This article discusses a theoretical perspective, research results, and practical examples that support new roles for school counselors in strengthening school programs of family and community involvement. A modest proposal is offered for school counselors to spend 20% of their time on strengthening teamwork for partnerships by working with other educators, parents, and community partners to plan, implement, and evaluate goal-linked partnership programs for their schools. This investment of school counselors’ time and talent should improve the quality of outreach and involvement activities, the number of parents who remain knowledgeable partners in their children's education across the grades, and results for students. The new direction also should reduce the number of students with serious academic and behavioral problems that school counselors presently try to solve alone.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New directions.Professional School Counseling, 5, 235–248.
BakerS., GerstenR., & KeatingT. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training.Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494–519.
4.
BalliS. J., DemoD. H., & WedmanJ. F. (1998). Family involvement with children's homework: An intervention in the middle grades.Family Relations, 47, 149–157.
5.
BryanJ., & Holcomb-McCoyC. (2004). School counselors’ perceptions of their involvement in school-family-community partnerships.Professional School Counseling, 7, 162–171.
6.
BryanJ., & Holcomb-McCoyC. (2007). An examination of school counselor involvement in school-family-community partnerships.Professional School Counseling, 10, 441–454.
7.
CatsambisS. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success.Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177.
8.
CatsambisS., & BeveridgeA. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement.Sociological Focus, 34, 435–457.
9.
ChangH.N., & RomeroM. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty.New York, NY: Columbia University.
10.
ChristensonS., & SheridanS.M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning.New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
DavalosD., ChavezE., & GuardiolaR. (2005). Effects of perceived parental school support and family communication on delinquent behaviors in Latinos and White non-Latinos.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 57–68.
12.
DesimoneL. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter?Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11–30.
13.
EpsteinJ. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In HurrelmanK., KaufmannF., & LoselF. (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: DeGruyter.
14.
EpsteinJ. L. (1992). School and family partnerships: Leadership roles for school psychologists. In ChristensenS. & ConoleyJ. (Eds.), Home and school collaborations: Enhancing children's academic and social competence (pp. 499–515). Colesville, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
15.
EpsteinJ. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
16.
EpsteinJ. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
17.
EpsteinJ. L. (2005a). Links in a professional development chain: Preservice and inservice education for effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships.The New Educator, 1, 125–141.
18.
EpsteinJ. L. (2005b). Results of the Partnership Schools-CSR model for student achievement over three years.Elementary School Journal, 106, 151–170.
19.
EpsteinJ. L. (2008). Research meets policy and practice: How are school districts addressing NCLB requirements for parental involvement? In SadovnikA. R., O'DayJ., BohrnstedtG., & BormanK. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 267–279). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
EpsteinJ. L., GalindoC., & SheldonS. B. (2010). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school actions on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Manuscript submitted for publication.
21.
EpsteinJ. L., & SandersM.G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships.Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 81–120.
22.
EpsteinJ. L., SandersM. G., SheldonS. B., SimonB. S., SalinasK. C., JansornN. R., … WilliamsK. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
EpsteinJ. L., & SheldonS. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement.Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308–318.
24.
EpsteinJ. L., & SheldonS. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In ConradC. F. & SerlinR. (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
EpsteinJ. L., SimonB.S., & SalinasK.C. (1997, September). Effects of Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) language arts interactive homework in the middle grades.Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 18.
26.
EpsteinJ. L., & Van VoorhisF. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework.Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193.
27.
FriedelJ. M., CortinaK. S., TurnerJ. C., & MidgleyC. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434–458.
28.
GeorgeR., & KaplanD. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence of NELS:88.Science Education, 82, 93–109.
Graham-ClayS. (1999). Enhancing home-school partnerships: How school psychologists can help.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 14, 31–44.
31.
HoE. S., & WillmsJ. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement.Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.
32.
HongS., & HoH. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32–42.
33.
KeithT., KeithP., TroutmanG., BickleyP., TrivetteP., & SinghK. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.School Psychology Review, 22, 474–496.
34.
LeeV. E., & CroningerR. G. (1994). The relative importance of home and school in development of literacy skills for middle-grade students.American Journal of Education, 102, 286–329.
35.
LichtB. G., GardT., & GuardinoC. (1991). Modifying school attendance of special education high school students.Journal of Educational Research, 84, 368–373.
36.
LoniganC. J., & WhitehurstG. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 263–290.
37.
MaX. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement.Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.
38.
ManzP. H., MautoneJ. A., & MartinS. D. (2009). School psychologists’ collaborations with families: An exploratory study of the interrelationships of their perceptions of professional efficacy and school climate and demographic and training variables.Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 47–70.
39.
