What roles do parent and family engagement and community outreach play in educator efforts to improve low-performing urban schools? To address this question, we considered findings from our 3-year case study of Brookdale Elementary (a pseudonym), which was undergoing a state-mandated, district-directed turnaround reform effort from 2011 to 2014. Specifically, we investigated how and why school personnel engaged with and reacted to parents and families, community-based organizations, and the surrounding locale. In the end, the school’s educators encountered complicated obstacles yet generated some tangible victories in their pursuit of productive school, parent/family, and community connections. We conclude by considering implications of our findings.
AbelY. (2014). Process into products: Supporting teachers to engage parents. Education and Urban Society, 42, 181-191.
2.
AnyonJ. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
3.
AuerbachS. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19, 9-31.
4.
BiagM. (2016). A descriptive analysis of school connectedness: The views of school personnel. Urban Education, 51, 32-59.
5.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
CooperC. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 694-724.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
8.
CubanL. (2010). As good as it gets: What school reform brought to Austin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DukeD. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 9-24.
10.
Duncan-AndradeJ. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 181-194.
11.
EdwardsD. B.Jr.DeMatthewsD. (2014). Historical trends in educational decentralization in the United States and developing countries: A periodization and comparison in the post-WWII context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(40), 1-39.
12.
EpsteinJ. L.SandersM. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 81-120.
13.
Garcia-ReidP.PetersonC. H.ReidR. J. (2015). Parent and teacher support among Latino immigrant youth: Effects on school engagement and school trouble avoidance. Education and Urban Society, 47, 328-343.
14.
GottfriedM. A. (2014). Can neighbor attributes predict school absences?Urban Education, 49, 216-250.
15.
GreenT. L.GoodenM. A. (2014). Transforming out-of-school challenges into opportunities: Community schools reform in the urban Midwest. Urban Education, 49, 930-954.
16.
HorsfordS.HeiligJ. V. (2014). Community-based education reform in urban contexts: Implications for leadership, policy, and accountability. Urban Education, 49, 867-870.
17.
JeffersonA. (2015). Examining barriers to equity: School policies and practices prohibiting interaction of families and schools. The Urban Review, 47, 67-83.
18.
JeynesW. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202-218.
19.
KhalifaM. A. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 424-467.
20.
KhalifaM. A.GoodenM. A.DavisJ. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1272-1311
21.
LightfootD. (2004). “Some parents just don’t care”: Decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39, 91-107.
22.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
PeckC.ReitzugU.C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8-38.
24.
PembertonK. D.MillerS. (2015). Building home–school relationships to enhance reading achievement for students from families with limited financial resources. Education and Urban Society, 47, 743-765.
25.
SandersM. G. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education and Urban Society, 35, 161-180.
26.
SchutzA. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76, 691-743.
27.
SheldonS. B.EpsteinJ. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4-26.
28.
TindleK.LeconteP.BuchananL.TaymansJ. M. (2005). Transition planning: Community mapping as a tool for teachers and students (Research to Practice Brief, Vol. 4, No. 1, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
29.
TrujilloT.RenéeM. (2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1-34.
30.
UllucciK.HowardT. (2015). Pathologizing the poor: Implications for preparing teachers to work in high-poverty schools. Urban Education, 50, 170-193.
31.
WarrenM. R.MappK. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
YinR. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
