Technical ReportPDF Available

The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluation

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This report presents findings from an Evaluation of Flamboyan Foundations's Family Engagement Partnership. The study included 12 public elementary schools in Washington, D.C., and more than 4,000 students in the 2013-2014 school year. It found that students whose families received a home visit, one of the core strategies in the Family Engage Partnership program, had 24 percent fewer absences and were more likely to read at or above grade level compared to similar students who did not receive a home visit. Also, students attending schools implementing the program more widely were associated with a greater likelihood of reading at or above grade level.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 1 -
September 2015
The Family Engagement Partnership
Student Outcome Evaluation
Johns Hopkins University
School of Educaon
Center on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships
September 2015
By Steven B. Sheldon & Sol Bee Jung
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 2 -
September 2015
Johns Hopkins University
School of Educaon
Center on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships
September 2015
The Family Engagement Partnership
Student Outcome Evaluation
By Steven B. Sheldon and Sol Bee Jung
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 3 -
September 2015
Execuve Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4
The Family Engagement Partnership ........................................................................................................ 4
Study Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Findings .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 6
1) Project Background and Exisng Literature .............................................................................................7
The Family Engagement Partnership ........................................................................................................ 8
2) Scope and Aim of the Evaluaon............................................................................................................ 11
Method ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Sample ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Variables ............................................................................................................................................. 12
3) Evaluaon Findings................................................................................................................................. 15
FEP Implementaon ............................................................................................................................... 15
Student Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 15
Student Aendance ............................................................................................................................15
Student Reading Comprehension ....................................................................................................... 16
Student Reading Fluency .................................................................................................................... 16
Re-enrollment .....................................................................................................................................16
Teacher Eecveness ............................................................................................................................. 17
4) Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 19
Future Research......................................................................................................................................20
Appendix A: Descripve Tables .................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix B: Analyc Models ..................................................................................................................... 24
References .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Table of Contents
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 4 -
September 2015
Execuve Summary
Family engagement helps students succeed.
Previous research has established consistent
and reliable connecons between families’
involvement in student learning—through
pracces such as shared reading, home-
work monitoring, and volunteering at school—with
aendance and academic achievement (Hill and Tyson,
2009; Poomeranz, Moorman & Litwach, 2007; Jeynes,
2005; 2012). Studies also show that family engagement
maers to the success of the school as an enterprise.
Bryk et al.’s (2010) study of school reform eorts
across 400 Chicago schools revealed that schools with
high trust levels among parents, teachers, and school
leadership are more likely to experience improvement
in math and reading achievement than schools where
trust levels among these groups are lower.
Some family engagement pracces may contribute to
success more eecvely than others, however. Children
whose families hold high expectaons, set goals, mon-
itor progress, and acvely assist with learning at home
are most likely to do beer in school, with those modes
of engagement appearing, in and of themselves, to be
the primary driver (Hill and Tyson, 2009). In today’s
educaon landscape, research, policy, and pracce
discussions no longer center on if family engagement
maers, but, rather, on what types of family engage-
ment maer and how families can be supported to play
those roles, parcularly in an increasingly diverse pub-
lic school system. With limited me and resources and
increasing pressure to demonstrate improved student
outcomes, what can and should schools do to engage
families?
Although the link between family engagement and
student and school success is well established, relave-
ly lile research has examined whether family engage-
ment, when iniated by teachers, lead to improved
outcomes for students. This evaluaon addresses this
gap by examining the associaon between student
outcomes at 12 urban public elementary schools and
parcipaon by teachers and students’ families in the
Family Engagement Partnership (FEP), a schoolwide
capacity-building eort to support educators in im-
proving how they engage their students’ families. In
parcular, the study examines the associaon between
relaonship-building parent-teacher home visits and
outcomes including student aendance, school re-en-
rollment, and grade-level prociency on literacy skills
assessments. The study also provides preliminary
insight into whether educators’ parcipaon in the FEP
is related to their eecveness in the classroom, and
which aspects of the FEP’s implementaon may predict
student impacts.
The Family Engagement Partnership
The Family Engagement Partnership (FEP) is an inten-
sive, capacity-building intervenon designed to support
student success by transforming the ways in which
teachers and families collaborate with one another.
Flamboyan developed the FEP approach in response
to input and feedback from D.C. families, teachers,
and school leaders who parcipated in focus groups,
fellowships, and learning partnerships, as well as key
informant interviews and literature reviews, all occur-
ring over a two-year landscaping process.
To become an FEP school, schools go through a rig-
orous selecon process, which serves two purposes.
First, it enables school leaders and teachers to learn
about and begin planning how a teacher-focused family
engagement iniave would meet their school’s needs.
Second, it enables Flamboyan to assess the school’s
readiness to priorize and manage a change eort and
engage families in new and deeper ways. Once select-
ed, FEP teachers parcipate in 15+ hours of profes-
sional development related to family engagement and
receive materials and feedback around their family
engagement pracces. To support their family engage-
ment pracce, Flamboyan sta provides bi-weekly
coaching and quarterly Professional Learning Commu-
nity meengs to school leadership teams to build their
capacity to lead and manage the iniave. Flamboyan
also provides data, nance, and program quality mea-
surement tools and systems to support implementaon
and connuous improvement. Flamboyan, other local
funders, partner schools, charter management orga-
nizaons, and the District of Columbia Public Schools
share in funding the cost of the FEP.
The Family Engagement Partnership supports pracces
of school leaders and teachers designed to:
Build trusng relaonships with families: The
FEP’s theory of change is that the foundaonal
element of teacher-parent collaboraon is trust. As
a rst step to engaging families, teachers conduct
relaonship-building home visits, in which they
invite families to share students’ interests and
experiences in school and their hopes and dreams
for their child, using the Parent-Teacher Home Visit
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 5 -
September 2015
Project model. These visits establish the founda-
on for open communicaons between parents
and teachers throughout the school year.
Engage families as partners in their students’ aca-
demic success: Once mutually respecul relaon-
ships are in place, FEP teachers engage in formal
“academic partnering” exchanges with families.
These exchanges may occur during tradional
parent-teacher conferences or teachers may imple-
ment classroom-level parent-teacher conferences
called Academic Parent-Teacher Teams (APTT). As
part of both opons, teachers provide parents with
real-me data on their child’s academic perfor-
mance relave to the grade-level standards and
their peers. Teachers also share learning acvies
with families and facilitate goal-seng for their
child’s progress.
Communicate consistently and meaningfully with
families: FEP teachers also communicate with fami-
lies throughout the year to further strengthen their
relaonships and to follow up with families about
progress in between parent-teacher conferences or
APTT meengs.
Flamboyan Foundaon rst piloted the FEP with ve
schools in the 2011–2012 school year, and has expand-
ed dramacally since then. In 2014-15, the FEP served
27 public and public charter schools, reaching 98% of
their student populaons through one or more of the
above teacher-iniated family engagement pracces.
This evaluaon assesses the impact of the FEP by rig-
orously examining student outcomes in 12 partner D.C.
Public Schools over the 2013–2014 school year.
