Faced with rapidly changing demographics, districts are increasingly looking to partner with parents to support and improve student learning. Community organizing holds promise for pursuing educational equity through the development of low-income parent participation and leadership, but previous research has focused primarily on the use of structural social capital theory in qualitative studies to understand school-based organizing mechanisms and impacts in traditional urban centers.
Focus of Study
The aim of this study was to examine whether district-level organizing efforts might be associated with improved parent-school relations in schools and how such efforts to build a new relationship may be enacted and negotiated at the school level within the context of a district-organizing group collaboration in a “new immigrant” destination.
Research Design
This mixed-methods sequential explanatory study used social capital and the concept of institutional scripts to quantitatively investigate the relationship between Latino parent organizing and parent-school relations across a district, then qualitatively explore the dynamics of parent-school social capital in a nested case study of one school.
Data Collection and Analysis
Using teacher-survey data from a stratified random sample of teachers in schools across the district, I fit multilevel regression models to examine whether schools with more organizing engagement had greater structural and functional parent-school social capital. I subsequently analyzed interview, observation, and document data to examine how organizing efforts sought to build positive parent-school relations at an elementary school that represented a key focal point for the district-organizing group collaboration.
Findings/Results
Schools with high organizing had greater structural social capital than schools with little or no organizing, but high organizing schools did not have greater functional social capital in the form of teacher-parent trust. The case study findings suggested that the dominant institutional scripts about the role of parents were simultaneously rewritten and reinforced even as organizing approaches worked to foster a new relationship between parents and educators.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Districts and schools that collaborate with community organizing groups can augment their social resources and expertise, particularly in reaching out to low-income Latino parents and effectively educating their children. Yet, the dominant institutional scripts in schools – about the role of parents, professional authority, and control – suggest the complexity of efforts to improve parent-school relations. Those seeking to build meaningful parent and community participation in schools would do well to move beyond traditional forms of parent involvement in the journey toward deeper engagement and collaboration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsC. M., ForsythP. B., & MitchellR. M. (2009). The formation of parent-school trust: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 4–33.
2.
AuerbachS. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–32.
3.
BartonA. C., DrakeC., PerezJ. G., St. LouisK., & GeorgeM. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3.
4.
BeamJ., & IraniS. (2003). ACORN education reform organizing: Evolution of a model. New York: National Center for Schools and Communities at Fordham University.
5.
BolivarJ. M., & ChrispeelsJ. H. (2011). Enhancing parent leadership through building social and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 4–38.
6.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., AllensworthE., LuppescuS., & EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BrymanA. (2006) Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–114
9.
BurchP. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84–95.
10.
CarbonaroW. J. (1998). A little help from my friend's parents: Intergenerational closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71(4), 295–313.
11.
CarreonG., DrakeC., & BartonA.C. (2005). The importance of presence: immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.
12.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the development of human capital: The ambiguous position of private schools. Illinois
13.
ConchasG. Q., & GoyetteK. A. (2001). The race is not even: Minority education in a post-affirmative action era. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 13, 87.
14.
CooperC. W., & ChristieC. A. (2005). Evaluating parent empowerment: A look at the potential of social justice evaluation in education. Teachers College Record, 107(10), 2248–2274.
15.
CreswellJ. W, & Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
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.
17.
CrowsonR. L., & BoydW. L. (2001). The new role of community development in educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 76(2), 9–29.
18.
Delgado-GaitanC. (2001). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
19.
Designs for Change. (2005). The big picture: School initiated reforms, centrally initiated reforms, and elementary school achievement in Chicago (1990-2005). Chicago: Designs for Change.
20.
DikaS. L., & SinghK. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31.
21.
EdmondsonA. C., & McManusS. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179.
22.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
EpsteinJ. L. (1995). School/Family/Community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
24.
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, CO: Westview Press.
25.
FanX. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth modeling analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1), 27.
26.
FineM. (1993). A parent involvement. Equity and Choice, 9(3), 4.
27.
FryR. & GonzalesF. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic Public School Students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
28.
GlickmanN., & ScallyC. (2005). Can community and education organizing improve inner-city schools?. Rutgers University: COMM-ORG Papers.
29.
GoddardR. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 59–74.
30.
GoldE., SimonE., BrownC., BlancS., Pickron-DavisM., BrownJ., . (2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools. The indicators project on education organizing. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform Research for Action, Inc.
31.
GreenJ. C., CaracelliV. J., & GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 255–274.
32.
