Partnerships at an Urban High School: Meeting the Parent Involvement Requirements of No Child Left Behind  

Mavis G. Sanders, Ph.D. and Karla C. Lewis, Ph.D.  

Abstract:  Despite its importance, few studies have examined school, family, and community partnership program development in U.S. high schools. To address this gap, the authors conducted a case study of one urban high school that has been using Epstein’s (1995) framework of six types of involvement for over five years to create school, family, and community partnerships that increase student academic achievement and school engagement. The results of the study provided insight into the school’s partnership activities, its action team for partnerships (ATP) that designed and monitored the implementation of these activities, and specific leadership roles - manager, coach, and community broker - played by multiple team members. These roles buttressed the ATP’s capacity to serve as the central engine of the school’s partnership program. The findings of this study, thus, illustrated how a team approach can assist high schools in meeting and exceeding parent and community involvement requirements established by the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind.  

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is arguably the most controversial reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since the law’s inception in 1965. The high-stakes testing and accountability measures incorporated in the law have presented significant challenges for schools, especially those in urban and rural communities, and the state departments of education that govern them. As a result, several states, including Arizona and Minnesota, have threatened to forego federal funds in order to bypass the requirements (Brady, 2004). To date, no state has done so. However, Utah legislators have voted to allow school districts to participate only when adequate federal funding is available (National Public Radio, 2004).  

Despite the controversy surrounding the law, some family advocacy groups have praised its requirements for parent involvement. For example, The Education Trust (2003) contended that:

Parents now have the right to school, district, and state data on academic achievement, graduation rates, and the qualifications of their children’s teachers. Now, schools must inform parents on the performance of their school and whether their children are being taught by under-qualified teachers. NCLB requires that parents be actively involved in the decision making process at their school. (p. 4)

In addition to NCLB’s requirements for school-to-home communication about students’ performance and school quality indicators, a relatively unknown section of the law contains parental involvement requirements for districts and schools that receive federal Title I funds. The aim of Section 1118 is to ensure that parents are involved in their child(ren)’s learning in ways that support academic achievement (Jacobi, Wittreich, & Hogue, 2003). The law defines parent involvement based on Epstein’s six types of involvement, which have been adopted as standards for home-school partnerships by the National Parent Teacher Association (Igo, 2002). “With meaningful consultation with parents,” schools are required to develop a written plan that describes how they will communicate with families about students’ academic learning and other school activities, and encourage parent involvement at home and in school (Jacobi, Wittreich, & Hogue, 2003; Wherry, 2003).  

According to Igo (2002), “because of the law’s new parent-involvement provisions, parents and principals have a tremendous opportunity to build partnerships and work together” (p. 12). However, some schools have been seizing this opportunity for many years as the theory, research, and practice on parent and community involvement has evolved (Henderson & Mapp, 2003). Many of these schools are members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS).  This group is a national organization that provides professional development, tools, and strategies to help schools, districts, and state departments of education create comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs (Epstein et al., & Jansorn, 2002)1.  

Toward that end, NNPS schools agreed to use Epstein’s framework of six types of involvement to develop partnership programs that reach out to the families of all students.  The six types of involvement were to include: (a) parenting - helping all families understand child and adolescent development, and establish home environments that support children as students; (b) communicating - designing and conducting effective two-way communications about school programs and students’ progress; (c) volunteering - recruiting and organizing help and support for school programs and student activities; (d) learning at home - providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and curricular-related decisions and activities; (e) decision-making - including parents in school decisions, and developing parent leaders; and (f) collaborating with the community - identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen and support schools, students, and their families (Epstein, 1995).  

NNPS schools also agreed to use a team approach to plan, implement, and evaluate their partnership programs. While most NNPS schools are elementary and middle schools, high schools also are represented. These high schools face greater partnership program challenges than their elementary and middle school counterparts (Sanders & Simon, 2002). However, some have overcome these challenges to develop programs that can inform and guide the practice of other secondary schools that seek to involve families and meet the parent involvement requirements of NNPS (Sanders & Lewis, in press).  