Study Overview
In 2013, the Center on School, Family and Community
Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University examined
outcomes reported on parent and teacher surveys
during the early implementaon stage of the Family
Engagement Partnership (FEP), 2012–2013. This report
summarizes results from a phase II follow-up evaluaon
focusing on the associaon between home visits and
student achievement. Using data from the 2013–2014
school year—the third year of the iniave’s imple-
mentaon—the John Hopkins University team exam-
ined the FEP’s eecveness at 12 elementary schools in
the District of Columbia. Approximately 4,700 students
aended these schools, among whom 23% were classi-
ed as English Language Learners, 18% were receiving
Special Educaon Services, 95% were eligible for free
and reduced price lunches, and 96% were persons of
color. Using data from these students and their teach-
ers, the study addressed the following quesons:
1) Were students whose families received a
home visit more likely to have grade-level
or beer reading comprehension and u-
ency skills by the end of the school year?
2) Were students whose families received a
home visit absent less frequently?
3) Were students whose families received a
home visit more likely to re-enroll in their
school the following year?
4) What aspects of program implementaon
(e.g. school support, length of me in the
partnership, etc.) were associated with
beer outcomes for students?
5) Did teachers at schools where the FEP is
being implemented receive higher scores
on teacher eecveness measures than
teachers at schools with comparable stu-
dent demographics without the FEP?
The mul-level study design included rigorous con-
trols to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the
changes observed were due to eects of the FEP, rather
than underlying dierences between students who did
and did not receive home visits. Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity obtained from D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) informa-
on on students’ socio-demographic status, as well as
students’ 2012–2013 rates of daily aendance and fall
2013 literacy test score data. Controlling for previous
aendance and test scores allowed the study to hold
constant any dierences in aendance and reading
at the outset of the study. Teacher survey data were
collected by the research team in the spring of 2013 to
assess dierences in the FEP’s implementaon, and the
team idened 13 D.C. elementary schools with similar
student populaons to allow comparison of teacher
eecveness and other factors in FEP versus non-FEP
schools.
Findings
Findings from this evaluaon suggest that intervenons
to build teachers’ capacity to engage families can lead
to beer outcomes for students and teachers. The
trusng relaonships between teachers and families
established at the beginning of the school year, through
home vising, are associated with academic success. In
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 6 -
September 2015
addion, greater school support and longer parcipa-
on in the FEP are linked to larger student achievement
gains. Preliminary analyses also suggest that teacher
eecveness is associated with teacher parcipaon in
the FEP.
Student Outcomes
Students whose families received home visits were
more likely to aend school and to achieve or exceed
grade-level reading comprehension than students
whose families did not receive a home visit, even aer
controlling for prior dierences in aendance and read-
ing comprehension. Students whose families received
a home visit were absent, on average, 2.7 fewer days
than students whose families did not receive a home
visit. This dierence represents a 24% reducon in
school absences.1 Students whose families received a
home visit had odds of scoring procient on the TRC
that were 1.55 mes higher than the odds for similar
students who did not receive a home visit. Students
whose families received a home visit were not, how-
ever, more likely to re-enroll the next year, and their
scores on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) assessment were not signicantly higher.
Implementaon and Student Outcomes
Schools where teachers felt more supported by admin-
istrators in their family engagement eorts and where
teachers reported doing more family engagement
pracces were more likely to experience improvement
in student outcomes.
Teacher Eecveness Outcomes
Teachers at FEP schools scored higher on their eec-
veness in leading well-organized objecve-driven
lessons; providing students mulple ways to move
toward mastery; responding to student understanding;
and developing students’ higher-level understanding
than did teachers at comparable schools. It was not,
however, possible to control for other potenal dier-
ences between the control and treatment schools, such
as teachers’ years of experience in the classroom.
Conclusion
Findings from this evaluaon suggest that teacher-ini-
ated intervenons to engage families are associated
with beer student and teacher outcomes. Specically,
relaonship-building home visits implemented as part
of the Family Engagement Partnership, which served
largely minority students from low-income families,
were associated with improved student aendance and
grade-level reading prociency. Aendance in elemen-
tary school is an important leading indicator for later
student outcomes such as high school graduaon (Mac
Iver and Messel, 2013). Overall, this work points to the
potenal of family engagement, especially teacher-ini-
ated eorts that purposefully build trusng relaon-
ships with families, for improving student success.
Although this analysis provides important insight into
the associaon between home visits and student
success, addional research is needed. This study nds
parent-teacher relaonship-building acvies, such as
home visits, are associated with improved student out-
comes, but more research is needed into other family
engagement pracces, such as teachers’ communica-
on with families and families’ parcipaon in more
rigorously focused academic partnering conferences
or meengs. In addion, teachers as well as students
appear to benet from parcipaon. If more research
conrms this, it suggests that family engagement
should become a mainstay in schools’ professional
development oerings.
1 Calculaon uses the FEP-wide average absence rate, 11.39 days for students who did not receive a home visit and subtracts 2.7
days, the slope coecient for aendance in the HLM in order to calculate the percentage change.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 7 -
September 2015
Too many students, especially those living
in urban areas, are failing to graduate high
school or are graduang without the skills
necessary to succeed in college or in a
career. In 2013, a record 81.4% of students
graduated from high school, according to the 2015
Building a Grad Naon report (Paoli et al., 2015). This
means, however, that almost one in ve students sll
do not earn a high school diploma. The 2015 Building
a Grad Naon report also concluded that the students
most in danger of failing out of school are minority
students living in large urban cies, oen coming from
low-income households. These students represent
tremendous diversity in talent and perspecve, and
the fact that school systems do not prepare them to
succeed means their gis are lost to society.
Deepening schools’ engagement with families to
support academic success is an under-explored strat-
egy with potenal to improve academic achievement,
parcularly in communies where parents are discon-
nected from local schools. Studies show that children
are more likely to aend school regularly, graduate
from high school, take more advanced math cours-
es, and achieve at higher levels when their parents
are involved in school acvies and engaged in their
children’s learning (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, &
Weiss, 2006; Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000; Epstein, 2011;
Fan & Chen, 2001; Grolnick, Kurowski, Henderson &
Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2005; 2007; Ma, 1999 McNeal,
1999; Pomeranz, Moorman, & Litwach, 2007; Shel-
don, 2007;). Family engagement is also associated
with school success. Bryk et al. (2010) idened strong
relaonships among school sta, families, and com-
munity partners as one of ve essenal ingredients for
school improvement. Their longitudinal invesgaon in
Chicago Public Schools showed that schools with stron-
ger support from families and the community were
more likely to experience gains in student achievement,
and that those schools lacking such support were far
less likely to see improvements in student learning and
performance (Bryk et al., 2010).
Although the literature has established a strong link
between family engagement and student achievement
that has inspired policy-makers to advocate for parent
engagement iniaves, few of these iniaves have
been rigorously evaluated. Jeynes (2012) devoted a
secondary secon of the meta-analysis he conducted
of the parent involvement literature to examining eect
sizes for the handful of student achievement-focused
evaluaons of parental involvement programs that
have been implemented. He found the overall scale of
eect associated with such programs to be stascally
signicant but smaller than for parental involvement
overall. In parcular, his study showed signicant
impacts on student achievement for programs that
promote parent-child shared reading; programs that
emphasize parent-teacher collaboraon; programs that
promote school-family partnerships; and programs that
foster increased communicaon between parents and
teachers (Jeynes, 2012).
