SchoolFamily Community Partnerships · and community partnerships with “caring” as a core...

kappanmagazine.org V92 N3 Kappan 81

This article was originallypublished as “School/Family/Community/Partnerships: Caringfor the Children WeShare” by Joyce L.Epstein. Phi DeltaKappan 76, no. 9(May 1995): 701-712.

KAPPAN digital edition exclusiveKappan Classic

Deepen yourunderstanding ofthis article withquestions andactivities on pagePD 18 of thismonth’s KappanProfessionalDevelopmentDiscussion Guideby Lois BrownEaston, free tomembers in the digital edition atkappanmagazine.org.

When schools form partnerships with families and the community, thechildren benefit. These guidelines for building partnerships can make ithappen.

By Joyce L. Epstein

The way schools care about children is reflected in the way schools care about the children’s families. Ifeducators view children simply as students, they are likely to see the family as separate from the school. Thatis, the family is expected to do its job and leave the education of children to the schools. If educators viewstudents as children, they are likely to see both the family and the community as partners with the schoolin children’s education and development. Partners recognize their shared interests in and responsibilitiesfor children, and they work together to create better programs and opportunities for students.

There are many reasons for developing school, family, and community partnerships. They can improve

JOYCE L. EPSTEIN is director, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,Md. Her book, School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (Corwin, 2009), is in its third edition.

School/Family/

CommunityPartnerships

CARING FOR THE CHILDREN WE SHARE

Thin

ksto

ck/C

omst

ock

school programs and school climate, provide familyservices and support, increase parents’ skills andleadership, connect families with others in the schooland in the community, and help teachers with theirwork. However, the main reason to create such part-nerships is to help all youngsters succeed in schooland in later life. When parents, teachers, students,and others view one another as partners in educa-tion, a caring community forms around students andbegins its work.

What do successful partnership programs looklike? How can practices be effectively designed andimplemented? What are the results of better com-munications, interactions, and exchanges acrossthese three important contexts? These questionshave challenged research and practice, creating aninterdisciplinary field of inquiry into school, family,and community partnerships with “caring” as a coreconcept.

The field has been strengthened by supportingfederal, state, and local policies. For example, theGoals 2000 legislation sets partnerships as a volun-tary national goal for all schools; Title I specifies andmandates programs and practices of partnership inorder for schools to qualify for or maintain funding.Many states and districts have developed or arepreparing policies to guide schools in creating moresystematic connections with families and communi-ties. These policies reflect research results and theprior successes of leading educators who have shownthat these goals are attainable.

Underlying these policies and programs are a the-ory of how social organizations connect; a frame-work of the basic components of school, family, andcommunity partnerships for children’s learning; agrowing literature on the positive and negative re-sults of these connections for students, families, andschools; and an understanding of how to organizegood programs. In this article I summarize the the-ory, framework, and guidelines that have assisted theschools in our research projects in building partner-ships and that should help any elementary, middle,or high school to take similar steps.

OVERLAPPING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

Schools make choices. They might conduct onlya few communications and interactions with fami-

lies and communities, keeping the three spheres ofinfluence that directly affect student learning and de-velopment relatively separate. Or they might con-duct many high-quality communications and inter-actions designed to bring all three spheres of influ-ence closer together. With frequent interactions be-tween schools, families, and communities, more stu-dents are more likely to receive common messagesfrom various people about the importance of school,of working hard, of thinking creatively, of helpingone another, and of staying in school.

The external model of overlapping spheres of in-fluence recognizes that the three major contexts inwhich students learn and grow — the family, theschool, and the community — may be drawn to-gether or pushed apart. In this model, there are somepractices that schools, families, and communitiesconduct separately and some that they conductjointly in order to influence children’s learning anddevelopment. The internal model of the interactionof the three spheres of influence shows where andhow complex and essential interpersonal relationsand patterns of influence occur between individualsat home, at school, and in the community. These so-cial relationships may be enacted and studied at aninstitutional level (e.g., when a school invites all fam-ilies to an event or sends the same communicationsto all families) and at an individual level (e.g., whena parent and a teacher meet in conference or talk byphone). Connections between schools or parents andcommunity groups, agencies, and services can alsobe represented and studied within the model (Ep-stein 1987, 1992, 1994, 2001).

The model of school, family, and communitypartnerships locates the student at the center. Theinarguable fact is that students are the main actorsin their education, development, and success inschool. School, family, and community partnershipscannot simply produce successful students. Rather,partnership activities may be designed to engage,guide, energize, and motivate students to producetheir own successes. The assumption is that, if chil-dren feel cared for and encouraged to work hard inthe role of student, they are more likely to do theirbest to learn to read, write, calculate, and learn otherskills and talents and to remain in school.

Interestingly and somewhat ironically, studies in-dicate that students are also crucial for the success ofschool, family, and community partnerships. Stu-dents are often their parents’ main source of infor-mation about school. In strong partnership pro-grams, teachers help students understand and con-duct traditional communications with families (e.g.,delivering memos or report cards) and new commu-nications (e.g., interacting with family membersabout homework or participating in parent/teacher/

82 Kappan November 2010 kappanmagazine.org

Just about all teachers and administratorswould like to involve families, but many do not

know how to go about it.

student conferences). As we gain more informationabout the role of students in partnerships, we are de-veloping a more complete understanding of howschools, families, and communities must work withstudents to increase their chances for success.

HOW THEORY SOUNDS IN PRACTICE

In some schools there are still educators who say,“If the family would just do its job, we could do ourjob.” And there are still families who say, “I raisedthis child; now it is your job to educate her.” Thesewords embody the theory of “separate spheres of in-fluence.” Other educators say, “I cannot do my jobwithout the help of my students’ families and the sup-port of this community.” And some parents say, “Ireally need to know what is happening in school inorder to help my child.” These phrases embody thetheory of “overlapping spheres of influence.”

In a partnership, teachers and administrators cre-ate more family-like schools. A family-like school rec-ognizes each child’s individuality and makes eachchild feel special and included. Family-like schoolswelcome all families, not just those that are easy toreach. In a partnership, parents create more school-like families. A school-like family recognizes thateach child is also a student. Families reinforce theimportance of school, homework, and activities thatbuild student skills and feelings of success. Commu-nities, including groups of parents working together,create school-like opportunities, events, and pro-grams that reinforce, recognize, and reward studentsfor good progress, creativity, contributions, and ex-cellence. Communities also create family-like set-tings, services, and events to enable families to bet-ter support their children. Community-minded fami-lies and students help their neighborhoods and otherfamilies. The concept of a community school isreemerging. It refers to a place where programs andservices for students, parents, and others are offeredbefore, during, and after the regular school day.

Schools and communities talk about programsand services that are “family-friendly” — meaningthat they take into account the needs and realities offamily life in the 1990s, are feasible to conduct, andare equitable toward all families. When all these con-cepts combine, children experience learning commu-nities or caring communities (Brandt 1989; Epstein1987; Lewis, Schaps, and Watson 1995).

All these terms are consistent with the theory ofoverlapping spheres of influence, but they are notabstract concepts. You will find them daily in con-versations, news stories, and celebrations of manykinds. In a family-like school, a teacher might say, “Iknow when a student is having a bad day and how tohelp him along.” A student might slip and call ateacher “mom” or “dad” and then laugh with a mix-

ture of embarrassment and glee. In a school-like fam-ily, a parent might say, “I make sure my daughterknows that homework comes first.” A child mightraise his hand to speak at the dinner table and thenjoke about acting as if he were still in school. Whencommunities reach out to students and their fami-lies, youngsters might say, “This program reallymade my schoolwork make sense!” Parents or edu-cators might comment, “This community really sup-ports its schools.”

