Research Says

Printer-friendly version

This section presents a summary of the research and the literature about parent engagement. Building a Parent Portal without understanding parent engagement – its purpose and successes – is the same as using technology to automate a bad business process in the corporate world. You can also look at the Resources page for additional information about parent engagement and portals.

A significant body of research demonstrates the contribution of parent engagement to student learning. Henderson and Mapp (2002) reviewed 51 studies conducted between 1993 and 2002 and provided a synthesis of the research findings. The report pointed to the strong impact of parent involvement on student achievement, attendance and behaviour. Research also indicates that parent participation declines with grade level, that socioeconomic status and family situation are factors in determining parent engagement and that students want their families to be involved in their learning (Boethel, 2004; Epstein et al., 2002; Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Importance of parent involvement to student achievement. Numerous studies point to the correlation between parent engagement and student achievement. Henderson & Mapp (2002) identified several studies in their review of 51 studies on parent involvement that demonstrated such a correlation. Henderson and Mapp (2002) summarized the relationship:

Taken as a whole, these studies found a positive and convincing relationship between family involvement and benefits for student, including improved academic achievement. This relationship holds across families of all economic, racial/ethnic, and education backgrounds and for students at all ages. (p. 24).

The authors reminded us that a positive correlation does not mean that parent engagement is the sole determinant of student achievement.

Models of parent involvement/engagement.Perhaps the most widely quoted work in the field of parent engagement is by Epstein et al. (2002). In their model of parent involvement they described six different categories: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community. The framework, shown in Table 1, aids in understanding the development of activities (an action can include more than one type of involvement), the measurement of results, and plans for improvement. Each type of involvement generates different results for students, parents and teachers.

Table 1.
Six Types of Parent Engagement

Note. From "School/family/community Partnerships" by J. L. Epstein, 1995, Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), p. 704. Copyright 1995 by Phi Delta Kappan. Pending permission of the author.

Pushor (2007) extended the definition beyond involvement to engagement and argued that engagement is the hallmark of parent connections that truly make a difference for students. Pushor contended that we need to change the story of school from a place that is institutional and fortress-like to one that truly welcomes parents as partners in their children’s learning. Involvement as a defined term marginalizes the role of parent to interview-attendee and fund-raiser, while engagement reflects shared consequences that can only come from participation in both the planning and execution of learning activities at home and at school. Engagement is thus the chosen terminology for this paper.

Context is important in understanding parent engagement models and strategies. Context in the literature is variously described for the parent and child’s home, school and community, and each context interacts one with the other (Epstein et al., 2002). For example, each child arrives at school carrying the aspirations of the parent (Marjoribanks, 2002) which may or may not match the expectations of the teacher. Similarly, Beothel (2004) noted that young children’s home environment (family background and family interaction) is related to skills and abilities at kindergarten entry. Holmes (1998) studied the views of educators compared to a sample of non-educators and concluded that while we live in a pluralistic democracy there is a consistent view among the education establishment that is not shared with the public at large. These differing contexts are a source of conflict between home and school.

Lewis and Forman (2002) conducted an ethnographic study of two schools in different socioeconomic communities. The schools considered parent role differently. A consumer role was characterized by ambivalent and competitive interactions at one school, while a participant role was characterized by interactions reflected as accommodation and community at the other school. The authors inferred that schools leaders have the ability to enable a culture of empowerment for teachers who will in turn engage with parents in productive and meaningful ways. The authors concluded that social class and school culture combine and interact in the formation of parent-teacher relationships. The role of social class is often discounted as not important in the research. In school practice, however, it may sit as a delicate subject to be avoided. Consideration of social class and concomitant power issues helps build understanding of dealing with the phenomenon known as helicopter parents, the power struggles between parent and teacher, and the role of teacher professionalism as a defence mechanism that negatively impacts parent-teacher relationships. Each of these is a real manifestation in the everyday life of a school.