Family engagement intervenons can focus on building
parents’ capacity or on building teachers’ capacity to
engage parents. The Grade-Level Reading Campaign
(see Smith, 2011) is an example of a school-family-com-
munity partnership created to improve student out-
comes by building parents’ capacity. It brings together
community foundaons and partners to work with
schools and families in an eort to ensure all students
can read at grade level by the third grade. Much of this
work is focused on directly supporng families, with
fewer resources devoted to assisng educators in their
eorts to support and engage families in their chil-
dren’s formal educaon. Increasingly, policy, pracce,
and research are focusing on how school systems can
and should engage families. Recently, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Educaon released the Dual Capacity-Building
Framework for Family-School Partnerships, recom-
mending the programmac and system-level condions
that need to be in place for family engagement inter-
venons to create change (Mapp & Kuer, 2013).
The Naonal Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) is
an example of another family engagement intervenon
focused on teachers. Schools working with NNPS create
teams with teachers, families, and administrators to
coordinate and plan the implementaon of family
engagement pracces that are designed to promote
student outcomes (Epstein, Sanders, Sheldon, et al.,
2009). Research on schools implemenng NNPS has
Project Background and Exisng Literature
1
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 7 -
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 8 -
September 2015
shown that strong implementaon of this program
is related to greater family engagement at school,
improved student aendance, and reduced behavior
problems (Sheldon, 2005; 2007; Sheldon & Epstein,
2002). These studies suggest that the coordinaon and
implementaon of school pracces to engage families
in student learning can help improve student engage-
ment as well as academic achievement. The NNPS pro-
gram provides schools with organizaonal structures
to operaonalize family engagement pracces. The FEP
diers from the NNPS in that it also trains educators to
implement specic pracces to engage families, and
the FEP supports educators’ learning and implementa-
on of these pracces through training and coaching.
The Family Engagement Partnership
This report presents ndings from an evaluaon of
a new, highly integrave teacher and school capac-
ity-building intervenon, the Family Engagement
Partnership (FEP). The Family Engagement Partnership
(FEP) iniave is an intensive, school-wide intervenon
designed to support student success by transforming
the ways in which teachers and families collaborate
with one another. Flamboyan Foundaon rst piloted
the FEP with ve schools in 2011–2012, expanding
each year to encompass 27 public and public charter
schools by the 2014–2015 school year.
The Family Engagement Partnership supports school
leaders and teachers to:
Build trusng relaonships with families: The
FEP’s theory of change is that the foundaonal
element of teacher-parent collaboraon is trust.
As a rst step to engaging families, FEP teachers
conduct relaonship-building home visits, in which
they invite families to share students’ interests and
experiences in school and their hopes and dreams
for their child. These visits follow the principles of
the Parent-Teacher Home Visit Project, founded in
Sacramento, CA2: they are voluntary for both teach-
ers and families, they are scheduled in advance,
and teachers are compensated for their me. Fol-
lowing the home visit, teachers connue to build
their relaonships with families through ongoing
posive outreach.
Engage families as partners in their students’
academic success: Once a foundaon of mutually
respecul relaonships is in place, schools provide
the informaon and support that families need to
improve their children’s educaonal outcomes.
FEP teachers improve their exisng parent-teacher
conferences, and/or pilot a new model of class-
room-level parent-teacher conferences called
Academic Parent-Teacher Teams (APTT), developed
by Maria Paredes.3 APTTs provide parents with
real-me data on their child’s academic perfor-
mance relave to the grade-level standard and to
their peers. During APTT meengs, families prac-
ce learning acvies and they receive materials to
support their child’s learning at home. Families set
their own goals for their child’s progress, and they
have the opportunity to share successful learn-
ing-support strategies with other families.
Communicate consistently and meaningfully with
families: FEP teachers communicate with families
throughout the year to further strengthen their
relaonships and to follow up with families about
progress in between parent-teacher conferences or
APTT meengs. Teachers learn strategies to main-
tain open, trusng lines of communicaon using a
variety of mediums including short text messages,
phone calls and send-home folders.
Family Engagement Partner schools go through a rig-
orous selecon process. Chosen principals are deeply
commied to family engagement and have the skills
to manage a school-change iniave, and their teach-
ers have expressed interest in more family-engage-
ment training. Once selected, schools protect me for
teachers to develop their skills in this area and schools
invest signicant me managing the implementaon of
the partnership’s strategies. The average teacher in a
rst-year FEP school receives 15+ hours of training and
preparaon me to conduct these family engagement
acvies.
To support FEP teachers, Flamboyan Family Engage-
ment Coaches facilitate family engagement profession-
al development for teachers and oer real-me feed-
back based on observaons of their family engagement
pracces. They also provide coaching sessions to school
leadership teams twice a month, where they review
program implementaon data, help problem-solve,
2 See hp://www.pthvp.org/ for more informaon.
3 See hp://www.wested.org/service/academic-parent-teacher-teams-ap-family-engagement-in-educaon/ for more informaon.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 9 -
September 2015
and plan next steps. Coaches also facilitate bi-monthly
professional learning community meengs among FEP
school leadership teams so they learn from each other.
In addion, Flamboyan provides curriculum, tools, and
data management systems to support FEP implemen-
taon.
The District of Columbia is in many ways an ideal
context for extensive family engagement intervenons.
Many of the challenges that school districts around
the country are grappling with are magnied in Wash-
ington, D.C. Within D.C., 73% of public school students
are eligible for free or reduced price lunches—a higher
percentage than in any U.S. state (U.S. Department of
Educaon, 2012). In addion, reading and math score
gaps between White students and students of color
are also larger in Washington, D.C. than in any state in
the country (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011; Vanneman,
Hamilton, Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009). The
public educaon landscape in Washington, D.C. is also
undergoing profound transformaon. In the past 15
years, rapid populaon growth and the growth of char-
ter schools have had dramac eects on enrollment
paerns at many local public schools. Polically, the
local Public Educaon Reform Act of 2007 centralized
oversight of the educaon system under the D.C. may-
or, eliminang a public school board. This, coupled with
reforms to overhaul D.C. Public School’s central oce
funcons and teacher evaluaon system, as well as
school consolidaons, contributed to tensions between
families and schools. Washington, D.C., like many other
urban school districts, needs to forge strong home-
school partnerships in order to build trust between
schools and parents and to support student success in
a transforming educaon context.
The foundaonal
element of
teacher-parent
collaboraon is
trust.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 10 -
September 2015
Parents who parcipated in FEP
acvies reported greater family
engagement at school and at home.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 11 -
September 2015
This study is the second in a two-stage eval-
uaon of the Family Engagement Partner-
ship. The rst stage of the evaluaon ex-
amined the implementaon of the FEP in
relaon to teacher and parent outcomes.
Findings from that study (Sheldon & Hutchins, 2014)
found that parents overwhelmingly liked the relaon-
ship-building home visits and Academic Parent Teacher
Team meengs, and they felt as though the pracces
strengthened their relaonship with their child’s school
and helped them feel more condent in their ability to
support their child’s learning. Addionally, parents who
parcipated in FEP acvies reported greater family
engagement at school and at home than parents who
did not. Teachers reported feeling condence that the
FEP pracces could benet students4 and felt more sat-
ised in their job if they were at a school that support-
ed FEP implementaon more strongly.