Once people hear about such concepts as family-like schools or school-like families, they rememberpositive examples of schools, teachers, and places inthe community that were “like a family” to them.They may remember how a teacher paid individualattention to them, recognized their uniqueness, orpraised them for real progress, just as a parent might.Or they might recall things at home that were “justlike school” and supported their work as a student,or they might remember community activities thatmade them feel smart or good about themselves andtheir families. They will recall that parents, siblings,and other family members engaged in and enjoyededucational activities and took pride in the goodschoolwork or homework that they did, just as ateacher might.

HOW PARTNERSHIPS WORK IN PRACTICE

These terms and examples are evidence of the po-tential for schools, families, and communities to cre-ate caring educational environments. It is possible tohave a school that is excellent academically but ig-nores families. However, that school will build bar-riers between teachers, parents, and children — bar-riers that affect school life and learning. It is possi-ble to have a school that is ineffective academicallybut involves families in many good ways. With itsweak academic program, that school will short-change students’ learning. Neither of these schoolsexemplifies a caring educational environment thatrequires academic excellence, good communica-tions, and productive interactions involving school,family, and community.

Some children succeed in school without muchfamily involvement or despite family neglect or dis-tress, particularly if the school has excellent academicand support programs. Teachers, relatives outside ofthe immediate family, other families, and membersof the community can provide important guidanceand encouragement to these students. As supportfrom school, family, and community accumulates,significantly more students feel secure and cared for,understand the goals of education, work to achieveto their full potential, build positive attitudes andschool behaviors, and stay in school. The shared in-terests and investments of schools, families, and


communities create the conditions of caring thatwork to “overdetermine” the likelihood of studentsuccess (Boykin 1994).

Any practice can be designed and implementedwell or poorly. And even well-implemented partner-ship practices may not be useful to all families. In acaring school community, participants work contin-ually to improve the nature and effects of partner-ships. Although the interactions of educators, par-ents, students, and community members will not al-ways be smooth or successful, partnership programsestablish a base of respect and trust on which to build.Good partnerships withstand questions, conflicts,debates, and disagreements; provide structures andprocesses to solve problems; and are maintained —even strengthened — after differences have been re-solved. Without this firm base, disagreements andproblems that are sure to arise about schools and stu-dents will be harder to solve.

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS

In surveys and field studies involving teachers,parents, and students at the elementary, middle, andhigh school levels, some important patterns relatingto partnerships have emerged (see Epstein 1986,1990, 1992, 1996; Ames, Khoju, and Watkins 1993;Baker and Stevenson 1986; Bauch 1988; Becker andEpstein 1982; Clark 1983; Dauber and Epstein 1993;Dornbusch and Ritter 1988; Eccles 1996; Epsteinand Lee 1995; Lareau 1989; and Scott-Jones 1995).

• Partnerships tend to decline across the grades,unless schools and teachers work to developand implement appropriate practices ofpartnership at each grade level.

• Affluent communities currently have morepositive family involvement, on average, unlessschools and teachers in economicallydistressed communities work to build positivepartnerships with their students’ families.

• Schools in more economically depressedcommunities make more contacts withfamilies about the problems and difficultiestheir children are having, unless they work atdeveloping balanced partnership programsthat include contacts about positiveaccomplishments of students.

• Single parents, parents who are employedoutside the home, parents who live far fromthe school, and fathers are less involved, onaverage, at the school building, unless theschool organizes opportunities for families tovolunteer at various times and in variousplaces to support the school and theirchildren.

Researchers have also drawn the followingconclusions.

• Just about all families care about theirchildren, want them to succeed, and are eagerto obtain better information from schools andcommunities so as to remain good partners intheir children’s education.

• Just about all teachers and administratorswould like to involve families, but many donot know how to go about building positiveand productive programs and are consequentlyfearful about trying. This creates a “rhetoricrut,” in which educators are stuck, expressingsupport for partnerships without taking anyaction.

• Just about all students at all levels —elementary, middle, and high school — wanttheir families to be more knowledgeablepartners about schooling and are willing totake active roles in assisting communicationsbetween home and school. However, studentsneed much better information and guidancethan most now receive about how theirschools view partnerships and about how theycan conduct important exchanges with theirfamilies about school activities, homework,and school decisions.

The research results are important because theyindicate that caring communities can be built on pur-pose; that they include families that might not be-come involved on their own; and that, by their ownreports, just about all families, students, and teach-ers believe that partnerships are important for help-ing students succeed across the grades.

Good programs will look different in each site, asindividual schools tailor their practices to meet theneeds and interests, time and talents, ages and gradelevels of students and their families. However, thereare some commonalities across successful programsat all grade levels. These include a recognition of theoverlapping spheres of influence on student devel-opment; attention to various types of involvementthat promote a variety of opportunities for schools,families, and communities to work together; and anAction Team for School, Family, and CommunityPartnerships to coordinate each school’s work andprogress.

SIX TYPES OF CARING

A framework of six major types of involvementhas evolved from many studies and from many yearsof work by educators and families in elementary,middle, and high schools. The framework (summa-rized in the accompanying tables) helps educators


develop more comprehensive programs of schooland family partnerships and also helps researcherslocate their questions and results in ways that informand improve practice. (The three tables update ear-lier versions that were based on only five types of in-volvement. For other discussions of the types, prac-tices, challenges, redefinitions, and results, seeEpstein 1992; Connors Tadros and Epstein 2002;

Epstein and Connors Tadros 1994, 1995. Schools’ ac-tivities with various types of involvement are out-lined in Davies, Burch, and Johnson 1992.)

Each type of involvement includes many differ-ent practices of partnership (see Table 1). Each typepresents particular challenges that must be met in or-der to involve all families and needed redefinitions ofsome basic principles of involvement (see Table 2).


Type 1Parenting

Help all familiesestablish homeenvironments tosupport children asstudents.

Sample Practices

Suggestions for homeconditions thatsupport learning ateach grade level.

Parent education andother courses ortraining for parents(e.g., GED, collegecredit, family literacy).

Family supportprograms to assistfamilies with health,nutrition, and otherservices.

Home visits attransition points topreschool, elementary,middle, and highschool. Neighborhoodmeetings to helpfamilies understandschools and to helpschools understandfamilies.

Type 2Communicating

Design effective formsof school-to-homeand home-to-schoolcommunicationsabout schoolprograms andchildren’s progress.

Sample Practices

Conferences withevery parent at leastonce a year, withfollow-ups as needed.

Language translatorsto assist families asneeded.

Weekly or monthlyfolders of studentwork sent home forreview andcomments.

Parent/student pickupof report card, withconferences onimproving grades.

Regular schedule ofuseful notices,memos, phone calls,newsletters, and othercommunications.

Clear information onchoosing schools orcourses, programs,and activities withinschools.

Clear information onall school policies,programs, reforms,and transitions.

Type 3Volunteering

Recruit and organizeparent help andsupport.

Sample Practices

School and classroomvolunteer program tohelp teachers,administrators,students, and otherparents.

Parent room or familycenter for volunteerwork, meetings,resources for families.

