teacher support and guidance. Teachers College Record,103(4), 548 581. Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 267 280. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary level schooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 164 175. Donahue, K. L. (2011). Rethinking remediation: How does remedial coursework relate to high school dropout behavior? (Georgetown University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 58. (Order No. 1491407) Dufur, M. J., Parcel, T. L., & Troutman, K. P. (2013). Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? Social capital effects on academic achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 31, 1 21. Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout prevention: A practice guide (NCEE 2008 4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=9 Eberly, J., Joshi, A., & Konzal, J. (2007). Communicating with families across cultures: An investigation of teacher perceptions and practices. School Community Journal, 17(2), 7 26. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Ferrara, M. M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parent involvement. School Community Journal, 19(2), 123 142. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork. org/scj.aspx Ferrara, M. M., Crain, D., & Davidson, L. (2013, April 7). Risk indicators and Parent Involvement Facilitators: Powerful data tools and voices for family support at a critical time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation in children s schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29 40. 49

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Fritch, W. S. (2000). A study of the organizational structures and processes that create and maintain social capital in selected private and public schools (University of California, Riverside). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 424 424. (Order No. 9977842) Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Gottfredson, D. C., & DiPietro, S. M. (2011). School size, social capital, and student victimization. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 69 89. Gould, J. (2011). Does it really take a village to raise a child (or just a parent)? An examination of the relationship between the members of the residence of a middle-school student and the student s satisfaction with school. Education, 132(1), 28 38. Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents motivations for involvement in children s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532 544. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.99.3.532 Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740 763. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195 209. Howland, A., Anderson, J. A., Smiley, A. D., & Abbott, D. J. (2006). School liaisons: Bridging the gap between home and school. School Community Journal, 16(2), 47 68. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Kelly, J. A. (2014). Fostering effective parental involvement: The case for developing school-sponsored programming to assist middle school parents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Larson, K. (2007). Changing hearts and minds: Dropout prevention. Leadership, 37(2), 18 21. Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193 218. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Lehr, C. (2004). Alternative schools and students with disabilities: Identifying and understanding the issues. Addressing Trends and Developments in Secondary Education and Transition, 3(6). Martin, N., & Halperin, S. (2006). Whatever it takes: How twelve communities are reconnecting out-of-school youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. McCallumore, K. M., & Sparapani, E. F. (2010). The importance of the ninth grade on high school graduation rates and student success. The Education Digest, 76(2), 60 64. Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). An extreme degree of difficulty: The educational demographics of urban neighborhood high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(2), 123 141. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1102_1 Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1 12. Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Sanders, M. G. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home school gap. Journal of Educational Research, 101(5), 287 298. 50

PARENT INVOLVEMENT FACILITATORS Sanders, M. G. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1693 1712. Somers, C. L., & Piliawsky, M. (2004). Drop-out prevention among urban, African American adolescents: Program evaluation and practical implications. Preventing School Failure, 48(3), 17 22. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trusty, J. (1996). Relationship of parent involvement in teens career development to teens attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 317 323. Walker, J. M. T. (2012). Realizing the American dream: A parent education program designed to help disenfranchised populations access mainstream educational opportunities. Paper presented at the 16th International Roundtable on School, Family, and School Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85 104. Margaret M. Ferrara is the secondary coordinator in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Reno. She has written extensively and provided numerous workshops on family engagement for the past 20 years in her work in school districts in Texas, New York State, Connecticut, and presently in Nevada. She has worked closely with teachers and currently with preservice teachers and teacher supervisors on areas related to cultural wealth with a focus on family engagement and parent involvement. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Margaret M. Ferrara, 1000 Greensburg Circle, Reno, NV 89509, or email ferrara@unr.edu 51

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 52

Who Really Cares? Urban Youths Perceptions of Parental and Programmatic Support Desireé Vega, James L. Moore III, and Antoinette Halsell Miranda Abstract This qualitative study explored the perceptions of parental and programmatic support among 20 urban youth. Existing literature indicates that educators often place blame on parents for their perceived lack of involvement in their children s schooling. However, the participants identified their family members (e.g., parents, siblings) as providing them with the greatest amount of support throughout their schooling experience. Additionally, more than half of the sample participated in the Upward Bound program and attributed their educational success to the support they received as program participants. These participants defined support in various ways including emotional encouragement, academic assistance, and college preparation help. Schools should examine parental involvement from a broader perspective to encompass the role parents of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds play in their children s education and tap into these support systems to meet their students educational needs. Finally, the role of college preparatory program staff should continue to be assessed as a support system for urban youth. Key Words: urban youth, family support, college preparatory programs, cultural capital, Critical Race Theory, parents, high school students of color Introduction African American and Latino students continue to evidence a significant achievement gap when compared to their White counterparts. Throughout the School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 53

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL educational pipeline, educators need to be aware of the need for rigorous academic preparation for African American and Latino students (Vega & Moore, 2012). African American students tend to underperform on standardized tests and have lower grade point averages (GPAs) compared to White students (Whaley & Noel, 2012). African Americans have higher dropout rates and, among those who graduate, are less likely to enroll in and graduate from college than Whites (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010). The Latino population continues to grow and is the nation s largest minority group (Gándara, 2010; Zurita, 2004). The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2021, one of four K 12 students in the U.S. will be Latino (Gándara, 2010). Unfortunately, this group s educational attainment is not commensurate with their rapid growth. Minimal access to preschool contributes to this educational gap (NCES, 2009). Poverty accounts for the significant gaps in educational success among African American and Latino youth; however, poverty in and of itself is not the issue, but what it typically denies is access in terms of positive role models and other social resources (Madyun, 2011, p. 23). With poverty comes risk factors including a lack of health insurance, poor nutrition, low parental education, and attendance at low-resourced, highly segregated schools with less qualified teachers (Gándara, 2010). According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos have the highest high school dropout rate of all racial and ethnic groups (Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004). Latino and African American students alike participate in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at a low rate. They tend to be underrepresented in AP classes and attend highly segregated schools with low student enrollment in AP courses (Solórzano & Ornelas, 2004). The low academic performance of African American and Latino students in elementary and secondary schools has strong implications for their college readiness skills. However, social support from persons, including families and college preparatory program staff, may provide African American and Latino students with the assistance they need to achieve academic success (Jacobson & Crockett, 2000; Reid & Moore, 2008; Somers, Owens, & Piliawsky, 2008). In order for these students to contribute their full potential to society, factors contributing to this gap need to be further examined. As part of a larger study investigating the educational experiences of students of color, this exploratory study examined perceptions of support, specifically from their families and the Upward Bound program staff, among 20 urban youth attending high schools in the Midwest. Student perceptions are important and can impact how they function within the school setting, yet they are often absent from the literature. A qualitative study was most appropriate in developing an understanding of the support systems available to students of color. This study sought to provide relevant information about students 54

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT perceptions of support systems to educators, researchers, and parents. Further, it sought to develop ways for educators and parents to tap into supports for collaboration in breaking down inequities in achievement for students of color. The researchers explored the following questions: (1) Who provides urban youth with the most support? (2) In what ways do these persons provide urban youth with support? Review of the Literature Family Support African American and Latino parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds face many challenges when it comes to participating in their children s education. A common misconception among educators is that because many of these parents are not physically present at school functions, they do not value education and do not care about their children s schooling (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). The emphasis on traditional forms of participation neglects culturally diverse perspectives and deflects attention from the schools responsibility to establish effective parental involvement programs for marginalized groups (Singh et al., 1995; Valencia, 1997). It places an unreasonable burden on low-income parents to engage in activities at school, when they face significant obstacles to this type of participation (Knight, Norton, Bentley, & Dixon, 2004). Contrary to this popular perception, research demonstrates that parents of urban youth want to be involved in their children s education (Trumbull et al., 2001), but frequently experience obstacles to direct involvement at their children s schools (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; García-Coll et al., 2002; Huss- Keeler, 1997; Lopez, 2001; Trueba, 1988; Vega, 2010). Obstacles that made direct involvement difficult for low-income, African American parents included time, transportation, lack of financial resources, and lack of awareness of school activities (Williams & Sánchez, 2011). These parents reported that they cared about their children s education, but noted that school events and meetings frequently occurred in the middle of the day or during their shifts when they could not leave their jobs to attend. Minority immigrant parents reported more barriers to participation and were subsequently less likely to be involved at school when compared to native-born parents (Turney & Kao, 2009). Barriers among immigrant Hispanic families included inconvenient meeting times, safety concerns, not feeling welcomed by the school, problems with transportation, not being able to get time off from work, and linguistic barriers. These barriers are similar to those that Williams and Sánchez identified for African American parents. Additionally, the pervasive fear of deportation often impedes immigrant parents participation in public 55

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL settings such as schools (Menjivar & Abrego, 2012). Turney and Kao (2009) also found that time in the United States and English language proficiency were positively associated with involvement among immigrant parents. Despite barriers to direct parental involvement among low-income parents of students of color, some parents are able to attend school events, and others provide support in different ways. Findings from Yan s study (1999) revealed that, despite coming from disadvantaged home environments, African American parents demonstrated higher or equivalent levels of parent involvement than did White parents. Further, Wilson (2009) found that African American students perceptions of parental monitoring (e.g., asking about school activities, monitoring friends) were related to their achievement. Finally, strategic and formal attempts by schools to involve parents can have positive effects for schools, parents, and students. The Futures and Families (F&F) program, a bilingual outreach program designed to provide college information to Latino parents, narrowed the information gap, enhanced family social networks, and challenged inequalities in schooling (Auerbach, 2004). The Latino parents felt supported and less isolated from their children s school due to their participation in the F&F program. Therefore, schools need to work against barriers to parental involvement to create a strong sense of community. Collaboration between families and schools is extremely important for the success of African American and Latino youth. Decreased communication may create misunderstandings and affect the ways parents and school personnel interact and participate in the schooling process (Patel & Stevens, 2010). However, when school staff and family members recognize sources of schoolrelated support, they are more likely to tap into those sources and support students cooperatively (Hilgendorf, 2012). 56 College Preparatory Programs: Upward Bound Students from low-income backgrounds, underrepresented groups, and potential first-generation college students tend to lack experiential knowledge about college. They are often underprepared, uninformed, and overwhelmed by what they should know to successfully navigate their high school experience (Reyes & Nora, 2012; Tym, McMillion, Baron, & Webster, 2004). Consequently, numerous college preparatory programs have been developed to help these students. One example of these types of college preparatory programs is the Upward Bound program, a federally funded educational program created under the Higher Education Act of 1965. It is designed to support students in their preparation for college entrance and provide opportunities for participants to succeed in their precollege performance and ultimately in their higher education pursuits (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., Program Description, para. 1).

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT The Upward Bound program offers academic instruction in mathematics, sciences, language arts, and foreign languages. During the school year, students attend weekly in-school meetings with Upward Bound staff and participate in college visits and community service projects. Additionally, during the Summer Institute, students receive intensive academic support and learn about the resources available for students on college campuses; they receive a small stipend as well. The social and cultural capital gained from college preparatory programs such as Upward Bound may play a critical role in the college readiness process for low-income and/or Latino students (Cates & Schaefle, 2011). Existing research examining the effectiveness of the Upward Bound program indicates mixed findings on students academic achievement and college performance. A series of reports prepared by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) presented findings from a national evaluation of the Upward Bound program s effectiveness from 1999 2009. An early MPR report demonstrated that students remained in Upward Bound for only a short time due to transportation issues, taking a job, and time conflicts (Myers & Schirm, 1999). Grimard and Maddaus (2004) revealed similar findings; many students failed to participate in the Upward Bound summer program because they were able to make more money in other settings. Other concerns included being away from home and fear of being in an unknown setting, such as the university. Increased efforts to raise awareness about the potential long-term benefits of Upward Bound may lead students to participate and remain in the program. Results consistently showed, throughout the MPR reports, that Upward Bound increased postsecondary enrollment and completion for students with lower initial educational expectations (Myers & Schirm, 1999; Myers, Olsen, Seftor, Young, & Tuttle, 2004; Seftor, Mamun, & Schirm, 2009). Longer participation in the program was associated with higher rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion. These findings indicated that students from underrepresented backgrounds who sought out programmatic support through Upward Bound represented a strongly motivated part of the target population. Due to their motivation, they accessed needed assistance, graduated from high school, enrolled in college, and completed college at rates consistent with the total youth population. An emphasis on recruiting less motivated students who are not receiving precollege support may help address educational inequalities (McElroy & Armesto, 1998). Additionally, Upward Bound cannot achieve these objectives of augmenting academic and sociocultural strengths for students from underserved backgrounds alone. Instead, an emphasis on hiring high quality teachers at all levels and giving them the tools they need to do their job effectively, including meaningful professional development, is necessary. 57

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Theoretical Frameworks The researchers utilized Bourdieu s theory of cultural capital (1986) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) as theoretical frameworks for this study. Bourdieu s work provides a context for examining the effects of social class position in society (Lareau, 2003). Bourdieu (1977) indicated that individuals from different social classes are socialized differently. These experiences influence the amount and type of resources or capital a person receives and utilizes when exposed to different situations in life. Bourdieu indicated that an individual s social position is not the result of attributes such as intelligence, hard work, effort, or talent. Rather, activities that occur in the home (e.g., discussions, participation in organized activities, negotiating) are awarded unequal value in dominant society due to the alignment of childrearing practices in privileged homes and those standards imposed by institutions such as schools (Bourdieu, 1977; Lareau, 2003). Lareau (2003) found that White and Black middle-class families engaged in purposeful practices to foster their children s skills. The working class and poor families perceived child development as occurring spontaneously. These families were concerned with providing comfort, food, and shelter. The social status of one s family is not a determinant of one s future, but has strong implications for life experiences and outcomes. Bourdieu (1986) described cultural capital as the knowledge, beliefs, and sense of self closely linked to a person that is valued by society as well as the culture a person lives in, values, and wants to fit into. This notion is problematic for low-income students of color who do not have access to the capital of the middle class and elite class that is valued in society. Living in impoverished neighborhoods often prevents low-income students from developing the cultural capital associated with academic success throughout the educational pipeline. The participants in the current study reported coming from low-income backgrounds, and the majority of their parents had not attended or completed college. The participants also encountered struggles navigating the public school system. Critical Race Theory (CRT) serves as a means to challenge the dominant discourse on race and racism as it relates to education by examining how educational theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001), for example, African American and Latino youth. The pioneers of CRT, Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado, argued that racism is an endemic part of American society (see Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 1993). It is deeply rooted through historical consciousness and ideological choices about race (Parker & Lynn, 2002). Consequently, it directly molded the U.S. legal system and the ways people think about the law, race, 58

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT and privilege (Parker & Lynn, 2002). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) introduced CRT into the field of education because institutional and structural racism seems to be built into public schooling, imposing a position of inferiority for students of color. The three main goals of CRT include: (a) presenting storytelling/narratives as valid approaches through which to examine race and racism in the law and society; (b) arguing for the eradication of racial subjugation while simultaneously recognizing that race is a social construct; and (c) drawing important relationships between race and other axes of domination (Milner, 2007; Parker & Lynn, 2002). CRT narratives provide readers with a challenging account of preconceived notions of race (Parker & Lynn, 2002). The voices heard in narratives acknowledge the importance of personal and community experiences of people of color as sources of knowledge (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005). Through participants stories, their experiences become reality for those who ignore the prevalence of racism in society. The second goal of CRT is the recognition that race is not a biological concept; instead, it is socially constructed. Race is defined by societal perceptions of groups of people and is constantly changing. Critical race theorists attempt to explain the consequences of systemic, policy-related racism and work to disrupt and transform policies, laws, theories, and practices through the exposure of racism (Milner, 2007). Finally, the third goal of CRT is to examine the intersectionality of other underrepresented areas, such as feminism and sexism. CRT is used to uncover injustices and instances of disempowerment among other marginalized groups. Using CRT as a framework for the current study provided students with the opportunity to make their concerns heard, related to levels of support. Methodology Participants Twenty youth from six high schools in a large, urban public school district in the Midwest participated in the present study. Twelve participants were female, and eight were male. Pseudonyms were used to preserve the identities of the school district (e.g., Crawford City school district), high schools (e.g., Baker, Evergreen, Miami, Stanley, Waterford, Watson), and all individuals mentioned. Thirteen of the 20 students participated in the Upward Bound program s Summer Institute at a large Midwestern university. These 13 students attended Baker, Evergreen, Miami, Stanley, and Waterford High School. The remaining seven students attended Watson High School; they were chosen because the Upward Bound program s Summer Institute participants included 59

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL only one Latino participant. Watson High School had the largest percentage of Latino students in the district so students were recruited from this setting. To recruit participants from Upward Bound, the lead researcher presented the purpose of the study at lunch to all students in the Summer Institute. At Watson High School, the lead researcher worked with the school psychologist and English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher to recruit participants. One participant with a high level of English proficiency was recruited from the ESL classroom; she assisted the lead researcher in identifying the remaining six participants during her lunch period. Additional students from the ESL classroom were not recruited for inclusion in the study due to their low levels of English proficiency. All students who returned a signed parental consent form and assent form and were available to be interviewed participated in the study. If a student was at least 18 years old, he or she signed and returned an adult consent form to the researcher. Of the 20 participants, 10 self-identified as African American, two as Biracial or Multiracial, and eight as Latino. Five of the eight Latino students were born outside of the United States. The majority of the participants (15) selfreported GPAs were in the above average and average range (A, 100 90; B, 89 80). All of the participants in the study indicated that they received free/ reduced lunch. Additionally, the participants were between 15 and 18 years old; 15 students were 16 or 17 years of age. Thirteen of the participants lived in one-parent/guardian households, and of the 13, nine students resided with their mothers. Finally, 13 of the participants parents had completed middle or high school, one attended a trade school, and six attended some college (i.e., a two- or four-year institution). Data Collection Document Collection Prior to each individual interview, the lead researcher administered a brief, biographical questionnaire to the participants. These questionnaires included information on student, community, and family demographics. The biographical questionnaire allowed the researchers to obtain an ecological perspective about the participants and their home and school environments. Prior to each individual interview, the participants created pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality and protect their identity. The lead researcher also gathered data (e.g., attendance rate, graduation rate, demographics) on the school district and the six high schools the participants attended from the state department of education s website. 60

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT Interviews Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted to gather in-depth information on the educational experiences of the students. Using an interview protocol prevents the researcher from imposing his or her interests on interviewees and ensures the participants are all asked the same questions (Seidman, 1991). The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Each individual interview lasted approximately 25 to 45 minutes and focused on a variety of topics; however, for this article, the researchers only utilized the interview questions that focused on this study (e.g., Who provides you with academic support? Who helps you select courses? Who is helping you achieve your future goals?). The interview questions were adapted and modified from Sanders 1997 study and are available from authors upon request. Researcher Subjectivity Because subjectivity is consistently present during the research process, scholars should systematically address their subjectivities (Peshkin, 1988). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed four trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research to ensure reliability and validity: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The following methods were utilized to ensure the trustworthiness of the research process and findings: prolonged engagement, triangulation, member checks, and peer debriefing. This study began in the summer of 2009 and continued from February to May 2010. The primary researcher spent a considerable amount of time engaging with the participants prior to, throughout, and after the interview process (e.g., during lunch period, school-related activities) to build trust and rapport. Triangulation methods were implemented through the study including the use of multiple data collection methods, multiple investigators, and multiple theoretical frameworks. Participants were provided with a copy of their interview transcript to conduct member checks and ensure the accuracy of their statements. Additionally, the primary researcher used her co-authors to debrief throughout the study. Data Analysis Using grounded theory, this study utilized the constant comparative analytic approach for data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data collected from the first interview was coded and compared to each subsequent interview for emerging themes and patterns. The lead researcher and her research partner began analysis with the assignment of codes that reflected common themes within the data; those that appeared to pertain to the same phenomena were categorized (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The codes were then 61

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL compiled into a codebook, which included definitions of each code and examples. These codes were examined until complete agreement of assigned codes was achieved between the lead researcher and her research partner. Participants were provided with interview transcripts to conduct member checks and confirm the accuracy. None of the participants changed or added anything as they felt the transcripts accurately portrayed their experiences. Results Throughout the interviews, the participants consistently mentioned how relationships and support from people, such as their family members and the Upward Bound program staff, enhanced their schooling experiences. These relationships are discussed in the sections that follow. 62 Do your best : Familial Support The majority of the participants parents/guardians completed middle school or high school and resided in one-parent/guardian households. Most of the adult figures in their lives could provide only limited academic assistance and college preparation help. This finding became evident when students discussed the persons that helped them the most with their schoolwork and selecting classes. Only three of the 20 students mentioned that members of their family assisted them the most with schoolwork. For example, Junior [African American, 10th grade, B GPA, Evergreen High] lamented, My mom helps me with my homework she knows a lot of stuff, so she ll help me. My dad, he s not the best, he wasn t the best at school, so [he] just leaves it alone. Jose [Latino, 11th grade, B GPA, Watson High] described the minimal amount of involvement his parents had with his schoolwork. He shared, they see my report card, if it has a bad grade lower than a C, they would ask, but besides that, nothing much. I don t involve them that much; they re working and doing all that. So there s no point, and if I can do it on my own, then there s no need. Linda [Latina, 12th grade, B GPA, Watson High] discussed the challenges that her parents faced in helping her academically due to her parent s language barrier and busy work schedules. She said, My mom doesn t speak English, so she can t help me at all. My dad does, but he s usually not home, so he doesn t help me. The majority of the participants could not ask their parents/guardians for academic support due to low educational levels, busy work schedules, and language barriers. Only one student, LeMarcus [African American, 12th grade, C GPA, Waterford High], indicated he received assistance in selecting courses from a family member, his older sister, who had recently completed high school. He

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT stated, My family in general does not really play a big role, but my sister, she really, she focuses on it hard. Like she ll ask me, When are y all scheduling classes? and she ll ask me for a copy of my transcript, and she ll make a prototype schedule for me of what she thinks I should have. While only three students indicated that their parents/guardians were able to provide them with specific academic help, when the researcher asked the students, Who is helping you to reach your goals? all 20 of the participants reported persons in their family. For example, Mia [Latina, 11th grade, A GPA, Baker High] indicated that her family provided her with strong words of encouragement and held her to high standards by telling her, You re going somewhere in life, you re not gonna be working in McDonald s when you re 23 years old. She explained that her mom had not attended college nor had anyone else in her family; therefore, they wanted her to achieve more than they had. Elizabeth s [Latina, 12th grade, B GPA, Watson High] mother also had similar words for her by telling her, I m the mirror, look at me, don t be how I am right now. Do your work; just graduate from high school first, then go to college. In reference to her mother, Amy [Biracial, 11th grade, B GPA, Baker High] stated, She didn t go to college, so she doesn t know much about that kind of thing. So she says, do your best about everything. Although the majority of the participants parents had not attended college, they did not want their children to struggle or work low-paying jobs in the future. They held high aspirations for them and offered words of encouragement such as Do your best. Four students indicated that their parents provided them with assistance in pursuit of their college goals beyond emotional support. For instance, Thomas [African American, 11th grade, C GPA, Baker High], who was interested in becoming an engineer, told the researcher, My mom, she knows a couple of people who are engineers, so I talk to them about their job and what I need to do to get there. Tommy [African American, 12th grade, A GPA, Waterford High] stated, She s [mom] the one who gave me the idea to open my own managing firm. Junior [African American, 10th grade, B GPA, Evergreen High] shared, When I told her [mom] I wanted to go to Purdue [University], she started looking at Purdue s website at their engineering stuff. Additionally, Talayah [African American, 11th grade, C GPA, Evergreen High] stated, When I first told them [her parents] what I wanted to do when I get older as a career, they made me research it. I was always taught to just challenge myself : Upward Bound Program The majority (13) of the students in the study participated in the Upward Bound program. When the participants were asked, Who is helping you to 63

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL reach your goals?, 10 of the 13 participants in the Upward Bound program lauded the support of the program staff. When the lead researcher asked the students how Upward Bound was helping them to achieve their goals, they mentioned, 64 They re getting you there. They re pushing you, they re like, you re gonna do this, you cannot have no free time, you need to be studying. Mia [Latina, 11th grade, A GPA, Baker High] Being in Upward Bound, I was always taught to just challenge myself Upward Bound helps me because they believe in me; it gives me the courage to go on. They re positive, they re always complimenting me, they re always, how could I put it? Keeping me up and letting me know that I m gonna be somebody giving me the extra push, and they prepare me for college with the work and just the schedule and everything. Lisa [African American, 12th grade, A GPA, Evergreen High] They letting me know what I need to do to get to college, to stay in college, experience, letting me know what I might encounter when I attend college, the obstacles I m gonna have to overcome not partying all the time letting me know what kind of applications I have to fill out, sign up for financial aid, good ways to study, that s it. James [African American, 11th grade, B GPA, Miami High] In Upward Bound, we went on a couple of college tours, we look at colleges, and some of the colleges were engineering colleges, and Ms. Laura [program director] had me go to a couple of workshops, and I met a couple of people who do engineering. Thomas [African American, 11th grade, C GPA, Baker High] From these statements, it is clear that the Upward Bound program staff had a very strong influence on how these students perceived their futures. Many participants discussed how the program pushed them to do their best and challenged them to be better students. Consistent with the purpose of the program, the students received college preparation through the courses they enrolled in, college visits, and workshops. They were also provided with information about financial aid, as well as the realities of the college experience, such as when James [African American, 11th grade, B GPA, Miami High] mentioned, not partying all the time and study skills. Further, Talayah [African American, 11th grade, C GPA, Evergreen High] shared, Upward Bound is helping me. They ll ask us what we want to become, and they ll put all of us in groups of what we want to become. They ll have a guest speaker come into that group and talk to them about it to