It was the purpose of this study to describe the efforts of one NNPS high school that has been using Epstein’s framework of six types of involvement for over five years to create school, family, and community partnerships that increase student academic achievement and school engagement[i]. First, a brief discussion of the research literature on parent involvement in secondary schools and the methods used in the study will be presented.  And, then, activities will be described that the case school implemented to involve families and communities in students’ learning; the school’s action team for partnerships (ATP) that designed and monitored the implementation of these activities; and the specific leadership roles (e.g., manager, coach, and community broker) played by multiple team members. These roles buttressed the ATP’s capacity to serve as the central engine of the school’s partnership program. This findings of the study, thus, illustrated how a team approach can assist high schools in meeting and exceeding parent and community involvement requirements established by federal, state, and/or local legislation.  

Parent Involvement in High Schools  

Some educators and parents believe that the importance of family involvement in students’ education declines as students mature. However, research documenting the importance of parental involvement for the school success of adolescents spans more than two decades.  Family involvement practices, both at home and school, have been found to influence high school students’ academic achievement and success in school (Catsambis, 1998; Clark 1983; Dornbusch & Ritter, 1988; Ginsburg & Hanson 1986; Simon, 2002; Yan, 1999), school attendance (Astone & McLanahan 1991; Simon, 2000), homework effort (Keith et. al., 1993; Keith, Reimers, Fehrman, Pottebaum, & Aubey 1986), and graduation and college matriculation rates (Conklin & Dailey 1981; Delgado-Gaitan, 1988; Jordan & Plank, 2000; Plank & Jordan, 1997).  

Despite these and similar findings, many families’ active involvement in their children’s learning at home and school diminish over time. A study conducted by the Search Institute found that four practices of family involvement - discussions about homework; discussions about school and school work; helping with homework; and attending school meetings and events - decline significantly between grades 6 and 12. Furthermore, the study revealed that by the junior or senior year in high school, relatively few adolescents have parents who maintain an active interest in school and education (George, 1995).    

While there are several reasons why school, family, and community partnerships are more prevalent at elementary schools than middle and high schools, research findings suggest that school practices significantly influence parent involvement practices. For example, Simon (2002) found that parental involvement in adolescents’ learning increases with support from the school. When high schools guide parents to do so, more families report attending college-planning workshops and other school activities, monitoring and assisting with homework, and talking more with their adolescents about school.  

School practices are especially important for the involvement of African American and other families of color, who may feel alienated from the school environment and suspicious of schools’ intentions toward their children (Calabrese, 1990; Fine, 1993; Lareau & Horvath, 1999). Calabrese (1990), for example, found that parents of color were less likely than European American parents to feel welcomed at their children’s schools, less likely to view their children’s teachers as caring and supportive, and were more likely to receive negative communications from the school about their children’s behavior or academic performance. He also found that because they were not involved in the development of school policies and procedures, parents of color were more likely than European American parents to consider such rules as arbitrary and capricious. Parents of color in his study also viewed the school as an “unfriendly” place, and were distrustful of its intent toward their children and its request for their involvement.  

Low-income families also may feel alienated due to the middle-class conception of family involvement that permeates many schools (Lareau, 1987). These conceptions often result in expectations and demands that are difficult for low-income families to meet due to limited time and resources. Such families are then labeled “hard to reach” by school officials, and the gap between home and school is widened. Low-income families also are less likely than their middle-class counterparts to have well-developed networks with other parents and professionals to collectively deal with problematic school situations (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003). Consequently, low-income families more often address difficult school situations alone, which can reinforce feelings of alienation and suspicion. As a result, the trust that is essential for effective, school, family, and community partnerships is further weakened (Baker, 1997; Brewster & Railsback, 2003).  

However, feelings of alienation and distrust can be overcome when schools create a welcoming environment, respect cultural preferences and differences, and offer families and community members multiple ways to be involved in students’ learning and school improvement (Mapp, 2003; Trotman, 2001). To learn more about how these practices can be actualized, especially at the high school level, qualitative studies that focus on school processes are needed. This article describes one such study. Its specific focus was on the efforts and accomplishments of a large urban high school meeting the parent involvement requirements of NCLB.

Methods  

Research Strategy  

The authors used a case study strategy to generate in-depth descriptions of high schools’ successful partnership programs and to explain how these programs were able to develop and improve over time. To achieve these goals, the authors collected data through a variety of methods – semi-structured interviews, event observations, and document review.  The authors also interviewed a variety of individuals on the case schools’ action teams for partnerships (e.g., teachers, principals, parents, and community members) who had informed and diverse perspectives about partnership program development. These interviews were transcribed and sent to participants for review to ensure their accuracy before formal analysis began. Through the triangulation of data methods and sources and participant verification of interview transcripts, the authors sought to increase the trustworthiness of the study’s findings (See Stake, 2000; Yin, 1994).  