Annual postcardsurvey to identify allavailable talents, timesand locations ofvolunteers.

Class parent,telephone tree, orother structures toprovide all familieswith neededinformation.

Parent patrols or otheractivities to aid safetyand operation ofschool programs.

Type 4Learning at Home

Provide informationand ideas to familiesabout how to helpstudents at home withhomework and othercurriculum-relatedactivities, decisions,and planning.

Sample Practices

Information for familieson skills required forstudents in all subjectsat each grade.

Information onhomework policiesand how to monitorand discuss school-work at home.

Information on how toassist students toimprove skills onvarious class andschool assessments.

Regular schedule ofhomework thatrequires students todiscuss and interactwith families on whatthey are learning inclass.

Calendars withactivities for parentsand students at home.

Family math, science,and reading activitiesat school.

Summer learningpackets or activities.

Family participation insetting student goalseach year and inplanning for college orwork.

Type 5Decision Making

Include parents inschool decisions,developing parentleaders and represen-tatives.

Sample Practices

Active PTA/PTO orother parent organiza-tions, advisorycouncils, or commit-tees (e.g., curriculum,safety, personnel) forparent leadership andparticipation.

Independentadvocacy groups tolobby and work forschool reform andimprovements.

District-level councilsand committees forfamily and communityinvolvement.

Information on schoolor local elections forschool representa-tives.

Networks to link allfamilies with parentrepresentatives.

Type 6Collaborating withCommunity

Identify and integrateresources and servicesfrom the community tostrengthen schoolprograms, familypractices, and studentlearning and develop-ment.

Sample Practices

Information forstudents and familieson community health,cultural,recreational,socialsupport, and otherprograms or services.

Information oncommunity activitiesthat link to learningskills and talents,including summerprograms forstudents.

Service integrationthrough partnershipsinvolving school, civic,counseling, cultural,health, recreation, andother agencies andorganizations, andbusinesses.

Service to thecommunity bystudents, families, andschools (e.g.,recycling, art, music,drama, and otheractivities for senior orothers).

Participation of alumniin school programs forstudents.

TABLE 1.

Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement and Sample Practices

Finally, each type is likely to lead to different resultsfor students, for parents, for teaching practice, andfor school climate (see Table 3). Thus schools havechoices about which practices will help achieve im-portant goals. The tables provide examples of prac-tices, challenges for successful implementation, re-definitions for up-to-date understanding, and results

that have been documented and observed.

CHARTING THE COURSE

The entries in the tables are illustrative. The sam-ple practices displayed in Table 1 are only a few ofhundreds that may be selected or designed for eachtype of involvement. Although all schools may use


Type 1Parenting

Challenges

Provide information toall families who want itor who need it, notjust to the few whocan attend workshopsor meetings at theschool building.

Enable families toshare information withschools about culture,background, children’stalents and needs.

Make sure that allinformation for andfrom families is clear,usable, and linked tochildren’s success inschool.

Redefinitions

“Workshop” to meanmore than a meetingabout a topic held atthe school building ata particular time.“Workshop” may alsomean makinginformation about atopic available in avariety of forms thatcan be viewed, heard,or read anywhere, anytime, in varied forms.

Type 2Communicating

Challenges

Review the readability,clarity, form, andfrequency of allmemos, notices, andother print andnonprint communica-tions.

Consider parents whodo not speak Englishwell, read well,or needlarge type.

Review the quality ofmajor communications(newsletters, reportcards, conferenceschedules, and so on).

Establish clear two-way channels forcommunications fromhome to school andfrom school to home.

Redefinitions

“Communicationsabout schoolprograms and studentprogress” to meantwo-way, three-way,and many-waychannels of communi-cation that connectschools, families,students, and thecommunity.

Type 3Volunteering

Challenges

Recruit volunteerswidely so that allfamilies know thattheir time and talentsare welcome.

Make flexibleschedules forvolunteers, assem-blies, and events toenable parents whowork to participate.

Organize volunteerwork; provide training;match time and talentwith school, teachers,and student needs;and recognize effortsof the participants areproductive.

Redefinitions

“Volunteer” to meananyone who supportsschool goals andchildren’s learning ordevelopment in anyway, at any place, andat any time not justduring the school dayand at the schoolbuilding.


Challenges

Design and organize aregular schedule ofinteractive homework(e.g., weekly or bi-monthly) that givesstudents responsibilityfor discussingimportant things theyare learning and helpsfamilies stay aware ofthe content of theirchildren’s classwork.

Coordinate family-linked homeworkactivities, if studentshave several teachers.

Involve families andtheir children in allimportant curriculum-related decisions.

Redefinitions

“Homework” to meannot only work donealone, but alsointeractive activitiesshared with others athome or in thecommunity, linkingschoolwork to real life.

“Help” at home tomean encouraging,listening, reacting,praising, guiding,monitoring, anddiscussing — not“teaching” schoolsubjects.


Challenges

Include parent leadersfrom all racial, ethnic,socioeconomic, andother groups in theschool.

Offer training to enableleaders to serve asrepresentatives ofother families, withinput from and returnof information to allparents.

Include students(along with parents) indecision-makinggroups.

Redefinitions

“Decision making” tomean a process ofpartnership, of sharedviews and actionstoward shared goals,not just a powerstruggle betweenconflicting ideas.

Parent “leader” to meana real representative,with opportunities andsupport to hear fromand communicatewith other families.


Challenges

Solve turf problems ofresponsibilities, funds,staff, and locations forcollaborative activities.

Inform families ofcommunity programsfor students, such asmentoring, tutoring,business partnerships.

Ensure equity ofopportunities forstudents and familiesto participate incommunity programsor to obtain services.

Match communitycontributions withschool goals; integratechild and family ser-vices with education.

Redefinitions

“Community” to meannot only the neighbor-hoods where students’homes and schools arelocated but also anyneighborhoods thatinfluence their learningand development.

“Community” creatednot only by low or highsocial or economicqualities, but bystrengths and talentsto support students,families, and schools.

“Community” meansall who are interestedin and affected by thequality of education ,not just those withchildren in theschools.

TABLE 2.

Challenges and Redefinitions for the Six Types of Involvement


Type 1Parenting

Results for Students

Awareness of familysupervision; respectfor parents.

Positive personalqualities, habits,beliefs, and values, astaught by family.

Balance between timespent on chores, onother activities, and onhomework.

Good or improvedattendance.

Awareness ofimportance of school.

For Parents

Understanding of andconfidence aboutparenting, child, andadolescent develop-ment, and changes inhome conditions forlearning as childrenproceed throughschool.

Awareness of ownand others’ challengesin parenting.

Feeling of supportfrom school and otherparents.

For Teachers

Understandingfamilies’ backgrounds,cultures, concerns,goals, needs, andviews of children.

Respect for families’strengths and efforts.

Understanding ofstudent diversity.

Awareness of ownskills to shareinformation on childdevelopment.

Type 2Communicating


Awareness of ownprogress and ofactions needed tomaintain or improvegrades.

Understanding ofschool policies onbehavior, attendance,and other areas ofstudent conduct.

Informed decisionsabout courses andprograms.

Awareness of own rolein partnerships,serving as courier andcommunicator.

For Parents

Understanding schoolprograms andpolicies.

Monitoring andawareness of child’sprogress.

Responding effectivelyto students’ problems.

Interactions withteachers and ease ofcommunication withschool and teachers.