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT make sure that person really wants to do it. Upward Bound had someone come talk to me because I m the only one that wants to do it [forensic science], and he showed me pictures; he thought it was gonna freak me out, but I guess it didn t. He helped me; we started dissecting frogs, and he said, Act like this is a dead person. So it helps a lot. Monique [African American, 11th grade, C GPA, Stanley High] also reported that the Upward Bound program staff encouraged the students to hurry up and pick a college and made the juniors do their applications cuz we got one more year. So they re trying to make us ready for college life. Compared to non-upward Bound participants, differences existed in the area of support from friends. While all participants noted support from their family and relatively little support from teachers and other persons (i.e., coaches, mentors, neighbors, school counselors), eight of the 13 Upward Bound participants reported seeking support in achieving their goals from their friends, while only one of the seven non-upward Bound participants reported this finding. Additionally, the non-upward Bound participants did not report any support from college preparation programs similar to Upward Bound. Discussion Current research literature is sparse with regard to exploring urban students perceptions of educational support from their own perspectives. Considering the structural inequities present in the public school system that affect the achievement of students of color, it is vital to understand student perceptions as well as how educators can tap into supports and enhance collaborative relationships. While findings are not generalizable to other students of color, the study employed techniques to ensure trustworthiness described in the methodology section and contributes to the field despite this limitation. In examining the question of Who really cares?, participants overwhelmingly identified their families and Upward Bound staff as supportive of their educational goals. Contrary to common perceptions of low-income parents involvement, these families demonstrated involvement in their children s education, and the participants valued familial support and the various forms in which it was provided (e.g., emotional encouragement, academic assistance). Additionally, parents used their struggles as an example to show their children that education is the key to success and having a better quality of life. This finding has not been well examined in research; it would be beneficial for greater understanding if students of color, in fact, perceive their parents struggles and challenges related to poverty and low educational attainment as a motivating factor. Further analyses are also required to better understand the relationship between academic success and the diverse forms of familial support provided to urban youth. 65

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL To a lesser degree, parents gave their children specific advice and assistance regarding homework and accessing college and career information. Participants shared that their parents had them research colleges and programs of interest, had them talk to professionals in their children s field of interest, and discussed ideas about potential career paths. The participants who received this type of support participated in the Upward Bound program. Their parents may have provided increased assistance because the Upward Bound program required parental attendance at events. As a result, the parents may have felt more empowered with the cultural capital necessary to share with their children and assist them in preparing for college. This hypothesis is consistent with Moore s (2006) recommendations to parents suggesting that access to information such as the importance of knowing different career options available to their children and being aware of their children s academic progress positively influences academic success. Overall, this study underscores the need for educators to understand that students may perceive that their parents are supportive and to acknowledge the ways in which parents are involved with their children s education. Current literature (Smith, Stern, & Shatrova, 2008; Turney & Kao, 2009; Williams & Sánchez, 2011) and Bourdieu s theory of cultural capital have documented barriers to parental involvement for low-income youth. Nonetheless, while barriers to direct in-school involvement including limited English proficiency, busy work schedules, and low education levels prevented academic support such as assistance with homework and selecting classes, participants shared that their families still provided support and encouragement. Participants in the Upward Bound program found the staff to be supportive and indicated that they developed increased confidence in their ability to be successful in the future. The Upward Bound program offered intensive college preparation, which participants considered to be beneficial. While Upward Bound is considered by some to be a deficit-based program (Pearl, 2002), without it, participants would lack access to such rigorous college preparation. The experience of participating in the program demonstrated the investment these students were making in their futures. The effects on student achievement in college after Upward Bound participation remains mixed; however, researchers have found increased participation in higher education (Pitre & Pitre, 2009), increased postsecondary enrollment and completion for students with lower initial educational expectations (Myers & Schirm, 1999; Myers et al., 2004; Seftor et al., 2009), and a greater willingness to seek out supports on campus (McLure & Childs, 1998). These findings may indicate that because participants experienced support from persons that cared about them, they felt more comfortable seeking out support when they reached college campuses. 66

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT From a CRT framework, the participants lack of access to support in school may indicate the institutional racism inherent in public schooling. Because these students came from low-income backgrounds and their parents did not complete college, they lacked the college knowledge that is passed along from parent to child in middle-class homes. The schools they attended were also low resourced, and consequently, participants did not report receiving support from school personnel in achieving their future goals. Urban public schools, particularly those that serve students from low-income backgrounds, lack much-needed resources such as high quality teachers and school counselors to support all students (Gándara, 2010; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). School counselors, in particular, have knowledge about pathways to higher education and should be instrumental in providing these students with such guidance. The American School Counselor Association (ASCA, 2012) recommends a student to school counselor ratio of 250:1; however, the national average is 470:1 (Carey & Dimmitt, 2012). The participants narratives in the current study emphasize the urgent need for collaboration between school personnel and existing supports such as family and college preparatory programs. Further, there is a need for increased support and access to college information in schools. To strengthen the findings of the study, future research should address the viewpoints of families, school personnel, and college preparatory program staff. Additionally, the effectiveness of college preparatory programs on academic achievement in college should be evaluated, as the literature is wrought with mixed findings on the benefits of programs such as Upward Bound. It is clear that the participants valued the support received from their parents, and this should not be minimized. However, students and parents alike, particularly those from urban low-income backgrounds, must have equitable access to college knowledge if increases in postsecondary enrollment and completion among students of color are to be achieved. Conclusion The current study explored perceptions of who really cares among urban students of color. Participants reported that parents/family members and Upward Bound program staff were supportive of their educational goals and aspirations and offered assistance in various ways. Collaboration among schools, families, and college preparatory programs, such as Upward Bound, can help increase the academic success of urban youth. It is important that schools function as communities that involve teachers, students, school personnel, and parents. Building strong partnerships with families can afford these youth increased ac- 67

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL cess to postsecondary education, empower parents with college knowledge, and enable school staff to reach students with limited college knowledge. In order to help students of color be successful, schools should tap into who students perceive really care about them and recognize the types of supports students receive from these sources. Schools can then provide supplemental assistance in areas where students are lacking support. For many years, research has focused on the importance of school family relationships for student success and has recommended that discussions take place to outline how schools perceive parental involvement and what they expect from parents (Patel & Stevens, 2010). Schools should provide training to their staff on cultural issues that may impact direct school involvement. This would be beneficial in helping school personnel understand the barriers related to expected participation such as lack of trust, deference to authority, and degree of acculturation (Guerrero & Leung, 2008; Peña, Silva, Claro, Gamarra, & Parra, 2008) and also understand the need to be flexible in how they expect parents to be involved. Parents want to be involved and want their children to be successful and attend college, but they may require direction in terms of expected participation. Additionally, they may not feel their support is valued if they hold lower education levels, so schools should make efforts to make parents feel worthy of the assistance they can provide at home. Providing liaisons to facilitate communication for parents who do not speak English and holding meetings in local community centers for parents lacking transportation would be beneficial (Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). Schools can provide explicit opportunities for involvement (e.g., parent meetings, social events, workshops, volunteering, family movie night) and offer childcare and incentives (e.g., raffles, food) at events, which may increase parental attendance and participation at school functions. Communicating with parents when scheduling events, offering events on multiple dates and times (e.g., morning, afternoon, evening), expanding communication options (e.g., email), and improving advertising of school events can increase parental participation at school (Williams & Sánchez, 2011). Family school collaboration demonstrates positive implications for increased access to college preparation information. References American School Counselor Association (ASCA). (2012). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 68

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 125 145. Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York, NY: Basic. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of the theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241 258). New York, NY: Greenwood. Carey, J., & Dimmitt, C. (2012). School counseling and student outcomes: Summary of six statewide studies. Professional School Counseling, 16(2), 146 153. Cates, J. T., & Schaefle, S. E. (2011). The relationship between a college preparation program and at-risk students college readiness. Journal of Latinos & Education, 10(4), 320 334. Chrispeels, J. H., & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How parent education can reshape parents sense of place in the education of their children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 119 169. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1993). Critical Race Theory: An annotated bibliography. Virginia Law Review, 79(2), 461 516. Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 7 27. Gándara, P. (2010). The Latino education crisis. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 24 30. García-Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., & Chin, C. (2002). Parental involvement in children s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 303 324. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Grimard, A., & Maddaus, J. (2004). Overcoming obstacles to preparing for college: Perspectives from a rural Upward Bound program. The Rural Educator, 25(3), 30 37. Guerrero, C., & Leung, B. (2008). Communicating effectively with culturally and linguistically diverse families. Communiqué, 36(8), 19. Hilgendorf, A. E. (2012). Through a limiting lens: Comparing student, parent, and teacher perspectives of African American boys support for school. School Community Journal, 22(2), 111 130. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Huss-Keeler, R. L. (1997). Teacher perception of ethnic and linguistic minority parental involvement and its relationships to children s language and literacy learning: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 171 182. Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65 97. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37 62. Knight, M., Norton, N., Bentley, C. & Dixon, I. (2004). The power of Black and Latina/o counterstories: Urban families and college-going processes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99 120. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47 68. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parental involvement from an (im) migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 416 437. 69

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Madyun, N. (2011). Connecting social disorganization theory to African American outcomes to explain the achievement gap. Journal of Educational Foundations, 25(3/4), 21 35. McElroy, E. J., & Armesto, M. (1998). TRIO and Upward Bound: History, programs, and issues Past, present, and future. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 373 380. McLure, G. T., & Childs, R. L. (1998). Upward Bound students compared to other collegebound students: Profiles of nonacademic characteristics and academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 346 363. Menjivar, C., & Abrego, L. (2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380 1421. Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388 400. Moore, J. L., III. (2006). A qualitative investigation of African American males career trajectory in engineering: Implications for teachers, school counselors, and parents. Teachers College Record, 108, 246 266. Myers, D., & Schirm, A. (1999). The impacts of Upward Bound: Final report for Phase I of the national evaluation. U.S. Department of Education Planning and Evaluation Services. Myers, D., Olsen, R., Seftor, N., Young, J., & Tuttle, C. (2004). The impacts of regular Upward Bound: Results from the third follow-up data collection. U.S. Department of Education Policy and Program Studies Service. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). What s race got to do with it? Critical race theory s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 7 22. Patel, N., & Stevens, S. (2010). Parent teacher student discrepancies in academic ability beliefs: Influences on parent involvement. School Community Journal, 20(2), 115 136. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Pearl, A. (2002). The big picture: Systemic and institutional factors in Chicano school failure and success. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 335 364). New York, NY: Routledge. Peña, A. M., Silva, A., Claro, C., Gamarra, A., & Parra, E. (2008). Communicating with Latino parents and families. Communiqué, 37(4), 1 3. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity one s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17. Pitre, C. C., & Pitre, P. (2009). Increasing underrepresented high school students college transitions and achievements: TRIO educational opportunity programs. NASSP Bulletin, 93(2), 96 110. Quiocho, A. M. L., & Daoud, A. M. (2006). Dispelling myths about Latino parent participation in schools. The Educational Forum, 70, 255 267. Reid, M. J., & Moore, J. L., III. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for postsecondary education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban Education, 43(2), 240 261. Reyes, N. A. S., & Nora, A. (2012). Lost among the data: A review of Latino first-generation college students (White paper). Retrieved from the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities website: http://www.hacu.net/hacu/h3erc_research_initiative.asp Sanders, M. G. (1997). Overcoming obstacles: Academic achievement as a response to racism and discrimination. The Journal of Negro Education, 66(1), 83 93. 70

URBAN YOUTHS PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT Seftor, N. S., Mamun, A., & Schirm, A. (2009). The impacts of regular Upward Bound on postsecondary outcomes 7 9 years after scheduled high school graduation. U.S. Department of Education Policy and Program Studies Service. Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Singh, K., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. L., Keith, T. Z., Keither, P. B., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components of parental involvement on eighth grade student achievement. School Psychology Review, 24(2), 299 317. Smith, J., Stern, K., & Shatrova, Z. (2008). Factors inhibiting Hispanic parents school involvement. The Rural Educator, 8 13. Solórzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. The High School Journal, 87(3), 15 26. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471 495. Somers, C. L., Owens, D., & Piliawsky, M. (2008). Individual and social factors related to urban African American adolescents school performance. The High School Journal, 91(3), 1 11. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Swail, S., Cabrera, A. F., & Lee, C. (2004). Latino youth and the pathway to college. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Trueba, H. T. (1988). Culturally based explanations of minority students academic achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 270 287. Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures between home and schools: A guide for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257 271. Tym, C., McMillion, R., Barone, S., & Webster, J. (2004). First-generation college students: A literature review. Round Rock, TX: Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Programs: Upward Bound program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html Valencia, R. R. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of deficit thinking. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 1 12). London, UK: Falmer Press. Vega, D. (2010). Increasing Latino parental involvement in urban schools. School Psychology: From Science to Practice, 2, 20 25. Vega, D., & Moore, J. L., III. (2012). African American and Latino first-generation students: Implications for teachers, school counselors, university officials, parents, and students. In T. Hicks & A. Pitre (Eds.), Research studies in higher education: Educating multicultural college students. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Whaley, A. L., & Noel, L. T. (2012). Sociocultural theories, academic achievement, and African American adolescents in a multicultural context: A review of the cultural compatibility perspective. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 25 38. Williams, T. T., & Sánchez, B. (2011). Identifying and decreasing barriers to parental involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society, 45(1), 54 74. Wilson, C. M. (2009). The relation among parental factors and achievement of African American youth. Journal of Negro Education, 78(2), 102 113. 71

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Yan, W. (1999). Successful African American students: The role of parental involvement. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 5 22. Zurita, M. (2004). Stopping out and persisting: Experiences of Latino undergraduates. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 6(3), 301 324. Desireé Vega is an assistant professor in the school psychology program at Texas State University. Dr. Vega s research interests focus on the relationship between social, school, and psychological factors and academic outcomes among African American and Latino youth; parental involvement in urban public schools; access to higher education among first generation urban youth; and the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Desireé Vega, Texas State University, Department of Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education, and School Psychology, Education 4043, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX, 78666, or email desireevega@txstate.edu James L. Moore III is an associate provost in the Office of Diversity and Inclusion at The Ohio State University, where he also serves as the director of the Todd Anthony Bell National Resource Center on the African American Male. Additionally, he is a distinguished professor of urban education in the College of Education and Human Ecology. Dr. Moore s research agenda focuses on how educational professionals, such as school counselors, influence the educational/ career aspirations and school experiences of students of color (particularly African American males) and recruitment and retention issues for students of color in K 12 gifted education and for those high potential college students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Antoinette Halsell Miranda is a professor in the school psychology program at The Ohio State University. She is the first recipient (2014) of the William H. and Laceryjette V. Casto Professorship in Interprofessional Education. Dr. Miranda s research interests center on diversity training of educators, providing children with early intervention services, and the practice of school psychology in urban schools. 72

Stories to our Children: A Program Aimed at Developing Authentic and Culturally Relevant Literature for Latina/o Children Luis Rosado, Carla Amaro-Jiménez, and Ivonne Kieffer Abstract This article describes a unique program co-sponsored by a local public library, a university teacher preparation program, and a school district, created to support Latina/o parents as they produced authentic and culturally relevant literature representing multiple ethnic groups living in the Southwestern United States. A program like the one reported here could potentially lessen the gap existent in the availability of authentic literature written by Latina/os and could ignite a whole new group of readers and writers that can speak to the unique experiences they bring to this country be it through a different cultural or linguistic lens or through the sharing of stories which would have otherwise gone unheard. Key Words: family engagement, bilingual students, English learners, Hispanic families, community university school partnerships, Latina/o students, parental involvement, culturally relevant literature, Spanish, books Background Literacy is at the root of a person s ability to succeed, and the family is at the heart. (National Center for Families Learning [NCFL], n.d., para. 1) Family literacy programs aim to provide family members with opportunities to learn and grow together, to become lifelong learners, and to pass those skills on to future generations (NCFL, n.d.). Researchers have suggested that School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 73

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL guiding parents to participate in activities that involve children in reading and writing processes can become a powerful strategy to promote their interest and enjoyment of the reading process (De Gaetano, 2007). However, to nurture young readers and to garner their attention, stories ought to be interesting, meaningful, and cognitively accessible to them (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). Stories, researchers suggest, become cognitively accessible if the reader possesses the vocabulary and the background needed to comprehend them (Ortiz & Ordoñez-Jasis, 2005). For children for whom English is not their native language, also referred to in the literature as English learners, this vocabulary needs to be nurtured and built over time through a variety of means (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). One approach that has proven to be beneficial in developing both vocabulary and creating schema, or background knowledge, is by purposefully choosing stories that resemble authentic and culturally responsive situations, such as those describing everyday practices at home and familyrelated storylines, among others (Amaro-Jiménez & Semingson, 2012). Also, stories that have been written in the language they most understand can help make those connections even stronger (Saracho, 2007), especially for those learners who have already built a foundation in their native language (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Consequently, authentic literature written in Spanish or English for Latina/o children can become a powerful component to teach them to read and to promote an interest in reading in their native or second language. Currently, there are several well-known Latina/o writers that write with a Latina/o population in mind, such as Isabel Campoy, Alma Flor Ada, Francisco Alarcón, Sandra Cisneros, and Pat Mora, among many others. However, due to the myriad of linguistic and cultural backgrounds of Latina/o groups, it is nearly impossible to find authentic literature tailored to each individual cultural group. For example, a piece of literature for Mexican immigrants might be different than one for a second or third generation Mexican American or for a Latina/o child whose family background can be traced back to the first colonists in the American Southwest. Based on that complexity, it is difficult to claim that we can develop authentic literature for all Latina/o children in the United States. In fact, Pat Mora states, Only about 2% of the 5,000 children s books published in the U.S. annually are by or about Latinos, a sad statistic that doesn t change as the statistics [below] do. How can you help change this fact? (2014, para. 6). With the population of Latina/o students reaching nearly 24% of the public school student population (Pew Hispanic Center, 2012), a more explicit effort needs to be made to ensure that literature for these students is available so that they will be able to connect to the sounds, smells, and tastes of their own experiences relived through printed words. However, there 74

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN is currently a scarcity of studies that can help uncover the extent to which this kind of culturally relevant literature is (or is not) having an impact on students (e.g., on their identity, on their academic achievement) and their families and the ways in which this literature could possibly be a window into providing more equitable educational opportunities for these learners and their families. Based on these needs, the Stories to our Children Program reported in this article aimed to bring together members of the Latina/o community, with the majority being parents of school-aged children, who were interested in being part of an initial cadre of writers creating authentic literature for the Latina/o cultural groups represented in a growing and very diverse area in the Southwest. To do so, a local public library collaborated with a teacher preparation program and a school district to design a series of workshops that would motivate parents to create a new form of authentic and culturally relevant children s literature literature generated by parents and written specifically for their children. This article provides a detailed analysis of the day-by-day implementation of the program as well as the ways in which teacher candidates/volunteers and parents were recruited to participate in the program. We also highlight some of the gains obtained by both the parents and the teacher candidates involved. Our hope in describing this program is that this article will serve as a catalyst for other teacher preparation programs and community agencies to spearhead similar initiatives in which personnel from schools, libraries, and community programs collaborate together to create authentic as well as developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate literature in their communities. Likewise, we believe that efforts like this program may also help reverse the gap existent in the literature that addresses the needs of a growing population in the United States by having families work together to pen their own unique stories. The Program s Vision Program Goals The program was developed on the premise that sharing stories, in writing or orally, can create a lasting bond between parents and their children, regardless of one s ethnicity, first language, or socioeconomic status (Strommen & Mates, 2011). Too often, however, we hear the myth that parents reading to their children is a middle-class tradition, when it has been documented that it is not (Compton-Lilly, 2002). Unfortunately, for many Latina/o families, their cultural traditions and life experiences are not only not available on library bookshelves, but finding literature in their own languages is difficult, as was noted previously. 75

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL As such, the program s goals were fourfold. First, the project sought to give Latina/o parents opportunities to share their language, traditions, and life experiences both in their home countries as well as in the U.S. through the creation of a special collection of stories written by parents for their children. It was believed that doing so would also help these parents recognize and validate that they are the first and most important teachers and role models for their children (Compton-Lilly, 2002). Second, the program aimed to motivate parents to make use of a variety of resources available to them in their communities, such as the public library, especially as it has been reported that some foreign-born Latina/o parents consider the library a place that is not accessible to everyone in the community (Amaro-Jiménez & Semingson, 2012). Thus the intent was that by participating, these parents would not only become aware of what the library and others in their community had to offer, but that they would both gain a sense of ownership for the library and of community services available to them. The third goal was to ensure that the teacher candidates who volunteered for the program would have the opportunity to make connections between theory/research and practice by directly working with families before they had their own classrooms and helping in the implementation of the project overall (Amaro-Jiménez, 2012). Doing so is critical given the great demand to prepare teachers who are content knowledgeable; well versed in research, theory, and practice; and ready to work with students from day one (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2013). Finally, the fourth goal was to continue strengthening collaborations between the public library, the neighboring school district, and the teacher preparation program by exploring ways in which they could jointly support the growing population of Latina/o students and families in the area. In other words, the Stories to Our Children Program aimed to aid in the creation of authentic literature written by Latina/os that could potentially ignite and motivate a whole new group of readers and writers that could speak to the unique experiences they bring to this country be it through a different cultural or linguistic lens or through the sharing of stories which would have otherwise gone unheard where it not be for a project like the one described here. In the next sections we describe: (1) the recruitment of parent participants and volunteers; (2) the specifics about the program s implementation, including information about each of the five training sessions provided; (3) the book publishing process; and (4) the reflections from the newest authors. Recruitment of Parent Participants and Volunteers Staffing the program was truly a collaborative activity between the three agencies involved (public library, teacher preparation program, school district) 76

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN as well the foundation that provided the seed grant to the city s public library. The funding obtained covered the costs of supplies and materials (e.g., binders, paper, pencils), printing and marketing materials, the individual published books, the compilation book of Stories to Our Children, the giveaway books that were given to the parents for attending the workshops, and the speaker/ children s author who participated in the closing ceremony. To recruit parents, the public library distributed flyers (in both English and Spanish) describing the program in four elementary schools in a local school district as well as in two family literacy programs within the same district. Family representatives from the partnering district as well as each school s family liaison helped with the distribution of these flyers as well as in the dissemination of the information through word of mouth. The flyers were targeted to parents whose children were ages 0 to 6, because the intention was for the published book to be among the first, if not the first, book that the child/ren would read. In fact, one of the flyers specifically stated that by participating they could actually become the author of the first book that your child will read. Parents also learned on the flyer that they would get support throughout the entire story writing process ( We will guide you to write, edit, and add illustrations or pictures to your stories ). Ensuring that parents knew that they would receive support was necessary as many of these parents had the misconception that, as one of them indicated, only certain people could become writers. Two types of volunteers were sought to become involved in the project: college volunteers/teacher candidates and community volunteers. The former were bilingual education teacher candidates who were sought to support and guide parents in the writing process, making special emphasis on the accuracy of written stories. A call for volunteers was placed at a teacher preparation program in a local Institution of Higher Education (IHE) in North Texas given their heavy emphasis on providing teacher candidates with service learning opportunities in addition to their required field experiences for certification. Meetings at the IHE were scheduled to discuss the program. At these meetings, candidates were instructed to sign up as volunteers through the public library s website. Once the volunteers were identified, another meeting was scheduled to provide information about the program and to describe their role in the project. A total of 40 bilingual education teacher candidates served as volunteers in this project. These teacher candidates were placed at one of the sites depending on their availability. These volunteers worked with parents guiding them throughout the process, from helping identify possible topics for their stories to the actual editing process. The volunteers were also available for each of the one-hour workshops held. 77

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Community volunteers, including 11 library staff, were recruited to help with the actual formatting and publishing of the stories. Because all of the stories were handwritten by parents, volunteers were recruited to type all 77 stories. Volunteers spent approximately one week typing all of these stories and transferring them to a publishing software. A community volunteer also was designated to organize the stories by training sites before they were entered into the publishing template. Volunteers also assisted with the scanning and formatting of all the pictures. Two training days were offered to volunteers; they had the option of attending a Wednesday or a Friday training. The same training was given to all the volunteers on both training days to ensure they were all being consistently trained in how to help the parents with their stories. Volunteers were told that they were there to help the parents bring out the scenery, smells, and feelings to depict a picture in each story. It was emphasized that volunteers should not change the families stories or their voice in their writing but mainly help with editing any grammatical errors. Program Participants As a result of the recruitment effort, 65 adult participants agreed to be part of both the program and an ongoing research study that aims to identify the strengths and challenges these parents see in their children s education and the ways in which teachers could be better prepared to meet their needs. Though participating in the study was not required (i.e., they could participate in the book authoring and not in the research component), they all agreed. Of program participants, 4% (n = 3) were male, and 96% were female (n = 62). Table 1 details some demographics of the adult participants. The program described here was implemented in a growing and diverse community of approximately 375,000 residents, according to the 2010 Census. This community is part of a large metropolitan area with over 6 million residents. In this specific community, about 54% of the population is considered minority, which follows the same trends of population growth as other large metropolitan areas. Approximately 19% of the population is foreign-born, and about 32.3% of those 5 years and above speak a language other than English at home. A survey that adult participants completed at the end of the program showed that there were six Latina/o cultural groups represented in the stories: Mexican Americans (various generations), Mexican immigrants, Colombians, Salvadorians, Texans, and Peruvians. Most of the participants were long-term (10+ years) U.S. residents. The majority of the parent participants had only completed high school, with middle school being the second largest group being represented. Although the majority of participants had one parent that 78

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN attended representing the family, others assisted in their story writing. For instance, one family had the father write the story, and his wife created the illustrations. For another family, the mother wrote story and had the children do the artwork. In another family, a mother wrote the story and had pictures sent from Mexico to embed in the story. Two adult caretakers also participated because the children that they were caring for attended one of the school sites. We also had grandparents who dropped off their grandchildren at school and then joined in the workshops. It should be noted that though the program s intention in the recruitment process was to recruit parents so they could become empowered to see themselves as writers, we found that many children were modeling the parents writing at home and wanted to follow in their footsteps. A decision was made to include those children who were interested in either writing their own stories or coauthoring stories with their parents. Table 1. Other Demographics of Authors/Parents Schooling Completed University 11 Community college 1 High school 18 Middle school 16 Elementary school 5 Level of English Proficiency Native speaker 5 Almost native 1 Proficient 13 Very limited 15 Don t speak English 16 Don t write in English 1 Level of Spanish Proficiency Native speaker 34 Almost native 0 Proficient 13 Very limited 2 Don t speak Spanish 1 Don t write in Spanish 1 N 79