MautoneJ. A., ManzP. H., MartinS. D., & WhiteG. P. (2009). Expanding the role of school psychologists.Principal, March/April, 1–3.
40.
NogueraP. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school violence.Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189–212.
41.
ParatoreJ. R., HindinA., Krol-SinclairB., & DuranP. (1999). Discourse between teachers and Latino parents during conferences based on home literacy portfolios.Education and Urban Society, 32, 58–82.
42.
ParcelT. L., & DufurM. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student achievement.Social Forces, 79, 881–912.
43.
PatrikakouE. N., WeissbergR.P., ReddingS., & WalbergH.J. (Eds.). (2005). School-family partnerships: Fostering children's school success.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
44.
RoderickM., ArneyM., AxelmanM., DaCostaK., StelgerC., StoneS., … WaxmanE. (1997). Habits hard to break: A new look at truancy in Chicago's public high schools.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.
45.
SandersM. G. (1999). Schools’ programs and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools.Journal of Education Research, 92, 220–229.
46.
SandersM. G. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaborating for student success.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47.
SandersM. G. (2008). Using diverse data to develop and sustain school, family, and community partnerships: A district case study.Education Management, Administration, and Leadership, 36, 530–545.
48.
SandersM. G., & EpsteinJ. L. (2000). The National Network of Partnership Schools: How research influences educational practice.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5, 61–76.
49.
SandersM. G., & LewisK. (2005). Building bridges toward excellence: Community involvement in high schools.High School Journal, 88(3), 1–9.
50.
SandersM. G., & SheldonS. B. (2009). Principals matter: A guide to school, family, and community partnerships.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
51.
SandersM., SheldonS., & EpsteinJ. (2005). Improving schools’ partnership programs in the National Network of Partnership Schools.Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5, 24–47.
52.
SandersM. G., & SimonB.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.
53.
SénéchalM., & LeFevreJ. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study.Child Development, 73, 455–460.
54.
ShaverA. V., & WallsR. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and math achievement.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 321, 90–97.
55.
SheldonS. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests.Urban Review, 35, 149–165.
56.
SheldonS. B. (2005). Testing a structural equations model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement.The Elementary School Journal, 106, 171–187.
57.
SheldonS. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with a school-wide approach to school-family-community partnerships.Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275.
58.
SheldonS. B. (2008). Getting families involved with NCLB: Factors affecting schools’ enactment of federal policy. In SadovnikA. R., O'DayJ., BohrnstedtG., & BormanK. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 281–294). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
SheldonS. B. (2009). Improving student outcomes with school, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed., pp. 40–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
60.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and discipline with family and community involvement.Education in Urban Society, 35, 4–26.
61.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism.School and Community Journal, 4(2), 39–56.
62.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2005a). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and math achievement.Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196–206.
63.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2005b). School programs of family and community involvement to support children's reading and literacy development across the grades. In FloodJ. & AndersP. (Eds.), Literacy development of students in urban schools: Research and policy (pp. 107–138). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
64.
SheldonS. B., EpsteinJ. L., & GalindoC. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership climate to improve math proficiency in schools.Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 27–48.
65.
SheldonS. B., & Van VoorhisF.L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 125–148.
66.
SimonB. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement.Social Psychology of Education, 7, 185–209.
67.
TaylorL., & AdelmanH. S. (2000). Connecting schools, families, and communities.Professional School Counseling, 3, 298–307.
68.
TaylorJ., & DavisT. (2009). Promoting parent involvement, part 1.Guidance Channel Ezine. Retrieved from http://www.guidancechannel.com
69.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement.Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323–338.
70.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2007, April). Can math be more meaningful? Longitudinal effects of family involvement on student homework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
71.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2008a, March). War or peace? A longitudinal study of family involvement in language arts homework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
72.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2008b, March). Stressful or successful? An intervention study of family involvement in secondary student science homework. Paper presented at the 14th International Roundtable on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, New York, NY.
73.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2009a). Does family involvement in homework make a difference? Investigating the longitudinal effects of math and language arts interventions. In DeslandesR. (Ed.), International perspectives on student outcomes and homework: Family-school-community partnerships (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
Van VoorhisF. L. (2009b, April). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Investments and results of three longitudinal interventions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
75.
Van VoorhisF. L. (in press). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study of family involvement and math achievement. Education and Urban Society.
76.
Van VoorhisF. L., & SheldonS. B. (2004). Principals’ roles in the development of U.S. programs of school, family, and community partnerships.International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 55–70.
77.
Von SeckerC. (2004). Science achievement in social contexts: Analysis from National Assessment of Educational Progress.Journal of Educational Research, 98, 67–78.
78.
YanW., & LinQ. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across racial and ethnic groups.Journal of Educational Research, 99, 116–127.