For Teachers

Increased diversityand use of communi-cations with familiesand awareness of ownability to communicateclearly.

Appreciation for anduse of parent networkfor communications.

Increased ability toelicit and understandfamily views onchildren’s programsand progress.

Type 3Volunteering


Skill in communicatingwith adults.

Increased learning ofskills that receivetutoring or targetattention fromvolunteers.

Awareness of manyskills, talents,occupations, andcontributions fromparents and othervolunteers.

For Parents

Understandingteacher’s job,increased comfort inschool, and carry-overof school activities athome.

Self-confidence aboutability to work inschool and withchildren or to takesteps to improve owneducation.

Awareness thatfamilies are welcomeand valued at school

Gains in specific skillsof volunteer work.

For Teachers

Readiness to involvefamilies in new ways,including those whodo not volunteer atschool.

Awareness of parents’talents and interests inschool and children.

Greater individualattention to students,with help fromvolunteers.



Gains in skills, abilities,and test scores linkedto homework andclasswork.

Homework completion.

Positive attitudetoward schoolwork.

View of parent asmore similar toteacher and of homeas more similar toschool.

Self-concept of abilityas learner.

For Parents

Know how to support,encourage, and helpstudent at home eachyear.

Discussions of school,classwork, andhomework.

Understanding ofinstructional programeach year and of whatchild is learning ineach subject.

Appreciation ofteaching skills.

Awareness of child asa learner.

For Teachers

Better design ofhomework assign-ments.

Respect of familytime.

Recognition of equalhelpfulness of single-parent, dual-income,and less formallyeducated families inmotivating andreinforcing studentlearning.

Satisfaction with familyinvolvement andsupport.



Awareness ofrepresentation offamilies in schooldecisions.

Understanding thatstudent rights areprotected.

Specific benefitslinked to policiesenacted by parentorganizations andexperienced bystudents.

For Parents

Input into policies thataffect child’seducation.

Feeling of ownershipof school.

Awareness of parents’voices in schooldecisions.

Shared experiencesand connections withother families.

Awareness of school,district, and statepolicies.

For Teachers

Awareness of parentperspectives as afactor in policydevelopment anddecisions.

View of equal status offamily representativeson committees and inleadership roles.



Increased skills andtalents throughenriched curricularand extracurricularexperiences.

Awareness of careersand of options forfuture education andwork.

Specific benefitslinked to programs,services, resources,and opportunities thatconnect students withcommunity.

For Parents

Knowledge and use oflocal resources byfamily and child toincrease skills andtalents or to obtainneeded services.

Interactions with otherfamilies in communityactivities.

Awareness of schools’role in the communityand of community’scontributions to theschool.

For Teachers

Awareness of com-munity resources toenrich curriculum andinstruction.

Openness to and skillin using mentors,business partners,community volunteers,and others to assiststudents and augmentteaching practice.

Knowledgeable,helpful referrals ofchildren and familiesto needed services.

TABLE 3.

Expected Results of the Six Types of Involvement for Students, Parents, and Teachers

the framework of six types as a guide, each schoolmuch chart its own course in choosing practices tomeet the needs of its families and students.

The challenges shown (Table 2) are just a few ofmany that relate to the examples. There are chal-lenges — that is, problems — for every practice ofpartnership, and they must be resolved in order toreach and engage all families in the best ways. Often,when one challenge is met, a new one will emerge.

The redefinitions (also in Table 2) redirect old no-

tions so that involvement is not viewed solely as ormeasured only by “bodies in the building.” As exam-ples, the table calls for redefinitions of workshops,communication, volunteers, homework, decisionmaking, and community. By redefining these famil-iar terms, it is possible for partnership programs toreach out in new ways to many more families.

The selected results (Table 3) should help correctthe widespread misperception that any practice thatinvolves families will raise children’s achievementtest scores. Instead, in the short term, certain prac-tices are more likely than others to influence stu-dents’ skills and scores, while other practices aremore likely to affect attitudes and behaviors. Al-though students are the main focus of partnerships,the various types of involvement also promote vari-ous kinds of results for parents and for teachers. Forexample, the expected results for parents include notonly leadership in decision making, but also confi-dence about parenting, productive curriculum-re-lated interactions with children, and many interac-tions with other parents and the school. The ex-pected results for teachers include not only improvedparent/teacher conferences or school/home com-munications, but also better understanding of fami-lies, new approaches to homework, and other con-nections with families and the community.

Most of the results noted in Table 3 have beenmeasured in at least one research study and observedas schools conduct their work. The entries are listedin positive terms to indicate the results of well-de-signed and well-implemented practices. It should befully understood, however, that results may be neg-ative if poorly designed practices exclude families orcreate greater barriers to communication and ex-change. Research is still needed on the results of spe-cific practices of partnership in various schools, atvarious grade levels, and for diverse populations ofstudents, families, and teachers. It will be important

to confirm, extend, or correct the information on re-sults listed in Table 3 if schools are to make purpose-ful choices among practices that foster various typesof involvement.

The tables cannot show the connections that oc-cur when one practice activates several types of in-volvement simultaneously. For example, volunteersmay organize and conduct a food bank (Type 3) thatallows parents to pay $15 for $30 worth of food fortheir families (Type 1). The food may be subsidizedby community agencies (Type 6). The recipientsmight then serve as volunteers for the program or inthe community (perpetuating Type 3 and Type 6 ac-tivities). Or consider another example. An after-school homework club run by volunteers and thecommunity recreation department combines Type 3and Type 6 practices. Yet it also serves as a Type 1activity, because the after-school program assistsfamilies with the supervision of their children. Thispractice may also alter the way homework interac-tions are conducted between students and parents athome (Type 4). These and other connections are in-teresting, and research is needed to understand thecombined effects of such activities.

The tables also simplify the complex longitudinalinfluences that produce various results over time. Forexample, a series of events might play out as follows.The involvement of families in reading at home leadsstudents to give more attention to reading and to bemore strongly motivated to read. This in turn mayhelp students maintain or improve their daily read-ing skills and then their reading grades. With the ac-cumulation over time of good classroom readingprograms, continued home support, and increasedskills and confidence in reading, students may sig-nificantly improve their reading achievement testscores. The time between reading aloud at home andincreased reading test scores may vary greatly, de-pending on the quality and quantity of other read-ing activities in school and out.

Or consider another example. A study by SeyongLee, using longitudinal data and rigorous statisticalcontrols on background and prior influences, foundimportant benefits for high school students’ attitudesand grades as a result of continuing several types offamily involvement from the middle school into thehigh school. However, achievement test scores werenot greatly affected by partnerships at the highschool level. Longitudinal studies and practical ex-periences that are monitored over time are neededto increase our understanding of the complex pat-terns of results that can develop from various part-nership activities (Lee 1994. For a discussion of is-sues concerning the results of partnerships, see Ep-stein, 1996. For various research reports on resultsof partnerships for students and for parents, see Ep-


Most schools have some teachers who conduct some practices of partnership with

some families some of the time.

stein 1991; Epstein and Dauber 1995; Epstein andJacobsen 1994; Epstein and Lee 1993; and Hender-son and Berla 1994).

The six types of involvement can guide the devel-opment of a balanced, comprehensive program ofpartnerships, including opportunities for family in-volvement at school and at home, with potentiallyimportant results for students, parents, and teachers.The results for students, parents, and teachers willdepend on the particular types of involvement thatare implemented, as well as on the quality of the im-plementation.