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Program Implementation The program was implemented over a six-week period (April 9, 2012 May 19, 2012). A series of five one-hour training sessions or workshops were scheduled twice a week in each location with the exception of one the latter group met once a week, but they met for an hour and a half on Saturdays. See Table 2 for sites and times available at each location. Some elementary sites offered workshops in the morning (8:30 9:30a.m.), while others held workshops in the afternoon (2:00 3:00 p.m.). In other words, at some sites parents could come to the morning session after they had dropped off their child/children at school, and at others they could come right before picking up their children from school, while the literacy program offered Saturday workshops. Parents who participated in the program did not get a stipend or monetary compensation; instead, they received a copy of the book with all the stories compiled. To encourage parents participation, workshops were held at their children s schools. As such, most of the sites were within walking distance from families homes so they did not have to incur any costs to go to/from the sites. The program also ensured that childcare, literacy activities, and snacks were provided for the children who accompanied their parents and for the parents themselves. Most of these workshops took place in Spanish given the language proficiency level of the participants. For English dominant and monolingual English-speaking parents, the university volunteers provided translation and individualized support and coaching in each of the sessions. In these training sessions, parents planned, wrote, illustrated, and refined their stories. Colored pencils and art supplies were also on hand for illustrating their stories. At the end of the program, about 95% of the parents who initially expressed interest in participating completed the program. Table 2. Scheduling at Sites Site Dates Times Elementary 1 4/9, 4/11, 4/16, 4/18, and 4/23 8:30 9:30 a.m. Elementary 2 4/9, 4/11, 4/16, 4/23, and 4/25 2:00 3:00 p.m. Elementary 3 4/10, 4/12, 4/17, 4/19, and 5/1 8:30 9:30 a.m. Elementary 4 4/10, 4/17, 4/24, 5/1, and 5/8 2:00 3:00 p.m. Literacy Program 5/14, 5/21, 5/28, and 5/5 1:30 3:00 p.m. 80

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Book Authoring Training Sessions Due to the third author s background in bilingual education and her position at the library, she designed the lesson plans to be implemented and was responsible for training all the volunteers to implement the program. To ensure consistency across sites, all volunteers and trainers were trained with these materials and were required to use the same exact materials for the sessions. Daily lesson plans were shared with the university volunteers ahead of time to prepare for the implementation of each session s objectives, as detailed next. Session One The goal of the first workshop was to empower parents to become literacy role models for their children through the writing of stories and through the sharing of their personal and life stories orally. For the first workshop, the public library invited a local Latino author to read one of his stories (Rosado, 2008) and to describe how he was able to draw on his personal experiences to write a story with his child and the child s grandmother in mind. He attended all but one of the first sessions. After reading the story, the author described the process he underwent for writing it, the challenges he faced, and how he finally arrived at the final version. That same day personnel from the library provided each participant with a writing notebook with divided sections for each stage of the writing process and plenty of space for drafting and pencils. Parents were then asked to brainstorm possible ideas and write those on the paper provided. For the introduction, parents were asked to jot down two to four sentences to describe the setting (time and location) of the story as well as to write an introduction that would be interesting to entice the audience to keep reading it. Parents were also asked to write in details about the story involving the five senses what they felt, how it smelled, what they heard or saw, and so on. At the end of the session, most parents had been able to identify a topic for their writing. Some of them even developed a rough draft. An important element was that some family members worked together, while others decided to work independently. As a result, in some cases, family members produced more than one writing sample. Parents were asked to work on their writing at home (create an outline) and bring their writing to the next meeting. Session Two At the second meeting, parents were to organize their ideas and begin to craft a well-developed, focused story. Parents came with ideas better defined and with a draft of what they had been writing. Using the outline previously developed, parents began writing the events of the story. They were instructed to concentrate on the content, not on grammar. Parents talked about their 81

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL stories, and the college and community volunteers provided input and help with the writing process. Parents continued developing the stories while the volunteers remained on site providing additional guidance with ideas to improve the stories. Volunteers instructed the parents to use detailed description of the events and activities portrayed in their stories. Parents were once again asked to use descriptions appealing to the human senses, describing colors and sensations to add realism to the story and to develop their unique writing style. By the end of the second training session, most parents had developed a complete draft of their writing. Lack of proper grammar or logical progression of the narrative was noticeable in most writings. However, no attempts were made to correct them at this stage. Parents were asked to continue improving the story at home and to bring ideas to illustrate the story during the third session. The stories were written mostly in Spanish. Table 3 presents examples of stories written in Spanish, unless otherwise noted. Session Three The objective of the third workshop was to develop the draft into a full story with appropriate illustrations. Using the draft previously developed, parents continued writing the events of the story. Once finished, college volunteers began helping with the editing, while parents began integrating illustrations within their stories. Some participants brought ideas to develop illustrations, while others brought completed drawings and pictures to support the stories. Artist volunteers made suggestions on the type of illustrations needed and demonstrated individually how to improve the illustrations. Some of the parents finished the story and the illustrations, while others continued finishing the stories. For those parents who had finished their story, they were instructed to review them at home and make changes as needed based upon the suggestions provided that day. Similar instructions were given to those parents who were still writing the stories. Session Four In the fourth session, parents were asked to incorporate volunteer feedback into their writing and to develop the final version with illustrations. Parents were asked to give their final approval of the story, as someone else was going to be approving the overall layout prior to publication. Parents were also asked to include a dedication in their story. Parents took their final draft home for final editing and changes and were asked to come ready to share their stories with the rest of the group during the final session. 82

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Table 3. Sampling of Story Titles Short Stories Original Title Mi Felicidad Mi Abuelita y Yo El Gato Recuerdos Para Mis Hijo, De Sus Abuelos y de Mí A Qué Jugaba Mamá No Existen Límites My Happiness My Grandma and Me The Cat Translated Title Memories for My Children, From Their Grandparents and Me Games That Mom Played There Are No Limits La Historia de Mi País y Sus Culturas The History of My Country and Its Cultures El Árbol Blanco de Navidad La Casa de Mi Abuelo Es Hora de Ir a Dormir Un Poco de Mi Vida Historia de Mi Vida Disfrazándonos para Halloween / Dressing Up for Halloween Fasting in Ramadan Mother s Love Barbie Princess Charm & Asima The White Christmas Tree My Grandpa s House It s Time to Sleep A Bit About My Life Story of My Life English/Spanish version English version only English version only English version only Poems Original Title I m Mommy s Superhero Soy el Super Héroe de Mami! I Am Both. I Am Neither Yo Soy Ambas. Yo Soy Ninguna Historia de Gemelos Story About Twins Explorando un Mundo Nuevo No Existen Límites Es Hora de Dormir Translated Title Two versions English and Spanish Two versions English and Spanish Two versions English and Spanish Exploring a New World Without Limits It s Time to Sleep Session Five In the last workshop, parents came together to share their story and their experiences with the rest of the parents. Each parent read his or her story to the group. Parents were guided to notice details of the story, ask questions, and provide final comments on each story s content. Some of the parents made revisions to their stories as a result of the input from the audience. At the end 83

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL of the workshop, parents turned in their revised versions of their stories and watched a video of a nationally recognized author who would visit them when the book with all the stories had been published. The Book s Publishing and Celebration Using a free publishing program, university volunteers, four community members, and personnel from the public library typed the stories, added the corresponding illustrations, and prepared the document for printing. The 77 stories were organized in a book format based on the location of training sites. Nine of the stories were poems, and four of them had Spanish and English versions. A total of 11 stories written/cowritten by and with children were also published in the book. The final version of the book had 272 pages. See Table 4 for a snapshot of the stories written. As can be seen, most of the stories were written in Spanish only. See Appendix A for a few pages from one of the 77 stories with its corresponding English translation. Table 4. Snapshot of the Stories Written Analysis of the Stories Written Numbers at a Glance Total number of stories written 77 Stories using a poetic format (Poems) 9 Written by parents 64 Stories written in Spanish only 52 Stories written in English only 13 Stories written in two languages 5 Stories written by child authors in English 9 Stories written by child authors in Spanish 1 Stories written by child authors in two languages 1 Number of families who wrote more than one story 5 Stories with more than one adult author 3 Total female authors (including children) 68 Total male authors (including children) 10 With support of a local merchant, the public library organized a celebration for the new authors with a special guest, renowned Mexican American author Pat Mora, to present the book to the public. In total, 250 people participated in this event 65 of them were the book s authors. The library s staff and volunteers transformed the space into a colorful wonderland for families celebrating their stories (see Figure 1). 84

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Figure 1. The Celebration Posters of all the original handwritten stories were placed strategically around the room for attendees to read and enjoy. Copies of the book containing all the stories were also made available for public viewing. Refreshments were available for adults and children. The first author of this article, who was the motivational speaker on the first day of the training, was invited back to speak to the audience. He congratulated them for their work and encouraged them to continue writing their stories. The author was presented with a copy of the book. He requested that each of the authors sign the book, and most of the authors complied with pride. Many wrote a dedication, which made the book unique. As seen below, some of the dedications were particularly moving: Muchas gracias porque gracias a sus palabras me motivé a escribir mi libro. [Thank you very much; thanks to your words, I got motivated to write my book.] Muchas gracias, Dr. Rosado, por ser una inspiración para nosotros, los padres, para escribir nuestras historias para nuestros niños. [Thank you, Dr. Rosado, for being an inspiration for us, the parents, to write the stories for our children.] Le agradezco la hermosa historia que compartió con nosotros. Muchas gracias por su inspiración. [I d like to thank you for the special story that you shared with us. Thanks for your inspiration.] Mil gracias por darme el empujoncito para escribir. [Many thanks for giving me the little push to motivate me to write.] 85

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL As part of the closing ceremony, Pat Mora shared some of her own experiences as a writer. She congratulated the authors on their achievement and encouraged them to continue their literary pursuits. She read one of her Spanish short stories. In her blog of June 8, 2013, Pat Mora summarized the experience in the following way: Many of the moms felt so proud that their families were at a party to honor these new writers. The room was decorated, the food line was popular, but what made the event unique was that mothers were proudly carrying the stories they d written and illustrated. (para. 1) Reflections From Some of the Newest Authors and Initial Findings Individual authors received a copy of the book. Parents, now authors, signed each other s books and congratulated each other. Copies of the book were placed in circulation at the public library. All of the authors were excited about their accomplishments and were keen to share their thoughts on the program. Some shared that their children were inspired to explore the world of books through a new lens and even to write their own stories. Some of them wrote: It impressed me that people like us could write stories, just like the real writers. I never thought that I could tell my life story in a book in this country and meet an author as famous as Pat Mora. I liked [the program] a lot, and I d like to do it again. It s an achievement, something I never imagined I d be able to do. Thanks for the motivation. It fascinated me. I loved the way that they guided us step by step, and to meet an author that is recognized to meet her and get to know her story, get to dialog with her, and to feel that we re equals gave us the opportunity to dream that Yes we can! Preliminary analyses of the study have revealed that the parents wrote greatly about the pride they felt in having been program participants several used the words a gift to describe how they felt about having had this opportunity. Parents described that writing about their lives back home and being able to relive those experiences through printed words with their children was invaluable, as they often felt they could not talk openly about their experiences now that they were in the U.S. Likewise, many of the parents talked about how much they had appreciated the opportunity they had to convivir or share their own experiences with other Latina/o parents while they wrote their stories, as well as to share cultural types of things such as important events from their childhoods, the foods they ate, and the customs each family had. 86

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Ongoing analyses also show that parents found great comfort when reading and listening to each others stories as they had the opportunity to feel they were part of a larger community, one in which each was committed to becoming the best kind of parent I can be for the well-being of each child. Doing this was important, as many (78%) indicated they felt schools were not always understanding of the needs their children and family had. The penning of a book, they thought, could be used as one mechanism for schools to learn about the lives of the children who are entering their schools as well as their families. The parent participants also indicated that they see a great need for parents to become involved in activities like the book authoring project. They felt that the sense of closeness that participating brought among all the parents could indicate to school personnel and others that parents do want to be involved in their children s education, thus removing common misconceptions and barriers between them. Many of the parents also provided feedback about what could be done to improve the program. For instance, many wished the program could have been extended beyond the six-week period. They felt six weeks was not enough time to write and revise their work, and they felt that having more time would have allowed them to write longer and longer stories, like with chapters. They also thought that their stories could have been greatly improved content-wise had they had more time to brainstorm and to write. Many of the parents also felt that the childcare provided could be extended for those who felt they needed more time during each session to finish writing their drafts or even completing their illustrations. The parents also thought that more participation in the program could have been achieved if the program would have started earlier in the year, or as one of them suggested, start early, schedule early in the spring to start in the fall. And some had nothing but praise for the program as shown in some of the excerpts below: Everything was perfect! Thank you! I loved everything about this project. Having the opportunity to write our own story to be part of the library was the best. They cheered for us. They made us feel and think and know that we are writers. I loved the program. I really did. The motivation they provided was great. I liked that we were able to write about what we wanted. Anything we wanted. I loved that I was able to write my own story and create a book for MY GIRLS. 87

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Conclusion As was mentioned in the introduction, one of the key goals of family literacy programs is to provide a foundation, or support an existing one, that allows family members to create a culture in which learning is nurtured and passed from one generation to the next, all while learning together (NCFL, n.d.). Through this program, a group of 65 Latina/o parents came together to explore the possibility of becoming a book author and left the program with a renewed sense of agency, cultural and linguistic identity, and pride (Strommen & Mates, 2011). One of the most significant accomplishments of this program is that participants became writers. As one of them said, It impressed me that people like us could write stories, just like the real writers. At the beginning, many of the parents who participated seemed to feel intimidated by the idea of writing, apparently not feeling they could be real writers. However, through the guidance of the committed volunteers, parents learned how to explore and develop their ideas at deeper levels while getting hands-on experience with the writing process. For the parents, any hesitation or uncertainty they may have had about becoming published writers even as they wrote their stories changed into a Yes we can! attitude when they saw the fruits of their labor in the form of a book a very cherished one. The gains of this project were many. The library gained a book containing a group of authentic literature that is impossible to develop commercially. Now, the library has the first book of stories written by parents from North Texas written for their children and for other parents and children to enjoy. Along these lines, parents appear to have received a boost in their self-esteem because they learned that writing for their children was an achievable goal, all while also earning the admiration of the community and their children (De Gaetano, 2007). Parents also created authentic literature for people to read and value which in turn provided them an outlet to have a voice and be heard (Amaro- Jiménez & Semingson, 2012). The children, on the other hand, were exposed to the benefit of reading authentic literature written not just by someone who spoke their same language, but by their parents (Ortiz & Ordoñez-Jasis, 2005). Through these writings, the children not only got introduced to or practiced the writing process, but they concurrently learned about their family s culture and language and those of others (De Gaetano, 2007) as they saw how their parents penned their own stories. The children also felt the pride of having the work of their parents recognized publicly. The university students/teacher candidates also benefited from working with this project. The students were all bilingual education majors, which allowed them to work with children and parents who only spoke the Spanish 88

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN language. Due to their involvement in the project, they were able to complete service learning hours as well as reflect on their experiences by drawing specific connections between what they were learning in the classroom and what they were doing every week with the families. In these reflections, the teacher candidates indicated they had gained additional hands-on experiences as they helped the parents write, edit, illustrate, and revise their stories in Spanish, and some even honed their translating skills when they assisted in the translation of the stories into English.Teacher candidates also indicated that they had learned about different cultures, foods, languages, dialects, and even new vocabulary from different parts of Latin America just by helping parents write their stories. Through the Stories to Our Children program, family members were empowered to write about their life experiences, passing on family and cultural traditions and providing a window from the past to the future. This project also led family members to come together and to learn from one another. Parents worked on their stories at home, modeling the reading and writing skills they practiced in the sessions. The families shared the unique experiences they bring some through a different cultural or linguistic lens or through the sharing of stories often unheard were it not for a project like the one described here. These types of activities can create lasting bonds across generations as well as ignite a whole new group of readers and writers. References Amaro-Jiménez, C. (2012). Service learning = Preparing teachers to better understand culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(2), 211 213. doi:10.1080/02607476.2012.656448 Amaro-Jiménez, C., & Semingson, P. (2011). Tapping into the funds of knowledge of culturally and linguistically diverse students and families. NABE News, 5 8. Compton-Lilly, C. (2002). Reading families: The literate lives of urban children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The role of culture in engaging Latino parents involvement in school. Urban Education, 42, 145 162. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking comprehension instruction: Comparing strategies and content instructional approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218 253. National Center for Families Learning. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.familieslearning.org/about-us/about-us.html National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2013). What makes a teacher effective? A summary of key research findings on teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://www. ncate.org/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=jfrrmwqa1ju%3d&tabid=361 89

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Mora, P. (2014). Sampler of Latino children s and YA authors and illustrators. Retrieved from http://www.patmora.com/sampler-latino-authors-illustrators-for-children-ya/ Mora, P. (2013, June 8). Pat @ Pen Your Own Adventures Stories to Our Children [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://sharebookjoy.blogspot.com/2012/06/may-19-pat-penyour-own-adventures.html Ortiz, R. W., & Ordoñez-Jasis, R. (2005). Leyendo juntos (Reading together): New directions for Latino parents early literacy involvement. The Reading Teacher, 59, 110 121. doi:10.1598/rt.59.2.1 Rosado, L. (2008). Los pasteles de coco. Arlington, TX: LM Company. Saracho, O. (2007). Hispanic families as facilitators of their children s literacy development. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6, 103 117. Strommen, L. T., & Mates, B. F. (2011). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 188 200. doi:10.1598/jaal. 48.3.1 Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term academic achievement. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/65j213pt Authors Note: The authors want to thank the Arlington Tomorrow Foundation for funding this program, and also Ms. Beatriz Jatem, a graduate student in the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Texas at Arlington, for her assistance with the documentation gathering for this project. Luis Rosado is a professor of Bilingual/ESL Education and the director of the Center for Bilingual and ESL Education in the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Texas at Arlington. His work has focused on the areas of pedagogy and professional responsibilities, parental involvement, cross-cultural communication, preparation for teacher certification exams, and Spanish for bilingual teachers. Carla Amaro-Jiménez is an assistant professor of Bilingual/ESL Education at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research has focused on identifying additive practices that can improve the educational outcomes of English learners and their families and practices that can create a K 16 pipeline for minority students, but especially Latina/o students. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Amaro-Jiménez, UTA Center for Bilingual and ESL Education, 502 Yates Street, Box 19777, Arlington, TX 76010 or email amaro@uta.edu Ivonne Kieffer is the library services manager for K 12 Learning Support where she helps develop, plan, and implement programs and services to meet needs of children and teens. She has been with the Arlington Public Library for three years. 90

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Appendix (First three pages; entire book is available from the authors upon request) Title: My Granny and I Subtitle: Childhood Memories Author: María Del Carmen F. Colored by: Carmen and Ramiro Fernández Illustrated by: Maria del Carmen (Picture of Grandma and the child) 91

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Drawing: Grandpa, Changel; Granny, Lupe; My mother, Cruz; Brother, Rey; Me, Carmelita; Brother, Sergio Narrative: My name is: María Del Carmen. My Granny s name is Lupe. My memories begin at a very early age, when I lived with my mother and my two older brothers. Their names are Reydesel and Sergio. We used to live with my grandparents in a ranch called Acayucan. It was a very pretty ranch, with a big creek, where people got together to wash their clothes and talk. People were very united; everybody helped each other and knew each other. 92

STORIES TO OUR CHILDREN Picture of the girl watering the plants Narrative: I remember being a very cheerful and happy girl, well, and a little mischievous. My mischiefs were: running around the house, jumping on the beds, and when it rained I liked to go out and jump on the little puddles, and at the end I got completely soaked. Granny s scolding was always there. I also liked to water Granny s plants. When she least expected it, I was already watering her plants. I remember she used to tell me: Lepe, you spoiled girl, you are going to drown my flowers. 93

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 94

Contributions of School-Based Parenting and Family Literacy Centres in an Early Childhood Service System Kathryn Underwood and Marion Trent-Kratz Abstract Increasingly, governments are seeking ways to integrate early childhood education and care services as a social policy strategy to maximize child and family outcomes. This study examines the role of a school-based parenting and family literacy program to a system of services in one community in Ontario, Canada. Using an appreciative inquiry approach, focus groups and questionnaires conducted with participants of the programs provide a view of how these programs are contributing in a community where there are a range of programs in place. These programs were described by parents as welcoming places with interesting and engaging program activities, facilities, and resources that support child development. Additionally, supports for all family members including referrals to services which helped families in many aspects of their lives were described as benefits of participating. The contributions of Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (PFLCs) are evident from the data and are discussed in relation to the contributions of other services and programs in the community. Additional findings examine participants patterns of service use across the community, which shows they are using school-based services more than community-based early years services. These findings are discussed in relation to the service integration goals of provincial social policy strategies. Key Words: early childhood education programs, service integration, family literacy, social policy, parenting, transition to school, Ontario, Canada School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 95

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Introduction This study is motivated by current international interest in early childhood education and care as a social policy strategy (Irwin, Siddiqi, & Hertzman, 2007; Shonkoff & Philips, 2000). In Canada, as in the U.S., governments have made a relatively low investment in early childhood education and care compared to other countries with similar resources (UNICEF, 2008). As a result, there is an imperative to expand supports for young children and their families. There is growing interest in service integration internationally, with the aim of making complex systems of services more accessible to families, reducing redundancies and duplication in services, and improving planning and administration while seeking efficiencies in service delivery (Armitage, Suter, Oelke, & Adair, 2009; King & Meyer, 2006). Service integration, however, may also change the contribution that is made by particular service agencies and programs within a system of what have historically been fragmented services. The importance of high quality early childhood programs to support child and family outcomes is widely accepted (Britto, Yoshikawa, & Boller, 2011). What is less well understood are the contributions of unique programs and how they work together from the perspective of families to support both children s development and family needs. This study aims to understand the contribution of Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (PFLCs) where this program is one of many community services for families with young children. The study is relevant in a broader context as many jurisdictions around the world are grappling with how to achieve universal access to high quality early childhood services. 96 Context In Ontario, Canada, where this study was conducted, the current policy context includes major political realignment of responsibilities for early childhood education and care. It is important to identify the unique contributions and strengths of PFLCs in order to inform systems level decision-making in this political context. This research, however, has a wider application in understanding parents perceptions of community supports and their own needs with regard to early childhood and family support services. A new early years policy framework is continuing a trend toward integration of early childhood education and care services (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011) and a schools-first policy that values early childhood programs that are linked with or offered by schools (Pascal, 2010). The schools-first policy has two distinct goals: the first is to ensure that early childhood programs focus on children s readiness for school transition as an outcome; the second is that schools may benefit from the catchment, recruitment, and community links

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES of the school that are different in community programs for example, schoolbased immigration consultants may be more focused on language services, and school health nurses may have different strategies than public health nurses visiting community programs. PFLCs, located in publicly funded schools, are an example of a school-based program. PFLCs are free drop-in programs where families attend with their children and are open for approximately four hours each morning. Each site has one staff member, and the program is the same at each site with circle time, physical activity (outside or in the gymnasium), crafts, free play, and snack. While parents are not usually turned away, some sites are very busy. The parents/caregivers are required to stay with children throughout the program. These programs were selected for this study because little is known about the differences between school-based and communitybased programs or how family programs contribute compared to programs designed for children alone. The research presented here examines family, community, and child outcomes. Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs High quality early childhood programs are widely accepted around the world as an intervention that is effective at improving outcomes in health, education, and human development for societies as a whole (Irwin et al., 2007; Shonkoff & Philips, 2000). Social policy that supports high quality early childhood programs is believed to be both lower in cost in comparison to social programs that target these domains later in life and more effective than later interventions (Britto et al., 2011). Early intervention is believed to have both a preventative effect by supporting families to provide stable environments for children s development and a direct effect by influencing child outcomes. Family Outcomes Many early childhood programs aim to support families first. In particular, family literacy programs are commonly used to support families with low income (Prins & Schafft, 2009). Programs that are situated within the cultural context of participants (Masny, 2008; Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, 2007) and that are able to engage parents to regularly attend (Doyle & Zhang, 2011) appear to have some positive effect on children s literacy development and family engagement in children s learning. Family literacy programs have a long history as a strategy to support child development as well as enhance social and economic opportunities for adults in the family. Family literacy programs were developed with the recognition that the family is a critical context for the earliest language and literacy skill development (OLC/ AFLO, 2006). Certainly many researchers now believe that parent involvement in the early years is critical to later school success, particularly in the 97

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL areas of reading and language development (Morrison, Rimm-Kauffman, & Pianta, 2003). Family literacy programs deliver direct service to parents and their children with the intent of influencing family factors that are known to positively affect early literacy for children (Timmons, 2008). Research suggests that engaging parents early can be effective as a strategy to keep parents engaged with their children s learning in the school years (Dallaire & Weinraub, 2005). There is, however, limited research on the efficacy of schools offering family literacy programs and whether they provide a unique service to families. Community Engagement Early childhood programs and services work to support families to develop social networks in several ways. They provide opportunities to meet other parents and family members, for children to develop relationships, and for parents to connect with a professional who can provide referrals to other community supports. The efficacy of early childhood programs in connecting families with other services is variable. Khan, Parsonage, and Brown (2013), in a study examining mental health referrals in children s services, identify different referral routes and note that the quality of a referral can make a difference in whether a family will actually engage with another service. They found that the way a program is presented, the degree of personalization in the referral, and the trust that develops with the new organization upon the referral can make a difference in whether families participate in the service. Some early childhood programs support families to actively participate in the workforce. Child care, for example, supports working adults and, with high quality programming, can also support child development (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008). Child care does not typically serve parents directly as clients, although there is growing interest in the role of child care as a family support program serving families needs beyond direct service to children (Bromer & Henley, 2004). However, child care plays a critical role in economic participation for families, while family literacy programs typically do not. Overall, as a system of services, early childhood programs function to support family members to engage directly with their children s development, to engage with other families in their communities, and to be connected with other services and in the workforce. Child Outcomes: Literacy and Language Literacy and language development are also a universal goal of early childhood programs (McCain & Mustard, 1999; McCain, Mustard, & McQuaig, 2011; McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; Shonkoff & Philips, 2000). Literacy development at school entry has been linked to children s school success and to their overall academic achievement (Beswick & Sloat, 2006). 98