Case School Selection  

Three schools were chosen for a multiple case study on community involvement in high schools. Sites were selected from a population of high schools that were members of NNPS. Potential sites were limited to those whose evaluations of their partnership program quality on NNPS annual surveys ranged from good to excellent on a five-point scale for at least two consecutive years prior to the start of the study. Five of the 75 high schools that were members of NNPS at the time of the study met this criterion. Final sites were chosen to reflect different community contexts and school demographics. In this study, the authors focused on one of the three sites chosen, Urban High.2  

Urban High is a large high school in a metropolitan city that was built in the late 1960s. Nearly all (99%) of the school’s over 1300 students are African-American. Many of these students reside in the surrounding community. Over half (54%) of the students receive free and reduced-price meals. According to school documents, 80% of the students live in one-parent families, most headed by mothers whose annual incomes are below $20,000.  

The community surrounding the school has more than its share of boarded-up businesses that suggest a more robust commercial past. However, many of the old houses directly around the school are well maintained. When entering the school through the main entrance, it is difficult to ignore the school’s goals for the academic year. A centrally located bulletin board displays a catchy slogan that announces students’ impending success on the state’s proficiency test. The wall leading to the administrative offices supports a graph of the school’s previous year’s scores and its current goals for student performance on the test. The importance of attendance, a second school goal, is illustrated with a bulletin board posting the names of students with perfect attendance for the grading period. Another bulletin board highlights a third and related goal, parent and community involvement.

Data Collection  

Data collection at Urban High took place between October and December 2002 and followed the design outlined in the case study protocol (Yin, 1994) developed for this study. At the site, the school administrator, partnership program chair, and members of the school’s Action Team for Partnerships (ATP) were interviewed (see Table 1).  

Table 1  

Descriptions of Interview Respondents  

 These interviews were face-to-face, semi-structured, and followed the interview protocols developed prior to the study. Table 2 lists sample interview questions.  

Table 2  

Sample Interview Questions  

Documents were reviewed to confirm and broaden interview data on ATP meeting dates, partnership planning, and the implementation of partnership activities at the case school. Documents that were collected included: (a) a list of current community partners; (b) school plans that identified community partnership activities; (c) school newsletters that described community partners and activities; (d) flyers announcing community partnership activities; (e) reports on and evaluations of community partnership activities; (f) awards related to community partnerships; (g) school communications with state and/or district leaders for school, family, and community partnerships; and (h) NNPS forms, surveys, and applications. Observations were made of one of the school’s semi-annual Family Fun and Learning Nights. Extensive notes were taken during the data collection phase. Using Ethnograph, v.5.0, a qualitative data analysis program, the authors coded notes, observations, and interview transcripts for later analysis.

Data Analysis  

Initial codes used to categorize the data emerged from the literature on community involvement in schools and school reform. Codes also emerged from initial discussion and review of notes taken during the data collection phase of the study. Several of the 30 identified codes focused specifically on supports for partnership program development. These were: (a) effective ATP functioning, (b) ATP leadership, (c) ATP members, (d) program implementation, and (e) principal leadership. Passages falling within these categories were read and reread to identify essential themes. This iterative process led to the identification of key roles that supported the ATP’s capacity to organize and implement a comprehensive partnership program. These roles are discussed following a description of partnership activities implemented at Urban High.  

Partnership Activities  

The mission of all students, staff, parents, and community members of . . . [Urban] High School is to focus on academic excellence and positive student achievement. All of our students will be prepared to meet the challenges of the new millennium through sound educational initiatives and superior educational services. All of our students will graduate from . . . [Urban] High School thoroughly equipped for entry into post-high school endeavors (Urban High School’s Mission Statement).

As illustrated in its mission statement, Urban High School expects students, families, and community members to work collaboratively with school staff to ensure students’ academic and personal success. This expectation is further evidenced in the family and community outreach practices that it implements. As shown in Table 3, the school’s ATP has worked to develop and implement activities that span the framework of six types of involvement, and meet the federal parent involvement mandates now required for schools receiving Title I funds.  

Table 3  

Urban High School Partnership Activities that Meet
                                                          NCLBA Requirements                                                                                               

Here we highlight several of these activities to show the comprehensive nature of the school’s partnership program. A central practice of the school’s program is the Family Nights Out for Fun and Learning that began in 1998. This now semi-annual activity is focused on providing families with information about the state’s proficiency examination and how they can help their children prepare for it. All students must pass the examination in order to graduate from high school.  