ACTION TEAMS FOR PARTNERSHIPS

Who will work to create caring school commu-nities that are based on the concepts of partnership?How will the necessary work on all six types of in-volvement get done? Although a principal or ateacher may be a leader in working with some fam-ilies or with groups in the community, one personcannot create a lasting, comprehensive program thatinvolves all families as their children progressthrough the grades.

From the hard work of many educators and fam-ilies in many schools, we have learned that, alongwith clear policies and strong support from state anddistrict leaders and from school principals, an ActionTeam for School, Family, and Community Partner-ships in each school is a useful structure. The actionteam guides the development of a comprehensiveprogram of partnership, including all six types of in-volvement, and the integration of all family and com-munity connections within a single, unified plan andprogram. The trials and errors, efforts and insightsof many schools in our projects have helped to iden-tify five important steps that any school can take todevelop more positive school/family/communityconnections (Connors Tadros and Epstein 1994; Ep-stein and Connors Tadros 1994; Epstein and Dauber1991; and Epstein, Herrick, and Coates in press. Forother approaches to the use of action teams for part-nerships, see Burch and Palanki 1994; Burch,Palanki, and Davies 1995; Davies 1991, 1993;Davies, Palanki, and Palanki 1993. For an exampleof an organizing mechanism for action teams, seeJohnson 1994).

STEP 1: CREATE AN ACTION TEAM

A team approach is an appropriate way to buildpartnerships. The Action Team for School, Family,and Community Partnerships can be the “actionarm” of a school council, if one exists. The actionteam takes responsibility for assessing present prac-tices, organizing options for new partnerships, im-plementing selected activities, evaluating next steps,and continuing to improve and coordinate practices

for all six types of involvement. Although the mem-bers of the action team lead these activities, they areassisted by other teachers, parents, students, admin-istrators, and community members.

The action team should include at least threeteachers from different grade levels, three parentswith children in different grade levels, and at leastone administrator. Teams may also include at leastone member from the community at large and, at themiddle and high school levels, at least two studentsfrom different grade levels. Others who are centralto the school’s work with families may also be in-cluded as members, such as a cafeteria worker, aschool social worker, a counselor, or a school psy-chologist. Such diverse membership ensures thatpartnership activities will take into account the var-ious needs, interests, and talents of teachers, parents,the school, and students.

The leader of the action team may be any mem-ber who has the respect of the other members, aswell as good communication skills and an under-standing of the partnership approach. The leader orat least one member of the action team should alsoserve on the school council, school improvementteam, or other such body, if one exists.

In addition to group planning, members of theaction team elect (or are assigned to act as) the chairor co-chair of one of the six subcommittees for eachtype of involvement. A team with at least six mem-bers (or perhaps as many as 12) ensures that respon-sibilities for leadership can be delegated so that oneperson is not overburdened and so that the work ofthe action team will continue even if members moveor change schools or positions. Members may serve


Diverse membership ensures that partnershipactivities will take into account the various needs,interests, and talents of teachers, parents, theschool, and students.

Thin

ksto

ck/P

hoto

dis

c

renewable terms of two or three years, with replace-ment of any who leave in the interim. Other thought-ful variations in assignments and activities may becreated by small or large schools using this process.

In the first phase of our work in 1987, projectswere led by “project directors” (usually teachers) andwere focused on one type of involvement at a time.Some schools succeeded in developing good part-nerships over several years, but others were thwartedif the project director moved, if the principalchanged, or if the project grew larger than one per-son could handle. Other schools took a team ap-proach in order to work on many types of involve-ment simultaneously. Their efforts demonstrated

how to structure the program for the next set ofschools in our work. Starting in 1990, this second setof schools tested and improved on the structure andwork of action teams. Now, all elementary, middle,and high schools in our research and developmentprojects and in other states and districts that are ap-plying this work are given assistance in taking the ac-tion team approach.

STEP 2: OBTAIN SUPPORT

A modest budget is needed to guide and supportthe work and expenses of each school’s action team.Funds for state coordinators to assist districts andschools and funds for district coordinators or facili-tators to help each school may come from a numberof sources. These include federal, state, and local

programs that mandate, request, or support familyinvolvement, such as Title I, Title II, Title VII, Goals2000, and other federal and similar state funding pro-grams. In addition to paying the state and district co-ordinators, funds from these sources may be appliedin creative ways to support staff development in thearea of school, family, and community partnerships;to pay for lead teachers at each school; to set updemonstration programs; and for the other partner-ship expenses. In addition, local school/businesspartnerships, school discretionary funds, and sepa-rate fund-raising efforts targeted to the schools’ part-nership programs have been used to support thework of their action teams. At the very least, a school’saction team requires a small stipend (at least $1,000per year for three to five years, with summer supple-ments) for time and materials needed by each sub-committee to plan, implement, and revise practicesof partnership that include all six types of involve-ment.

The action team must also be given sufficient timeand social support to do its work. This requires ex-plicit support from the principal and district leadersto allow time for team members to meet, plan, andconduct the activities that are selected for each typeof involvement. Time during the summer is alsovaluable — and may be essential — for planning newapproaches that will start in the new school year.

STEP 3: IDENTIFY STARTING POINTS

Most schools have some teachers who conductsome practices of partnership with some familiessome of the time. How can good practices be organ-ized and extended so that they may be used by allteachers, at all grade levels, with all families? The ac-tion team works to improve and systematize the typ-ically haphazard patterns of involvement. It starts bycollecting information about the school’s presentpractices of partnership, along with the views, expe-riences, and wishes of teachers, parents, administra-tors, and students.

Assessments of starting points may be made in avariety of ways, depending on available resources,time, and talents. For example, the action team mightuse formal questionnaires (surveys for teachers andparents in the elementary and middle grades and forteachers, parents, and students in high school, de-veloped and revised in 1993 by Joyce L. Epstein,Karen Clark Salinas, and Lori Connors Tadros, areavailable from the Center on Families, Communi-ties, Schools, and Children’s Learning at Johns Hop-kins University) or telephone interviews to surveyteachers, administrators, parents, and students (if re-sources exist to process, analyze, and report surveydata). Or the action team might organize a panel ofteachers, parents, and students to speak at a meeting


The action team might use formal questionnaires, telephone interviews, or

organize a panel of teachers, parents, andstudents to assess starting points.

Thin

ksto

ck/iS

tock

pho

to

of the parent/teacher organization or at some otherschool meeting as a way of initiating discussion aboutthe goals and desired activities for partnership.Structured discussions may be conducted through aseries of principal’s breakfasts for representativegroups of teachers, parents, students, and others;random sample phone calls may also be used to col-lect reactions and ideas, or formal focus groups maybe convened to gather ideas about school, family, andcommunity partnerships at the school.

What questions should be addressed? Regardlessof how the information is gathered, some areas mustbe covered in any information gathering.

Present strengths. Which practices of school/fam-ily/community partnerships are now working wellfor the school as a whole? For individual grade lev-els? For which types of involvement?

Needed changes. Ideally, how do we want school,family, and community partnerships to work at thisschool three years from now? Which present prac-tices should continue, and which should change? Toreach school goals, what new practices are neededfor each of the major types of involvement?

Expectations. What do teachers expect of families?What do families expect of teachers and other schoolpersonnel? What do students expect their familiesto do to help them negotiate school life? What dostudents expect their teachers to do to keep their fam-ilies informed and involved?