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES In several studies, children s literacy development is attributed to literacy activities in early childhood programs. Domitrovich et al. (2013) found that low-income children s participation in preschool programs had an effect on their literacy skills and readiness at school entry and that this effect increased when children were enrolled in two years versus one year of preschool. It should be noted that the quality of the program, not just the amount of time spent in the program, is also important. Perlman and Fletcher (2008) found that in child care centers where staff were not engaging in frequent literacy instruction there was not a significant relationship to child language and literacy skills at school age. Similarly, a recent study of child care in Portugal found that high quality programs could contribute to children s early language and literacy development, mitigating home environments that did not support such development (Pinto, Pessanha, & Aguiar, 2013). These studies show that child care and preschool programs can affect children s academic performance at school, particularly in the area of language and literacy development. However, it is important to distinguish between the programs that are designed for direct interaction between educators and children and those that are designed for parents and families to attend with their children. Family support programs community-based programs for children and their families or other caregivers such as nannies are designed to provide literacy activities along with modeling parenting and supporting family needs. In a 2010 study, a survey of family resource programs found that the majority of these programs self-reported that they often engage in informal children s literacy activities such as offering resources in interactions with parents, providing writing materials, and giving access to books, as well as more formal literacy activities with children ages 0 5, such as teaching nursery rhymes, leading games with word play, and making journals or family albums (FRP Canada, 2010). In programs for children ages 6 12, they did fewer formal literacy activities but provided more support for parents to help children with schoolwork and school-based literacy activities (FRP Canada, 2010). While the study relied on self-reports, it does tell us that literacy activities are at least considered to be part of the responsibilities of family resource programs. Child development outcomes are a goal of early childhood services. What is not known is whether all early childhood programs are equally able to support these outcomes and whether parents perceive these outcomes to be attributable to all early childhood programs. It is clear that a range of program types including child care, family support, and preschool can all support children s development directly. From a social policy and program design perspective, these programs are all quite different. What is not clear is how each of these programs works together to support children and their families in their communities. 99

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 100 Research Questions This study was designed in collaboration with representatives of a municipal social service department and managers from the PFLCs in one urban community with the intent of understanding the contribution of these programs to an early years service system. This study examines two questions: 1. What do parents see as key outcomes from participation in early years programs, and how are these outcomes met in a school-based program? 2. From the perspective of parents and families, what is the unique contribution of a school-based program to the system of early years services in their community? The first question relates to the capacity for a family literacy program run by a school to deliver the same or similar outcomes as other early childhood programs, such as individual child development, particularly related to language and literacy, as well as family and community engagement outcomes. PFLCs which are situated in schools, in theory, should have closer links to the school system than other early years programs, which could lead to a more closely aligned approach to child development with the Ontario school curricula and the goals of the education system. In fact, the PFLCs have been linked to gains in a range of developmental areas and, in particular, with gains in language development (Yau, 2009). In one study of PFLCs in the City of Toronto, PFLCs were found to have greater developmental effects in the areas of physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and language development when parents attended PFLCs, and the effects were greater when attendance was more regular. These findings continued to be true at the end of Grade 1, with parents reporting that they learned about parenting and children s literacy and development through the program (Yau, 2009). While these are impressive outcomes from the PFLCs, what is not apparent is whether there is a unique contribution from the PFLCs that cannot be delivered by other programs. As noted above, other early childhood programs are linked to developmental gains, particularly in relation to language and literacy. The second question is related to the service system. The question is examining whether a family literacy program operated by schools is actually contributing a distinct service or if this service is overlapping with other services. If indeed the service is overlapping, the analysis should yield information about whether this program is of value to the system as a whole. Current research on PFLC programs does not report if the program model achieves the goal of engaging parents with schools in a way that other programs do not. Theoretically, the relationship to schools could also have some disadvantages,

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES including fewer links to the community or being overly focused on school curricula designed for older children. Overall, the project aims to better understand how schools are working with communities to ensure that families are getting high quality early childhood experiences and also how families are being served, which is a focus of early childhood programs that is often missed in schools. Methods This study used appreciative inquiry, an approach to understanding organizational change that posits that understanding the strengths of organizations and then building up those strengths, as opposed to identifying systemic problems, is more effective to achieve optimal functioning within organizations (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Knibbs et al., 2012). This approach has been adapted for use in social research with the aim of uncovering strengths rather than solving problems (Boyd & Bright, 2007). This study is not a program evaluation of PFLCs; rather, the study gathered collective perspectives of those who used the PFLCs in order to understand the value that school-based family literacy programs held for these families within the context of the network of services that were in their communities. This approach does not mean that there was no interest in the challenges that families have in getting their needs met; in fact, this is an important component of understanding the value of PFLCs. However, parents were asked about the program strengths in order to identify what is working well for families. All focus group and questionnaire wording was consistent with an appreciative inquiry framework, asking questions with the intent of uncovering the strengths of the whole early years system. Participants Participants were recruited for the study through advertisements (flyers and posters) handed out by staff at the PFLC sites. Participants were given the opportunity to sign up in advance through an email address. In addition, participants who were at the programs on the day of the focus groups were invited to participate. The majority of participants were recruited at the sites on the day of the focus groups. The participants were parents and family members who use PFLCs. Many paid caregivers also participate in the programs but were not included in the sample as they have a distinct role in their participation that was beyond the scope of this study. There was an average of between 5 and 6 participants at each site. Of the 64 focus group participants, there were 47 mothers, four fathers, 10 grandmothers, two grandfathers, and one foster mother. All were invited to complete the questionnaire and/or participate in 101

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL the focus groups. Child care was provided, and participants were given a $10 gift card for a supermarket as compensation for participation. Many participants (n = 106) completed the questionnaire. Of those, 26 were mailed in self-addressed stamped envelopes that were left at the sites, and the rest were submitted to researchers on site after completion. The participants were invited to participate via the questionnaire or the focus groups or both. As the study was voluntary, this gave parents control over their level of participation, accounting for the much larger number who completed the questionnaire than participated in the focus groups. The questionnaire included demographic questions. Of the 106 questionnaire respondents, the ethnic identity of participants was not representative of the community population, with White, English-speaking participants over-represented. However, the socioeconomic characteristics of the sample were reflective of the community: 51% had lived in the community for fewer than 5 years. 20% had emigrated from outside Canada (with 9% in the country for more than 10 years). 75% of the respondents spoke English only at home. 8% spoke a language other than English or French (the community is a designated francophone community). 29% of respondents identified their household income as below the 2011 low-income cutoff* for a family of four (CD$41,000). (*Note: The low-income cutoff is a measure developed by Statistics Canada which measures income alone. It is not a measure of poverty but is used here as a proxy. For further explanation of poverty measures see Graham & Underwood, 2012.) Setting PFLCs offer a half-day drop in program during school hours, typically open four hours each day, with activities that focus on literacy and child development as well as supporting families (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). In Ontario, the first PFLCs were created in one large urban school board (similar to a U.S. district) as a response to evidence that parent engagement in early literacy practices is an effective intervention to equalize school opportunity (McCain et al., 2007). Since that time, the provincial government has funded a network of PFLCs in what they term high-needs neighborhoods (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). The definition of high-needs is variable and determined by individual school districts, but it is generally determined by family income, school data, and characteristics of families and communities in school catchment areas. There are currently 172 PFLCs in Ontario. 102

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES Data Collection The questionnaire asked parents to agree or disagree with positively worded questions about a range of services for families with young children (grouped into early years supports, developmental screening, supports for children with special needs, and parent supports). Questionnaires were administered at the sites where focus groups were conducted. Focus groups were selected as a data collection method because they can capture a group perspective (Patton, 1987, as cited in Bernard & Ryan, 2010). While individuals will have unique personal reasons for their actions, the focus group allows individuals to come together and consider the experiences of others and to collectively tell a story about their community (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). This method is different from in-depth individual interviews because it does not elicit individual perspectives, and it allows interaction between participants. We were able to use this dynamic to have participants actively engage in the analysis of their own discussion. Twelve focus groups were conducted over the course of a six-week period in the spring of 2012. There were 64 focus group participants across 12 PFLC sites. Of those, one site had only one participant and, therefore, an interview was conducted. Individual interviews typically involve a different methodological approach. In this case, the facilitator presented some of the findings from previously held focus groups to elicit the interviewee s responses to other parent perspectives. This served to mimic the focus group dynamic; however, it should still be considered an individual interview. The focus groups lasted between 1 1.5 hours. Focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed for clarification and analysis. During the focus groups, participants ideas were recorded on index cards and then reviewed to check wording and make corrections in how participants wanted their ideas represented. The focus group process began with asking participants to identify via a checklist all of the early years services they use in their community. The focus group setting allowed parents to discuss the services and remind each other of the range of services that they may have used. Focus group questions were adapted from questions developed in a previous study (Underwood & Killoran, 2012). The questions were worded to ask for the positive contributions of programs, consistent with appreciative inquiry. The questions also reflected the policy goals of ensuring all children have access to developmental screening, that their parents have access to developmental information, and that services are part of an integrated network. Participants were asked four groups of questions: 1. In your experience, what were the most helpful elements of the supports and services that you identified on the checklist? Why did you choose to come to the PFLCs, and what are the most useful elements of the PFLCs? 103

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 2. How has developmental screening or information about developmental milestones supported you and/or your child? Did you get any of this information from the PFLC? 3. Describe any examples where you have seen evidence of the different services working together. Do you know of examples when the PFLCs worked with other programs or services? 4. What do you want from early years (0 6) supports and services in the future? 104 Analytical Approaches Thematic analysis was conducted in two stages. The first stage was a participatory activity conducted with participants. The second stage utilized research-driven coding to identify core themes. Following discussion, a participatory method of sorting the responses was used and recorded on index cards to engage parents and family members in the analytical process. The participants were asked to sort the cards into themes as a group, only naming the theme once they had completed the sorting process. The thematic coding process is very similar to traditional thematic coding, with participants identifying ideas and revising the themes as new codes are considered in an iterative process (Boyatzis, 1998). Through this process, participants identified key themes from the discussion and were able to add new ideas that were missed and clarify ideas that had been discussed. Additional questions ensured detail in the discussion and served to ensure consistency and determine reliability across focus groups. In addition to the thematic coding done during the focus groups, the researchers analyzed the themes identified by participants by reviewing their thematic categories and identifying themes common to multiple focus groups. When thematic concepts were identified in more than half of the focus groups, the coding was deemed to have reached theoretical saturation, and these themes were identified as core themes. Three core themes are presented in the findings. Findings Focus group participants articulated many of the strengths associated with the PFLC programs. Three major themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) the benefits of participation for children s development, attributed to the quality of the program; (2) the benefits to family members who attend the programs and the welcoming atmosphere, which were attributed to staff and other participants; and (3) the convenience of participation along with the connections to other services, attributed to the staff but not to an integrated system

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES of services. The first two themes address the research question pertaining to parents understanding of key outcomes from participation in early years programs and how these outcomes are met in PFLCs, specifically. The third theme addresses the research question about understanding the unique contribution of PFLCs to the system of services in their community. The findings from both the focus groups and the questionnaire are presented along with a discussion of how the findings fit with the existing literature on family support and early childhood services systems. Child Outcomes Focus group participants described two important constructs as evidence of children s outcomes: the individual development that participants saw in their children, and their degree of preparation for school. Participants were very happy with the curriculum in the PFLCs, which they said supports school readiness, literacy, and social development. Many participants described the structure of the program as a strength because it taught children about routines. For example, one parent said, She [the staff] has a very structured day for them, and she often does a lot of songs in the same order. For my girls, because they have some speech issues, that really helped them develop their speech. Others said they liked the fact that the program was not too structured but responded to the children s needs. Singing and rhymes and book reading, as well as storytelling, are part of a good literacy curriculum for young children. The participants reported that this was part of the curriculum in these programs. The individual skills associated with literacy development and school behaviors were described as important for school preparation. The location of the programs in schools was perceived to have some advantage for getting both children and families prepared to participate at the school. Like many participants, one said, they already know somebody in the school [the staff of the PFLC], and it s scary if they don t know anybody. Several families continue to attend the PFLCs with younger children so that they can be close to their older children attending the school. One of the other curricular goals of family literacy programs is to have parents gain literacy skills. Some focus groups discussed the name Parenting and Family Literacy Centres, saying that it sounded like a place for parents who could not read or were not good parents. They did not feel that the programs had this deficit approach embedded in them; in fact, they described feeling respected and listened to in the programs. Deficit approaches to family literacy are known to have negative effects on families (Prins & Schafft, 2009). PFLCs are reported to be programs where families do not have this experience, but the name may not match this program goal. The questionnaire data provide 105

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL some insights into participants satisfaction with early years services in their community. The sample (n = 106) is likely skewed to participants who like the program, given their willingness to participate. These findings are therefore exploratory, and further research should identify population level satisfaction with services in communities. Since the study was investigating the experience of families across programs, participants were asked about child care and other early years programs, screening programs, programs for children with special needs, and parenting supports in their communities. For each service type, participants were asked whether they agreed with the following statements: (1) there are enough programs and services in my community; (2) the quality of programs and services is good in my community; (3) The programs and services meet my family s needs; and (4) my child had a positive experience in the programs and services. The findings from this questionnaire confirm findings from previous research on early childhood services in Ontario communities (Underwood & Killoran, 2012). These findings are consistent with research by Summers et al. (2007) who found families typically have high satisfaction with child-level outcomes for early childhood services, but lower satisfaction for how they serve families. While satisfaction ratings were very high for all service types, they were consistently lower for meeting the family s needs than for the experiences that children had in the program. Overall, more than 80% of parents who used the services indicated that there were enough early childhood services, that they were of high quality, and that they met their family s and their children s needs. There were two exceptions: fewer than 70% of parents felt that there was enough child care (64%) or that it was high quality (67%), and even fewer (only 55%) of parents who use services for children with special needs felt that there were enough programs or felt they were of high quality (66%). These findings indicate that parents in this study had very high satisfaction ratings with early childhood services overall but were less satisfied with the quantity and quality of child care and special needs services. Full results for the questionnaire are available in the Appendix. Program Characteristics In addition to the curricular approaches at PFLCs, some of the structural characteristics were the most important components of the program described by participants. One of the unique characteristics of PFLCs is that they are targeted programs, meaning they are strategically placed in neighborhood schools that are known to have demographic characteristics that are predictive of school difficulties. Families in these programs identify migration and poverty as two experiences that increase their vulnerability and for which they want support (Realmo, 2012). 106

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES The welcoming atmosphere at PFLCs was the most commonly cited reason that families attended and continued to participate in PFLC programs. This attribute of PFLCs was a function of staff personal characteristics, such as remembering details about children and family members and responding to the individual needs of families, which have also been identified in other studies as critical to the success of family support programs (Dunst & Trivette, 2001). While this finding is not unique to PFLC programs, the fact the PFLCs are available in targeted communities means that there are many programs to choose from in these communities. One focus group participant said, Child care is for rich people. We come here [to the PFLC]. Linking the attributes of the program to the concerns about access to other programs in the community identified above provides evidence of the need for more than one entry point into services with protocols for ensuring connections to services are made for families and children and, in particular, to a free service that does not have a waitlist. Both child care and services for children with special needs often have access issues because of costs and waitlists. In addition to staff, the other participants at PFLCs are important in creating the environment. Participants said, [This is the] only place no one judges you [for your parenting]; this atmosphere, helps parents let go and provides a sanity check. At PFLCs, participants feel you re not alone. Some of the participants had had negative experiences at other programs; for example, one parent said that at another program, the families all had fancy strollers, which made her feel uncomfortable. The characteristics of the staff and the atmosphere of programs increase the likelihood of finding a program where participants click with the staff. Statistics Canada (2008) identifies social networks as critical to Canadians when they are experiencing major life changes. These changes can include job loss, moving, immigration, illness or death of a family member, or the birth of a child. Statistics Canada also identifies family as the most helpful social support as reported by Canadians, followed by coworkers, friends, professionals, and the Internet. PFLCs were described in all focus groups as having a role in social integration for families. Most participants said they would like longer program hours during the day, for the program to run in the summer, and for the PFLC to provide programming that fit with their schedules. Programs are operated in school classrooms, and the size of the space was thought of as intimate. However, some participants acknowledged that this was subjective and other people might prefer larger rooms and more people, which are offered at other family support and recreational programs in the community. While the structural components of the program that work are subjective, many families found the program to be convenient since they are located in schools in their communities. Some 107

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL families felt this was especially important in their unique communities. For example, one participant said, I think that people who live below the poverty line especially would define their community as being smaller than someone who is more affluent. Because if you re relying on public transit to access the programs that you need, that really limits you. Overall, the relationship of the staff with the families was the most frequently cited characteristic of the program identified in the focus groups. Epley, Summers, and Turnbull (2011) also identified parent professional partnerships as critical in parent satisfaction with early childhood services and found an association between the quality of these partnerships and family quality of life. This finding shows that the characteristics of the program that parents value are similar to characteristics that parents value in other types of early years programs, as noted in other studies cited throughout the findings. This is important because the contribution of the program may not be related to its curricular approach or focus on parenting and literacy. However, for the parents in the study sample, it was the PFLCs that had supported them and their children. The following section examines the theme of how the PFLCs fit into a broader system of services and whether this program provides something that cannot be delivered in the other community programs. PFLCs in an Integrated System of Services In addition to the structure of the program itself and the benefits of participation to children, participants described how the PFLCs were part of a larger system of services. Interestingly, when directly asked whether participants saw evidence of PFLCs being part of an integrated system of services, many participants said no. Service integration is a key aim of new early childhood social policy in Ontario, with the purpose of reducing redundancy and creating efficiencies for families as well as for funders of early childhood services (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011). The concept of integration has been defined as: Focusing on client and community needs rather than on the mandate of a particular agency or organization. It means local programs and services are delivered according to a community plan that is based on information about the needs of local children and families. It may include the consolidation of resources, the co-location of different service functions, and/or re-engineering of existing resources. (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011, para. 5) In the focus groups, there were several themes related to services integration, including locating the program within schools (discussed above), access 108

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES to the program, and referrals. Referrals were a critical integration theme; in one case, staff were described as being connectors who provided referrals to other programs, such as speech and language supports, and also directly provided information about topics of interest such as discipline, language development, car seats, and toilet training. Some staff also provided supports to families that were not directly related to the children, such as intervening in a dispute with a landlord, finding a dentist, and filling out immigration forms. One focus group referred to PFLCs as a gateway to other services. The proximity of the PFLCs is another strength described by participants. Several parents came to the program because it was accessible when their older children were in the school. In at least two sites, all parents in the focus group had older children in the program, indicating that schools were creating an access point for families to the PFLCs. Several participants said they learned about the PFLCs at kindergarten registration. One parent explained how the integration of kindergarten and PFLCs had benefited her son: My son had some special needs. I honestly found that, of all the programs I ve been to, this is one of the most helpful because it really helped the school get to know him, and it helped him get to know the school, so that the transition to school was that much smoother for him which when you dealing with any kind of special need, to have a smooth transition is a very good thing. In addition to themes related to service integration, there were examples of service collaboration. These themes included visiting professionals attending the PFLC programs and sharing information to enhance awareness of other programs. With referrals, it is not always clear if the family will attend or follow through with a referral. PFLCs intend to help families to connect with other families and with services that are available in their communities. As described in Khan et al. (2013), the nature of a referral can affect the experience of a family accessing a service. While participants in the focus groups described high quality referrals, the study also had some evidence that parents using PFLC did not use other services as frequently as families who were primarily attending other types of early childhood programs. Focus group participants identified the services they use in their community on the checklist (such as child care, other early years programs, screening programs, programs for children with special needs, parenting supports). Parents in this study reported that they use the PFLCs more than any other program. While some participants in the focus groups (n = 64) used other services, their use of child care (43%), recreational programs (40%), and developmental screening (39%) appears to be fairly low when compared to findings from a previous study of parents in Ontario communities (n = 43, 109

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL child care use 95%, recreational programs 79%, developmental screening 95%; Underwood & Killoran, 2012). This is an exploratory finding, but it is worth examining further whether family participation in school-based programs affects parent participation in community-based services or vice versa. Interpretation of Findings 110 Responses to the research questions are interrelated. The two questions were: 1. What do parents see as key outcomes from participation in early years programs, and how are these outcomes met in a school-based program? 2. From the perspective of parents and families, what is the unique contribution of a school-based program to the system of early years services in their community? Overall, parents report that these are good quality programs. However, they did not describe curricular approaches that indicate they are doing literacy activities that are unique in comparison to other early childhood programs. While parents did report child development as one of the reasons they attend the program, as a unique contribution, the PFLCs provide many family benefits. The focus group data indicate parents perceive referrals to be a strength of the program. However, some parents who attend these programs have a harder time accessing other services, as described above with regard to child care and services for children with special needs. The type of referrals made at PFLC sites may affect the participants service use in the community. Many of the services that participants described using outside of the PFLCs were school-based services such as the school public health nurse, language or immigration services in the school, and kindergarten teachers. The role of PFLCs in the system of services may be related to connecting families with schools, while communitybased family support programs have greater linkages to other community-based services. In the context of an integration policy framework, a question to be considered is whether this model of school-based referral should branch out in order to increase family access to services. Certainly, PFLCs are in prime positions for ensuring families get connected to services, especially since they may serve populations of parents other community services may not see. Satisfaction with PFLC programs is extremely high, which is a function of quality staff and peer relationships and is also likely a function of positivity bias, which has been identified in parent perceptions of children s services (Zellman & Perlman, 2006). This program provides a unique experience that parents value and which provides a program that is different in some ways from other programs in the community. The program is small, and these participants feel welcomed here. This study, therefore, indicates that PFLCs are part

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES of the system of services that allow parents to have a choice of programs and find a good fit. The PFLC programs are universal in that any families are welcome to attend. However, the programs are also targeted in their placement, with the intent of equalizing opportunities for children who are statistically at-risk because of environmental factors. The demographic of parents intended to be reached through PFLC programs may not be represented in this study sample. Many social policy analysts have debated the question of whether universal or targeted programs are more effective. McQuaig (2012) theorizes that universal programs are more likely to reach the most vulnerable members of a community. She posits that targeted programs often miss the parents they are intended to support, and they can be unstable due to political trends and economic considerations. On the other hand, targeted programs can be much more focused on attracting those who need the program most, and a more homogenous group can be welcoming to some parents as described by participants in this study. Overall, this study would suggest that PFLCs, as targeted programs, work well as one option in a community where there are also universal programs, such as kindergarten and family support programs. This study indicates that school-based programs may attract parents who are concerned with establishing a relationship with their child s school before they begin kindergarten. This is an important function of the school-based family programs that is not possible with other programs. Not surprisingly, participants in the study had extremely high rates of satisfaction with these programs. However, the participants had lower satisfaction with quantity and quality of child care and special needs programs than other early years supports in their community. The participants also had higher agreement with statements that their children had a positive experience in early programs than with statements that their families needs were met. The satisfaction ratings are consistent with findings from a previous study (Underwood & Killoran, 2012), with this study contributing to the reliability of these findings. These findings suggest that the PFLCs are making a unique contribution in communities by offering a link to schools that no other early years program offers, and therefore, the program warrants support through social policy. However, attention and resources should also be directed toward child care and specialized supports as critical elements of an early years social policy strategy, given that they are the most difficult to access and may be the least responsive to families. Conclusion The study indicates that many of the overall goals of early childhood education strategies are met for these families involved in PFLCs, such as introducing 111

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL them to schools and creating opportunities for children to be in a stimulating and educational environment. This study also indicates that school-based programs are more closely linked to school-based services than to community services, which could be a function of staff connections or the needs of families, and given that the schools themselves operate these programs, this makes sense. The study findings indicate that there should be a mix of school-based and community-based programs as they serve distinct functions in terms of supporting family connections to other services. Further research should be done to examine extended possibilities for interagency linkages with communitybased programs in order to capitalize on the school linkages that are possible through school-based family programs. Overall, it is clear school-based literacy programs can be an important part of the early years system of services, and their contribution should be considered in social policy planning. References Armitage, G. D., Suter, E., Oelke, N. D., & Adair, C. E. (2009, April June). Health systems integration: State of the evidence. International Journal of Integrated Care. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2707589/ Bernard, H. G., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beswick, J. F., & Sloat, E. A. (2006). Early literacy success: A matter of social justice. Education Canada, 46(2), 23 26. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boyd, N. M., & Bright, D. S. (2007). Appreciative inquiry as a mode of action research for community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 1019 1036. Britto, P. R., Yoshikawa, H., & Boller, K. (2011). Quality of early childhood development programs in global contexts. Social Policy Report, 25(2), 1 23. Bromer, J., & Henley, J. (2004). Child care as family support: Caregiving practices across child care providers. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 941 964. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (1999). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. Taos, NM: Corporation for Positive Change. Dallaire, D. H., & Weinraub, M. (2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the first six years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(2), 201 219. Domitrovich, C. E., Morgan, N. R., Moore, J. E., Cooper, B. R., Shah, H. K., Jacobson, L., & Greenberg, M. T. (2013). One versus two years: Does length of exposure to an enhanced preschool program impact the academic functioning of disadvantaged children in kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 704 713. Doyle, A., & Zhang, J. (2011). Participation structure impacts on parent engagement in family literacy programs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(3), 223 233. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2001). Parenting supports and resources, helpgiving practices, and parenting competence. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press. Epley, P. H., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2011). Family outcomes of early intervention: Families perceptions of need, services, and outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 201 219. 112

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES FRP Canada. (2010). Report on a national survey of family literacy activities in family resource programs. Ottawa, ON, Saint-Lambert, QC: Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs (FRP Canada) and Fédération Québécoise des Organisme Communautaire Famille (FQOCF). Graham, K., & Underwood, K. (2012). The reality of rurality: Rural parents experiences of early years services. Health & Place, 1231 1239. Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A., & Hertzman, C. (2007). Early childhood development: A powerful equalizer. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation. Retrieved from http://www. who.int/social_determinants/resources/ecd_kn_report_07_2007.pdf Khan, L., Parsonage, M., & Brown, E. R. (2013). Parenting programmes: Identification and referral. Journal of Children s Services, 8, 194 208. King, G., & Meyer, K. (2006). Service integration and co-ordination: A framework of approaches for the delivery of coordinated care to children with disabilities and their families. Child Care Health Development, 32(4), 477 492. Knibbs, K., Underwood, J., MacDonald, M., Shoenfeld, B., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Crea- Arsenio, M., Ehrlich, A. (2012). Appreciative inquiry: A strengths-based research approach to building Canadian public health nursing capacity. Journal of Research in Nursing, 17(5), 484 494. Masny, D. (2008). Hand in hand: Family literacy in a minority context. Ottawa, ON: Coalition Francophone Pour l Alphabétisation et la Formation de Base en Ontario. McCain, N. M., & Mustard, F. (1999). Early Years Study: Reversing the real brain drain. Toronto, ON: Ontario Children s Secretariat. McCain, N. M., Mustard, F., & McQuaig, L. (2011). Early Years Study 3: Making decisions, taking action. Toronto, ON: McCain Family Foundation. McCain, M. N., Mustard, F., & Shanker, S. (2007). Early Years Study 2: Putting science into action. Toronto, ON: Council for Early Childhood Development. McQuaig, K. (2012). Serving all children to catch the most vulnerable. Healthcare Quarterly, 15(4), 26 31. Morrison, E. F., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2003). A longitudinal study of mother child interactions at school entry and social and academic outcomes in middle school. Journal of School Psychology, 41(3), 185 200. Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. (2007). Family literacy in Ontario Friendship Centres. Toronto, ON: Author. Ontario Literacy Coalition/Action for Family Literacy Ontario (OLC/AFLC). (2006). Family literacy in Ontario: Putting it on the MAP! (position paper). Toronto, ON: Author. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Parenting and Family Literacy Centres. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/pflc.html Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Parenting and Family Literacy Centres: Resource binder. Toronto, CA: Queen s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2011). Towards an integrated child and family system. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/english/topics/earlychildhood/reports/ beststartupdate2010-2011/system.aspx Pascal, C. (2010). With our best future in mind: Implementing early learning in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen s Printers of Ontario. Perlman, M., & Fletcher, B. (2008). Literacy instruction in Canadian child care centers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(2), 139 155. Pinto, A. I., Pessanha, M., & Aguiar, C. (2013). Effects of home environment and centerbased child care quality on children s language, communication, and literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 94 101. 113