In this second stage of the FEP evaluaon, implementa-
on of the iniave is examined in relaon to student
outcomes. Three types of student outcomes are used
to esmate the impact of the FEP on students: student
aendance, student literacy skill development, and
students’ re-enrollment in the elementary school. This
study also looks at the eects of parcipaon with
home visits on student outcomes. As the cornerstone
pracce of the FEP, it was essenal to test for any possi-
ble independent eect of home visits on student aen-
dance, literacy skill development, and re-enrollment.
The theory of change underlying the Family Engage-
ment Partnership is that providing technical assistance
and training to school sta and teachers commied to
family engagement will lead to high quality family en-
gagement outreach that improves student outcomes.
By parcipang in parent-teacher home visits, aend-
ing academic partnering meengs or conferences,
and engaging in regular communicaon, teachers and
families will develop trusng relaonships with one
another. These trusng relaonships will, in turn, lead
to informaon sharing and to family members feeling
more condent in their ability to support their chil-
dren’s learning. Teachers also benet from parcipaon
in the partnership by gaining greater insight into their
students and how their parents support their students’
learning. Families’ greater sense of self-ecacy shall,
subsequently, lead to changes in how they engage with
their children’s educaon making them more likely to
communicate high expectaons, hold student account-
able, and help support their learning. The knowledge
teachers gain from vising families will also allow them
to beer target their instrucon to students’ needs and
to partner with parents in holding student accountable.
This report tests the extent to which the family and
teacher outcomes associated with the FEP established
in the rst report might ulmately facilitate family
engagement impacts on student aendance, re-enroll-
ment and achievement. These analyses build on the
ndings from the previous report showing that teach-
ers who parcipated in more home visits tended to feel
more sased teaching at their school. That report also
showed that teachers at schools more strongly support-
ing FEP implementaon tended to feel more condent
in their ability to teach all students; were more sased
with their job; and tended to rate school-family rela-
onships more posively than did teachers at schools
with less support.
In addion, the report examines the FEP implementa-
on in relaon to external rangs of teacher quality,
and was able to compare teachers in FEP schools to
teacher rangs of those in schools where the FEP was
not implemented. Lastly, this report provides a prelimi-
nary analysis around implementaon quality.
The present evaluaon pursued the following quesons
about the potenal eects of the Family Engagement
Partnership in D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) elementary
schools:
1) To what extent was the FEP implemented in
DCPS elementary schools?
Scope and Aim of the Evaluaon
2
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 11 -
4 The Phase II evaluaon found that teachers’ percepons of FEP impact were stascally signicantly correlated with students’
actual improvement in aendance. This nding provides important context for interpreng the FEP Phase I evaluaon results.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 12 -
September 2015
2) To what extent is implementaon of the FEP
associated with stronger student outcomes?
3) To what extent is the quality and length of
implementaon of the FEP associated with
stronger student outcomes?
4) To what extent is implementaon of the FEP
associated with teacher eecveness in the
implemenng schools?
Method
Sample
In the 2013–14 school year, the FEP was implemented
in 12 DCPS elementary and K–8 schools. DCPS provid-
ed student background and outcome data for about
4700 students aending schools where the FEP was
implemented, or “FEP schools.” FEP schools served
mostly students of color (see Appendix A, Table A1).
Only 4% of the students were White, in contrast to the
signicantly larger percentages of students who were
African-American (61.8%) and Hispanic (30.7%). Almost
all of the students come from lower income families,
suggested by the fact that about 93% were receiving
free or reduced-price meals. Almost a quarter of the
students (23.1%) were classied by the school system
as English Language Learner, while nearly 1 in 6 stu-
dents was classied as receiving Special Educaon ser-
vices. Most of the students in this study were between
kindergarten and 5th grade (see Appendix A, Table A1).
Although DCPS oers preschool and pre-kindergarten,
it is not compulsory and demand currently exceeds
capacity.
School-level demograpics were similar. No school had
more than 40% of the student body that was White,
and 10 of the 12 schools had fewer than 10% of their
students who were White (see Appendix A, Table A2).
On average, over 60% of students were African-Ameri-
can or Black, while about 30% of students were Lano
or Hispanic. At ve schools the student body was more
than 95% African American. With respect to family
income, in only two schools did fewer than 97% of the
student body receive free or reduced-price meals.
Variables
Student Outcomes
Aendance. The school district provided the number
of days each student aended school, as well as the
number of aendance days possible. From these, the
percent daily aendance variable was calculated. These
data were available for 2012–13 and the 2013–14
school years.
Literacy Skills. Students’ literacy skills were mea-
sured using two separate benchmark assessments.
Both assessments were administered at the school by
educators. The rst was the Text Reading Comprehen-
sion (TRC) assessment5, an individually administered
assessment designed to determine students’ instruc-
onal reading level. Scores on this test were coded
“1” if they met their grade-level benchmark standard,
and “0” if they failed to meet the benchmark standard.
For each student, the 2013–14 beginning-of-year and
end-of-year TRC assessments were used throughout
the evaluaon. Students’ reading uency was assessed
using the DIBELS assessment. DIBELS is a measure of
phonics, word aack, and oral reading uency6. Scores
on this test were coded “1” if they met their grade-lev-
el benchmark standard, and “0” if they failed to meet
the benchmark standard. Data on the 2012–13 and
2013–14 end-of-year DIBELS assessments were used
for this evaluaon.
Re-enrollment. For each student, the district provided
informaon on whether or not she or he aended the
same school the previous year. Calculaons using this
variable as the outcome did not include students in kin-
dergarten during the 2013–14 school year or students
in the h grade during the 2012–13 school year. Using
these data, a dichotomous variable was created to
indicate whether or not the school a student aended
in 2013–14 was the same one she or he aended in
2012–13.
Student Implementaon Variables
Home Visit. A dichotomous variable indicang whether
or not a student and her or his family parcipated in a
relaonship-building home visit was used to test the
5 For more informaon about the TRC assessment, go to: hps://www.mclasshome.com/wgenhelp/DN3DR/desktop/Read-
ing_3D/Assessment_Scoring/TRC/Text_Reading_and_Comprehension.htm
6 For more informaon about the DIBELS assessment, go to: hps://www.mclasshome.com/wgenhelp/DN3DR/desktop/DIBELS_
Next/Assessment_and_Scoring/DORF_Details.htm
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 13 -
September 2015
impact of this pracce on student outcomes. Students
whose families parcipated were coded 1 for “yes” and
0 for “no.” The Flamboyan Foundaon collected this
informaon in order to compensate teachers for con-
ducng home visits during non-contract hours.
Program Implementaon and Quality Variables
At the end of the 2013–14 school year, teachers at
FEP schools were solicited to complete a survey about
their percepons related to their teaching and family
engagement. The survey also asked teachers to report
on the degree to which FEP was implemented and
supported at their school; and to rate their delity in
implemenng home visits. Teacher scores were aggre-
gated by school, and the school averages were used as
predictors of student outcomes.
Teachers’ rang of FEP Implementaon at their school
was measured using a scale of eight items (α = .89)
asking them to report on the percentage of their
students they reached through family engagement
pracces including: “The percentage of students whose
families received a home visit from me this year,” “The
percentage of families I have communicated with at
least FOUR TIMES this year to share something purely
posive about their child,” and “The percentage of
families, on average, who aended an APTT meeng
or parent-teacher conference so far this year.” Teachers
reported on the percentage of families they reached
using a 6-item scale where 1 represented “0%”, 2
equaled “1–20%,” 3 equaled “21–40%,” and so on to 6
which represented “81–100%.