HargreavesL. (2010). Threats to the integrity of the teaching profession: Encountered, confronted and uncovered. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), 1–4.
33.
HendersonA., & MappK. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.
34.
HongS. (2011). A cord of three strands: A new approach to parent engagement in schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
35.
HonigM. (2004). District central office-community partnerships. In HoyW. & MiskelC. (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 59–90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
36.
JeynesW. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 747–774.
37.
LandesR. (1963). An anthropologist looks at school counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10(1), 14–17.
38.
LareauA., & HorvatE. M. N. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.
39.
Lawrence-LightfootS. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other (1st ed.). New York: Random House.
40.
LawsonM. A., & Alameda-LawsonT. (2012). A case study of school-linked, collective parent engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 651–684.
41.
LeanaC. R., & PilF. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.
42.
LópezG. (2001). On whose terms? Understanding involvement through the eyes of migrant parents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
43.
MawhinneyH. B., & SmrekarC. (1996). Institutional constraints to advocacy in collaborative services. Educational Policy, 10(4), 480.
44.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
45.
McNealR. B.Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117–145.
46.
MedirattaK. (2002). Constituents of change: Community organizations and public education reform. Steinhardt School of Education, New York University: Institute for Education and Social Policy.
47.
MedirattaK., & FruchterN. (2001). Mapping the field of organizing for school improvement: A report on education organizing in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, the Mississippi Delta, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
48.
MedirattaK., & KarpJ. (2003). Parent power and urban school reform: The story of mothers on the move. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy at New York University.
49.
MedirattaK., ShahS., & McAlisterS. (2009). Community organizing for stronger schools: Strategies and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
50.
MeyerH., & RowanB. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
52.
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.
53.
MonkmanK., RonaldM., & ThéramèneF. D. (2005). Social and cultural capital in an urban Latino school community. Urban Education, 40(1), 4–33.
54.
MorganS. L., & SørensenA. B. (1999). Parental networks, social closure, and mathematics learning: A test of Coleman's social capital explanation of school effects. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 661–681.
55.
NogueraP. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
56.
OakesJ., & LiptonM. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as social movement. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4).
57.
OakesJ., & RogersJ. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
58.
OlivosE. M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent involvement in public schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
59.
Oregon Department of Education. (2010). Statewide report card: An annual report to the legislature on Oregon public schools 2009-2010. Salem: Oregon Department of Education.
60.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
61.
Perez CarreonG., DrakeC., & Calabrese BartonA. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.
62.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
63.
RubinH. & RubinI. (2007). Community organizing and development (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn-Bacon.
64.
Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality. (2008). Educate and inspire, the Oregon parent involvement education project: Training manual for facilitators. Unpublished manuscript.
65.
Salem-Keizer Public Schools. (2009). Learning English: An in-depth look at the complex world of English language development and how it impacts Salem-Keizer schools. Salem, Oregon: District publication.
66.
Salem-Keizer Public Schools. (2009-2010). A snapshot of our district, 2009-2010. Salem and Keizer, Oregon: Author.
67.
SandersM. G., & HarveyA. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368.
68.
SchutzA. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743.
69.
ShirleyD. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: University of Texas Press.
70.
ShirleyD. (2009). Community organizing and educational change: A reconnaissance. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 229–237.
71.
SingerA., HardwickS. W., & BrettellC. (2008). Twenty-first century gateways: Immigrant incorporation in suburban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
72.
SmrekarC., & Cohen-VogelL. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75–100.
73.
StallS., & StoeckerR. (1998). Community organizing or organizing community? Gender and the crafts of empowerment. Gender & Society. Official Publication of Sociologists for Women in Society, 12(6), 729.
74.
Stanton-SalazarR. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1–40.
75.
Stanton-SalazarR. D., & DornbuschS. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116–135.
76.
SuC. (2009). Streetwise for book smarts: Grassroots organizing and education reform in the Bronx. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
77.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
78.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools the role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247.
79.
ValenciaR. R., & BlackM. S. (2002). “Mexican americans don't value education!”—on the basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos & Education, 1(2), 81.
80.
WarrenM. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
WarrenM. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
82.
WarrenM. (2010). Community organizing for education reform. In OrrM. & RogersJ. (Eds.), Public engagement for public education (pp. 139–173). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
83.
WarrenM. R. (2011). Building a political constituency for urban school reform. Urban Education, 46, 3.
84.
WarrenM., HongS., RubinC. H., & UyP. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.
85.
WarrenM., MappK., & Community Organizing and School Reform Project. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
