Parent involvement in education is widely recognized as important, yet it remains weak in many communities. One important reason for this weakness is that urban schools have grown increasingly isolated from the families and communities they serve. Many of the same neighborhoods with families who are disconnected from public schools, however, often contain strong community-based organizations (CBOs) with deep roots in the lives of families. Many CBOs are beginning to collaborate with public schools, and these collaborations might potentially offer effective strategies to engage families more broadly and deeply in schools.
Purpose
This article presents a community-based relational approach to fostering parent engagement in schools. We investigated the efforts of CBOs to engage parents in schools in low-income urban communities. We argue that when CBOs are authentically rooted in community life, they can bring to schools a better understanding of the culture and assets of families, as well as resources that schools may lack. As go-betweens, they can build relational bridges between educators and parents and act as catalysts for change.
Research Design
Using case study methodology, we studied three notable school-community collaborations: the Logan Square Neighborhood Association in Chicago, Illinois; the Camino Nuevo Charter Academy in Los Angeles, California; and the Quitman Street Community School in Newark, New Jersey. Each case represents one of three types of collaboration identified in previous research: community service, community development and community organizing.
Findings
Although differences in context mattered, we found three common dimensions of parent engagement work across the cases. The three core elements of this community-based relational approach are (1) an emphasis on relationship building among parents and between parents and educators, (2) a focus on the leadership development of parents, and (3) an effort to bridge the gap in culture and power between parents and educators. We contrast this community-based approach with more traditional, school-centric, and individualistic approaches to parent involvement.
Conclusions
There are a number of lessons from this study for educators interested in broadening and deepening parent participation in schools. First, educators can benefit from taking a patient approach, building relationships over time. Second, schools may not be able to do parent engagement work alone; they can profit from the social capital expertise of community-based organizations. Finally, educators would benefit from understanding that communities bring different needs, aspirations, and desires to their children's education. If educators collaborate with community partners and help to develop parent leadership, they can form initiatives that meet the interests, values, and capacities of any particular school community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlancS., BrownJ., Nevarez-La TorreA., & BrownC. (2002). Case Study: Logan Square Neighborhood Association.Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
2.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
3.
BriggsX. d. S., & MuellerE. J. (1997). From neighborhood to community: Evidence on the social effects of community development.New York: Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research.
4.
BrykA., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Press.
5.
CarreonG. P., DrakeC., & BartonA. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences.American Educational Research Journal, 42, 465–498.
6.
ChavkinN. F., & WilliamsD. L. (1993). Minority parents and the elementary school: Attitudes and practices. In ChavkinN. F. (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 72–83). Albany: State University of New York Press.
7.
Chicago Public Schools Office of Communications. (2002, September 19). CPS new community schools to offer education programs: Activities to the community [press release]. Chicago: Author.
8.
ChrispeelsJ. H. (1996). Effective schools and home-school-community partnership roles: A framework for parent involvement.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 7–33.
9.
ChungC. (2002). Using public schools as community-development tools: Strategies for community-based developers.Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
10.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change.Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
11.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
12.
ComerJ. P. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer Process for reforming education.New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
CrowG. M. (1998). Implications for leadership in collaborative schools. In PounderD. G. (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 135–153). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
CutlerW. W.III. (2000). Parents and schools: The 150-year struggle for control in American education.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Delgado-GaitanC. (2001). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
16.
DelpitL. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children.Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
17.
Designs for Change. (2005). The big picture: School-initiated reforms, centrally initiated reforms, and elementary school achievement in Chicago (1990–2005).Chicago: Author.
18.
DiamondJ., & GomezK. (2004). African American parents’ educational orientations: The importance of social class and parents’ perceptions of schoolsEducation and Urban Society, 36, 383–427.
19.
DianiM., & McAdamD. (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action.New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
DriscollM. E. (2001). The sense of place and the neighborhood school: Implications for building social capital and for community development. In CrowsonR. L. (Ed.), Community development and school reform (Vol. 5, pp. 19–42). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
21.
DryfoosJ. (2003). The Quitman Street Community School: 1998–2003 Five-year report.Newark, NJ: Prudential Foundation.
EpsteinJ. L. (2001). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent involvement. In EpsteinJ. L. (Ed.), School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (pp. 221–235). Boulder: Westview Press.
24.
EpsteinJ. L., SandersM. G., SimonB. S., SalinasK. C., JansornN. R., & Van VoorhisF. L. (2002). School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
HeckmanP. E., ScullW. R., & ConleyS. (1996). Conflict and consensus: The bitter and sweet in a community-school coalition. In CibulkaJ. G. & KritekW. J. (Eds.), Coordination among schools, families, and communities: Prospects for educational reform (pp. 49–67). Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
HendersonA., JacobB., Kernan-SchlossA., & RaimondoB. (2004). The case for parent leadership. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
33.