Support for FEP Implementaon is a scale represenng
the mean of ten items asking teachers to report the
degree to which they felt as though FEP was a priority
at their school and how much support they received
to implement family engagement pracces (α = .91).
Teachers indicated on a 5-point Likert scale the extent
to which they agreed or disagreed to statements such
as, “The FEP was a priority at my school this year;” “I
received adequate support to implement FEP strate-
gies from my principal, administrators and/or teacher
leads;” and “My principal was adequately involved in
leading the FEP at my school.” They could “Strongly
Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Neither Agree or Disagree,”
Agree,” or “Strongly Agree” with each statement. Each
item was coded so that higher scores represented high-
er rang of support for implemenng FEP by teachers.
Teachers provided self-report rangs of the quality of
home visits they conducted with their students’ fami-
lies. This was a scale comprised of 6 items that asked
teachers to report how reliably they performed home
visits according to their training. Teachers were asked
if they: talked about the families hopes and dreams
for their child, talked about students’ backgrounds,
asked families what they expected of the teacher this
year, talked about the families’ backgrounds, discussed
how they can communicate with the family during the
school year, and whether they entered notes about
the family into the home visit database aer the home
visit. Teachers responded on a four-point scale where 1
was “never”, 2 was “for one or a few visits,” 3 was “for
most visits,” and 4 was “for all visits.” Like the other
teacher survey scales, this scale had good reliability (α
= .86).
Finally, teachers were asked to report on their percep-
ons about the extent to which the FEP program is
having an impact on students and families. This scale is
a set of 11 items that asked teachers to evaluate how
much impact the FEP pracces have had on students
and on their own teaching pracce. Teachers indicated
on a 5-point scale the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements such as, “The FEP strategies
have helped me build relaonships with families,” “The
FEP strategies have helped improve student behavior
in my class,” “ The FEP strategies have helped improve
student academic performance in my class,” “The FEP
strategies have helped improve my classroom pracce,”
and “The FEP strategies have helped get families more
engaged in their child’s educaon.” This scale demon-
strated strong reliability as well (α = .93).
Teacher Outcomes
The degree to which teachers’ involvement with FEP
implementaon is related to the eecveness of their
teaching pracce in the classroom was explored using
DCPS’ formal evaluaon system, IMPACT. As part of IM-
PA C T, instruconal experse is assessed through up to
ve observaons, four formal and one informal, in an
academic year. New teachers or those previously rated
less eecve are observed more oen than teach-
ers rated “Highly Eecve.” Of these ve 30-minute
observaons, three are conducted by a school leader
at teachers’ respecve schools and two are conducted
by master educators, who are independent content
experts. In addion to teacher observaons, other
components, such as a teacher’s Commitment to the
School Community which includes a measure of dedi-
cated to partnership with families, and teacher goals,
called Teacher Assessed Student Achievement Data,
are included in overall scores. Overall scores range
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 14 -
September 2015
from 100 to 400 and translate into one of ve rangs:
Ineecve, Minimally Eecve, Developing, Eecve,
and Highly Eecve.
As part of IMPACT, teachers are evaluated on the ex-
tent to which they lead well-organized objecve-driven
lessons (Teach 1), explain content clearly (Teach 2),
engage students at all learning levels (Teach 3), provide
students mulple ways to move toward mastery (Teach
4), check for student understanding (Teach 5), respond
to student understanding (Teach 6), develop higher-lev-
el understanding (Teach 7), maximize instruconal me
(Teach 8), and build a supporve, learning-focused
classroom (Teach 9). For each observaon, on each
standard, teachers received a score from 1 (ineecve)
to 4 (highly eecve) from the school leader and from
a master educator. We focus on the master educator
rangs in this report.
Preliminary analysis
indicates teachers in
FEP schools earned
higher rangs on four
IMPACT standards
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 15 -
September 2015
FEP Implementaon
Across FEP schools and as shown in Appen-
dix A, Table A1, 2,469 students’ families
and teacher parcipated in a relaon-
ship-building home visit, compared to
2,235 who did not. No school conducted
home visits with less than one-third of its students and
at one school teachers and sta conducted home visits
with 70% of the students’ families. Across all schools,
teacher reports of FEP implementaon averaged 4.45,
meaning that teachers esmated reaching 41-60% of
their students’ families through their family engage-
ment pracces. Finally, on average teachers reported
strong support for FEP at their school, high levels of
home visit quality, and believed that the family engage-
ment pracces were having an impact at their school.
Of the students’ whose families received a relaon-
ship-building home visit iniated by a teacher (in Table
A1) 58% of those students were Black, 32.8% were
Hispanic, and 4.7% were White. Across grade levels,
40.1% were in preschool through kindergarten, 31.0%
were in 1st or 2nd grade, and 28.9% were in 3rd through
5th grade. In addion to examining how many families
received a home visit, stascal analyses revealed
that not all students were equally likely to receive a
home visit. Regression analyses (not shown) indicated
that students in the lower grades were more likely to
parcipate in a home visit. Also, White students were
stascally more likely to have a home visit. Given the
small percentage of White students in the sample, as
shown in Table A1, they are sll a very small minority of
the families who parcipated in home visits.
It is important to note that these results are descrip-
ve, and it is not clear why these dierences exist. It
may be that teachers are more likely to reach out to
younger and/or White families, it may be that these
families are more likely to accept an invitaon to parc-
ipate in a home visit, or there may be other factors that
can explain these trends.
Student Outcomes
Analyses tesng for the eect of home visits on stu-
dent outcomes used mul-level models that included
student characteriscs and school characteriscs as
predictors of student aendance, students’ grade level
prociency on reading comprehension and reading
uency, and whether a student remained (e.g., re-en-
rolled) at her or his school throughout the 2013–14 and
2014–15 school years. Tesng for a relaonship be-
tween home visits and student outcomes required us-
ing stascal techniques that could account for the fact
that students are grouped within schools. Mul-level
models (e.g., HLM) allowed us to test for school charac-
terisc (i.e., years in the FEP) while also esmang the
role of student characteriscs that are well-known pre-
dictors of student outcomes (i.e., Special Educaon sta-
tus, Free- and Reduced-Price Meal status, grade level,
etc.). Mul-level modeling is a stascal approach that
allows student and school characteriscs to be used
simultaneously as predictors of student outcomes.
For each outcome (aendance, grade level reading
comprehension, grade level reading uency, and re-en-
rollment), six models were tested to determine which
elements of the FEP are predicve of student out-
comes. Each model includes a baseline measure of the
outcomes to account for prior levels of achievement or
school aendance and enrollment, as well as student
characteriscs such as grade level, race, whether the
student has an IEP (Special Educaon), is an English
Language Learner (ELL), or comes from a low-income
family (FARM). School aendance in 2013–14 was used
as a covariate in the models predicng students’ grade
level prociency on reading comprehension and uen-
cy, as well as re-enrollment.