During the evening event, family members attend workshops to learn about test requirements, review previous individual and school test results, take practice tests, and review specially designed interactive assignments that promote family and student engagement on test-related materials. In addition to the workshops, other useful activities are offered. For example, school faculty and representatives from community agencies provide families with tips and information on nutrition, time management, and stress reduction. The school also provides dinner and childcare for families with young children. During dinner, student achievement and progress certificates are awarded, and family members are recognized for their attendance and participation.           

The activity garnered the school a 2000-2001 state department of education partnership award. In the activity report submitted to the state department of education, the ATP chair reported positive gains in parent involvement since beginning Family Nights Out for Fun and Learning. According to the ATP chairperson, in 1997-98, only 8% of the school’s families were involved in the event. In 1998-99, 12% of families were involved, and in 1999-2000, 15% of targeted students attended with their family members. Eighty-six percent of families surveyed reported that as a result of the event, they knew how to help their children study for the state exam. Between 1998 and 2000, the school experienced gains in students’ performance on the state exam. In the ATP activity report, the chair noted that in 1999-2000, Urban High school had the highest attendance of test-takers in the district. Furthermore, the number of ninth and tenth graders who fulfilled the ninth grade test requirements increased from 24% in 1998-99 to 30% in 1999-2000.  

Another ATP-sponsored partnership activity is the school’s family resource room. It was opened in 2001, after several years of planning and searching for space. The room was formally a storage area. The ATP had a new tile floor installed and the room painted. ATP members decorated the room with poster, tables, chairs, and curtains. The room holds approximately 20 people. It serves as a venue for the school’s Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) meetings, ATP meetings, parent-teacher conferences, volunteer activities, community meetings, and other parent and community involvement practices.  

Working with a team of ninth grade teachers and parents, the ATP also designed an interactive homework series that required students to talk with someone at home about state proficiency test preparation. The interactive assignments were designed to help families monitor, interact, and support students. Activities included a section for home-to-school communication in which family members indicated whether the student was able to discuss the homework, if the interaction was enjoyable, and whether they learned something about what the student was learning for the proficiency test. Family members also were prompted to add observations, comments, and/or questions for teachers.  

Some interactive assignments required students to use “scavenger hunt” methods to complete the activities. Students consulted with teachers and family members for “secret codes” necessary to solve problems or answer questions. Topics covered by these assignments included geography, map skills, mathematics, charting, graphing, reading, and interpreting specific weather reports. The team also produced “refrigerator problems,” magnetized, laminated note cards with math problems representing each content area on the state proficiency test to be done daily by students while families monitored their progress. Students completed these assignments for points that could be exchanged for school prizes.  

Furthermore, the ATP sponsored a number of communication (Type 2) activities to increase family members’ involvement in their children’s learning at home and school. For example, the “Homeroom Parent Network’s” goal was to connect parents through activities such as positive phone calls to recognize student progress and achievement. The newsletter, “Parent Network News” provided parents with information about upcoming family and student-focused school events; comments and notices from families; contact information for ATP leaders; descriptions of extracurricular activities; and faculty contact information. The first newsletter was produced during the 1999-2000 school year.  

The ATP also developed several activities in partnership with community-based organizations. For example, WHEW (Women Helping Educate Women) was begun in 1997 as a support group for female students in the school. Its aim has been to arm girls and their mothers with information to make positive choices in their academic and personal lives. In a flyer dated May 26, 1998, the organization’s function and focus were described as follows: 

Twenty female students . . . meet monthly for programs addressing the academic and social lives of adolescent females. Guest speakers, field trips, and other activities expose these young women to healthy ways to cope with their feelings, to make good decisions regarding their careers in the future, to be independent thinkers who value their families and learn to appreciate and respect themselves as unique and special individuals.  

Community speakers have provided information on a number of topics of relevance to these students and their families. Topics addressed include HIV-AIDS prevention and management, parenting skills, positive communication, academic and career opportunities, and educational and community support for high school females, especially teen parents. Urban High’s successful implementation of these diverse activities was made possible by the efforts of its ATP.