HendersonA. T., & MappK. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
34.
HendersonA. T., MappK. L., JohnsonV. R., & DaviesD. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: The New Press.
35.
HenigJ. R., HulaR. C., OrrM., & PedelescleauxD. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Hoover-DempseyK. V., & SandlerH. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference?Teachers College Record, 97, 310–332.
37.
Hoover-DempseyK. V., & SandlerH. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education?Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.
38.
HorvatE. M., WeiningerE. B., & LareauA. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks.American Educational Research Journal, 40, 319–351.
39.
KeithN. Z. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined? The potential of community schools.Education and Urban Society, 28, 237–268.
40.
KerbowD., & BernhardtA. (1993). Parental intervention in the school: The context of minority involvement. In SchneiderB. & ColemanJ. S. (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 115–146). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
41.
KhadduriJ., TurnhamJ., ChaseA., & SchwartzH. (2003). Case studies exploring the potential relationship between schools and neighborhood revitalization.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
42.
KreisbergS. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany: University of New York Press.
43.
LareauA. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
44.
LareauA., & HorvatE. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships.Sociology of Education, 72, 37–53.
45.
Lawrence-LightfootS. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York: Random House.
46.
LeavittJ., & SaegertS. (1990). From abandonment to hope: Community households in Harlem. New York: Columbia University Press.
47.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
48.
LoomerB. (1976). Two conceptions of power.Criterion, 15(1), 11–29.
49.
LopezG. R., ScribnerJ. D., & MahitivanichchaK. (2001). Redefining parental involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools.American Educational Research Journal, 38, 253–288.
50.
LopezM. E., KreiderH., & CoffmanJ. (2005). Intermediary organizations as capacity builders in family educational involvement.Urban Education, 40, 78–105.
51.
LortieD. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
MappK. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children's learning.School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64.
53.
MaxwellJ. A. (1996). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
MedirattaK. (2004). Constituents of change: Community organizations and public education reform. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
55.
MedirattaK., & FruchterN. (2003). From governance to accountability: Building relationships that make schools work. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
56.
MedirattaK., & KarpJ. (2003). Parent power and urban school reform: The story of Mothers on the Move. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
57.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58.
MerzC., & FurmanG. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New York: Teachers College Press.
59.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
MollL. C., AmantiC., NeffD., & GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.Theory Into Practice, 31, 132–141.
61.
NakagawaK. (2003). Parental and community empowerment: The Chicago model. In MironL. F. & JohnE. P. St. (Eds.), Reinterpreting urban school reform: Have urban schools failed, or has the reform movement failed urban schools? (pp. 209–228). Albany: State University of New York Press.
62.
NogueraP. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of parents. In SaegertS., ThompsonJ. P., & WarrenM. R. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 189–212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Press.
63.
NybergD. (1981). Power over power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
64.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
66.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
67.
RaginC. C., NagelJ., & WhiteP. (2004). Report of the Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
68.
SaegertS., ThompsonJ. P., & WarrenM. R. (Eds.). (2001). Social capital and poor communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
69.
SarasonS. B. (1995). Parent involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance structure of schools should be abolished. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
70.
SchorrL. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
71.
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.
72.
ShirleyD. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: University of Texas Press.
73.
SilvermanR. M. (Ed.). (2004). Community-based organizations: The intersection of social capital and local context in contemporary urban society. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
74.
SmrekarC. E., & MawhinneyH. B. (1999). Integrated services: Challenges in linking schools, families and communities. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 443–461). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
75.
SotoL. D. (1997). Language, culture, and power: Bilingual families and the struggle for quality education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
76.
SoyoungL. (2005). Selective parent participation: Structural and cultural factors that influence school participation among Korean parents.Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 299–308.
77.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
78.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S. Mexican American youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
79.
StoneC., DohertyK., JonesC., & RossT. (1999). Schools and disadvantaged neighborhoods: The community development challenge. In FergusonR. F. & DickensW. T. (Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 339–380). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
80.
Suarez-OrozcoC., & Suarez-OrozcoM. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81.
Task Force on Teacher Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
82.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
83.
ValenzuelaR. R., & BlackM. S. (2002). “Mexican Americans don't value education!” On the basis of the myth, mythmaking and debunking.Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 81–103.
84.
WarrenM. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform.Harvard Educational Review, 75, 133–173.
85.
WarrenM. R., ThompsonJ. P., & SaegertS. (2001). The role of social capital in combating poverty. In SaegertS., ThompsonJ. P., & WarrenM. R. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 1–28). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Press.
86.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