Student Aendance
Analyses tesng the relaonship between FEP imple-
mentaon and students’ daily aendance at school
found a stascally signicant relaonship between
home visits and aendance, as well as a posive and
signicant relaonship between student aendance
and support for FEP at the school (See Table B1). As
shown in Table B1, Models 2–4 and 6, students whose
families received a home visit aended school on a
more regular basis than those who did not have a
home visit. Students whose families received a home
visit were absent, on average, 2.7 fewer days than
Evaluaon Findings
3
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 15 -
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 16 -
September 2015
students whose families did not receive a home visit.
This dierence represents a 24% reducon in school
absences.7
Across all models, school aendance the previous year
is the strongest predictor of aendance the following
year. Also, there was no relaonship between race and
ethnicity and daily aendance rates; being white, Afri-
can-American, or Hispanic did not help explain whether
a student aended school on a more or less regular ba-
sis. Students who were in special educaon and those
who received free- or reduced-price meals, however,
tended to miss more school. In contrast, ELL students
generally had higher rates of aendance compared to
nave English speaking students.
Several measures of program implementaon were
also posively associated with student aendance.
Model 4 shows that students who aended an FEP
school where the teachers reported more support for
the program tended to come to school more regularly
than those at a school where support for FEP imple-
mentaon was lower. Model 6 provides evidence of
similar ndings. Students at schools where teachers
perceived the impact of FEP higher tended to have
higher rates of aendance than those at schools where
teacher rangs of impact were lower. Finally, as shown
in Model 5, students in schools where teachers rated
the quality of their home visits higher tended to have
lower rates of daily aendance. In that same model,
the eect on students of parcipang in a home visit
was no longer related to aendance. These anomalous
ndings suggest the home visit quality variable may
not be a valid indicator of FEP implementaon and that
further invesgaon is needed.
Student Reading Comprehension
The next set of analyses tested the extent to which
home visits were associated with students’ grade level
prociency on tests of reading comprehension at the
end of the 2013–14 school year. These analyses con-
trolled for whether or not the student was procient
on grade level at the beginning-of-year, student aen-
dance, and other student characteriscs (See Table B2).
Data were available for about 3700 students in kinder-
garten through h grade. As expected, we found that
students who were procient at the beginning of the
school were more likely to be procient at the end of
the year. Also, controlling for prociency at the begin-
ning of the year, students who aended school more
frequently were more likely to be procient in reading
comprehension at the end of the year. Special educa-
on students and English language learners were less
likely to be procient on the TRC assessment at the end
of the 2013–14 school year.
This evaluaon found that, for students parcipang
in a home visit, the odds of scoring procient on the
TRC were 1.55 mes higher than the odds for students
who did not have a home visit, even aer adjusng
for student demographic factors and levels of reading
comprehension at the beginning of the school year.
These ndings suggest that direct involvement with
the FEP pracce of home visits can have benets for
the development of students’ reading comprehension
skills. None of the school level indicators of FEP imple-
mentaon predicted whether students were likely to
be at grade level in reading comprehension. Because
the outcome predicted was a “yes” or “no” variable
(e.g., was the student’s reading comprehension on
grade level or not?) the results were converted into an
odds rao. Here, the odds rao esmates the likelihood
of students scoring on grade level for reading com-
prehension if they have received a treatment against
those students who did not. A coecient of 1.0 would
suggest that there is no eect and that the odds are
even (1:1).
Student Reading Fluency
The second set of analyses explored the eect of home
visits on student literacy skills and tested models pre-
dicng students’ grade level prociency on the DIBELS
assessment for reading uency (Table B3). Parcipa-
on in home visits was not associated with prociency
on DIBELS, however, students aending schools that
implemented the FEP more widely were more likely
to be procient on DIBELS, accounng for prior levels
prociency and other student level factors. In these
models, prior levels of prociency were signicant-
ly associated with prociency in reading uency in
2013-14, as expected. Similar to the results for reading
comprehension, student aendance was associated
with greater prociency on reading uency; and special
educaon and English language learners tended to
score below grade level prociency on DIBELS.
Re-enrollment
The nal set of analyses, shown in Table B4, tested
mul-level models predicng whether or not a student
was more likely to enroll and aend the same school
as the year before. Students whose families received
7 Calculaon uses the FEP-wide average absence rate, 11.39 days, for students who did not receive a home visit and subtracts 2.7
days, the slope coecient for aendance in the HLM in order to calculate the percentage change.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 17 -
September 2015
a home visit were no more likely to re-enroll than
students whose families did not. These models were
tested because it was hypothesized that, in a district
where school choice is a viable and prolic opon,
families opng to stay at a school from one year to the
next is an important outcome for schools and, poten-
ally, a statement about families’ percepons of the
school. These analyses showed that very few student
level characteriscs were associated with returning to
a school. Students who aend school more regularly
were more likely to stay at the school, whereas stu-
dents with lower rates of aendance were more likely
to be mobile from one year to the next. Grade level,
race, special educaon, ELL, and FARM were not relat-
ed to whether or not a student returned to the same
school. No school level indicators related to the FEP
(i.e. years of implementaon) predicted re-enrollment.
Overall, it appears, families’ decision about whether
to move their children to a dierent school may not
be easily inuenced by school-family relaonships, nor
do they appear to be related to student/family demo-
graphics.
Teacher Eecveness
To explore the degree to which teachers’ involvement
with FEP implementaon is related to the quality of
their teaching, especially in their knowledge of student
understanding and ability to engage students at all
levels of learning, a preliminary cross-seconal analysis
was conducted using de-idened 2013-14 IMPACT
data provided by D.C. Public Schools. Specically, teach-
er rangs using the Teaching and Learning Framework
(TLF) were examined.
TLF rangs on each of the nine teaching standards
were compared to those of teachers in a set of thirteen
matched DCPS schools. These comparison schools
were selected because their student demographics
and academic achievement levels were similar to
those of the FEP schools. Since teachers were evaluat-
ed mulple mes throughout the year, average scores
of master educator observaons were used to con-
duct cross-seconal comparisons. Using these mea-
sures, a series of t-tests were run in order to assess
the magnitude of the dierences in rangs between
the FEP and the comparison schools (See Table 1
below).
Teachers in FEP schools earned higher rangs on four
standards: leading well-organized objecve-driven
lessons, providing students mulple ways to move
toward mastery, responding to student understand-
ing, and developing higher-level understanding. On
maximizing instruconal me and building a support-
ive, learning-focused classroom, teachers in matched
comparison schools earned higher rangs.
Findings from this preliminary analysis must be inter-
preted with cauon, however, as it did not include
controls for teacher characteriscs or rigorous con-
trols for school context. Future invesgaons should
pay closer aenon to various aspects of the school
context and changes in teacher eecveness over
me for a more rigorous evaluaon of the eects
of the FEP intervenon. Addionally, future studies
should consider the number of observaons con-
ducted for each teacher as this is directly related
to teachers’ previous teacher eecveness rangs.
These invesgaons should include addional teach-
er characteriscs (i.e., years of teaching experience,
grade level taught, etc.) in the models to control for
other potenal explanaons for why teachers at FEP
schools might be more likely to earn ‘highly eecve’
rangs from master educators.