The Action Team for Partnerships  

Whether a separate structure or a subcommittee of a larger body (e.g., a school improvement team or leadership council), a team approach has helped many schools build more effective partnerships with their students’ families and communities (Comer, 1993; Johnson & Ginsberg, 1996). Teams that consist of a school administrator, teacher representatives, parent and community representatives, and other interested stakeholders have several advantages over the more traditional approach of having a single individual responsible for implementing a school-wide partnership program (Sanders & Epstein, 2000).           

First, a team approach allows for multiple and diverse voices to be involved in all stages of partnership program development, from the selection of partnership goals and foci to the evaluation of partnership practices. Parents and community members can offer perspectives to educators that add to their understanding of the students with whom they work. These insights coupled with educators’ professional insights and knowledge can help all parties develop a more holistic view of the needs and talents of students (Comer & Haynes, 1991). This approach not only increases the likelihood of shared ownership, which is vitally important for partnership program success, but also helps to challenge stereotypical views and perceptions that can hinder collaborative efforts to improve student learning (Burch, & Pulanki, 1995).  

Second, because the work of building a partnership program is shared, a team approach reduces the responsibilities of each individual member, and consequently the likelihood of individual burnout. Furthermore, because a team structure can remain constant even as members change, a team approach increases the likelihood that partnerships will become a permanent part of schools’ overall improvement program.           

Some teams are more effective than others (Harris & Drake, 1997). Effective teams are those that are able to collaboratively achieve identified goals. Urban High’s ATP built and maintained a reputation of effectiveness over a five-year period. The team met regularly, usually once per month as evidenced by the agendas and minutes we examined, and systematically planned and implemented family and community partnership activities to achieve school-wide improvement goals.  

Because of its reputation for effectiveness, Urban High’s ATP did not have difficulty attracting and keeping active members. The school’s ATP was composed of seasoned educators who played diverse leadership roles under the direction and with the facilitation of the ATP chair. Members generally volunteered and expressed a genuine commitment to building partnerships with students’ families and communities. When asked about the source of this commitment, one team member offered the following explanation:  

Pete Collier: The best word I can think of is “love” because they are people who are putting something in and the only thing that they are getting out is gratification of seeing someone else being successful in life.  

In addition to this commitment, the team’s effectiveness also appeared due to distributed leadership among team members. When discussing her philosophy on leadership, Urban High’s ATP chairperson explained:  

Drew Collier: The leadership should be interchangeable. Nothing should just fall apart because something happens to that person who is in charge. That is what you ultimately want to accomplish.  

Here we use the metaphors of manager, community-broker, and coach to describe leadership roles that emerged from the data as important for the success of Urban High’s ATP.  

Leader as Manager           

A manager is one who supervises, coordinates, organizes, and directs. Depending on the context, a manager may be in charge of equipment, records, resources, and/or expenditures. A manager’s role is essential to the efficient functioning and maintenance of a team’s efforts. The team’s chairs played this vital leadership role for Urban High’s ATP. This role was initially shared among the leaders through a co-chairperson arrangement. The co-chairpersons were responsible for coordinating initial training of team members; maintaining records for their school, state leadership team, and NNPS; supervising the completion of annual one-year action plans; keeping a log of community partners; directing on-going correspondence with community partners and local, district, and state officials; and delegating responsibilities and tasks to ATP members.           

These managerial activities, while mundane, are essential for program development and continuity. During the initial development of Urban High’s partnership program, two individuals shared the leadership role of manager. When one retired, a leadership gap was created. The current ATP chairperson observed:  

I was more or less like a co-chair for those first three years. Ms. Bertrand was pretty much the chairperson. We worked closely together. She retired about a year or so ago. Then I was sort of voted by everyone else to go in and take over the chair position. . . . You begin to find out as a co-chair, it’s two people working together. When you have to do all the duties yourself, it can be quite a bit.  

During the course of the study, we observed that the leadership gap affected the quality of team functioning. While established partnership activities were being maintained, new activities were not being developed and meetings were more sporadic. The chairperson explained:  

Well this year, we had one meeting in August as a touch base type of meeting. It was right before school started. We planned another meeting and then we had something happen here at the school, so we were not able to meet. So we plan to have a meeting before the end of October, and plan to sit down and take a look at what we want to do this year. So, we are getting off to a late start.           