Sense of community. Which families are we nowreaching, and which are we not yet reaching? Whoare the “hard-to-reach” families? What might bedone to communicate with and engage these fami-lies in their children’s education? Are current part-nership practices coordinated to include all familiesas a school community? Or are families whose chil-dren receive special services (e.g., Title I, special ed-ucation, bilingual education) separated from otherfamilies?

Links to goals. How are students faring on suchmeasures of academic achievement as report cardgrades, on measures of attitudes and attendance, andon other indicators of success? How might familyand community connections assist the school inhelping more students reach higher goals andachieve greater success? Which practices of school,family, and community partnerships would directlyconnect to particular goals?

STEP 4: DEVELOP A THREE-YEAR PLAN

From the ideas and goals for partnerships col-lected from teachers, parents, and students, the ac-tion team can develop a three-year outline of the spe-cific steps that will help the school progress from itsstarting point on each type of involvement to whereit wants to be in three years. This plan outlines how

each subcommittee will work over three years tomake important, incremental advances to reachmore families each year on each type of involvement.The three-year outline also shows how all school/family/community connections will be integratedinto one coherent program of partnership that in-cludes activities for the whole school community, ac-tivities to meet the special needs of children and fam-ilies, activities to link to the district committees andcouncils, and activities conducted in each grade level.

In addition to the three-year outline of goals foreach type of involvement, a detailed one-year planshould be developed for the first year’s work. Itshould include the specific activities that will be im-plemented, improved, or maintained for each typeof involvement; a time line of monthly actionsneeded for each activity; identification of the sub-committee chair who will be responsible for eachtype of involvement; identification of the teachers,parents, students, or others (not necessarily actionteam members) who will assist with the implemen-tation of each activity; indicators of how the imple-mentation and results of each major activity will beassessed; and other details of importance to the ac-tion team.

The three-year outline and one-year detailed planare shared with the school council and/or parent or-ganization, with all teachers, and with the parentsand students. Even if the action team makes only onegood step forward each year on each of the six typesof involvement, it will take 18 steps forward overthree years to develop a more comprehensive andcoordinated program of school/family/communitypartnerships.

In short, based on the input from the parents,teachers, students, and others on the school’s start-ing points and desired partnerships, the action teamwill address these issues.

• Details. What will be done each year, for threeyears, to implement a program on all six typesof involvement? What, specifically, will beaccomplished in the first year on each type ofinvolvement?

• Responsibilities. Who will be responsible fordeveloping and implementing practices ofpartnership for each type of involvement? Willstaff development be needed? How willteachers, administrators, parents, and students


If the action team makes only one good stepforward each year on each of the six types ofinvolvement, it will take 18 steps forward overthree years.

be supported and recognized for their work?• Costs. What costs are associated with the

improvement and maintenance of the plannedactivities? What sources will provide theneeded funds? Will small grants or otherspecial budgets be needed?

• Evaluation. How will we know how well thepractices have been implemented and whattheir effects are on students, teachers, andfamilies? What indicators will we use that areclosely linked to the practices implemented todetermine their effects?

STEP 5: CONTINUE PLANNING AND WORKING

The action team should schedule an annual pres-entation and celebration of progress at the school sothat all teachers, families, and students will knowabout the work that has been done each year to buildpartnerships. Or the district coordinator for school,family, and community partnerships might arrangean annual conference for all schools in the district.At the annual school or district meeting, the actionteam presents and displays the highlights of accom-plishments on each type of involvement. Problemsare discussed and ideas are shared about improve-ments, additions, and continuations for the next year.

Each year, the action team updates the school’sthree-year outline and develops a detailed one-yearplan for the coming year’s work. It is important foreducators, families, students, and the community atlarge to be aware of annual progress, of new plans,and of how they can help.

In short, the action team addresses the followingquestions. How can it ensure that the program ofschool/family/community partnership will continueto improve its structure, processes, and practices inorder to increase the number of families who arepartners with the school in their children’s educa-tion? What opportunities will teachers, parents, andstudents have to share information on successfulpractices and to strengthen and maintain their ef-forts?

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

As schools have implemented partnership pro-grams, their experience has helped to identify someimportant properties of successful partnerships.

Incremental progress. Progress in partnerships is in-cremental, including more families each year in ways

that benefit more students. Like reading or mathprograms, assessment programs, sports programs,and other school investments, partnership programstake time to develop, must be periodically reviewed,and should be continuously improved. The schoolsin our projects have shown that three years is theminimum time needed for an action team to com-plete a number of activities on each type of involve-ment and to establish its work as a productive andpermanent structure in a school.

The development of a partnership is a process,not a single event. All teachers, families, students,and community groups do not engage in all activi-ties on all types of involvement all at once. Not allactivities implemented will succeed with all families.But with good planning, thoughtful implementa-tion, well-designed activities, and pointed improve-ments, more and more families and teachers canlearn to work with one another on behalf of the chil-dren whose interests they share. Similarly, not all stu-dents instantly improve their attitudes or achieve-ments when their families become involved in theireducation. After all, student learning depends mainlyon good curricula and instruction and on the workcompleted by students. However, with a well-imple-mented program of partnership, more students willreceive support from their families, and more will bemotivated to work harder.

Connection to curricular and instructional reform. Aprogram of school/family/community partnershipsthat focuses on children’s learning and developmentis an important component of curricular and instruc-tional reform. Aspects of partnerships that aim tohelp more students succeed in school can be sup-ported by federal, state, and local funds that are tar-geted for curricular and instructional reform. Help-ing families understand, monitor, and interact withstudents on homework, for example, can be a clearand important extension of classroom instruction, ascan volunteer programs that bolster and broaden stu-dent skills, talents, and interests. Improving the con-tent and conduct of parent/teacher/student confer-ences and goal-setting activities can be an importantstep in curricular reform; family support and familyunderstanding of child and adolescent developmentand school curricula are necessary elements to assiststudents as learners.

The connection of partnerships to curriculumand instruction in schools and the location of lead-ership for these partnership programs in district de-partments of curriculum and instruction are impor-tant changes that move partnerships from being pe-ripheral public relations activities about parents tobeing central programs about student learning anddevelopment.

Redefining staff development. The action team ap-


The development of a partnership is a process, not a single event.

proach to partnerships guides the work of educatorsby restructuring “staff development” to mean col-leagues working together and with parents to de-velop, implement, evaluate, and continue to improvepractices of partnership. This is less a “dose of inser-vice education” than it is an active form of develop-ing staff talents and capacities. The teachers, admin-istrators, and others on the action team become the“experts” on this topic for their school. Their workin this area can be supported by various federal, state,and local funding programs as a clear investment instaff development for overall school reform. Indeed,the action team approach as outlined can be appliedto any or all important topics on a school improve-ment agenda. It need not be restricted to the pursuitof successful partnerships.