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Prins, E., & Schafft, K. A. (2009). Individual and structural attributions for poverty and persistence in family literacy programs: The resurgence of the culture of poverty. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2280 2310. Realmo, E. J. (2012). Understanding how Parenting and Family Literacy Centres help families experiencing poverty and immigration (Unpublished master s thesis). Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Statistics Canada. (2008). 2008 general social survey report. Retrieved from http://www.statcan. gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2009002/article/10891-eng.htm Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K., Poston, D. J., Kupzyk, K. (2007). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, family professional partnerships, and family quality of life in early childhood service programmes. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54(3), 319 338. Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 96 102. Underwood, K., & Killoran, I. (2012). Parent and family perception of engagement: Lessons from early years programs and supports. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(4), 376 414. UNICEF. (2008). The child care transition, Innocenti Report Card 8. Florence, IT: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Yau, M. (2009). Parenting and Family Literacy Centres: Making a difference beyond early school readiness (Report #09/10-05). Toronto, ON: Toronto District School Board. Zellman, G. L., & Perlman, M. (2006). Parent involvement in child care settings: Conceptual and measurement issues. Early Child Development and Care, 176(5), 521 538. Authors Note: We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Early Years Education Ontario Network (EYEON) and the Association of Educational Researchers of Ontario (AERO) research grant, the Faculty of Community Services, Ryerson University, and the School of Early Childhood Studies at Ryerson University. We would also like to thank the community partners who contributed to the study design and implementation of the research. The opinions expressed in this report are solely the opinions of the authors/researchers and are not necessarily the views of the funding agencies or the organizations where team members work. Kathryn Underwood is an associate professor in the School of Early Childhood Studies at Ryerson University. Her research and teaching focus on family engagement and family support in the early years and in elementary school and inclusive education practice for children experiencing disability and their families. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to her at Ryerson University, School of Early Childhood Education, 350 Victoria St., Toronto, ON, Canada, M5B 2K3 or email kunderwood@ryerson.ca Marion Trent-Kratz is an early years senior research advisor in a southern Ontario municipality. She is a licensed primary/junior teacher in good standing 114

PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES with the Ontario College of Teachers. Her research interests focus on system of care service access, system and service integration, children with special needs and their social emotional well-being, rights in education, and inclusion of children in educational settings. Appendix: Perceptions of Services (by Quantity, Quality, Family Needs, Child Experience) Strongly Agree Agree Disagree There are enough spaces/programs in my community Child Care Early Years Programs Strongly Disagree Waiting List or N/A 8%*(n = 6) 55% (n = 43) 23% (n = 18) 12% (n = 9) (n = 29)** 18% (n = 19) 66% (n = 69) 11% (n = 11) 4% (n = 4) (n = 7) Screening 15% (n = 14) 67% (n = 62) 15% (n = 14) 2% (n = 2) (n = 15) Special Needs Programs Parent Support 9% (n = 4) 48% (n = 22) 37% (n = 17) 7% (n = 3) (n = 61)** 17% (n = 14) 67% (n = 57) 14% (n = 12) 1% (n = 1) (n = 22) PFLC 20% (n = 20) 64% (n = 65) 13% (n = 13) 3% (n = 3) (n = 2) There are good quality programs in my community Child Care Early Years Programs 10% (n = 7) 58% (n = 42) 23% (n = 17) 10% (n = 7) (n = 33)** 20% (n = 20) 63% (n = 64) 15% (n = 15) 3% (n = 3) (n = 4) Screening 14% (n = 12) 71% (n = 60) 12% (n = 10) 2% (n = 2) (n = 20) Special Needs Programs Parent Support 9% (n = 4) 57% (n = 2) 30% (n = 14) 4% (n = 2) (n = 59)** 17% (n = 15) 69% (n = 61) 14% (n = 12) 1% (n = 1) (n = 17) PFLC 41% (n = 42) 51% (n = 52) 7% (n = 7) 1% (n = 1) (n = 4) 115

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Strongly Agree Agree Disagree This program/service meet(s) my family s needs Child Care Early Years Programs Strongly Disagree Waiting List or N/A 18%* (n = 12) 52% (n = 35) 27% (n = 18) 3% (n = 2) (n = 39)** 25% (n = 25) 66% (n = 65) 8% (n = 8) 1% (n = 1) (n = 8) Screening 41% (n = 48) 50% (n = 58) 6% (n = 7) 3% (n = 3) (n = 24) Special Needs Programs Parent Support 18% (n = 7) 56% (n = 22) 20% (n = 8) 5% (n = 2) (n = 67)** 20% (n = 16) 67% (n = 54) 12% (n = 10) 1% (n = 1) (n = 24) PFLC 44% (n = 44) 54% (n = 53) 1% (n = 1) 1% (n = 1) (n = 6) My child has had a positive experience with this program/service Child Care Early Years Programs 42% (n = 27) 48% (n = 31) 9% (n = 6) 2% (n = 1) (n = 41) ** 46% (n = 45) 50% (n = 49) 4% (n = 4) 0% (n = 0) (n = 8) Screening 37% (n = 25) 57% (n = 38) 5% (n = 3) 1% (n = 1) (n = 39) Special Needs Programs Parent Support 39% (n = 11) 43% (n = 12) 14% (n = 4) 4% (n = 1) (n = 78) ** 35% (n = 28) 56% (n = 45) 8% (n = 6) 1% (n = 1) (n = 26) PFLC 64% (n = 65) 35% (n = 36) 1% (n = 1) 0% (n = 0) (n = 4) * Note the percentages illustrate the proportion of responses amongst those who indicated they use the service. It does not include the N/A or waitlist categories. The total sample is n = 106. **Sample size for families who use child care or services for children with special needs is smaller, because fewer families use these services. 116

Preparing Special Education Teachers to Collaborate With Families Margo Collier, Elizabeth B. Keefe, and Laura A. Hirrel Abstract Positive family school community relationships are associated with student success. Creating successful relationships with parents is an important but difficult task for teachers to master. Therefore, teacher candidates need opportunities to learn how to develop collaborative relationships with parents of all children, including children with disabilities. This paper describes the implementation of the Families as Faculty Program (FAF), jointly developed by a parent center and a special education program at a southwestern university. The purpose of this program is to prepare teachers and other professionals in the community to work collaboratively with parents in an effort to improve services, develop partnerships, and to increase positive outcomes for students across the full range of disabilities. This program provides teacher candidates with a unique opportunity to learn firsthand from parents who agree to share their experiences and stories about the strengths, differences, and challenges of raising a child with disabilities. This article describes the way in which FAF was integrated into a graduate-level course in a special education master s degree program. Information is given on how other teacher preparation programs can access materials created through FAF for their own programs. Key Words: teacher preparation program, special education, parent teacher partnership, school community collaboration, parents, involvement, engagement, students with disabilities, families, home visits, virtual learning School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 117

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Introduction The purpose of this article is to describe a program that explicitly prepares teachers to develop the disposition and skills they need to implement successful school family collaboration. Studies have shown a strong association between the degree of parent involvement and children s positive social, emotional, and academic growth (Boethel, 2003; Epstein & Sanders, 2000; Fan & Chen, 2001; Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2003). Epstein (1995) emphasizes that, through parent involvement, schools, families, and communities create caring educational environments (p. 703). We use Epstein s concept of the term parent involvement throughout our article. This concept entails parent communication with their children about education, parent participation in school-related decision-making, parent engagement with schools and teachers, and parent collaboration within the school community. Throughout this article, the terms parent involvement and parent engagement are used synonymously. In a similar fashion, the words parent and family will be used interchangeably, each signifying the adults who play significant roles in caring for their children. Teachers play a significant role in parents decisions to become involved in their children s education (Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Research has shown that teachers who reach out to parents and encourage participation are more likely to motivate parents to become involved in their children s education (Green et al., 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Teachers who encourage parent involvement and establish positive relationships with parents of children with disabilities are in a better position to provide the support needed for these parents to constructively engage in their children s education (Colarusso & O Rourke, 2007; Forlin & Hopewell, 2006). Teacher preparation programs that have provided opportunities for teacher candidates to engage in meaningful interactions with parents of children with disabilities, while rare, have been shown to result in positive outcomes (Baker & Murray, 2011; Bingham & Abernathy, 2007; Espe-Sherwindt, 2001; Murray & Curran, 2008; Murray, Curran, & Zellers, 2008). Given the significance of the connection between parent involvement and successful student outcomes, it is important that school employees, especially teachers, develop skills in establishing positive relationships. Cultivating supportive relationships is central to forging parent teacher collaboration (Dinnebeil, Hale, & Rule, 2000). Despite the recognition of its importance, collaboration between teachers and parents continues to be difficult to achieve. Due to the frequent complexity that parents face in raising a child with a 118

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS disability, teachers may find it particularly difficult to know how to best initiate positive collaboration with these parents (Dunst & Dempsey, 2007; Forlin & Hopewell, 2006). Teacher preparation programs are in a primary position to promote professional learning opportunities that prepare teacher candidates to learn how to partner with parents. All too often, graduating teacher candidates lack the skills, attitudes, knowledge, and confidence necessary for building collaborative relationships with parents (Murray et al., 2008). Although many teacher preparation programs acknowledge the importance of parent involvement, frequently the preparation and training that teacher candidates receive in these programs falls short of what is needed to actually foster collaboration and partnership with parents (Caspe, Lopez, Chu, & Weiss, 2011; Dotger & Bennett, 2010; Flanigan, 2005; Giallourakis, Pretti-Frontczak, & Cook, 2005; Murray, Handyside, Straka, & Arton-Titus, 2013; Rodriguez-Brown, 2009). Federal mandates have recognized the importance of parental involvement as a strategy to improve the education of children. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) initiative calls for the increase of parental involvement. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2005) mandates parent participation in the education of their children with disabilities (see IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Sect 300, Appendix A). The importance of parents as key participants in educational decisions for their children has been reinforced by the emphasis that IDEA places on collaboration between parents and teachers. Cook and Friend (2010) define collaboration as the style professionals select to employ based on mutual goals; shared responsibility for key decisions; shared accountability for outcomes; shared resources; and the development of trust, respect, and a sense of community (p. 3). Emphasis has traditionally been placed on parent and teacher collaboration and partnership. However, increasing attention is given to communities for their role in the social, emotional, and academic achievements of students (Sanders, 2006). Epstein s (1987) theory of overlapping spheres of influence reinforces the shared responsibility that schools, families, and communities have in socializing youth and ensuring students success. School community partnerships can be defined as connections linking schools, families, and communities in the mutual goal of promoting students social, emotional, and academic development (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Collaboration and communication between parents and educators have been shown to be critical factors for predicting successful student outcomes (McCoach et al., 2010). Research suggests that teachers efforts to collaborate with parents promote parent involvement, which in turn contributes to student success (Forlin & Hopewell, 2006; Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Seitsinger, Felner, Brand, & Burns, 2008). Crisman (2008) found that listening to 119

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL parents and actively seeking their input makes all the difference for developing positive relationships with parents. Tolan and Woo (2009) outlined several principles for promoting educational practices that encourage school family partnerships, including the principle that partnerships with families demand engagement across home and school, shared responsibility and decision making, and two-way communication. Parents of children with disabilities face unique challenges. Dunst and Dempsey (2007) point out that the role of parents with a child with a disability shows a level of complexity and intensity not generally found in the general population (p. 305). Some parents who feel helpless when trying to adequately plan for their children s education can also feel hopeless and overwhelmed (Huang, Kellett, & St. John, 2010). For parents, learning how to provide the education and supports that their children need is an ongoing and frequently frustrating process (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006). Given the multifaceted role that parents face, learning how to support, encourage, and empower parents of children with disabilities is a complex task for teacher candidates. Forming partnerships between educators and these parents continues to be difficult to achieve and successfully sustain (Murray et al., 2013; Olivos, Gallagher, & Aguilar, 2010). Teacher preparation programs can potentially impact the nature of home school collaboration. Ritchhart and Perkins (2000) demonstrated that teacher training programs that included reflective and intentional teaching practices enhanced teachers willingness to develop school community collaboration. Collary (2013) suggested that overcoming obstacles when creating a collaborative environment includes developing teacher leadership skills and encouraging teachers to recognize that effective teaching is leadership. Through efforts to promote collaboration, teachers can create opportunities for learning among students, families, and colleagues. Through communication with parents, teachers are provided insight into students lives, both in and outside of the classroom. McCloskey (2011) reminds educators that as we engage parents in conversations about supporting the whole child, we may need to do less talking and more listening to make sure that we are speaking the same language (p. 81). Crais et al. (2004) found that graduates from teacher preparation programs that provided explicit school community collaboration and partnership experiences were better prepared to communicate with parents and families with disabilities. Despite a significant amount of literature about the importance of home school collaboration, we found few teacher preparation programs that provided teacher candidates with adequate preparation for forming effective partnerships between parents and teachers (Dotger & Bennett, 2010; Murray et al., 120

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS 2008). Additionally, Hedges and Gibbs (2005) reported that even fewer programs provided teacher candidates direct interaction with families/parents. This article describes a program called Families as Faculty (FAF) in which direct interaction with families of children who have disabilities is provided for teacher candidates. In particular, this article details how FAF was implemented in a graduate level special education program at a southwestern university. The article also describes a change in the implementation of this program that was prompted by funding cuts made by the public education department, which occurred during the preparation of this manuscript. An unintended consequence of these funding cuts challenged the FAF program organizers to find a way to make the FAF experience sustainable and replicable in a modified format. Information on how other teacher preparation programs can access materials created through FAF for their own programs is also provided. Previous research on FAF has explored its impact on undergraduate students and parent participants. Schmitz (2004) questioned whether the positive responses to FAF reported by undergraduate teacher preparation students in their reflection papers had an impact on their teaching practices after graduation. In her study, she found that teacher candidates who had been teaching for a year continued to feel the impact of their FAF experience. Jarry (2009) investigated the impact of FAF on the family faculty and host families. Results from the study indicated that parents wanted to be heard, acknowledged as the expert of their child, and treated with respect by educators. Research also indicated that parents believed improved communication between educators and parents was critical to the success of their children s educational experiences. Results from these two studies demonstrated that both teacher candidates and host families benefitted from participating in the FAF program. Families as Faculty A southwestern nonprofit parent center was established for the purpose of uniting and empowering families with children with disabilities by providing them with information, support, and education. The parent center s mission is to enhance positive outcomes for families and children throughout the state. One of the ways the parent center has accomplished its mission is through the FAF program initiative, which was developed in 1995 in collaboration with a southwestern university. The FAF program was originally conceived to complement a family-centered curriculum designed for medical students and founded on the philosophy that families should be at the center of all decisions about their children. In 1996, the program was expanded as an innovative component in the coursework of undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation 121

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL programs in special education, elementary education, and secondary education (Keefe, Rossi, de Valenzuela, & Howarth, 2000). 122 Purpose The purpose of FAF was to prepare teacher candidates and other professionals to work in partnership with families in an effort to improve services, relationships, and outcomes for children with disabilities. This educational program provided teacher candidates the unique opportunity of meeting families and learning firsthand from the stories that the parents shared about the unique strengths, differences, and challenges of living with a child with disabilities. FAF also provided teacher candidates with the experiences needed to meet the state teacher competency requirements regarding family communication and collaboration. Providing teacher candidates with the experience of meeting families with children who have a disability helped address FAF s five central goals: 1. To increase educators understanding of home school relationships. 2. To expand educators understanding of Least Restrictive Environment and its possibilities. 3. To help educators recognize and acknowledge their own personal beliefs, values, and attitudes. 4. To provide an opportunity for educators to view families as teachers from whom they can learn. 5. To prepare educators to better understand that all children and families are different, with unique strengths, values, beliefs, and each facing unique challenges. In addition to the primary FAF goals for the educators, a long-term objective of the FAF experience was to provide parents the forum for their voices to be heard and their perspectives to be valued. In sharing their stories, the parents had the potential to impact future teachers by encouraging them to develop collaborative partnerships with families. Components of the FAF Experience Just as FAF was conceived as a program initiative that was collaboratively developed between the parent center and the university, university faculty and family faculty collaboratively planned each FAF experience. The title Family Faculty referred to families who had prior experience sharing their family s narrative with teacher candidates who participated in the FAF program. The title reflected parity with the university faculty; just as university faculty were experts in their fields of study, so too were parents experts regarding their children. The major components of the FAF program included: (a) recruitment and

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS training of host families; (b) matching families with pairs of teacher candidates; (c) an orientation session led by family faculty; (d) family visits conducted by teacher candidates; and (e) a wrap-up session led by family faculty. The teacher candidates were required to complete a reflection paper based on their experiences and pre- and post-questionnaires to evaluate their experience with FAF. FAF in the Special Education Graduate Program The FAF experience was included in an assessment course titled Assessment for Diverse Learners with Learning and Behavioral Exceptionalities. The students enrolled in this course were all university graduate students in the Special Education MA with Alternative Licensure Program in the College of Education. Everyone enrolled in the assessment course participated in the FAF experience. In this article, the term teacher candidates is used in place of graduate students to more accurately characterize the graduate students in the course, who were at various stages of the teacher licensing process, including licensed teachers and students completing alternative licensure. Most of the teacher candidates were already teaching in their own classrooms. The assessment course is a requirement for all teacher candidates in the master s program. Therefore, embedding the FAF experience in this course provided outreach to the broadest cross-section of teacher candidates in the program. Although lessons learned through the FAF experience were within the context of the assessment course, the intent behind offering this opportunity was to prepare teacher candidates to develop an overall understanding of the importance of engaging with families with children with disabilities. In the required assessment class, teacher candidates acquire knowledge and skills necessary for interpreting and applying formal assessment data and designing and monitoring instruction of diverse students with disabilities. However, learning about assessment cannot happen without an understanding of how the process of assessing children can affect families. The results of assessments can have considerable impact on the lives of both children and their families. Results from assessments administered to children have significant weight in determining children s eligibility for special education and their potential for receiving special services that they may need. Assessment scores and their resulting interpretation can elicit a wide spectrum of responses that include a range from grief to relief from the families receiving the information about their children. For the reasons listed above, an assessment course seemed to provide an appropriate context for implementing FAF at the graduate level and giving teacher candidates the opportunity to develop empathy, compassion, and understanding for the families of children with disabilities. The following sections describe how FAF was integrated in the assessment course. 123

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 124 Implementation of FAF Components For the semester described here, the parent center recruited and trained the parents of 14 host families who had children with a variety of disabilities, including learning disabilities, autism, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, physical disabilities, and other health impairments. These parents were provided an initial two-hour orientation conducted at the parent center called Host Family 101, during which they learned about the FAF program goals and were coached in the art of telling their family stories in relationship to FAF s program goals. The parents also attended a second two-hour workshop, Host Family 201. In this workshop, the parents learned ways to improve their public speaking skills, including techniques for sharing their family s stories with others, as well as techniques for ensuring positive visits with the teacher candidates. Upon completion, these experienced hosts become Adjunct Family Faculty. Host families received a stipend of $50 for each home visit in which they participated. The 28 teacher candidates taking the Assessment for Diverse Learners with Learning and Behavioral Exceptionalities class were paired with the 14 host families. The majority of the teacher candidates in this class were female (82%) and Caucasian (61%). A variety of other ethnicities were represented in the class, including Hispanic (18%) and African American (11%), and Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American were each also represented (10%). Descriptively speaking, a greater percentage of teacher candidates reported living in urban communities (79%) than rural communities. The teacher candidates attended a two-hour in-class orientation co-taught by an Adjunct Family Faculty and a parent center staff member. The course instructor, a university faculty member and the first author of this paper, was also present in the class. During this orientation, teacher candidates learned about the FAF program goals and philosophy, the dynamics of family visits, and received instructions on the reflection paper assignment they were required to complete after the home visit (see description below). Additionally, the Adjunct Family Faculty who helped facilitate the orientation shared her family s story. Although the host families were not present at the orientation, they also received packets containing information about FAF goals and strategies to meet the needs of the program as well as evaluation and stipend forms. FAF randomly matched a host family with two teacher candidates. Each teacher candidate dyad was instructed to make one home visit to their assigned host family. The dyads received invitation packets supplied by the parent center with their assigned match. They also received information about the family and children, their names and ages, some of the family s favorite activity interests, and contact information. The teacher candidates did not receive any

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS information about the child s disability prior to the meeting with their assigned families. Although the responsibility to contact the family was left to the teacher candidates, the families determined when and where they would meet with the teacher candidates. Typically, the visits happened at the home of the host family. The host families consisted of 23 parents: 61% mothers, and 39% fathers. Regarding ethnicity, 74% of the parents were Caucasian (n = 17), 22% were Hispanic/Latino (n = 5), and 4% were African American (n = 1). The majority of the parents had a college education (65%). Sixty-four percent of the host families were composed of a two-parent household. The annual household income of the 14 host families ranged from less than $25,000 to over $150,000, with most of incomes between $80,000 $150,000. The largest percentage of children in the host families (32%) had a disability listed as other health impairment. The other 68% of children had disabilities that included learning disabilities (16%), autism (16%), physical disability (16%), intellectual disability (10%), and multiple disability (10%). The teacher candidates were encouraged to view the meeting with their assigned families not as an interview but rather an opportunity to listen to the parents narratives and to learn about the families experiences with the assessment of their children and with the children s special education services. In addition to giving teacher candidates the opportunity to listen to parents share their stories, this particular semester, both the university and FAF faculty were interested in capturing the parents narratives on film. Filming of the parent and student meetings received the university s Institutional Review Board approval. Additionally, each family and teacher candidate was asked to sign a consent form in order to participate in the filming. Filming was prearranged, and a film crew recorded each of the meetings. The home visits between families and teacher candidates usually lasted two to three hours. Teacher candidates home visits coincided with a variety of everyday activities for families, such as eating dinner, playing cards or board games, sharing a snack, or observing a behavior therapy session. Pre- and Post-Questionnaires Before the family visits, teacher candidates filled out a Likert-scaled questionnaire that assessed perceptions of their communication and listening skills, their level of understanding of the impact that a child s disability can have on family dynamics, and their capacity to empathize with both families and children with disabilities. Following the family visits, teacher candidates completed an identical post-questionnaire. Examples of questions included in the pre- and post-questionnaires are as follows: How much do you feel that the 125

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL opportunity to listen to parents narratives will influence your role as teacher and your future relationship with families? How difficult was it for you to put yourself in the parents shoes? Following the FAF experience, do you feel more comfortable about initiating, contacting, and encouraging parent participation in school? At the end of the semester, a wrap-up session was held at the parent center with teacher candidates, staff from the parent center, and the course instructor, during which the teacher candidates shared highlights of their home visits. At the wrap-up session, all teacher candidates learned about the diversity of all 14 families, each with their unique story and different family dynamics. Additionally, teacher candidates agreed to be contacted and to complete a follow-up survey three years after completing the program. Student Reflections Each teacher candidate wrote a reflection paper on their experiences in the family visits during which the families discussed their experiences with the special education system, including the assessment process, the determination of a child s eligibility, and the delivery of services. The five goals of FAF provided the teacher candidates with a framework for their reflective papers and were the basis for their evaluation. The reflection papers provided feedback on the effectiveness of the FAF program in meeting its goals. Table 1 provides examples of comments made by teacher candidates after their family visits and relates comments to each of the five FAF program goals. The course instructor evaluated the reflection papers using a rubric that corresponded to the description of the assignment given to the teacher candidates. The reflection papers were also read by parent center staff and the university faculty but not shared with the families. In their reflection papers, teacher candidates discussed how they thought the experience would impact their teaching practices and change their attitudes toward initiating partnership with families in the future. Every teacher candidate described the FAF program as a positive experience. As an example, one of the teacher candidates summed up the experience as follows, The experience was not only the best part of the class, but also maybe even the best part of the entire semester. Because this article aims to provide a description of the program, the authors plan to share results of the analysis of the teacher candidate comments in a subsequent article. 126

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS Table 1. Examples of Student Responses Across Purposes of FAF FAF Purpose 1. To increase educators understanding of the home school relationship. 2. To expand educators understanding of Least Restrictive Environment and its possibilities. 3. To help educators recognize and acknowledge their own personal beliefs, values, and attitudes. Example of Student Response from Reflection Papers - The parents said that they felt like the teachers knew everything about their son based on his diagnosis. The parents explained that what the teachers see at school is very different from what they deal with at home. - We must always keep the parents involved in their child s learning process. I think the better the bond between the parents and the educators, the more successful students will be. - The main purpose of assessment is to better understand the child. It s not just about what is wrong with the student or what the student is doing wrong. Parents want to find solutions for their children with special needs, not just scores, grade levels, statistics, or interpersonal comparisons. - When they [the parents] came to [our state], they found attitudes about inclusion of children with disabilities quite different from the community where they used to live. They spent three years fighting for their child s right to be educated alongside her developing peers. They won their case, but they realized that it is difficult to change people s opinion so they decided to homeschool their child. - The family has been let down by their school because the son has not received the support he needs. - Support can come in all shapes and sizes. It can be someone who takes care of a student s basic needs, or it can be a piece of technology that allows a student to move around their environment, or it can allow a student to communicate. It is often not one type of support that allows a student to experience success, but a combination of support and services. - The child and her family did not seem to want pity or special attention. They wanted the service that would allow their child to get on with the task of learning, growing, and being included. - As an educator, I learned from the child and his family that we all have strengths and weaknesses. I did not learn what to do, but rather, more of what not to do. I will not underestimate, assume, or generalize about any student. - After listening to the family talk about how teachers fill more than one role, I will never look at myself as only a teacher again. They have forever changed the way that I will look at my job as a professional. I know that they have changed me for the better. I now understand that I may fill many different roles for all of my students, and I need to be aware and sensitive to that fact. - I have learned that caring is of great significance to students with disabilities and their families. 127

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 4. To provide an opportunity for educators to view families as teachers from whom they can learn. 5. To prepare educators to better understand that all children and families are different, with unique strengths, values, beliefs, and challenges. - The family stressed the importance of giving parents power and a chance to voice their expertise about their child. Parents know more about their children than anyone, so it is common sense that they be viewed as an authority on their child. Making decisions for any child, but especially one with special needs, requires collaboration, communication, and respect between every adult involved in the process. - These interactions show me that the parent is a valuable team player and that I can learn from her. A parent knows their children s needs and abilities far better than others and can point out ways that work best for their child in relationship to their child s strengths and weaknesses. It is encouraging to know that with parents input and creative problem solving, we can remove roadblocks that interfere with a child s success in school. Everyone benefits when we listen to the parents. - My job is to listen because no one knows a student better than a child s parents. This project taught me the value of listening. - The opportunity of listening to the family s story was an amazing experience. It truly gave me a completely different perspective from which to better understand a child. - As teachers, it is easy to point the finger at parents and lay blame on them for their child s problems. Unless we take the time to know what the family is dealing with at home, we cannot explain or better understand the needs of students when they are at school. - Several times I was moved to tears because I realized that the parents had sacrificed so much, and yet they maintained an optimistic view of their daughter s ability to achieve a decent quality of life. - Parents of students with disabilities have a lot on their plates. Taking the time to see things from the parents perspectives is crucial to being an effective educator. 128 Follow-Up Survey Three years after the FAF experience was completed, the teacher candidates many of whom had become special education teachers after graduating were contacted and asked to complete an open-ended survey. Twelve (43%) of these former teacher candidates responded to the follow-up survey. The survey asked about their current teaching status and their long-term perspectives of the impact that the FAF experience had on their classroom teaching practices. Examples of some of the questions included in the follow-up survey are as follows: How did the FAF experience impact your classroom teaching practices? Has the FAF experience affected your efforts to encourage parents to participate in their children s education and in decisions involving their children? Has the FAF experience influenced the ways in which you communicate with parents?