This “late start” also was noted by three additional members who were accustomed to a “set time” for ATP meetings. Managerial leadership is, thus, key to effective team functioning and continued improvement. If this gap is not filled, the team’s progress will be stalled. However, because of the overall quality of the team, its experience, the support of Urban High’s principal, and the chair’s commitment to partnerships, it is unlikely that the gap will persist. The following interview excerpt suggests that, in time, others on the ATP will fill the leadership gap created by Ms. Bertrand’s retirement.  

Ms. Collier: I know that things require attention when I have people come to me and say, “Hey, when are we going to have a partnership meeting? I have had two staff members do that already. So that is good, that means that other people are saying, “We need to do this, let’s get this moving.” Then eventually you say, “Hey, I need you to do this.” You promote them. You even change roles and say, “Hey, this year you are going to lead it” if they feel like they are ready to do that.”  

Leader as Coach  

In sports, the coach, while not responsible for running plays or actively participating in a game, is still vital to a team’s effective functioning. The role of the coach is to guide, channel, and encourage the team’s performance. At Urban High, the principal, a former elementary and middle school coach, exemplified this leadership role. She was fully aware and supportive of the team’s efforts. She did not always attend ATP meetings, but she assigned an assistant administrator to attend. Ms. Drum explained:  

Basically, I have an assistant principal that attends the team meetings. She keeps me abreast of activities, because I can’t attend all the meetings. She is there on my behalf and she will share everything with me that they are discussing…I am a facilitator… I don’t block anything that they are trying to do as long as it makes sense. I want them to generate more community and parent involvement. I want them to know that they have my support with what they are doing.  

The principal attended most partnership activities. For example, she was an important presence at the school’s Family Night for Fun and Learning and was easy and engaged with faculty, staff, and parents. She also provided advice on current and future activities as well as resources that the ATP needed to enhance its effectiveness. Ms. Drum identified the storage room as a potential site for the parent resource room. In the following passage, Urban High’s ATP chairperson described the importance of this gesture:  

That meeting room is a big deal because I can’t think of any other high school that has a designated area for parents and the community to meet. That was a real commitment on her [the principal’s] behalf and especially because … we have teachers that are floating [who do not have permanent classrooms]. That’s a big deal and it really shows that the administration is in favor of what we are doing.  

Much of the literature on parent involvement has highlighted the important role that principal leadership plays in the development and maintenance of comprehensive partnership programs (Belenardo, 2001; Ferrandino, 2004; Sanders & Harvey, 2001). In this study, the authors used the metaphor of coach to describe the way in which this leadership can be expressed. This is, perhaps, the most viable expression for principals in large urban high schools that often have more demands and responsibilities than time.  

Leader as Community-Broker  

One of the most common obstacles to school, family, and community partnership program development is lack of community resources and support (Sanders, 2001). As described earlier, this lack of support is more pronounced in low-income communities and communities of color than more affluent, European-American communities. However, this common obstacle was ameliorated at Urban High through the leadership efforts of two of its members who acted as community brokers. 

A broker is someone who acts as an intermediary between two parties to bridge differences. The majority of the faculty and staff of Urban High and the families and communities they serve were African American. However, they differed in socioeconomic status. As Lareau (1987) and others have contended (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003), schools are middle-class institutions. As such, they possess middle-class biases for family involvement that can alienate many low-income families. This alienation often reduces the participation of low-income families and community members in school-based activities. 

Community brokers can help bridge class and cultural differences by using their personal ties, reputation, and insider knowledge to generate greater family and community buy-in. Through the use of informal visits, and phone calls, community brokers elicit needed support and resources. Mr. Collier and Ms. Comfort served as community brokers on Urban High’s ATP. In separate interviews, each described his/her position in the community and why s/he engaged in extensive activities to broker school-community relations.  

Mr. Collier: I live in this community, and I want to give back to the community. When I contact people, I like them to be people who really care. . . . I don’t know what the statistics are now, but I know that just a few years ago, this neighborhood was the most densely populated neighborhoods within the city. So we have a lot of people that we can draw from to be able to get help and make a difference. That is what I want to do is just continue to strive to make a difference and bring some more people along with me to help do it because I can’t do it by myself. That is, what I am really trying to do is get others excited about making a difference.  

Ms. Comfort: I am trying to give back to the community. You see, when I was at [Urban High], it was like a community thing. You could always go to school. Even when you couldn’t go home, you could go to school. Your parents were always welcome at the school. So, I want parents to be more involved . . . because parents need to be aware of what is going on at the school and what is going  on with their children and the community needs to be aware of what is going on as well. . . Being an alumnus, I am proud to say that I went to [Urban High]. 