Table 1: Master Educator Teacher Rangs across FEP and Comparison Schools
Evaluaon Standard Comparison FEP t-values
Standard 1: Lead objecve-driven lessons 3.18 3.21 2.49*
Standard 2: Explain content clearly 3.17 3.17 -0.51
Standard 3: Engage students at all learning levels 2.88 2.90 1.24
Standard 4: Provide students mulple ways to move towards mastery 3.12 3.18 4.55***
Standard 5: Check for student understanding 3.34 3.33 -1.04
Standard 6: Respond to student understanding 3.02 3.08 3.94***
Standard 7: Develop higher-level understanding 2.56 2.68 7.02***
Standard 8: Maximize instruconal me 3.47 3.36 -7.91***
Standard 9: Build a supporve, learning focused classroom 3.52 3.45 -5. 70***
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 18 -
September 2015
Teacher-iniated family engagement
pracces are associated with stronger
student achievement.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 19 -
September 2015
The ndings from this evaluaon represent
a strong step forward in understanding the
potenal for improving student academic
outcomes through fostering family en-
gagement—parcularly via intervenons
that also focus on building the outreach capabilies of
teachers. The evaluaon ndings also demonstrate the
eecveness of a parcular family engagement prac-
ce: relaonship-building home visits. It analyzes data
from 12 elementary and K–8 schools within D.C. Public
Schools (DCPS) that parcipated in the Family Engage-
ment Partnership (FEP) during the 2013–2014 school
year. Children aending these schools were primarily
students of color from low-income families, many
of them from families whose nave language is not
English. Schools parcipang in the FEP commit to con-
ducng relaonship-building home visits with as many
families as possible, to implemenng a new model of
classroom or individual parent-teacher conferences,
and to maintaining ongoing communicaon with fam-
ilies, all in an eort to develop posive relaonships
that will support families’ own eorts to encourage
student achievement. This evaluaon focuses on the
rst, most foundaonal of these pracces: relaon-
ship-building home visits.
Data collected from the implementaon of the FEP
suggest that, on average, schools are implemenng the
iniave well. The percentage of students who re-
ceived a home visit across the 12 schools ranged from
34% up to 70%, revealing considerable between-school
variaon in the proporon of students ‘touched’ by the
family engagement pracces. We generated measures
of overall FEP implementaon (including all three FEP
pracces) and of school support for family engagement
(for example, providing teachers with me during the
school day to plan and document family engagement
work) using data from a survey administered to all FEP
teachers. These data indicate that, in general, teach-
ers felt well supported and that a large proporon of
students’ families had been reached.
Teachers also appeared to benet from their parcipa-
on in the FEP. Teachers at FEP schools earned higher
rangs from master educators than teachers at compa-
rable D.C. Public Schools without the FEP in the areas
of leading well-organized objecve-driven lessons, pro-
Conclusions and Next Steps
4
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 19 -
viding students mulple ways to move toward mastery,
responding to student understanding, and developing
higher-level understanding.
Results also show that these teacher-iniated family
engagement pracces in Family Engagement Partner
schools do translate into academic improvements for
students. Using rigorous mul-level models, controlling
for aendance and test scores at earlier points in me
as well as individual-student and whole-school predic-
tors, results suggest that students whose families par-
cipated in home visits aended school more regularly
and were more likely to be procient in reading com-
prehension at the end of the school year.
This evaluaon also found evidence to support the
school-wide, teacher-capacity-building approach to
family engagement that is promoted by the Flamboyan
Foundaon. Regardless of their grade level, race, spe-
cial educaon or ELL status, family income, or whether
they parcipated in a home visit, students in schools
that supported or implemented FEP more strongly
were more likely to be procient on reading uency
assessments at the end of the school year, and they
were more likely to aend school on a regular basis.
These associaons between school-level measures of
FEP implementaon quality and student outcomes sug-
gest that a school’s commitment to family engagement
benets all students aending the school, even those
who do not directly parcipate in partnership acvies
like home visits.
It is parcularly noteworthy that FEP implementaon,
and home visits in parcular, were posively associated
with student aendance. These ndings are consistent
with other studies of family engagement-iniave
eects on student aendance (Sheldon, 2007; Sheldon
& Jung, 2015). Importantly, student aendance has
been shown to be a leading indicator of other student
outcomes such as graduaon and later achievement
(Balfanz et al., 2007; Mac Iver & Messel, 2013), and in
this study it signicantly predicted all other outcomes.
It is possible that student aendance is a proximal
indicator of FEP eects, and that given more me FEP
parcipaon would predict more distal outcomes such
as test scores two or more years in the future.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 20 -
September 2015
Students whose
families parcipated
in home visits
aended school more
regularly and were
more likely to be
procient in reading
comprehension at
the end of the school
year.
Future Research
Although this report presents inial evaluaon nd-
ings suggesng the value of teacher-parent relaon-
ship-building on student outcomes, connued research
is needed to beer determine the eect of providing
training and support to teachers for engaging families.
Future studies should, for example, examine the im-
pact on student outcomes of the other FEP pracces:
academic partnering meengs and proacve ongoing
communicaon between teachers and parents.
Addional research is needed focusing on the eects
of the home visits for families and taking into account
teachers’ rangs of the quality of their home visits with
families. In the present evaluaon, teachers’ reports
of home visit quality either were not related to out-
comes or, in the case of aendance, the results were
incongruent with any of the other measures of FEP
implementaon. Clarifying teachers’ percepons of
home visit quality would help illuminate how teachers
experience this pracce and how these percepons
shape their approach to teaching and learning.
The potenal impact of family engagement pracces
on teachers, a topic that surfaced in the previous year’s
evaluaon, was explored in this phase as well. The
ndings, although mixed, do suggest the FEP could be a
posive inuence on teachers and on how their family
engagement work may translate to their pracce in the
classroom. This topic has received a paucity of aen-
on from researchers, and further invesgaon could
provide ndings that have important implicaons for
alternave strategies to improve schools and student
learning. Using the IMPACT data provided a unique
opportunity to examine how content experts (master
educators) perceived teaching pracce. Teachers at FEP
schools earned higher rangs from master educators
in several dimensions of strong teaching, although in
other aspects they were rated lower. Future studies
should explore in greater depth the degree to which
establishing relaonships with students’ families may
or may not inuence the way teachers organize and
deliver their lessons to students.
Finally, future evaluaons of FEP should include a
comparison group of schools conducng business as
usual with regard to family engagement. An evaluaon
of this type would, ideally, randomly assign schools to
implement the FEP and then use remaining schools as
comparison sites. In pracce, however, random assign-
ment is rarely possible. Finding appropriate comparison
schools, then, is crical and requires matching based
not only on school characteriscs like previous achieve-
ment levels, but also on community characteriscs
such as employment, crime, or family structure. Future
evaluaons will also require more than 12 schools to
implement FEP so that mulple school-level variables
can be included concurrently in mul-level models. A
larger sample of schools also ensures that results are
not unduly inuenced by outlier schools (that are im-
plemenng the program especially well or poorly) and
provides greater power to detect small or moderate
eects.
Overall, this study looking at the implementaon of the
FEP in relaon to student outcomes is highly encour-
aging. Teachers’ eorts to strengthen relaonships
with students’ families were consistently associated
with beer aendance. The evidence also suggests
students’ literacy skills can improve when school-wide
eorts at family engagement are implemented well.