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS All of the respondents reported that the FAF experience had a positive impact on their classroom practices and interactions with parents. A second article scheduled to follow this one will describe the research study in more depth. The Power of Listening to Parents The teacher candidates positive responses to their experiences with FAF suggest that listening to families can potentially provide lessons that cannot be easily learned from a lecture or textbook. The power of listening to stories told by families cannot be underestimated. The stories that families told about their lives revealed how they thought about themselves as families, how they interpreted and gave meaning to events that had happened in their lives, and how their perspectives were shared and passed on within their families. For teacher candidates, the opportunity to meet and listen to families allowed them to learn about the lives of students like those they teach and provided the potential for a transformational experience through which to reflect on and adjust their own perceptions. At a critical time in their teacher preparation program, teacher candidates were provided the opportunity to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the joys as well as the challenges of raising a child with a disability. The FAF experience provided teacher candidates with a view into the value of initiating, developing, and sustaining collaboration with parents. The Challenge of Replicating and Sustaining FAF FAF is a program that has been implemented at the undergraduate level in special education courses at this southwestern university study site since 1996 until the present. The inclusion of the FAF program in the MA in Special Education (graduate level) first occurred in 2011. FAF has also been replicated at seven other state universities. The southwest parent center has relied on funding from the state s public education department to continue to offer FAF. The current economic challenges in state funding for educational programs resulted in the discontinuation of funding for FAF in July 2012. Fortunately, during the implementation of FAF in the assessment course described in this article, the first author received permission from both the families as well as the university s Institutional Review Board to videotape the family visits. The filming and creation of a video record of each teacher candidate dyad s home visit was part of a larger research project on teacher collaboration with families by the authors of this paper. The original intention behind filming the FAF experience was to capture the dynamics of teacher candidates and parents interactions to better understand how teacher preparation programs could provide opportunities for teacher candidates to learn about establishing and maintaining home school collaboration. An unanticipated benefit arising 129

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL from the existence of the video material has been the ability to continue the FAF experience in subsequent semesters as described in the next section. Future Directions: Creating a Virtual FAF Experience An unintended outcome of filming the home visits emerged in response to the elimination of funding and discontinuation of the statewide FAF program. Access to the videos of the family visits has served as a vehicle to sustain the opportunity to learn from the stories that these families told. The 14 videos of the home visits have been made accessible to families and school districts throughout the state as well as to students and faculty members within special education programs in seven higher education institutions within the state through a password protected website. Presently, the first author is in the process of working with the parent center and faculty at other universities to explore other possible uses of the FAF videos. In an era of limited funding sources and decreased grant opportunities, an alternative means of providing the FAF experience as a virtual experience makes good economic sense. Given the increased demand for online education, a virtual experience of the FAF program could complement distance learning opportunities. A complementary virtual curriculum (Collier, 2012) has been developed around the 14 videos of parents with children with disabilities sharing their family stories with teacher candidates. Additionally, positive feedback about the video website led to the creation of a documentary based on the stories of six of the 14 families entitled Embracing the Challenge: Living with Children with Disabilities (Collier et al., 2012). A local school district has proposed the use of the documentary as a way of sharing the FAF experience with all of their teachers in small study groups. The documentary has been posted on the college website and is available for use for educational purposes. In the spirit of school community collaboration, the parent center, the university, and several school districts continue to partner in designing professional development opportunities using the virtual FAF experience as well as the documentary (Collier, 2013). Conclusion We have found that providing teacher candidates with the opportunity to listen to parents stories gives them personal experiences through which they can better understand both the negative and positive impact that teachers and the educational system can have on children and their families. Teacher candidates gain insights into the home lives of families who have children with 130

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS disabilities and the powerful knowledge that parents can share with educators. Seeing children in their homes amid their families affords teacher candidates a more complete view of these children who are loved and have interests, needs, and conflicts just like any other children. The process of building school community partnerships is dynamic. Turnbull and Turnbull (2001) pointed out that partnering involves parents and teachers sharing resources, responsibilities, and decision-making roles in an effort to comprehensively address the needs of the whole child. The benefits of forming school community partnerships are wide ranging and influence the achievement and long-term success of students with disabilities in a number of positive ways. Partnerships with parents enhance the planning and implementation of the goals and objectives of students Individualized Education Programs (Squires, 2001) when the opinions and preferences of children with disabilities and their parents are respected. The likelihood that students will be appropriately placed in their least restrictive environment is increased when parents have a say in the decision-making process (Garrick Duhaney, 2000). We agree with Broussard (2000) that it is essential that teacher preparation programs offer teacher candidates opportunities for expanding their awareness, understanding, and knowledge of the process of building and maintaining partnerships with parents and families. Through structured and varied experiences with families, teacher candidates can learn more about students they will teach. By building different experiences with families into course work, teacher preparation programs can help their teacher candidates develop skills, knowledge, and positive attitudes about parent involvement, which will enable them to implement family school community partnerships that will be useful for their teaching practice. One of the comments we heard most frequently from our teacher candidates in their FAF reflection papers is that all teachers should experience FAF (not just those in special education). Ironically, it may be through the challenge of the loss of funding for FAF that we have found creative ways to open up greater overall access to the FAF experience through virtual means. While we hope that funding will be restored so that the original FAF experience can be reinstated at the university, we are grateful for our continued partnership with the parent center in our efforts to provide transformational experiences to our teacher candidates and to prepare more teachers who want to work as true partners with families and to form successful and sustainable family school community partnerships. 131

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL References Baker, P. H., & Murray, M. M. (2011). Building community partnerships: Learning to serve while learning to teach. School Community Journal, 21(1), 113 127. Retrieved from http:// www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Bingham, A., & Abernathy, T. V. (2007). Promoting family-centered teaching: Can one course make a difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16(1), 37 60. Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity: Schools, families, and community connections. Annual Synthesis. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Broussard, C. A. (2000). Preparing teachers to work with families: A national survey of teachertraining programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(2), 41 49. doi:10.1080/106656 8000330207 Caspe, M., Lopez, M. E., Chu, A., & Weiss, H. B. (2011). Teaching the teachers: Preparing educators to engage families for student achievement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Colarusso, R., & O Rourke, C. (2007). Special education for all teachers (4 th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Collary, M. (2013). Teaching is leading. Educational Leadership, 10, 72 76. Collier, M. (2012). Learning from parents project: Families narratives. Albuquerque, NM: Parents Reaching Out and the UNM College of Education. Retrieved from http://coe.unm. edu/learningfromparents/ Collier, M. (2013). Embracing the challenge: Living with children with disabilities. Companion curriculum. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. Collier, M. L. (Director), Hirrel, L. (Translator), Winslow, J. (Project Coordinator), Ramirez, E. (Filmmaker), Sena, A. (Filmmaker & Sound), & Kelly, D. A. (Original Music Score). (2012). Embracing the challenge: Living with children with disabilities [Documentary]. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. Available from http://coe.unm.edu/learningfromparents/embracing-the-challenge.html Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2010). The state of collaboration on behalf of students with disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 1 8. doi:10.1080/104674 410903535398 Crais, E. R., Boone, H. A., Harrison, M., Freund, P., Downing, K., & West, T. (2004). Interdisciplinary personnel preparation: Graduates use of target practices. Infants and Young Children, 17, 82 92. doi:10.1097/00001163-200401000-00010 Crisman, B. W. (2008). Inclusive programming for students with autism. Principal, 6, 28 32. Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53 71). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dinnebeil, L. A., Hale, L. M., & Rule, S. (2000). Early intervention program practices that support collaboration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 95 104. Dotger, B. H., & Bennett, J. (2010). Educating teachers and school leaders for school family partnerships. In D. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practices for connecting families with schools (pp. 129 150). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Dunst, C. J., & Dempsey, I. (2007). Family professional partnerships and parenting competence, confidence, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54(3), 305 318. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121 136). New York, NY: De Gruyter. 132

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701 712. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social research. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook on the sociology of education (pp. 285 306). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenem. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Preparing educators for school family community partnerships: Results of a national survey of colleges and universities. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81 120. Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2001, July). A real eye-opener: Can parent faculty partnerships enhance learning and teaching in the higher education classroom? Paper presented at the 2nd international conference on Improving Learning and Teaching at the University, Johannesburg, South Africa. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parent involvement and student academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1 22. Flanigan, C. B. (2005). Partnering with parents and communities: Are preservice teachers adequately prepared? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Forlin, C., & Hopewell, T. (2006). Inclusion The heart of the matter: Trainee teachers perceptions of a family s journey. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 55 61. Garrick Duhaney, L. M., & Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 121 128. doi:10.1177/0741932500 02100209 Giallourakis, A., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Cook, B. (2005). Understanding family involvement in the preparation of graduate students: Measuring family-centered beliefs, skills, systems, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Green, C. L, Walker, K. V., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents motivation for involvement in children s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parent involvement. Jounal of Educational Psychology, 99, 531 544. Hedges, H., & Gibbs C. (2005). Preparation for teacher parent participation: A practical experience with a family. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 115 126. doi:10. 1080/10901020590955770 Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, A. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: SEDL. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740 763. doi:10.1037/a0015362 Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 105 130. Huang, Y., Kellett, U. M., & St. John, W. (2010). Cerebral palsy: Experiences of mothers after learning their child s diagnosis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(6), 1213 1221. Hughes, J., & Kwok, O. (2007). Influence of student teacher and parent teacher relationships on lower achieving readers engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 39 51. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.(2005). Jarry, E. M. (2009). Family faculty perceptions: Sharing their story (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 133

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children s achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202 223. Keefe, E. B., Rossi, P. J., de Valenzuela, J. S., & Howarth, S. (2000). Reconceptualizing teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms: A description of the dual license program at the University of New Mexico. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 72 82. McCloskey, M. (2011). What does whole education mean? Educational Leadership, 6, 80 81. McCoach, D. B., Goldstein, J., Behuniak, P., Reis, S. M., Black, A. C., Sullivan, E. E., & Rambo, K. (2010). Examining the unexpected: Outlier analysis of factors affecting student achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(3), 426 468. Murray, M., & Curran, D. (2008). Learning together with parents of children with disabilities: Bringing parent professional partnership education to a new level. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 59 63. doi:10.1177/088840640803100106 Murray, M., Curran, D., & Zellers, E. (2008). Building parent/professional partnerships: An innovative approach for teacher education. Teacher Education, 43, 87 108. doi:10.1080/ 08878730701838819 Murray, M. M., Handyside, M., Straka, L. M., & Arton-Titus, T. V. (2013). Parent empowerment: Connecting with preservice special education teachers. School Community Journal, 23(1), 145 168. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. 6053 et seq. Olivos, E. M., Gallagher, R. J., & Aguilar, J. (2010). Fostering collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 28 40. doi:10.1080/10474410903535372 Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 27 47. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00150 Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2009). The home school connection: Lessons I learned in a culturally and linguistically diverse community. New York, NY: Routledge. Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Schmitz, G. C. (2004). What special education practitioners say about the impact of the Families as Faculty experience on their beliefs and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Seitsinger, A. M., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, A. (2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers practices to engage parents: Assessment, parent contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology 46, 477 505. Squires, S. (2001). Our family s experiences: An important outcome achieved. Young Exceptional Children, 4, 9 11. doi:10.1177/109625060000400102 Tolan, P. H., & Woo, S. C. (2009). Moving forward in school family partnerships in promoting student competence: From potential to full impact. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school family partnerships (pp. 473 501). New York, NY: Routledge. Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. 134

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS Authors Note: This research was supported in part by grants from the University of New Mexico and the Albuquerque Community Foundation. Margo Collier is an assistant professor in special education at the University of New Mexico and currently serves as the coordinator of the Educational Diagnostician Certificate Program. Dr. Collier s primary research interests include home school collaboration and meaningful assessment for all students, with a focus on transition assessment and assessment design and development. She demonstrates a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to both her research and teaching. She has co-taught numerous classes and has had extensive experience in designing and implementing partnerships that include individuals in community programs, agencies, and university students within her research projects. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Margo Collier, PhD, Special Education Program, MSC05 3040, I University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, or email collierm@unm.edu Elizabeth B. Keefe is a professor in the special education program at the University of New Mexico. Liz is committed to working with schools, school districts, community agencies, self-advocates, and families to implement effective, inclusive practices for all students. She prepares undergraduate and graduate students at UNM to teach and be leaders in inclusive classroom and school environments. Her research interests center on inclusive practices, literacy, differentiated instruction, modifications, collaboration, and how system change occurs and is sustained in schools. Laura Hirrel is a PhD candidate in linguistics at the University of New Mexico. Laura s dissertation research focuses on the multimodal nature of language use, specifically examining cross linguistic patterns in the distribution of functions and linguistic construction types in which a particular gesture type occurs. Her other primary research interests focus on the application of linguistics in promoting social justice. One of the projects with which Laura is most actively involved is a language revitalization project for an endangered language spoken in the southwestern region of the United States. Under the guidance of native speakers of the endangered language and other community stakeholders, Laura and other group members assist on projects aimed at increasing language use and making language materials accessible to the entire community. 135

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL 136

Race/Ethnicity and Social Capital Among Middle- and Upper-Middle-Class Elementary School Families: A Structural Equation Model Stephen J. Caldas and Linda Cornigans Abstract This study used structural equation modeling to conduct a first and second order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of a scale developed by McDonald and Moberg (2002) to measure three dimensions of social capital among a diverse group of middle- and upper-middle-class elementary school parents in suburban New York. A structural path model was created which best explains the linkages between race/ethnicity and our new construct Total Social Capital. The CFA confirmed the three very distinct dimensions of social capital: parent school, parent parent, and parent child. Fit indices also suggest the existence of a second order, global Total Social Capital factor comprised of all three dimensions of social capital. We show that Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race family status is associated with significantly diminished Total Social Capital, both directly and indirectly via socioeconomic status. This is one of the few studies to find decreased social capital even among middle- and uppermiddle-class minorities. Key Words: family social capital, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parents, children, elementary schools, families, structural equation model Introduction Social capital has been trumpeted as an important resource found within family relationships as well as within the interactions between and among School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 137

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL individuals in organizations (Coleman, 1988, 1990; Putnam, 2000). Similarly, Bourdieu (1986) presents social capital as the sum of potential resources connected to a network of institutionalized relationships. Bourdieu posits that these relationships permit individuals to access resources possessed by the groups with which they have a mutual acquaintance. According to Coleman (1988), at the family level, the process of a parent s fostering the cognitive and social development of their children enhances the children s fund of social capital by preparing them to interact more seamlessly and productively among other like-minded children in the social world of schools. Coleman notes that parents who read to their children on a regular basis are creating strong bonds of trust and expectations which ultimately enhance academic outcomes. Other parent child activities such as visiting museums and working on homework together have also been identified as beneficial forms of parent child social capital (Jeynes, 2012). Bourdieu and Coleman both suggest that children who are socialized in middle- and upper-middle-class families arguably possess greater funds of this resource, which they are able to use within schools to greater social and academic advantage. Social capital is also enhanced in interactions between parents and school officials, as well as among parents who have children in the same schools, in ways that ultimately benefit children (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003). All of these types of interactions create tangible resources like information, connections, obligations, and influence which can have positive results for the children, including enhanced academic outcomes. There is growing agreement in the field of social research that the construct of social capital has dimensions which include interactions of parents with other parents (Horvat et al., 2003; Howard & Reynolds, 2008; Lareau, 2000; Ream & Palardy, 2008), parents with school staff (Horvat et al., 2003; Lareau, 1989; Ream & Palardy, 2008), and parents with their children (Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 2002; Ream & Palardy, 2008; Riches & Curdt-Christiansen, 2010). There is less agreement about how this social good is distributed along class and racial lines, with researchers (Horvat et al., 2003; Lareau, 2002; Ream & Palardy, 2008) arguing (and demonstrating) that racial and socioeconomic minorities have less social capital as a consequence of the socially stratified nature of many current societies and thus have fewer advantages (especially in schools) than mainstream elites. The present study attempts to address the multidimensional complexity of the social capital construct, as well as examine both the direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity on Total Social Capital via the mediating variable socioeconomic status (SES). The study considers social capital in the academic context and attempts to deconstruct this concept into three constituent parts: 138

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL parent parent, parent school, and parent child social capital dimensions of the construct. The study uses a survey validated by McDonald and Moberg (2002) to capture these three dimensions of social capital among mostly middle- and upper-middle-income White, Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race parents in suburban metropolitan New York. Middle- and upper-income minority groups are rarely the subject of this kind of research (Howard & Reynolds, 2008). Structural equation modeling is used to validate these three dimensions of social capital, as well as test for a second order Total Social Capital construct, among all four racial groupings. Finally, a path model is fitted to the data in an attempt to map out a causal relationship between race, socioeconomic status, and Total Social Capital, controlling for important confounding factors. Social Capital in the Schooling Context The academic milieu is an important context in which to study social capital. According to Putnam (2000), it is not poverty or demographic characteristics but social capital that exerts the greatest influence on academic test scores. When parents are involved in the education of their children, children do better in school, are less likely to drop out of high school, and the schools are better able to provide a productive environment for learning (Jeynes, 2012; Putnam, 2000; Steinberg, 1997). Coleman (1988) also found a strong linkage between parental involvement in their children s education on the one hand and positive academic outcomes on the other. In their comprehensive review of empirical research on the topic, Dika and Singh (2002) found that, in general, social capital indicators and indicators of educational attainment are positively linked (p. 41; see their excellent review for a compilation of research on this topic). Others, too, have continued to establish this linkage with sophisticated statistical models (e.g., Ream & Palardy, 2008). In short, there is now much evidence and much agreement that social capital contributes to many positive outcomes, including the development of academic capital. Thus, in the tradition of trying to better understand societal stratification and social capital, this current study focuses on the racial and SES determinants of social capital (and not linkages with academic achievement). Social Capital, Class, and Race In countries with a wide divide between class, race, language status, and academic outcomes, such as is the case in the United States, there is an added urgency to be concerned with the fund of social capital available to these often disadvantaged groups. Research indicates that in the U.S., middle- and upper- 139

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL class parents are more connected with each other and with the schools their children attend than are poor or working-class parents (Horvat et al., 2003; Lareau, 2000; Ream & Palardy, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). As regards the efficacy of their networks, Horvat et al. (2003) observed that the social networks accessible by working-class and poor families are less valuable than those of middle-class families for negotiating the particular institutional environment formed by the school (p. 323). Relatedly, Coleman (1987) argues that those students higher in social capital benefit more from formal schooling than those with less social capital. This, according to Coleman, is due to an interaction effect between social capital from home and the complementary social capital in schools. Though finding measurable differences by class in the level of involvement of parents with their children s schools and other parents, Lareau (2002) and Horvat et al. did not find noticeable differences in parental involvement by race when controlling for class. There is some evidence, though, that middle-class Black families may not be involved with their children s schooling to the extent of White parents. Ogbu (2003) noted that there were lower levels of parent to school and parent to child social capital among the middle-class African American families he studied at least the kind that leads to academic engagement than among comparably situated White families. Additionally, Brashears (2011), in a reanalysis of the General Social Survey data, found that controlling for many factors, including income and education, Blacks indicated having significantly smaller networks within which they share important matters. Evidence also suggests that Hispanic parents, for a variety of reasons and not just on account of language barriers, are generally not as involved with their children s schooling as are White parents (Ferrer, 2007; for an excellent treatment of this topic, see Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Iruka and Carver (2006) found that Hispanic parents were much less likely to read to their children ages 3 5 than were White parents. Ferrer (2007) also noted that in households where neither parent spoke English, parents were less likely to read to their children. Among Hispanic/Latinos, immigrant Mexican families, in particular, appear to be lower in parent child social capital than are White students (Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998). As regards educational institutions, the distrust held by the African American and Latino communities of local school systems may in part be the reason for their diminished, or at least less productive, involvement with schools (Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Yull, Blitz, Thompson, and Murray (2014) point to some of the causes of this mistrust, including color-blind racism and cultural ignorance. 140

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Forms of Social Capital Parent child interactions, parent parent interactions, parent school interactions, and student student interactions are now all popularly recognized forms of social capital. This paper will focus on the first three, discussed below. Parent Child Social Capital Positive parenting practices such as reading to children, engaging with them in educational and cultural activities, and instilling in them norms and expectations conducive to learning all generate social capital for the child. Coleman (1987) stated that these familial inputs enhanced a child s attitudes, effort, and conception of self (p. 35). He noted that adults in the home who engage children in discussions about academic, social, economic, and personal matters are fostering this dimension of social capital. Steinberg (1997) made a solid empirical connection between parental engagement with their children and strong academic outcomes. So, at the heart of parent child social capital is constructive engagement between the parent and the child. Parent Parent Social Capital Parents not only pass along social capital directly to their children in the home environment, but also acquire social capital for their children in interactions with other parents. These interactions can benefit children in many ways, including pressuring school officials to act in ways beneficial for one s own children (Horvat et al., 2003; Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996). As Putnam (2000) noted, the flow of information, mutual aid, and collective action found in civic engagement of which school is the most common are all expressions of social capital. When parents get together in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or other groupings with the collective intention of helping their children, they can influence schools in ways that benefit their children (Horvat et al., 2003; Ream & Palardy, 2008). The National PTA claims to be the largest volunteer child advocacy association in the United States (www.linkedin.com/company/national-pta, para. 3). However, minorities may not always feel so welcome at PTA or other parent meetings. Historically, the divisive desegregation battles that followed the Brown Decision no doubt influenced the degree to which both Black and White parents participated in their local PTA units and contributed to the perception of the PTA as a White women s organization (Milner & Howard, 2004; Ogbu, 2003; Putnam, 2000; Woyshner, 2000). Thus, Black and Latino parents may feel like outsiders at parent meetings dominated by Whites, and this would predict diminished parent parent social capital among these two 141

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL groups. As regards parent parent social capital and class, Horvat et al. (2003) noted that middle-class parental networks and connections were more efficacious than poor or working-class networks in getting the desired outcomes from schools for their children. They did not, however, notice differences in the effectiveness of networking by race once SES was taken into consideration (unlike the present study). Parent School Social Capital Academic success within a school setting is not merely a matter of learning and performing satisfactorily. Students and their families must have an explicit or implicit understanding of the rules associated with advancement (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Amassing social capital and converting it into institutional support depends upon successful interactions with various agents within schools (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) from whom parents can acquire information about school policies and teachers. Horvat et al. (2003), too, found that parents (primarily middle class) interacted with school officials to influence them to take actions in ways beneficial to their children, such as advantageous track placement and program participation. Ream and Palardy (2008) found that average levels of parental social capital differed significantly across the social class groupings, with the greater proportion resting in the upper socioeconomic class. A legacy of racial discrimination and the long-standing distrust of educational institutions held by disadvantaged American minorities likely make it more difficult for some minority families than for White families to work effectively with teachers, administrators, and other school agents (Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For example, Lareau (1989) and Lareau and Horvat (1999) found that both lower- and middle-class Blacks were more likely to be suspicious of schools and school officials than were Whites. Black parents were consistently more vigilant concerning the issue of race and the potential for racial discrimination directed at their children (Horvat et al., 2003; Lareau, 2002; Lareau & Horvat, 1999), potentially making interactions with school officials more tense (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Lareau (1989) also found that some poor Blacks intervened less in their children s schooling than other parents, even when they suspected racially discriminatory school practices. Interestingly, Ream and Palardy (2008) found that among the low SES families in their study, there was a negative relationship between parent school social capital (parent s visiting schools) and test scores, which the authors determined to be a consequence of the reasons for the visits (low test scores and discipline issues). On the other hand, the test scores of middle-class students in their study benefited most from their parents influence on the schools. In 142

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL sum, there is reason to expect that the fund of parent school social capital differs not only by class, but also by race, even when the SES of families is taken into consideration. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to use confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to do the following: (1) to test the factorial validity of three dimensions of social capital among racially diverse, middle- and upper-middle-income families attending four elementary schools in suburban, metropolitan New York; (2) to validate a second order factor of Total Social Capital comprised of the three first order factors; and (3) to present a best fitting path model showing how family race/ethnicity relates to Total Social Capital via the mediating variable of socioeconomic status, while controlling for other important extraneous factors. Methodology Study Sample This study utilized survey data collected from the parents/guardians (families) of 1,068 students enrolled in four elementary schools in a suburban district on eastern Long Island. There were a total of 3,406 children enrolled in the four schools, who lived in 2,870 families. Thus, the usable family response rate was 37.2%. The parents/guardians were asked to complete an anonymous survey at their child s school s open house in September 2009. The survey solicited both demographic information and responses to previously validated survey items (McDonald & Moberg, 2002) which measure three dimensions of social capital: parent school, parent parent, and parent child. Research Setting Of the 9,154 students enrolled in the subject district during the study in the 2009 2010 school year, 60% were White, 20% were Black, 15% were Hispanic, 4% were Asian,.3% were Native American, and 1% were multiracial (New York State Education Department, 2011 2012). The district report card indicated that 35% of the student population received free or reduced price lunches. Additionally, the report indicated that White students performed markedly better in every subject area tested and at every grade level and had higher graduation rates than did Black and Hispanic children. 143