Parent engagement at different grade levels. Beothel (2004) noted that family involvement generally declines from preschool/child care situations to kindergarten. This is the beginning of a trend that continues through the grade levels to high school completion. Not only are parents engaged less in the more senior years, but the type of engagement changes. Primary grades are characterized by parents participating directly in the classroom and communicating with the teacher through regular parent-teacher interviews and at school functions. At the senior high school level each teacher works with many classes of students making communication with parents more complex and difficult. Schools struggle to schedule parent-teacher interviews when each teacher may work with more than 100 students. The logistics alone are insurmountable for teachers and schools. Instead, parent engagement is more likely relegated to fund-raising and signing acknowledgements (Pushor, 2007).

Students themselves change their views about parent engagement as their grade level changes. While they are still wanting their parents to be engaged, the nature of that engagement changes as they seek to gain more autonomy in their lives (Versteeg, 2006).

Deslandes and Bertand’s (2005) research with Quebec Grade 7, 8 and 9 parents examined the factors that cause parents to become more involved in their children’s schooling. Four psychological constructs – parent role construction, parent self-efficacy, teacher invitation and student invitation – were assessed. The authors found that teacher invitation was a predictor of parent involvement at school and student invitation was a predictor of parent involvement at home across all three grades. However, parent role construction, that is how parents perceive their responsibility as parents, was a more significant predictor of involvement at home in Grade 7 than the other constructs. At the same time, parent role construction was a more significant predictor of involvement at school in Grade 9 than in Grade 7. Parent efficacy was only a predictor of involvement at home for Grade 7 parents.

The question remains as to whether parent engagement practices should change as grade level changes. Versteeg (2006) argued that just as the parent-child relationship changes as the child matures, so should the parent-teacher relationship change. However, the core values associated with that relationship should not change. Rather the activities that support the relationship will reflect the child’s life at the time.

The difference between parents and teachers. If the research demonstrates the benefits of parent engagement with school staff and at schools, then why are there not successful parent engagement strategies at every school? One could say that it is all about relationships. Pushor (2007) suggested that the personal relationship between the parent and the teacher is at the core of parent engagement. Deslandes and Bertand’s (2005) suggested that parent involvement is more likely when the parent is invited to be involved by the teacher.

Power plays a role in the development and sustainment (or lack thereof) in relationships. Different real or perceived power plays into the complexity of the relationships. According to French and Raven (2001) there are five different kinds of power that may influence how people relate to each other. These are reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and expert power. While each type of power is likely at play in a parent-teacher relationship, the latter expert power is a key component to the relationship. When the parent perceives that the teacher is an expert and the parent can neither contribute to nor challenge the expertise of the teacher an imbalance in the relationship occurs.

Other factors have been identified as determinants in the formation of parent-teacher relationships, such as social class (Lewis & Forman, 2002) and perceptions of what is important in school readiness (Boethel, 2004). The climate within which public education functions can also determine different perspectives between teachers and parents. Engvall (2002) suggested that accountability measures are demanded when parents and the community do not trust what teachers are doing. The rise in standardized testing is suggested to be a reflection of the need for the public (especially parents and government) to have a measure of learning, of what teachers are delivering to students. This climate of distrust by parents causes teachers to in turn distrust parents.

Preparing teachers and administrators for parent engagement. Educators are less likely to come to their work knowing how to appropriately work with and engage parents without some prior knowledge and skill-building. Holmes (1998) contended that we are recently emerging from a belief that educators owned the schooling franchise to one in which we acknowledge that the public owns the public education franchise. McEwan (2005) captured some of this skill-building in her book How to Deal with Parents. While the types of engagement can be described, schools will be successful in working with parents and communities if the staff take time to listen, to understand, and to relate to the families with whom they work (Pushor, 2007). The school, and more specifically the principal, establishes the culture in the school that expects and supports meaningful engagement with parents (Lewis & Forman, 2002).