It is important to note that the development ofpartnership programs would be easier if educatorscame to their schools prepared to work productivelywith families and communities. Courses or classesare needed in preservice teacher education and in ad-vanced degree programs for teachers and adminis-trators to help them define their professional workin terms of partnerships. Today, most educators en-ter schools without an understanding of family back-grounds, concepts of caring, the framework of part-nerships, or the other “basics” I have discussed here.Thus most principals and district leaders are not pre-pared to guide and lead their staffs in developingstrong school and classroom practices that informand involve families. And most teachers and admin-istrators are not prepared to understand, design, im-

plement, or evaluate good practices of partnershipwith the families of their students. Colleges and uni-versities that prepare educators and others who workwith children and families should identify where intheir curricula the theory, research, policy, and prac-tical ideas about partnerships are presented or wherein their programs these can be added. (Ammon 1990;Chavkin and Williams 1988; Hinz, Clarke, andNathan 1992. To correct deficiencies in the educa-tion of educators, I have written a course text or sup-plementary reader based on the theory, framework,and approaches described in this article. See Epstein2001. Other useful readings for a university courseinclude Christenson and Conoley 1993; Fagnanoand Werber 1994; Fruchter, Galletta, and White1992; Rioux and Berla 1993; Swap 1993.)

Even with improved preservice and advancedcoursework, however, each school’s action team willhave to tailor its menu of practices to the needs andwishes of the teachers, families, and students in theschool. The framework and guidelines offered in thisarticle can be used by thoughtful educators to organ-ize this work, school by school.

THE CORE OF CARING

One school in our Baltimore project named itspartnership the “I Care Program.” It developed an ICare Parent Club that fostered fellowship and lead-ership of families, an I Care Newsletter, and manyother events and activities. Other schools also gavecatchy, positive names to their programs to indicateto families, students, teachers, and everyone else in


Helping families

understand,

monitor, and

interact with

students on

homework can

be an important

extension of

classroom

instruction.

Thin

ksto

ck/L

ifesi

ze

the school community that there are important re-lationships and exchanges that must be developed inorder to assist students.

Interestingly, synonyms for “caring” match the sixtypes of involvement: Type 1, parenting: supporting,nurturing, and rearing; Type 2, communicating: re-lating, reviewing, and overseeing; Type 3, volunteer-ing: supervising and fostering; Type 4, learning athome: managing, recognizing, and rewarding; Type5, decision making: contributing, considering, andjudging; and Type 6, collaborating with the commu-nity: sharing and giving.

Underlying all six types of involvement are twodefining synonyms of caring: trusting and respect-ing. Of course, the varied meanings are intercon-nected, but it is striking that language permits us tocall forth various elements of caring associated withactivities for the six types of involvement. If all sixtypes of involvement are operating well in a school’sprogram of partnership, then all of these caring be-haviors could be activated to assist children’s learn-ing and development.

Despite real progress in many states, districts, andschools over the past few years, there are still toomany schools in which educators do not understandthe families of their students; in which families donot understand their children’s schools; and in whichcommunities do not understand or assist the schools,families, or students. There are still too many statesand districts without the policies, departments, lead-ership, staff, and fiscal support needed to enable alltheir schools to develop good programs of partner-ship. Yet relatively small financial investments thatsupport and assist the work of action teams couldyield significant returns for all schools, teachers,families, and students. Educators who have led theway with trials, errors, and successes provide evi-dence that any state, district, or school can createsimilar programs. (See, for example, Lloyd 1996;Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 1994;and the special section on parent involvement in theJanuary 1991 Phi Delta Kappan.)

Schools have choices. There are two common ap-proaches to involving families in schools and in theirchildren’s education. One approach emphasizes con-flict and views the school as a battleground. The con-ditions and relationships in this kind of environmentguarantee power struggles and disharmony. Theother approach emphasizes partnership and views

the school as a homeland. The conditions and rela-tionships in this kind of environment invite powersharing and mutual respect and allow energies to bedirected toward activities that foster student learn-ing and development. Even when conflicts rage,however, peace must be restored sooner or later, andthe partners in children’s education must work to-gether.

NEXT STEPS

Collaborative work and thoughtful give-and-takeamong researchers, policy leaders, educators, andparents are responsible for the progress that has beenmade over the past decade in understanding and de-veloping school, family, and community partner-ships. Similar collaborations will be important forfuture progress in this and other areas of school re-form. To promote these approaches, I am establish-ing a national network of Partnership-2000 Schoolsto help link state, district, and other leaders who areresponsible for helping their elementary, middle, andhigh schools implement programs of school, family,and community partnerships by the year 2000. Thestate and district coordinators must be supported forat least three years by sufficient staff and budgets toenable them to help increasing numbers of elemen-tary, middle, and high schools in their districts toplan, implement, and maintain comprehensive pro-grams of partnership.

Partnership-2000 Schools will be aided in puttingthe recommendations of this article into practice inways that are appropriate to their locations. Imple-mentation will include applying the theory of over-lapping spheres of influence, the framework of sixtypes of involvement, and the action team approach.Researchers and staff members at Johns Hopkins willdisseminate information and guidelines, send outnewsletters, and hold optional annual workshops tohelp state and district coordinators learn new strate-gies and share successful ideas. Activities for leadersat the state and district levels will be shared, as willschool-level programs and successful partnershippractices.

The national network of Partnership-2000Schools will begin its activities in the fall of 1995 andwill continue until at least the year 2000. The goalis to enable leaders in all states and districts to assistall their schools in establishing and strengtheningprograms of school/family/community partnership.(For more information about the national networkof Partnership-2000 Schools, send the name, posi-tion, address, and phone and fax numbers of the con-tact person/coordinator for partnerships for yourstate or district to Joyce Epstein, Partnership-2000Schools, CRESPAR/Center on Families, Commu-nities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, Johns Hop-


Underlying all six types of involvement are two defining synonyms of caring:

trusting and respecting.

kins University, 3505 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD21218.) K

REFERENCES

Ames, Carol, Madhab Khoju, and Thomas Watkins. “Parents

and Schools: The Impact of School-to-Home Communications

on Parents’ Beliefs and Perceptions.” Center on Families,

Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, Center Report

15. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 1993

Ammon, Mary Sue. “University of California Project on Teacher

Preparation for Parent Involvement, Report I: April 1989

Conference and Initial Follow Up.” Mimeograph. University of

California Berkeley, 1990.

Baker, David P., and David L. Stevenson. “Mothers’ Strategies

for Children’s School Achievement: Managing the Transition to

High School.” Sociology of Education 59 (1986): 156-66.

Bauch, Patricia A. “Is Parent Involvement Different in Private

Schools?” Educational Horizons 66 (1988): 78-82.

Becker, Henry J., and Joyce L. Epstein. “Parent Involvement: A

Study of Teacher Practices.” Elementary School Journal 83

(1982): 85-102.

Boykin, A. Wade. “Harvesting Culture and Talent: African

American Children and Educational Reform.” In Schools and

Students at Risk, ed. Robert Rossi: 116-139. New York:

Teachers College Press, 1994.

Brandt, Ron. “On Parents and Schools: A Conversation with

Joyce Epstein.” Educational Leadership (October 1989): 24-

27.

Burch, Patricia, and Ameetha Palanki. “Action Research on

Family-School-Community Partnerships.” Journal of Emotional

and Behavioral Problems 1 (1994): 16-19.

Burch, Patricia, Ameetha Palanki, and Don Davies. “In Our

Hands: A Multi-Site Parent-Teacher Action Research Project.”

Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s

Learning, Center Report 29. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins

University, 1995.

Chavkin, Nancy F., and David L. Williams. “Critical Issues in

Teacher Training for Parent Involvement.” Educational Horizons

66 (1988): 87-89.

Christenson, Sandra L., and Jane Close Conoley, eds. Home-

School Collaboration: Enhancing Children’s Academic

Competence. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of

School Psychologists, 1993.