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Research Instrument Lynn McDonald and Paul Moberg granted permission to use 20 items from a validated social relationships questionnaire they created entitled Parent Social Capital Questionnaire (McDonald & Moberg, 2002; see Appendix A). The 20 items measure three dimensions of social capital. Six questions measure parent school social capital (PS1 PS6). One of these, item 5, was reverse coded (4 1=1 4) to reflect that higher values equated with higher social capital on this dimension. Eight items measure parent parent social capital (PP1 PP8). Six items measure parent child social capital (PC1 PC6). Five were reverse coded for the same purpose (PC1, PC3 PC6). Questions measuring sociodemographics were added by the authors of this study. Via email, the survey s authors shared that the reliability coefficient for the subset of questions relative to parent parent social capital was a very strong.93, and.73 for the subset of questions relative to parent child social capital. No reliability information was available on the measure of parent school social capital, although this current study does provide reliability measures on all three dimensions of social capital measured by this survey instrument. Sociodemographic Variables Following are the added sociodemographic survey items and how they were coded: Number of children a family has in the school: 1 = 1 to 2, 2 = 3 to 4, 3 = 5 to 6, 4 = 6+ Number of children in the household: 1 = 1 to 2, 2= 3 to 4, 3 = 5 to 6, 4 = 6+ Family race/ethnicity: White (non-hispanic); Black or African American; Hispanic or Latino; Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Island, American Indian, or Alaska Native; Mixed Race Education level of parent: 1 = some high school, 2 = high school graduate, 3 = some college, 4 = college graduate, and 5 = post graduate studies Family structure: 0 = single parent family (with or without support), 1 = two-parent family Any children having participated in free/reduced price lunch program: 0 = yes, 1 = no Any children classified as needing special educational services: 0 = yes, 1 = no Any children classified as needing English as a Second Language services: 0 = no, 1 = yes Annual family income ($): 1 = less than $20,000, 2 = $20,001 to 36,000, 3 = $36,001 to 57,660, 4 = $57,661 to 91,705, and 5 = more than $91,705 144

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL SES: A latent factor in the structural model created by the observed variables Family Income, Poverty Status (free/reduced lunch), and Education level. The measurement model of SES generated the following acceptable bootstrap bias corrected factor loadings:.847 on Income,.728 on Poverty Status, and.480 on Education, which were all significant at the p <.01 level. These factor loadings suggested a strong underlying SES factor. Data Collection The Parent Questionnaire was administered in September 2009 to the parents of students attending the four elementary schools in the subject district during an evening Open House. Classroom teachers administered the survey with a Scantron answer sheet following a general assembly. It is important to note that while we captured a large part of the parent population, not all parents came to the schools during Open House, and some parents who did come did not complete the survey. Thus, we likely have a selection of the most motivated parents. Not all surveys were determined to have complete, usable responses. A large number of respondents did not complete the entire survey due to confusion over how to record the answers on a two-sided answer sheet. Thus, we did not use these partial responses, which resulted in a total of 1,089 parents/guardians of families who completed all survey questions. Results The analyses were conducted using SPSS with AMOS version 22 (for the SEM analysis). Tables 1 and 2 present the descriptives and bivariate correlations, respectively. Of the 1,089 completed surveys, 789 (69.7%) indicated that their family was White, 144 (13.2%) were Black, 74 (6.8%) were Hispanic, 21 (1.9%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 79 (8.4%) were mixed-race individuals. There were too few Asian/Pacific Islanders in the sample to do meaningful analyses with SEM, so these 21 individuals were excluded from the study, reducing the usable, complete cases sample to 1,068. Of these respondents, 222 (20.8%) indicated that they received a free/reduced price lunch (an indicator of family poverty status). A total of 34 (3.2%) families indicated that their child received ESL services. There were 168 (15.7%) families who indicated that they were headed by a single parent. As shown in Table 1, fully 38% of the total sample fell in the highest income bracket, including 37% of Blacks and 27% of Hispanics, with 55% of the total sample having at least a bachelor s degree. All racial/ethnic groups in this sample were well above the American average in terms of income, education, and two-parent family structure. A one-way ANOVA with Bonferonni 145

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL post hoc comparisons indicated that while Whites had significantly higher income levels than the other racial/ethnic groups, they did not have significantly higher education levels than mixed-race or Black families (Black families actually had slightly higher education levels than Whites). However, Whites did have significantly higher overall SES factor scores (described below) than the other three racial/ethnic categories. Black families had significantly higher SES factor scores than did Hispanics. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables by Family Race/Ethnicity and Total Variables Mean Total Social Capital Factor Score % Free/Reduced Price Lunch White Families Black Families Hispanic Families Mixed Race Families Total.093 -.120 -.291 -.301 0 15.0 33.3 44.6 29.7 20.8 % College Degree 54.9 59.8 44.6 57.2 55.0 % Lowest Income Bracket (<$20,000) % Highest Income Bracket (>$91,705) 4.0 9.0 12.2 16.5 6.3 40.2 36.8 27.0 31.9 38.1 % Two-Parent Families 85.1 82.6 83.8 80.2 84.3 % ESL Families 1.6 4.9 13.5 5.5 3.2 Total Families 759 144 74 91 1,068 A one-way ANOVA with paired contrasts revealed that one school had an overall significantly lower SES factor score than the other three schools. This opened the possibility that children and parents associated with this school could have been influenced by differing school norms and culture (Horvat et al., 2003). Thus, to control for this possibility, we created a dichotomous variable we termed school context to capture school level SES effects, which assigned families a value of zero if their children attended this school, and one if they did not. The inclusion of this variable in the structural model discussed in detail below did not strengthen our model (but actually weakened it) and was therefore eliminated from all analyses. In short, school level SES effects were not significant. 146

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Table 2. Bootstrap Corrected Bivariate Correlations Between Structural Model Variables Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Black race (0 = non- Black, 1 = Black) 2. Hispanic (0 = non-hispanic, 1 = Hispanic) 3. Mixed-race (0 = non mixed-race, 1 = mixed-race -.108** -.120** -.070* -.181** -.018 -.036 -.083** -.149** -.163** -.005.163** -.087* -.151 -.034 -.040 4. SES.316**.457**.195** 5. Total S.C..282* -.213* 6. Family structure (0 = 1 parent, 1 = two parents) 7. ESL status (0 = non- ESL, 1 = ESL) N = 1,068 * Significant at p <.05; ** Significant at p <.01 (two-tailed). =bootstrap corrected estimates could not be calculated for this bivariate correlation.024 Table 3 provides the factor loadings for those items in our final measurement model that loaded on each of these three separate social capital factors. These three factors, in turn, represent a larger, second order factor we term Total Social Capital, which can be viewed on the right hand side of Figure 1, which displays our final structural model. Upon request via email directed to the lead author, the reader will be provided with a lengthy technical description of the reliability, validity, and model equivalency testing we engaged in to demonstrate the statistical soundness of both our individual measures of social capital and our global measure of Total Social Capital. 147

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Table 3. Measurement Model Results: First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis Maximum Likelihood Bias Corrected Boot Sample v. ML Method Observed Variables Survey Quest Latent Social Capital Constructs Factor Loadings: ML Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Samples Factor Loadings: ML 1 (PS1) Parent School.628**.629*** 2 (PS2) Parent School.773**.774*** 3 (PS3) Parent School.792**.793*** 4 (PS4) Parent School.574**.571*** 7 (PP1) Parent Parent.579**.580*** 8 (PP2) Parent Parent.683**.684*** 9 (PP3) Parent Parent.761**.761*** 10 (PP4) Parent Parent.921**.921*** 11 (PP5) Parent Parent.870**.870*** 12 (PP6) Parent Parent.883**.883*** 13 (PP7) Parent Parent.875**.875*** 15 (PC1) Parent Child.384**.382*** 17 (PC3) Parent Child.742**.741*** 18 (PC4) Parent Child.672**.670*** ML X 2= 90.20***/df=57 CFI=.995 GFI=.987 RMSEA=.023 N = 1,068 Note. All regression weights are standardized estimates. * Significant at p <.05; ** Significant at p <.01; *** Significant at p <.001 Structural Model of Race/Ethnicity, SES, and Total Social Capital Finally, we assessed the validity of a full structural model (see Figure 1) in which we tested both the direct effects of race/ethnicity on our dependent latent variable Total Social Capital and the indirect effects on Total Social Capital through the mediating latent variable family SES, controlling for family structure and ESL status of child. The racial category White was the reference category, and thus all standardized regression coefficients along the paths from the race/ethnicity variables are interpreted relative to White families. Indirect standardized effect coefficients (IE s) were also generated to determine the importance of the mediating factors. We used modification indices to help create the final model depicted in Figure 1 which best fit the data (Bias Corrected [BC] standardized regression weights are presented along the paths). The fit indices suggest that the overall structural model fit the data exceptionally well 148

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Figure 1. Structural Equation Model of Family Race/Ethnicity, SES, and Total Social Capital (with controls and ML bootstrap standardized regression weights -.074*.163** -.150* -.135** -.149** -.084** -.119.462**.184**.191**.212**.561**.163*.573.793.772.629.875.882.869.920.761.683 -.155**.980.458.663.671.740.387 White family is the reference category for family race/ethnicity <.10, *p <.05, **p <.01; all item factor loadings significant at <.01 level Fit Indices: chi-square = 280.21/df = 172 (p <.001), CFI =.987, NFI =.968, RMSEA =.024 149

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL (X 2 = 280.21/df = 172), CFI =.987, NFI =.968, RMSEA =.024 (90% CI =.019.029), even though our Total Social Capital second order factor is less than perfect. Every bias corrected structural weight (direct effect) was a statistically significant predictor except for the path from Hispanic race to Total Social Capital, which was marginally significant (β = -.119, p =.075). The relatively small, direct effects (negative) of both Black and mixed-race family on Total Social Capital were of almost the same magnitude (β = -.150, p =.025 for Blacks; β = -.149, p =.009 for mixed-race families), followed by Hispanic family ethnicity (β = -.119, as noted above). Hispanic family ethnicity had the strongest negative association with family SES (β = -.135, p =.002), followed in magnitude by mixed-race family (β = -.084, p =.005) and Black family race (β = -.074, p =.012). Though not large in magnitude, all of the bias corrected IE s of each racial/ethnic category on Total Social Capital via the mediating variable SES were negative and statistically significant. These IE s were β = -.031 for Hispanics, β = -.016 for mixed-race, and β = -.014 for Black families. In other words, Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race family status not only had a direct, negative influence on Total Social Capital levels, but also had an indirect negative influence via their lower SES. The total IE for Hispanics was larger due to the additional negative IE that Hispanic family status had on SES via family ESL status (IE = -.025, p =.002). Though not huge, the total effects (direct plus indirect effects) of race/ethnicity on Total Social Capital were largest for mixed-race (β = -.165, p =.003) and Black (β = -.164, p =.010) families, followed by Hispanic families (β = -.150, p =.033). There is arguably very little meaningful difference between these total effect sizes. Summary of Structural Model Findings We can conclude from this path analysis that being from a Black, Hispanic, or mixed-race family is not only directly associated with diminished overall Total Social Capital, but also indirectly via the small suppressing influence of family race/ethnicity on family socioeconomic status. Hispanic family ethnicity also had a second, significant (though relatively small) negative influence on family SES via ESL status. An important caveat to keep in mind when interpreting our findings is that with a relatively large sample size of 1,068, it is easier to obtain statistical significance than with smaller sample sizes. More important than statistical significance is the practical significance of effect sizes, most of which are relatively small (though not miniscule) in our path model, according to Cohen s (1992) recommendations for interpreting effect sizes. The standout exception in our model is the strong positive effect of family structure on Total Social Capital (β =.462, p =.002). In other words, all things 150

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL being equal, two-parent families had much higher socioeconomic status than did single-parent families. In summary, being from a Black, Hispanic, or mixed-race family was associated with a diminished fund of Total Social Capital among this sampling of mostly well-off Long Island families in both a direct fashion as well as indirectly via the diminished SES of these racial/ethnic minorities. Hispanic ethnicity was also indirectly associated with lowered family SES via the mediating factor of ESL, a proxy for family language status. Importantly, all of these direct and indirect influences are net of the effect of household family structure (one-parent vs. two-parent families), which itself was the best predictor of family SES by a large margin. Family structure was also the second best predictor of Total Social Capital after SES (β =.184, p =.008) and the variable with the strongest IE on Total Social Capital via its influence on SES (IE =.088, p =.003). In sum, those families who were the worst off with regards to diminished Total Social Capital were poor Hispanics in single-parent families receiving ESL services. When one considers that a disproportionate number of families who fit this description are also likely undocumented (based on previous research by the authors), this subset of families is truly unconnected from important funds of social capital which are essential for psychological, emotional, economic, community, and educational well-being. Discussion Our study used structural equation modeling on survey results from a sampling of relatively high SES, racially and ethnically diverse New York families with children in four elementary schools to accomplish several objectives. First, we validated three streamlined first-order factors of parent parent, parent school, and parent child social capital, all from measures originally developed and piloted by McDonald and Moberg (2002). Then, we confirmed that these three factors were operating the same way among the four racial/ethnic groups of White, Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race families. Next, we provided some evidence for a moderately valid, broader second-order factor which we term Total Social Capital and which is comprised of the three first-order social capital factors of parent school, parent parent, and parent child social capital. This more general construct is a measure of the combined fund of social capital available to the diverse sample of families in our study which comes from the positive interactions between parents and staff in their children s schools, other parents, and their own children. Then, we provided some evidence to suggest that the Total Social Capital construct is operating the same way among the four racial/ethnic groups. 151

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Finally, we created a structural model which best explains the linkages between family race/ethnicity on the one hand and Total Social Capital on the other. We show that Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race family status is directly associated with diminished Total Social Capital among these families, as well as indirectly associated with diminished Total Social Capital via minority race/ ethnicity s negative association with diminished family SES. In the case of Hispanic ELL families, there is another indirect, negative influence on Total Social Capital via the child s language status (a proxy for family language status). Importantly, we have uncovered evidence that even middle- and upper-class minority families have access to less social capital, as we have defined it, than do White families. As far as we know, ours is the first social capital study of its kind to use a sample of families who are so socioeconomically advantaged. Our findings lend credibility to Bourdieu s (1986) notions of a social elite (in our case Whites) who hold so many intangible historical, social, and cultural advantages, beyond just those suggested by typical measures of class. Blacks, Hispanics, and mixed-race individuals have only recently populated the American middle and upper classes in any significant degree. We have evidence here that it may be some time before the advantages of centuries of established social and cultural norms associated with the White American middle class are assumed to the same degree by the other racial and ethnic minorities who have begun to sit down at the well-appointed supper table of middle and upper class America. It is important to note that other researchers have argued that American Black families, in particular, do not suffer from diminished social capital, but rather operate in a White-created and operated system that marginalizes, devalues, and/or discourages their involvement (Howard & Reynolds, 2008; Yan, 1999). Lareau (2002) and Horvat et al. (2003) argue that once class is controlled for, social capital differences by race essentially disappear. However, their research was based on small sample qualitative data. Using a nationallevel database, Ream and Palardy (2008) conducted an excellent quantitative study examining the relationship between class, various forms of social capital, and academic outcomes. They too, like us, conceptualized social capital in three dimensions. However, though they included race as a variable in their study, they unfortunately never elaborated upon these findings. Their published table reveals, though, that upper-class Black families have significantly less parent child social capital (their best predictor of this construct) than other upper-class families. We encourage further large-scale, quantitative research on these important questions, expressly elaborating upon the connection between race and social capital, controlling for class. Of course, there were some obvious limitations to our study. For one, the items used to measure parent child social capital, in particular, seemed a bit 152

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL indirect, and might account for this measure being the weakest component of total social capital. Future measures of this construct should experiment with different items suggested by other researchers such as educational and cultural activities like visiting museums, reading to the child (Coleman, 1988), and participating in course selection (Ho & Willms, 1996). Future similar research should include a larger sampling of Asian families, who seem to buck certain trends in social capital compared to other ethnic groups (Bankston, 2014; Zhou, 2007). Future research should also consider asking a broader range of questions relating to parent parent social capital (to avoid the cross-loadings we had in our study). Also, our effect sizes were generally small, perhaps due in part to less than perfect measures of social capital. Our study also has all the weaknesses of cross-sectional research. If forms of social capital are truly part of a larger multidimensional social capital construct, then just working to increase parental involvement in schools (e.g., as mandated by NCLB and Race to the Top) only addresses one dimension of this social good and is likely not sufficient to address wide racial/ethnic gaps in academic achievement. In fact, Ream and Palardy (2008) found that among lower-class families in their study, more parental involvement in school was actually associated with lower student academic outcomes (probably as a result of the reasons for the parental involvement, e.g., low test scores and discipline issues). On a final, related note, future studies like our own should attempt to include measures of academic outcomes (as did Ream & Palardy, 2008) and investigate whether these also relate to total social capital, which much previous research has suggested is indeed the case. References Bankston, C. L. (2014). Immigrant networks and social capital. London, UK: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241 258). New York, NY: Greenwood. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm Brashears, M. E. (2011). Small networks and high isolation? A reexamination of American discussion networks. Social Networks, 33, 331 341. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155 159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 32 38. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 120. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31 60. 153

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Ferrer, L. (2007). Why is Hispanic parental involvement a serious issue? Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.abcarticledirectory.com/article/ Why-Is-Hispanic-Parental-Involvement-A-Serious-Issue-/117748 Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent child differences in education expectations and the academic achievement of immigrant and native students. Sociology of Education, 71, 175 198. Ho, S. C., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126 141. Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319 351. Howard, T. C., & Reynolds, R. (2008). Examining parent involvement in reversing the underachievement of African American students in middle-class schools. Educational Foundations, 22, 79 98. Iruka, I. U., & Carver, P. R. (2006). Initial results from the 2005 NHES Early Childhood Program Participation Survey (NCES 2006-075). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706 742. Lareau, A. (1989). Family school relationships: A view from the classroom. Educational Policy, 3, 245 259. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and White families. American Sociological Review, 67, 747 776. Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37 53. McDonald, L., & Moberg, D. P. (2002). Social relationships questionnaire. Madison, WI: FAST National Training and Evaluation Center. Milner, H. R., & Howard, T. C. (2004). Black teachers, Black students, Black communities, and Brown perspectives and insights. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3) 285 297. New York State Education Department. (2011 2012). New York State report card. Retrieved from https://reportcards.nysed.gov/ Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Ream, R. K., & Palardy, G. J. (2008). Reexamining social class differences in the availability and the educational utility of parental social capital. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 238 273. Riches, C., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2010). A tale of two Montreal communities: Parental perspectives on their children s language and literacy development in a multilingual context. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 525 555. doi:10.1353/cml.2010.0001 Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1 40. Steinberg, L. (1997). Beyond the classroom. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1996). Social capital and dropping out of school early. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), 773 783. 154

RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Woyshner, C. (2000). Black parent teacher associations and the origins of the National Congress of Colored Parents and Teachers 1896 1926. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Yan, W. (1999). Successful African American students: The role of parental involvement. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 5 22. Yull, D., Blitz, L. V., Thompson, T., & Murray, C. (2014). Can we talk? Community-based participatory action research to build family and school partnerships with families of color. School Community Journal, 24(2), 9 31. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Zhou, M. (2007). Contemporary Asian American. New York, NY: New York University Press. Authors Note: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco, CA on August 19, 2014. Stephen J. Caldas is a professor at Manhattanville College in Purchase, New York where he teaches in the doctoral program in Educational Leadership. His research interests include school desegregation, bilingual education, and education policy. Steve specializes in multivariate statistical modeling. He was formerly a professor at Hofstra University and the University of Louisiana Lafayette and a visiting professor at McGill University in Montreal and L Ecole Nationale d Administration Publique in Quebec City. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to him at Manhattanville College, Purchase, NY 10577, or email stephen.caldas@mville.edu Linda Cornigans had 39 years of experience as an educator in a large, suburban school district on Long Island, New York. She taught special education classes for 20 years in that district before her appointment to the position of elementary school principal; she retired from her position as principal in 2014. Linda is interested in researching social capital processes among elementary school parents. Appendix A: Parent Questionnaire (from McDonald & Moberg, 2002) For Parent School Social Capital Questions PS1 PS5: 1 = None, 2 = A Little, 3 = Some, 4 = A Lot (School staff refers to principals, teachers, and counselors.) PS1. How much do you trust the school staff to do what is best for your child/children? PS2. How much do you feel respected by staff at this school? PS3. How much do you feel that the school staff works to build trusting relationships with parents? 155

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL PS4. How much does the school staff share YOUR expectations for your child/children? PS5. How much of a problem are cultural barriers between parents and staff at this school? For questions PS6 and PP1: 1 = 0 1, 2 = 2 3, 3 = 4 5, 4 = 6+ PS6. How many of the school staff could you approach if you had a question about your child/children? PP1. How many parents of your child s/children s friends at this school do you know? For Parent Parent Social Capital questions PP2 PP8: 1=None, 2=A Little, 3= Some, 4 = A Lot PP2. How much support do other parents in this school provide you in services (babysitting, shopping, car pools, etc.)? PP3. How much support do other parents in this school provide you in emotional support (sharing feelings)? PP4. How much support do other parents in this school provide you in leisure (getting together for meals, parties, etc.)? PP5. How much support do YOU provide other parents at this school in services (babysitting, shopping, car pools, etc.)? PP6. How much support do YOU provide other parents at this school in emotional support (sharing feelings)? PP7. How much support do YOU provide other parents at this school in leisure (getting together for meals, parties, etc.)? PP8. How much do other parents at this school share your expectations for your child? For Parent Child Social Capital questions PC1 PC6: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3= Neutral, 4= Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree PC1. I am a nurturing parent. PC2. I have trouble expressing affection for my child/children. PC3. I consistently encourage my child/children to express his/her emotions. PC4. I often tell my child/children how I feel when he/she misbehaves. PC5. I regularly talk to my child/children about his/her school activities. PC6. I regularly participate in activities at my child s/children s school. 156

Viewing Generativity and Social Capital as Underlying Factors of Parent Involvement Sharon Stevens and Nimisha Patel Abstract Parent involvement in education is a multifaceted support that has many well-documented benefits for students of all ages. Parent involvement is also a common expression of generativity as defined in Erik Erikson s theory of psychosocial development. The activities parents engage in during their children s educational pursuits, as well as their behaviors that reflect generativity, correspond to, in total, the creation of social capital. This article uses structural equation modeling to illustrate the relationship between the characteristics of generativity and social capital as underlying factors of parent involvement. The parent involvement factors are measured using the School and Family Partnership Survey (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). The results suggest a three-factor model, in which generativity serves as one factor and in which social capital is distinguished into two factors: individual-level and community-level. At the individual level, social capital reflects interactions between two individuals such as the teacher and the parent. Community-level social capital addresses opportunities created by the school for parents to participate. Key Words: parent involvement, generativity, social capital, schools, teachers, families, structural equation modeling Introduction The inclusion of parents in the American education system is widely accepted in educational theory as a critical factor in the long-term success of students School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1 157

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2007, 2012). Yet educators often still struggle to obtain the participation of parents and to use parents as a resource to best meet students needs. Many reasons for parents involvement or lack thereof have been documented, such as financial opportunities or barriers, parents personal values and role construction towards education, and the opportunities or barriers presented by the schools. This last category has prompted a quickly growing base of literature on social capital in education, which we will discuss shortly; however, a review of educational and psychological literature reveals little information on how adults psychosocial development (particularly that of generativity; Erikson, 1963) promotes their involvement in schools or if involvement in schools aides their development. Social capital and psychosocial development are both latent factors, meaning not directly observable, and can be difficult to measure. Nonetheless, exploring these factors may have merit as schools seek to facilitate parent involvement (Brice, 2014; Ferlazzo, 2011). This current study sought to measure parent involvement with a widely used and validated measure of parent involvement constructed by Joyce Epstein of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). According to Epstein, there are six types of involvement: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community. These aspects of parent involvement are also aspects of the constructs of social capital and generativity (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; McAdams, Hart, & Maruna, 1998; Saguaro Seminar, 2012; World Bank Group, 2011). Therefore, in this exploratory analysis, we examine whether the items in the parent involvement survey could be statistically modeled as the separate yet correlated factors of social capital and generativity, thereby suggesting that parent involvement could also be understood as an expression of an adult s social resources and psychosocial development. Literature Review 158 Social Capital Social capital refers to the nontangible resources such as social networks for the exchange of information, behavioral norms, and trust (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1995, 2000). The value of social resources exchanged is determined by those who make up the ties within given social networks and what their actual interests are for being involved with each other (Coleman, 1994). Although traditionally a sociological concept (Bourdieu, 1986), the reach of social capital as a framework for examining human behavior has extended into areas such as economics (Durlauf, 2002) and education (Dika & Singh, 2002; Forsyth

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL & Adams, 2004; Kilpatrick, Johns, & Mulford, 2010). The social capital of schools may be represented by the quantity, quality, and consistency of educationally focused relationships that exist among parents, children, and schools. Dika and Singh (2002) synthesized journal articles, book chapters, conference papers, and electronic publications between 1986 and 2001 (p. 32) to critically review the link between social capital and educational outcomes. They found evidence of a positive association with both educational attainment (completing a certain level of schooling) and with educational achievement (test scores and grades). Their recommendation for further research and stronger theoretical and empirical support (p. 41) has not gone unheeded, with recent studies continuing to show support for social capital as a means of improving outcomes for school-aged children and adolescents within many demographic categories (see as examples of the most recent literature: Chesters & Smith, 2015; Dufur, Hoffmann, Braudt, Parcel, & Spence, 2015; Tang, 2015). To briefly summarize, social capital is often manifested in efforts to improve student achievement (Perna & Titus, 2005; Putnam, 1995; Sampson, 1999). Researchers have also bridged what is known about the relation between social capital and positive student outcomes with the significant body of literature on the benefits of parent involvement on student outcomes (Perna & Titus, 2005). Cumulating data on family and school partnerships continue to strongly suggest that parental involvement in their children s formal education is vital to their academic success (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2007, 2012). This is in part due to the connections between individuals, larger groups, and organizations that can be created to support the overall development of the students (Lareau, 1996). The resources existing in those social connections mutual trust, norms of behavior, and reciprocal sharing of information reflect social capital (Putnam, 1993) and provide us a means to analyze patterns of behavior, such as parent involvement, that are enabled by these collective social resources (Seligman, 1999). Parent involvement as an expression of social capital is not a new idea, as the prominent and founding authors of social capital literature referenced the importance of parents and connections to social institutions (Bourdeiu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Dika & Singh, 2002; Lamont & Lareau, 1988). In more recent years, empirical research has continued developing support for this connection. Through the theoretical framework of social capital, McNeal s (1999) work indicates parental involvement displayed through parent child discussions and involvement in parent teacher organizations provides the greatest support and explains behavioral outcomes. Internationally, Cruz (2009) also examines social capital by looking at the participation of parents in school associations, which he refers to as being an essential form of social capital 159