While there is some evidence in the literature that pre-service education for teachers would be a benefit (Epstein et al., 2002; Stelmack, 2005), there is paucity of pre-service training for teachers in working with parents. An examination of undergraduate university calendars in Alberta and Saskatchewan yielded no evidence of coursework targeted to parent engagement, involvement, or partnership. Pre-service training appears limited to internship opportunities to work with parents and course work embedded at the preference of the teaching professor.

Preparing parents for parent engagement. Just as teachers and administrators can prepare for parent engagement strategies, so too can parents themselves. Books by Epstein et al (2002) and Henderson et al (2007) have detailed workshop and planning materials for both parents and schools. Governments often place parent information and materials on their websites (Alberta Education, 2007; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008) to assist parents in understanding what their children are learning at school and in engaging with their school.

Kerr (2005), Director of the Parent Involvement Centre, concluded that a deliberate focus and activity related to the Epstein (1995) framework did produce a higher level of parental engagement as compared to schools without such a focus. Recommendations for organizing programs to stimulate parental involvement are published on the Parent Involvement Centre website at http://www.parentinvolvement.ca. The Centre was established in 2005 to research and disseminate best practice in parent engagement strategies to schools, families and communities.
Engvall (2002) examined parent report cards as a way to assess how parents are performing in supporting their child’s education. While a formal report card has not yet appeared, he indicates that symbolic report cards are an opportunity for parents to self-assess and critique their own contributions.

Summary
That parent engagement can have a positive impact on student learning among other benefits is more than a gut feeling, more than motherhood and apple pie. The research demonstrates^[*] that parent engagement has a positive impact on student learning. Culture, socioeconomic background and family characteristics influence parental engagement, and the nature of relationships that are formed between parents and teachers. Schools set the parameters and culture for parent engagement, but teachers and administrators are often ill-prepared to take on this responsibility. Principles of trust and mutual respect are important in this as in any relationship.

References

Alberta Education. (2007). Role of Parents. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://education.alberta.ca/parents/role.aspx

Boethel, M. (2004). Readiness: School, Family, & Community Connections
Annual Synthesis 2004, Available from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/readiness-synthesis.pdf

Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of Parent Involvement in Secondary-Level Schooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 164-175.

Engvall, R. P. (2002). I'll Show You Mine, If You Show Me Yours: A Brief and Preliminary Examination of Parental Report Cards. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 477-492.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 13.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Clark Salinas, K., Rodriguez Jansorn, N., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, Family and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

French, J., & Raven, B. (2001). The Bases of Social Power. In I. Asherman, P. Bob, J. Randall & S. Asherman (Eds.), The Negotiation Sourcebook (Second ed.): Human Resource Development Press.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Retrieved January 20, 2008. from http://www.sedl.org/connections/.

Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family-School Partnerships. New York: The New Press.

Holmes, M. (1998). The Reformation of Canada's Schools: Breaking the Barriers to Parental Choice. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Kerr, G. (2005, November 17-18, 2005). Stimulating Parent Involvement to Stimulate Student Success. Paper presented at the The Quest for Communities that Work: Sustaining Student Improvement, An International Syposium for Education and Community Leaders, Richmond Hill, ON.
Lewis, A. E., & Forman, T. A. (2002). Contestation or Collaboration? A comparative study of home-school relations. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(1), 60-89.

Marjoribanks, K. (2002). Family and School Capital: Towards a Context Theory of Students' School Outcomes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McEwan, E. K. (2005). How to Deal with Parents Who Are Angry, Troubled, Afraid, or Just Plain Crazy (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corbin Press.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Parents. Retrieved June 8, 2008, 2008, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/

Pushor, D. (2007). Parent Engagement: Creating a Shared World. Paper presented at the Ontario Education Research Symposium. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/pushor.pdf

Stelmack, B. (2005). Parental Involvement: A Research Brief for Practitioners.

Versteeg, D. A. (2006). Helping Parents and Students Set Expectations and Life Directions. Paper presented at the FINE's 2006 Invitational Working Conference.