As community brokers, Mr. Collier and Ms. Comfort used their deep community connections to recruit students’ parents, grandparents, and community members to volunteer in the school as hall monitors during special events, guest speakers, and as tutors. They have generated a list of local churches that help to publicize school events. They also regularly visit local business owners who donate incentives for school programs, and post school flyers in their shops. 

Conclusion 

Ms. Collier: Because of the very strong incentive from President Bush to promote parent involvement, it has to be a part of your educational plan for all children.  . . . I think that it is important for anybody in education to understand that you can no longer just serve a child and not have a connection with that family. That is a part of reform; that is a part of change; you have to, you have to now. And so because you have to now, people are beginning to understand that you can no longer call mom once a month and if you just get the answering machine that is okay, you made parent contact. … Are we following up? Are we going out to the community and knocking on doors? You know those kinds of things. That is where we have to be now. We have to do that now.  

This study investigated what one urban high school is doing to build strong home, school, and community connections. While its efforts preceded the passage of NCLB, the high school meets the requirements for family involvement delineated in Section 1118 of the law.            

The body responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating Urban High’s partnership program is the ATP. For over five years, Urban High’s ATP has implemented partnership activities that span the framework of six types of involvement. The team’s success, in part, appears due to shared leadership roles among caring and committed ATP members. The authors highlighted three of these roles – manager, coach, and community-broker.            

The findings of this study, thus, illustrated how a team approach to partnerships coupled with a comprehensive framework of family and community involvement can help schools to develop and maintain comprehensive partnership programs. Furthermore, it results underscored the importance of team member selection. As Urban High’s ATP demonstrates, teams are at their best when members bring an ethic of caring to their work, have diverse and complementary perspectives and skills, and are given opportunities to express these through meaningful leadership activities.  

At a minimum, this requires a team chairperson who understands, models, and encourages shared leadership, as well as members who will accept leadership responsibilities that align with their strengths and skills. To provide educators with the skills, dispositions, and knowledge to become effective members and leaders of such school-based teams, teacher and administrator preparation programs and in-service professional development must place greater emphasis on diversity and collaborative leadership training (Lamson & Bell, 1997). Such training, while important for all educators, is of even greater significance for those preparing to work in urban communities, where they are more likely to encounter students and families of different racial, ethnic, and/or socioeconomic backgrounds.  

Recommendations for Future Research  

Despite the relevance of the findings reported above, many questions remain unanswered about partnership program development in urban high schools. These questions highlight areas for future research, and their thorough investigation requires a variety of designs and methods. For example, qualitative and quantitative studies are needed to examine if and how training in collaborative leadership for pre-service teachers and administrators, along with clear guidelines on partnerships, improve kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) educators’ willingness and capacity to function effectively on school-based partnership teams. Moreover, longitudinal studies are needed to examine the relationships between schools’ partnership programs, parental involvement in their children’s learning, and specified student outcomes, such as attendance and achievement, especially at the high school level and in under-served communities. Studies also are needed to identify activities that show significant and consistent influences on specified outcomes for diverse adolescents. Such studies will add to a growing body of knowledge on which K-12 educators can develop programs of family and community involvement that meet federal, state, and/or local standards, as well as extend and enrich the learning opportunities afforded to students in urban elementary, middle, and high schools.  

Footnotes  

1 See the NNPS website at www.partnershipschools.org for more information.  

2 This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. The opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the funding agency.  

3 The authors would like to sincerely thank the participants for their willing cooperation at each stage of the study. Actual names of the case high schools and the participants are not used to ensure participant anonymity and confidentiality.  

About the Authors:  Mavis Sanders, Ph.D in education from Stanford University, holds a joint appointment as research scientist at the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) and associate professor in the Graduate Division of Education at Johns Hopkins University. Her research and teaching interests include school reform, parental and community involvement, and African American student achievement. Karla C. Lewis, Ph.D in education from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, is currently a research specialist in assessment, accountability, and standards at SERVE, a Regional Education Laboratory located at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. Her research interests include teacher professional development, school, family, and community partnerships in high schools, and paraprofessionals in elementary education.  Please address correspondence to the first author at Division of Education, Johns Hopkins University, 6740 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 180, Columbia, MD 21046 USA; e-mail msanders@jhu.edu.

References  

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991).  Family structure, parental practices, and high school completion.  American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.  