Clark, Reginald M. Family Life and School Achievement: Why

Poor Black Children Succeed or Fail. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1983.

Connors Tadros, Lori, and Joyce L. Epstein. “Taking Stock:

The Views of Teachers, Parents, and Students on School,

Family, and Community Partnerships in High Schools.” Center

on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning,

Center Report 25. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University,

1994.

Connors Tadros, Lori, and Joyce L. Epstein. “Parents and

Schools.” In Handbook of Parenting, ed. Marc H. Bornstein.

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002.

Davies, Don. “Schools Reaching Out: Family, School, and

Community Partnerships for Student Success.” Phi Delta

Kappan 72 (January 1991): 376-82.

Davies, Don. “A More Distant Mirror: Progress Report on a

Cross-National Project to Study Family-School-Community

Partnerships.” Equity and Choice 19 (1993): 41-46.

Davies, Don, Patricia Burch, and Vivian Johnson. “A Portrait of

Schools Reaching Out: Report of a Survey on Practices and

Policies of Family-Community-School Collaboration.” Center

on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning,

Center Report 1. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University,

1992.

Davies, Don, Ameetha Palanki, and Patricia D. Palanki.

“Getting Started: Action Research in Family-School-

Community Partnerships.” Center on Families, Communities,

Schools, and Children’s Learning, Center Report 17.

Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 1993.

Dauber, Susan L., and Joyce L. Epstein. “Parents’ Attitudes

and Practices of Involvement in Inner-City Elementary and

Middle Schools.” In Families and Schools in a Pluralistic

Society, ed. Nancy Chavkin: 53-71. Albany: State University of

New York Press, 1993.

Dornbusch, Sanford M., and Philip L. Ritter. “Parents of High

School Students: A Neglected Resource.” Educational

Horizons 66 (1988): 75-77.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S. “Family Involvement in Children’s and

Adolescents’ Schooling.” In Family-School Links: How Do

They Affect Educational Outcomes?, ed. Alan Booth and

Judith Dunn. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Parents’ Reactions to Teacher Practices of

Parent Involvement.” Elementary School Journal 86 (1986):

277-294.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Toward a Theory of Family-School

Connections: Teacher Practices and Parent Involvement.” In

Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints, ed. Klaus

Hurrelmann, Frederick Kaufmann, and Frederick Losel:121-

136. New York: DeGuyter, 1987.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Single Parents and the Schools: Effects of

Marital Status on Parent and Teacher Interactions.” In Changes

in Societal Institutions, ed. Maureen Hallinan: 91-121. New

York: Plenum, 1990.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Effects on Student Achievement of Teacher

Practices of Parent Involvement.” In Literacy Through Family,

Community, and School Interaction, ed. Steven Silvern: 261-

276. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1991.


Epstein, Joyce L. “School and Family Partnerships.” In

Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th ed., ed. Marvin

Alkin: 1139-1151. New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Theory to Practice: School and Family

Partnerships Lead to School Improvement and Student

Success.” In School, Family, and Community Interaction: A

View from the Firing Lines, ed. Cheryl L. Fagnano and Beverly

Z. Werber: 39-52. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1994.

Epstein, Joyce L. School, Family, and Community

Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools.

Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Perspectives and Previews on Research

and Policy for School, Family, and Community Partnerships.”

In Family-School Links: How Do They Affect Educational

Outcomes?, ed. Alan Booth and Judith Dunn. Mahwah, N.J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Lori Connors Tadros. “Trust Fund:

School, Family, and Community Partnerships in High Schools.”

Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s

Learning, Center Report 24. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins

University, 1994.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Lori Connors Tadros. “School and

Family Partnerships in the Middle Grades.” In Creating

Family/School Partnerships, ed. Barry Rutherford. Columbus,

Ohio: National Middle School Association, 1995.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Susan L. Dauber. “School Programs

and Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner-City

Elementary and Middle Schools.” Elementary School Journal

91 (1991): 289-303.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Susan L. Dauber. “Effects on Students

of an Interdisciplinary Program Linking Social Studies, Art, and

Family Volunteers in the Middle Grades.” Journal of Early

Adolescence 15 (1995): 237-266.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Jill Jacobsen. “Effects of School

Practices to Involve Families in the Middle Grades: Parents’

Perspectives.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, Calif., 1994.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Seyong Lee. “Effects of School

Practices to Involve Families on Parents and Students in the

Middle Grades: A Vew from the Schools.” Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,

Miami, Fla., 1993.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Seyong Lee. “National Patterns of

School and Family Connections in the Middle Grades.” In The

Family-School Connection: Theory, Research, and Practice,

ed. by Bruce A. Ryan and Gerald R. Adams. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage, 1995.

Epstein, Joyce L., Susan C. Herrick, and Lucretia Coates.

“Effects of Summer Home Learning Packets on Student

Achievement in Language Arts in the Middle Grades.” In

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, in press.

Fagnano, Cheryl L., and Beverly Z. Werber, eds. School,

Family, and Community Interaction: A View from the Firing

Lines. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1994.

Fruchter, Norman, Anne Galletta, and J. Lynne White. New

Directions in Parent Involvement. Washington, D.C.: Academy

for Educational Development, 1992.

Henderson, Anne T., and Nancy Berla. A New Generation of

Evidence: The Family Is Critical to Student Achievement.

Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Citizens in

Education, 1994.

Hinz, Lisa, Jessica Clarke, and Joe Nathan. “A Survey of

Parent Involvement Course Offerings in Minnesota’s

Undergraduate Preparation Programs.” Minneapolis, Minn.:

Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute of Public

Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1992.

Johnson, Vivian R. “Parent Centers in Urban Schools: Four

Case Studies.” Center on Families, Communities, Schools,

and Children’s Learning, Center Report 23. Baltimore, Md.:

Johns Hopkins University, 1994.

Lareau, Annette. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental

Intervention in Elementary Education. Philadelphia: Falmer

Press, 1989.

Lee, Seyong. “Family-School Connections and Students’

Education: Continuity and Change of Family Involvement from

the Middle Grades to High School.” Doctoral dissertation,

Johns Hopkins University, 1994.

Lewis, Catherine C., Eric Schaps, and Marilyn Watson.

“Beyond the Pendulum: Creating Challenging and Caring

Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 7 (March 1995) 547-554.

Lloyd, Gary. “Research and Practical Application for School,

Family, and Community Partnerships.” In Family-School Links:

How Do They Affect Educational Outcomes?, ed. Alan Booth

and Judith Dunn. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Rioux, William, and Nancy Berla, eds. Innovations in Parent

and Family Involvement. Princeton Junction, N.J.: Eye on

Education, 1993.

Scott-Jones, Diane. “Activities in the Home That Support

School Learning in the Middle Grades.” In Creating

Family/School Partnerships, ed. Barry Rutherford: 161-181.

Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association, 1995.

Swap, Susan McAllister. Developing Home-School

Partnerships: From Concepts to Practice. New York: Teachers

College Press, 1993.

Viadero, Debra. “Learning to Care.” Education Week, 26

October 1994: 31-33.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Sharesheet: The

DPI Family-Community-School Partnership Newsletter

(August/September 1994).


Copyright of Phi Delta Kappan is the property of Phi Delta Kappa International and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

SchoolFamily Community Partnerships · and community partnerships with “caring” as a core...

Documents

Transcript of SchoolFamily Community Partnerships · and community partnerships with “caring” as a core...