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL (p. 1). In a final example, Perna and Titus (2005) take the discussion of parent involvement into the final years of high school, during which most research indicates involvement declines. However, through the lens of social capital, older students still draw upon social resources from their parents to become educationally productive. They found that parent involvement through conveying norms and standards, trust, and social connections was shown to impact college enrollment. Families can use social capital as leverage in the educational system to help reach higher levels of engagement and to foster greater scholastic attainment for their children, sometimes despite the limitations of the parents socioeconomic status or level of education (Coleman, 1990; Griswold, 1994; Lareau, 2001). Parents social capital can mediate how family background affects their involvement by shaping their opportunities, motivations, and abilities to actively participate in school in ways that have significant impacts on their children s educational success and their own adult psychosocial attainments (Bolivar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1994; Leichter, 1974; Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1997). On a more individual level, parents role construction influences the frequency and ways in which parents are involved in their children s educational pursuits (Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2011; Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2013). Role construction includes both contextual motivators (parents perceptions of school invitations for involvement) as well as life context variables (parents knowledge about the school system and their familial cultural practices). Both the contextual motivators and life context variables are aspects of networks for information exchange and trust, providing more support for the role of social capital in parent involvement. Generativity Parent involvement is also a well-documented expression of generativity, a developmental stage proposed by Erik Erikson (1950, 1959, 1964) referring to the primarily adult concern for establishing and guiding the next generation. In Erikson s theory, human development throughout the lifespan is characterized by eight stages in which we experience a conflict that could have two possible outcomes, one being negative. Complete mastery over a conflict is not necessary, but a positive resolution allows for the emergence of one s personal and social identity. An integral aspect of Erikson s theory is the interplay of an individual with the external social factors around them. During the stage of generativity, adults are faced with the struggle to give back to society and become something greater than themselves through their careers and/or families. A positive resolution is one in which adults care for the future generations. 160

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Erikson originally suggested that generativity is a mid-life concern, a point in the lifespan that is often viewed between the ages of 40 60. Although full generative development may not be in relative dominance (Erikson, 1997, p. 66) until this age, generative thinking begins to emerge much earlier (Kroger, 2007; McAdams, 1993; Pratt, Lawford, & Allen, 2012) with a key component being the utilization of effective parenting skills. McAdams (1993), a prominent researcher in human development, notes that generativity is prompted by social expectations. The demand is normative and age-graded. It is considered on-time to assume generative social roles in one s thirties, forties, and fifties (p. 223). In being generative, adults create resources of lasting value with intentions to benefit the future. Although there are many routes to generative development, it is most often associated with parenting (Erikson, 1963). Parents with high levels of generativity are more caring and effective in their parental roles, and they are often more invested in their children s education. Parental role construction reflects parents ideas of what they are supposed to do in relation to their children s academic experiences. Consequently, parental role construction predicts parents home and school involvement (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007). The Generativity Social Capital Link The importance of examining social capital and generativity together as underlying aspects of parent involvement comes from the fact that they have overlapping areas of influence, and we propose that they have a bidirectional influence on each other. Generativity is dependent on our personal readiness and awareness to interact with society in both an individual and collective manner (Erikson, 1975). As adults become more ready for interactions and aware of others, of social institutions, and of public concerns, they become less preoccupied with themselves, creating a stronger personal identity (Erikson, 1963). This simultaneously benefits the individual and society, creating, among other things, social capital. The generative development of adults is a central need and a critical resource for society and culture to be strong and interconnected. The beneficial results of generativity are seen in the strengthening of social institutions and the linking of individuals to cultural traditions and social change efforts focused on giving and caring (McAdams & Logan, 2004). Generativity is positively associated with volunteerism, community involvement, voting, larger networks of friends, and more satisfaction with social relationships (Bailey, 1994; Cole & Stewart, 1996; Hart, McAdams, Hirsch, & Bauer, 2001; Mahler, 2011; Mc- Adams, 1997; McAdams & de Saint Aubin, 1992). Social institutions such as 161

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL schools, churches, and government agencies depend on the generative efforts of adults. In essence, the beneficial outcomes of generative development help create the resources that have been defined as social capital. This is bidirectional, staying consistent with the theory of social capital, as adults also depend on the social institutions for guidance, support, and affirmation in resolving the crises they face at each of their developmental stages (Erikson, 1963). Psychological findings indicate that support from social institutions is central to developing and maintaining a healthy identity for adults (Erikson, 1963). Justification for the Current Study As the educational community seeks continual improvement in family engagement, it is important to understand the relationships among the underlying factors that affect the outcomes we seek from parents, which is increased involvement both at home and in the school. For this study, the authors extend their previous work (Patel & Stevens, 2010) by exploring if parent involvement can be understood as an expression of social capital and generativity. Given that generativity is a process integral to adult development, that social capital enhances individual opportunities throughout the lifespan, and that parent involvement plays a key role in students academic success, understanding the relationship between these factors has the potential to promote simultaneous benefits for individuals who are at different points across the lifespan. This study is limited to the statistical modeling of the factors as measured using the School and Family Partnership Survey, a widely used instrument developed by Epstein and Salinas (1993) for measuring parent involvement. The results of this study present a statistical model that illustrates that social networks along with psychological and sociological development do relate to parent involvement. Parent involvement is often viewed through the lens of different types of involvement (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). A model such as that presented by this study may help facilitate our development of a deeper understanding of the interrelationships among community structures, social resources, and the unique development of personal characteristics at an individual level, which would benefit the evaluation process of parent involvement initiatives. In practice, demonstrating a positive relationship between the healthy psychosocial development of parents and their involvement in their children s education will provide an additional argument to the educational system for investing in the lives of parents and families as a whole. Policies and procedures of schools related to their parental base are reflective of the schools values and beliefs towards the utility of parent and school partnerships. 162

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Methods In the context of this research, the definitions and relationships of social capital and generativity are limited within the contextual frame of the educational system, and more specifically, within the frame of parent teacher and parent child interactions. For this study we selected a commonly used instrument, as it has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of parent involvement as defined by Epstein and Salinas (1993). The items on this instrument are typically viewed as direct gauges of how involved parents are with their children s education and how well schools solicit the involvement of parents. We hypothesize that the items can also be explored as indirect measures of generativity and social capital and that these two factors are correlated with each other, thus suggesting that generativity and social capital are underlying factors in parent involvement. With this in mind, social capital is operationalized as the actual or potential resources presented to parents by the school according to parent report. Generativity is operationalized as the activities a parent engages in or feels s/he can do on a one-on-one basis with his/her child. Participants Participants from the families of students in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade classes were recruited from two K 8 urban public schools in the Southwest, both of which serve students from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Of the 437 parents/guardians invited to participate, 45% agreed to do so (n = 197). Approximately 40% of the participants chose to complete the Spanish version of the questionnaire (n = 79). Frequency distributions by grade are represented in Table 1. Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Parents of Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Grade Students Parents 6th 7th 8th Characteristic N % N % N % Gender Female 46 23.35 65 33.00 41 20.81 Male 13 6.60 16 8.12 7 3.55 Language of Survey English 30 15.23 45 22.84 36 18.27 Spanish 29 14.72 37 18.78 13 6.60 *Note: Some parents neglected to mark their gender and/or their child s grade level. 163

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Measure The School and Family Partnerships: Survey of Parents in Elementary and Middle Grades (SFPS), created by the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at John s Hopkins University (Epstein & Salinas, 1993), was utilized to obtain parents reports of their involvment and their reports of school outreach provided, such as communication and invitations from the teachers, that facilitate their involvement. The survey consists of 10 sections, each examining a distinct aspect of school and family connections. Only two of these 10 sections pertained to this study, totaling 35 Likert-style items. These items addressed: (1) parent involvement, and (2) parents reports of school programs. The sections that were not used in this study include, but are not limited to, adolescent development, parents attitudes about the school and the community, as well as their reports of childrens learning at home activities. Each survey section is shown to be a valid and reliable measure of the constructs included (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). The authors previous work analyzed SFPS data as a way to examine the influence of parent teacher student beliefs discrepancies regarding academic ability on parent involvement (Patel & Stevens, 2010). This current research, however, is a secondary analysis of the data after reviewing the SFPS items for similarities with items on measures of generativity and social capital to answer the research question of whether parent involvement is an expression of the underlying constructs of social capital and generativity. Included are items for assessing parent involvement that are similar to those used in assessing levels of generativity such as reading a story to a child, passing along information, and liking the work of a teacher (see Loyola Generativity Scale [McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992] and the Generative Behavior Checklist [McAdams et al., 1998]). Items serving as measures of social capital are represented by the reported interactions between parents and teachers and the reported involvement of parents in their children s education, which reflect items used on some measurement tools for social capital (Saguaro Seminar, 2012; World Bank Group, 2011). Procedures Data were collected at the end of the first grading period in the academic year. Parents received the parent involvement survey at either parent teacher conferences or at home via their children. Both an English and Spanish questionnaire was made available to participants. Parents were provided a cover letter explaining the research project and questionnaire and were asked to return the completed survey to the school office, sealed in the provided envelope, within a two-week time period. 164

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Analysis We examined the structural relationship between social capital and generativity using structural equation modeling (SEM). This tested the proposition that social capital and generativity are distinct yet correlated phenomena involved in a broader process of parent involvement in K 12 education. Due to the discrete nature of the School and Family Partnership Survey scores, data analyses were carried out with Mplus 7.2 (2012), which automatically employs options for dealing with such variables at both the observed and latent levels (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 2010). The Mplus maximum likelihood estimation feature was used for missing data to provide less biased parameter estimates (e.g., Little & Rubin, 1987). The data set was then examined for normality; no issues with non-normality were revealed. Lastly, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to develop a definitive factor structure underlying 35 items of the SFPS that pertained to behaviors related to measures of social capital and generativity. Model fit was evaluated and modifications were made through an iterative process. The best fit model was adopted and analyzed at the item level. Descriptive statistics on how parents actually responded to the survey items are presented at the end of the results section. Results A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to develop a definitive factor structure underlying 35 items of the School and Family Partnership Survey. The scree plot seemed to suggest the presence of a general factor as predicted from the inspection of the correlation matrix. A large first eigenvalue (8.01) and a much smaller second eigenvalue (3.02) suggest the presence of a dominant global factor. Stretching it, one might argue that a secondary elbow occurred at the third factor, with an eigenvalue value of 1.92, implying a three-factor solution. Only items loading on the first two factors were used in the initial step of the model fit and modification process. Items loading on the third factor were examined later. Model Fit and Modification A measurement model of the two factors, social capital and generativity, was first tested. The goodness-of-fit indices for the two-factor model suggested that the constructs were measured satisfactorily but not adequately with χ 2 (43) = 77.95, p <.0001, indicating that the two-factor model should be rejected. While the WRMR = 0.934 indicated that the model provided an acceptable level, the CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.977, and RMSEA = 0.064 point estimate did 165

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL not approximate zero (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). This suggested that the twofactor model represents a possibility of close fit but does not represent a close or an exact fit to the survey. The two factors correlated fairly highly, 0.394. After examining the output, we decided there was a misspecification problem that was handled by adding an additional factor. In other words, this finding suggested that three or more factors underlie responses to the survey rather than only the two of social capital and generativity. Based on these results, a three-factor model was then specified. First, items with low or secondary loadings were dropped from the factors. Then, social capital was distinguished into two levels: individual and community. This yielded eight, six, and six items for the factors of individual-level social capital, generativity, and community-level social capital, respectively. In each case, the retained items were deemed adequate to measure these constructs and appeared to maintain good face validity. The indicators of the School and Family Partnership Survey constructs are listed in Table 2. Also included in Table 2 are the unstandardized parameter estimates for the between-items and factors, which were all significant and of the expected direction. The model achieved adequate to good fit when a third factor was added. The goodness-of-fit indices suggested that the three-factor model constructs were measured adequately and sufficiently with χ 2 (46) = 66.93, p = 0.024. The CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.048 point estimate (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and WRMR = 0.808 indicated that the model provided a reasonable and very close or exact fit to the survey. The three factors correlated fairly highly, with 0.334 for the factors generativity and individual-level social capital, 0.763 for individual and community social capital factors, and 0.330 for generativity and community-level social capital. The three-factor model was adopted as the best-fit model to the sample data. Parent Response to Survey This study is a continuation of the authors previously published work (Patel & Stevens, 2010). The purpose of the current study was to explore if parent involvement could be viewed, and statistically modelled, as a relationship among the factors of social capital and generativity. The results are dependent on the data from this particular sample, which does invite certain limitations and the need for replication and future research; for one, the parents are those of middle school students. Descriptive statistics are provided here for some additional context to this study based on the newly defined factors individual social capital, community social capital, and generativity. For more details on responses to specific items, items dropped from the current proposed model, an examination of the factors originally proposed by Epstein and Salinas (1993), and a 166

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL comparision of Spanish- versus English-speaking parents, please refer to Patel and Stevens (2010). Table 2. Factor Indicators and Unstandardized Parameter Estimates Items Factor 1 Individual-Level Social Capital a (α =.86) Estimates Tell me how my child is doing in school 1.00 Tell me what skills my child needs to learn each year 1.50 Explain how to check my child s homework 1.84 Send home news about things happening at school 1.32 Give me information about how report card grades are earned 1.39 Assign homework that requires my child to talk with me about things learned in class 1.91 Send home clear notices that I can read easily 1.53 Contact me if my child does something well or improves 1.97 Factor 2 Generativity b (α =.79) Talk to my child about school 1.00 Read to my child 2.10 Listen to my child read 2.34 Listen to a story my child wrote 1.95 Help my child with homework 1.86 Help my child plan time for homework and chores 1.37 Factor 3 Community-Level Social Capital a (α =.89) Invite me to programs at the school 1.00 Ask me to volunteer at the school 1.69 Invite me to PTA/PTO meetings 1.60 Ask me to help with fundraising 1.68 Include parents on school committees such as curriculum, budgets, and school improvement 1.75 Provide information on community services that I may want to use 1.79 a Question stem: How well does the school do each of the following? b Question stem: How often have you engaged in the following during this academic year? The parents responded similarly on all three scales. On average, they did not respond significantly higher or lower on any one factor compared to another. Regarding the factor generativity, parents responded positively. The average was 3.12 (SD =.62) on a scale of one to four (never, 1 2 times, a few times, many times). The activities reported as the most frequently engaged in were talking 167

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL with their child about school (many times = 68%) and helping their middle schooler plan time for homework (many times = 55%). The activity parents engaged in the least was reading to their child with 25% reporting they never do this. Parents also responded with positive perceptions of both individual- and community-level social capital (M = 2.58 and 2.31, SD =.44 and.67, respectively). These were measured on a scale of one to three (does not do, could do better, does well). Within individual-level social capital, parents reported that the action the school does the best at is telling them how their middle school child is doing in school (does well = 81%) and how often they send home news about the school and information on grades (does well = 76% and 76%, respectively). The action that most parents reported the school not doing was explaining how to check their child s homework (does not do = 21%). Within community-level social capital, parents reported that the school does well at giving invitations to attend school programs (70%), while 31% reported that they are never asked to help with fundraising. Discussion As the importance of family engagement continues to rise, examinations of the topic merit new perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches. This study examined the connection between parent involvement, the psychosocial development of generativity, and the sociological concept of social capital. Following the trend of recent research, the utility of social capital as a frame has an extended reach. As an extension of a previously published study (Patel & Stevens, 2010), this current work sought to examine how parent involvement can be viewed as an outcome of generativity and social capital. The original statistical model proposed these concepts as two global factors. However, analyses suggested that a better model for the data is a three-factor model in which social capital is viewed as two separate factors, one for social capital at the individual level and another for social capital at the community level. The final measures for the factor individual-level social capital are those survey items indicating the interactions between two individuals, the teacher and the parent. In this case, the participating parents reported the amount of communication and information shared between their child s teacher and the home. According to social capital theory, every time a line of communication is used positively, that relationship is strengthened and trust is increased. The final measures for the factor community-level social capital are those survey items indicating the opportunities created by the school for parents to participate in community functions. Again, according to social capital theory, schools that are closed to the idea of 168

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL including parents in school activities are said to provide low levels of social capital because trusting relationships are not nurtured due to a lack of communication and cooperation (Coleman, 1994; Kilpatrick et al., 2010). The factor generativity as proposed was a reliable construct to measure the activities parents are directly involved in with their children s education. In Erikson s theory of generativity, parenting is highlighted as an important part of the generative process. Parents have to have the desire and a belief in their capabilities in order to actively promote the well-being of the next generation (Erikson, 1963). The fact that this research concluded that social capital was better defined as either an individual-level or community-level good confirms previous research that social capital is a versatile resource at all system levels (Coleman, 1988, 1994; Durlauf, 2002; Kilpatrick et al., 2010). Considering social capital as a single global factor as originally posited poses problematic issues of incorrect measurement and interpretation of the social phenomenon under study. Social networks are dynamic entities with reciprocating influences from surrounding environments. Their internal structures and their external ambitions may be ever changing depending on context, or as Erikson repeatedly noted, the workings of any social group or individual are dependent on the historical time and place. The analysis also demonstrates that the three factors are correlated. As we proposed, social capital and generativity are not limited to separate areas of influence in one s life, but rather work together to create patterns of behaviors that we commonly observe. As prominent researchers on generativity have indicated, generative development is beneficial to social institutions, helping to strengthen them and to pass on cultural traditions (McAdams & Logan, 2004). Cause and effect cannot be assumed; however, from the theories of social capital and generativity, it is logical to suggest that they are the underlying factors providing the resources needed for behaviors to occur. In other words, the creation of social capital leads to increased opportunities through social networks, but this behavior may also serve in creating necessary resources for the successful development of an individual s psychological and social identity. In the same manner, the psychosocial development of generativity not only benefits the wellbeing of an individual, but is also an important characteristic that leads people to create and nurture social capital. Similarly, it is recognized that involvement in the family and community is seen as a productive and generative activity (Warburton, McLaughlin, & Pinsker, 2006). The importance of considering these underlying factors before making premature assumptions about the reasons for parent involvement or the lack thereof is to prevent placing blame on parents, teachers, or students for what may be situations and consequences out of their control. For instance, teachers 169

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL may blame parents for students academic failure; however, they must consider if the creation of social capital has been blocked through a lack of opportunities for parents to be involved in the schools. The importance of examining these two factors together also helps us understand the variability we will find in the motivation for parents to be engaged in their children s school. Motivation cannot be viewed as being derived from only one source; rather, motivation is best viewed as a more complex decision to personally invest one s self in a situation based on, for example, a parent s sense that she can be successful in helping her children, that being involved is a valuable use of her time and energy, and that the avenues for successful involvement exist and are open to her. Even looking only at these three limited examples demonstrates that parents motivations to be engaged come from their own internal views of themselves (generativity) and their perceptions of having the means to accomplish what they desire to accomplish (social capital). Future Research This study took the preliminary step of exploring the relationship between generativity and social capital within the context of education and as underlying factors of parent involvement by using an existing instrument due to its history as a valid and reliable measure of parent involvement. We cannot argue that this parent involvement instrument is the most appropriate measure of generativity or social capital; yet the analyses from the data do provide a strong support at the start of exploration of generativity and social capital as aspects of parent involvement. There are multiple other ways that generativity can be observed, as there are for social capital. Now that such a relationship between the factors has been presented, more rigorous work is needed in the area of measurement. Exploring the same questions asked in this study with different measures will further increase the reliability of the concept. Future research should also examine the development of generativity over time. More specifically, it would be beneficial if researchers examined the influence of social capital on generative processes. A better understanding of how varying levels and types of social capital influence generativity in the context of parent involvement would provide school personnel with specific and focused recommendations related to the facilitation of social capital. Additionally, research should look into parents perceptions of their social capital and how schools go about providing social capital as children progress through school. In what ways are schools addressing student achievement through the provision of social capital? While this study provides the results of the first step in developing a statistical model revealing the interrelated nature of social capital and generativity, 170

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL replication is needed. Such replication should include various other forms of parent involvement and generativity measures in order to further increase the validity and reliability of the proposed framework. With a statistical model in place, researchers may be able to better evaluate schools efforts to increase family engagement, which relies on the parents, school, and community working together. Finally, the investigation of social capital and generativity should focus on measures related to current ideas of family engagement (Ferlazzo, 2011) rather than parent involvement. References Bailey, W. (1994). Psychosocial development in women: Generativity. Psychological Reports, 74, 286. Bolivar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2011). Enhancing parent leadership through building social capital and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 4 38. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241 258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Brice, J. (2014, April). Department of education releases new parent and community engagement framework [Web log message]. ED Homeroom: The Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/04/departmentof-education-releases-new-parent-and-community-engagement-framework/ Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways to assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chesters, J., & Smith, J. (2015). Social capital and aspirations for educational attainment: A cross-national comparison of Australia and Germany. Journal of Youth Studies, (ahead-ofprint), 1 18. doi:10.1080/13676261.2014.1001831 Cole, E. R., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Meanings of political participation among Black and White women: Political identity and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 130 140. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95 S120. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. (1994). Social capital, human capital, and investment in youth. In A. Petersen & J. Mortimer (Eds.), Youth unemployment and society (pp. 34 50). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Cruz, J. (2009). Social capital in the Americas: Participation in parents associations. Americas Barometer Insights, 24, 1 6. Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 164 175. doi:10.3200/joer.98.3.164-175 Dika, S. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31 60. doi:10.3102/00346543072001031 Dufur, M. J., Hoffmann, J. P., Braudt, D. B., Parcel, T. L., & Spence, K. R. (2015). Examining the effects of family and school social capital on delinquent behavior. Deviant Behavior, (ahead-of-print), 1 16. doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.944069 171

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Durlauf, S. (2002). Symposium on social capital: Introduction. The Economic Journal, 112, F417 F418. Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships: Surveys and summaries. Questionnaires for teachers and parents in elementary and middle grades, and how to summarize your school s survey data. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children s Learning. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. New York, NY: International Universities Press. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1975). Life history and the historical moment (1st ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1997). The life cycle completed (Extended version). New York, NY: Norton. Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or engagement? Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10 14. Forsyth, P., & Adams, C. (2004). Social capital in education: Taking stock of concept and measure. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 251 278). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents motivations for involvement in children s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532 544. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532 Griswold, W. (1994). Cultures and societies in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart, H., McAdams, D. P., Hirsch, B. J., & Bauer, J. J. (2001). Generativity and social involvement among African Americans and White adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(2), 208 230. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740 763. doi:10.1037/a0015362 Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 42(1), 82 110. Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706 742. Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., & Mulford, B. (2010). Social capital, educational institutions, and leadership. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGraw (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 113 119). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Kroger, J. (2007). Identity development: Adolescence through adulthood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 152 168. Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 57 64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu s concept of capital to the broader field: The case of family school relationships. In B. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and education: Policy and practice (pp. 77 100). New York, NY: Routledge. Leichter, H. (1974). For the record: The family as educator. Teachers College Record, 76(2), 173 174. Little, R., & Rubin, D. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley. 172

GENERATIVITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Mahler, E. (2011). Midlife work role transitions: Generativity and learning in 21st century careers. In C. Hoare (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of reciprocal adult development and learning (2nd ed., pp. 186 214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Morrow. McAdams, D. P. (1997). Three voices of Erik Erikson. Contemporary Psychology, 42, 575 578. McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003 1015. McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. Mc- Adams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7 43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McAdams, D. P., & Logan, R. L. (2004). What is generativity? In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. Mc- Adams, & T. Kim (Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future generations (pp. 15 32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McNeal, J. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117 144. doi:10.1093/ sf/78.1.117 MPlus (Version 7.2). [Computer Software]. (2012). Los Angeles, CA. Available from http:// www.statmodel.com/ Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 2010). MPlus user s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Patel, N., & Stevens, S. (2010). Parent teacher student discrepancies in academic ability beliefs: Influences on parent involvement. School Community Journal, 20(2), 115 136. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485 518. Pratt, M. W., Lawford, H. L, & Allen, J. W. (2012). Young fatherhood, generativity, and men s development: Travelling a two-way street to maturity. In J. Ball & K. Daly (Eds.), Father involvement in Canada: Diversity, renewal, and tranformation (pp. 107 125). Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1), 65 78. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Saguaro Seminar. (2012). Social capital measurement overview. Retrieved from http://www.hks. harvard.edu/saguaro/measurement/measurement.htm Sampson, R. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633 660. Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559 562. Tang, S. (2015). Social capital and determinants of immigrant family educational involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 108(1), 22 34. Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997). Social capital and the generation of human capital. Social Forces, 75(4), 1343 1359. 173

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Walker, J. M. T., Ice, C. L., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2011). Latino parents motivations for involvement in their children s schooling: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 409 429. Warburton, J., McLaughlin, D., & Pinsker, D. (2006). Generative acts: Family and community involvement of older Australians. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63(2), 115 137. doi:10.2190/9te3-t1g1-333v-3dt8. Whitaker, M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2013). School influences on parents role beliefs. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 73 99. World Bank Group. (2011). Measurement tools. Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/lhi- 4AYZEF0 Sharon Stevens is an associate professor of Educational Psychology at Western Illinois University. Her research interests focus on teaching and accreditation in higher education. Dr. Stevens can be contacted at Western Illinois University, Educational and Interdisciplinary Studies, 1 University Circle, Horrabin Hall 115p, Macomb, Illinois 61455, or email sr-stevens2@wiu.edu Nimisha Patel is professor of Educational Psychology at Wright State University. Her research interests include STEM Education, student engagement, and K 12 teaching practices. 174