Baker, A. (1997). Improving parent involvement programs and practice: A qualitative study of parent perceptions. School Community Journal, 7, 127-153.  

Belenardo, S. (2001). Practices and conditions that lead to a sense of community in middle schools. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 33-45.  

Brady, M. (Ed.) (2004). The education report. Washington, D.C.: Washington Partners, LLC. Retrieved November 19, 2004, from http://www.ncea.com/education_report/educationreport20feb2004.doc  

Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003). Building trust with schools and diverse families: A foundation for lasting partnerships. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.  

Burch, P., & Palanki, A. (1995). From clients to partners: Four case studies of collaboration and family involvement in the development of school-linked services. Report #29.  Baltimore: Center on Families, Communities, Schools & Children’s Learning, Johns Hopkins University.

Calabrese, R. (1990). The public school: A source of alienation for minority parents. Journal of Negro Education, 50, 148-154.  

Catsambis, S. (1998). Expanding the knowledge of parental involvement in secondary education: Effects on high school academic success. Report 27. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.  

Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor Black children succeed or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  

Comer, J. (1993). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.  

Comer, J., & Haynes, N. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 271-277.  

Conklin, M. E., & Dailey, A. R. (1981).  Does consistency of parental encouragement matter for secondary students?  Sociology of Education, 54, 254-262.  

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1988). The value of conformity: Learning to stay in school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19, 354-381.  

Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource. Educational Horizons, 66, 75-77.

Education Trust. (2003). No Child Left Behind user guide. Washington, DC: Author.  

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Salinas, K., Simon, B., VanVoorhis, F., & Jansorn, N. (2002). School, family and community partnerships:  Your handbook for action (2 ed.).   Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin Press, Inc.

Ferrandino, V. 2004.  Connecting with families. Principal, 83, 54.  

Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 682-710.  

George, P. (1995, March). Search Institute looks at home and school: Why aren’t parents getting involved?  The High School Magazine, 11-15.

Ginsburg, A. L., & Hanson, S. L. (1986).  Values and educational sources among      disadvantaged students.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.  

Harris, B., & Drake, S. (1997). Implementing high school reform through school-side action research teams: A three-year case study. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 15-31.  

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.  

Horvat, E., Weininger, E., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 319-351.  

Igo, S. (2002). Increasing parent involvement. Principal Leadership, 3, 10-12.  

Jacobi, E., Witteich, Y., & Hogue, I. (2003). Parental involvement for a new century. The New England Reading Association Journal, 39, 11-16.  

Johnson, J., Jr., & Ginsberg, M. (1996, November). Building capacity through school support teams. Educational Leadership, 54, 80 - 82.  

Jordan, W., & Plank, S. (2000). Talent loss among high-achieving poor students.  In M. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk:  Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp.83-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.  

Keith, T., Keith, P., Troutman, G., Bickley, P., Trivette, P., & Singh, K. (1993).  Does parental involvement affect eighth grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.  School Psychology Review, 22, 474-496.  

Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrman, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey L. W. (1986).  Parental involvement, homework, and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achievement.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 373-380.  

Lamson, P., & Bell, S. (1997). Building a learning community. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26, 32-34.  

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The Importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.  

Lareau, A., & Horvath, E. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37-53.  

Mapp, K. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. School-Community Journal, 13, 35-64.  

National Public Radio (2004, February 12). Utah rebels against ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1671965  

Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (1997). Reducing talent loss: The impact of information, guidance, and actions on post-secondary enrollment. Report No. 9: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.  

Sanders, M. G. (2001).  A study of the role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 19-34.  

Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000).  The National Network of Partnership Schools: How research influences educational practice. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5, 61-76.  

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A.  (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345-1368.  

Sanders, M. G., & Lewis, K. (in press). Building bridges toward excellence: Community involvement in high schools. High School Journal.  

Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (2002). A comparison of program development at elementary, middle, and high schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The School Community Journal, 12, 7-27.  

Simon, B. (2002). Family involvement on high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 8-19.  

Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.  

Trotman, M. (2001). Involving the African American parent: Recommendations to increase the level of parent involvement with African American families. The Journal of Negro Education, 70, 275-285.  

Wherry, J. (2003). Linking parent involvement to student achievement. Principal, 82, 1-2.  

Yan, W. (1999). Successful African American students: The role of parental involvement. The Journal of Negro Education, 68, 5-22.  

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.