These results provide much-needed evidence in sup-
port of family engagement as one strategy to improve
educaon outcomes in large urban sengs.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 21 -
September 2015
Among students who…
Total FEP Sample Received home
visits
Did not receive
home visits
Female 51.6% 51.1% 52.2%
Race/Ethnicity
White 4.0% 4.7% 3.3%
Black 61.8% 58.2% 65.9%
Hispanic 30.7% 32.8% 28.4%
Other 3.5% 4.3% 2.5%
Grade
Preschool 8.2% 9.9% 6.4%
Pre-kindergarten 12.8% 13.7% 11.9%
Kindergarten 16.4% 16.5% 16.2%
1st 15.0% 15.6% 14.3%
2nd 13.7% 15.4% 11.7%
3rd 12.0% 11.9% 12.1%
4th 11.8% 10.0% 13.6%
5th 10.2% 7.0% 13.7%
Free and reduced price meals 93.3% 94.0% 92.6%
Special educaon 17.8% 16.8% 18.9%
English language learner/LEP 23.1% 26.2% 19.8%
% procient on TRC at start of 2013-14 56.8% 52.2% 61.7%
% procient on DIBELS in 2012-13 48.3% 47.7% 46.7%
Avg. rate of aendance in 2012-13 92.6% 93.0% 92.0%
N4704 2469 2235
Appendix A: Descripve Tables
Table A1: Characteriscs of Students Aending FEP Schools
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 22 -
September 2015
Table A2: Characteriscs of Schools Parcipang in the FEP
School
Name
Grade
Range N White Black Hispanic Other Female FARM LEP/ELL SPED
School 1 PS-5th 510 1.4% 47.8% 47.5% 3.3% 45.7% 100.0% 32.9% 15.5%
School 2 PS-5th 431 0.5% 96.5% 1.9% 1.2% 49.7% 100.0% 0.7% 18.1%
School 3 PS-5th 274 5.1% 68.2% 23.0% 3.6% 42.3% 100.0% 13.5% 28.5%
School 4 PS-5th 258 1.2% 38.8% 44.6% 15.5% 45.7% 100.0% 43.8% 18.2%
School 5 PS-5th 501 11.2% 8.6% 72.9% 7.4% 52.5% 73.3% 56.9% 12.8%
School 6 PS-8th 383 1.3% 29.5% 67.6% 1.6% 48.8% 100.0% 52.2% 17.8%
School 7 PS-5th 284 0.0% 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 47.2% 100.0% 0.4% 27.5%
School 8 PS-5th 277 30.3% 56.0% 6.5% 7.2% 51.6% 35.7% 9.7% 11.9%
School 9 PS-5th 419 3.6% 9.1% 83.3% 4.1% 50.1% 99.8% 59.2% 16.2%
School 10 PS-5th 590 0.2% 97.1% 2.4% 0.3% 49.8% 100.0% 0.2% 12.7%
School 11 PS-5th 433 0.0% 98.8% 0.5% 0.7% 45.7% 99.8% 0.2% 25.4%
School 12 PS-8th 344 0.3% 95.3% 2.6% 1.7% 48.3% 100.0% 1.2% 17.2%
Average 392 4.6% 62.1% 29.4% 3.9% 48.1% 92.4% 22.6% 18.5%
Table A3: Summary of FEP Implementaon Measures, by School
School Name % families w/ a
home visit
FEP
Implementaon
Support for
FEP
Quality of
home visits FEP Impact
School 1 0.53 4.55 4.05 3.57 3.76
School 2 0.60 4.70 4.44 3.22 3.89
School 3 0.42 4.60 3.13 3.58 3.91
School 4 0.54 4.72 3.63 3.62 3.73
School 5 0.35 5.15 3.88 3.71 4.04
School 6 0.70 4.73 4.00 3.30 3.88
School 7 0.50 4.66 4.26 3.53 4.14
School 8 0.57 4.44 3.56 3.50 3.77
School 9 0.54 4.09 3.97 3.54 3.58
School 10 0.44 3.81 3.61 3.42 4.07
School 11 0.61 4.93 3.71 3.56 3.72
School 12 0.34 4.16 3.67 3.37 3.90
Average 0.51 4.54 3.83 3.49 3.91
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 23 -
September 2015
Table A4: Student Samples across Outcomes
Aendance Re-enroll TRC DIBELS
Female 51.0% 51.1% 50.8% 51.2%
Race/Ethnicity
White 3.1% 2.9% 3.3% 2.9%
Black 57.9% 62.8% 62.6% 51.4%
Hispanic 35.6% 30.8% 31.0% 41.8%
Other 3.4% 3.5% 3.2% 4.0%
Grade
Preschool 0.9% NA NA NA
Pre-kindergarten 10.1% NA NA NA
Kindergarten 15.3% NA 20.7% NA
1st 17.0% 28.6% 19.0% 0.7%
2nd 16.4% 26.1% 17.3% 30.0%
3rd 14.3% 22.9% 15.2% 25.5%
4th 14.1% 22.4% 14.9% 23.9%
5th 12.0% NA 12.9% 19.9%
FARM 93.4% 94.1% 93.5% 91.6%
Special educaon 18.4% 17.0% 16.9% 15.6%
ELL/LEP 26.4% 22.5% 22.9% 25.3%
Baseline 92.6% 78.4% 56.8% 48.3%
N3167 2461 3709 1362
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 24 -
September 2015
Appendix B: Analyc Models
Table B1: Mul-Level Models tesng FEP Eects on Students’ Daily Aendance
Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE
Aendance
baseline 0.592*** 0.014 0.588*** 0.014 0.586*** 0.014 0.577*** 0.014 0.596*** 0.014 0.585*** 0.014
Race/Ethnicity
Black -0.017 0.023 -0.013 0.023 -0.013 0.023 -0.019 0.023 -0.015 0.023 -0.009 0.023
Hispanic 0.011 0.024 0.015 0.024 0.015 0.024 0.009 0.024 0.012 0.024 0.016 0.024
Other 0.032 0.029 0.034 0.029 0.032 0.029 0.015 0.028 0.048 0.028 0.032 0.029
Grade
Pre-
kindergarten 0.191*** 0.039 0.186*** 0.039 0.176*** 0.039 0.164*** 0.038 0.203*** 0.038 0.196*** 0.039
Kindergarten 0.205*** 0.038 0.199*** 0.038 0.189*** 0.039 0.178*** 0.037 0.220*** 0.038 0.210*** 0.038
1st 0.234*** 0.038 0.229*** 0.038 0.219*** 0.038 0.208*** 0.037 0.251*** 0.037 0.242*** 0.038
2nd 0.203*** 0.038 0.197*** 0.038 0.187*** 0.038 0.175*** 0.037 0.216*** 0.037 0.209*** 0.038
3rd 0.223*** 0.038 0.219*** 0.038 0.208*** 0.039 0.198*** 0.037 0.240*** 0.038 0.231*** 0.038
4th 0.206*** 0.038 0.203*** 0.038 0.193*** 0.039 0.176*** 0.037 0.221*** 0.037 0.215*** 0.038
5th 0.222*** 0.038 0.221*** 0.038 0.211*** 0.039 0.195*** 0.038 0.238*** 0.038 0.231*** 0.038
FARM -0.069*** 0.016 -0.073*** 0.016 -0.066*** 0.017 -0.059*** 0.016 -0.124*** 0.016 -0.067*** 0.016
Special
educaon -0.027** 0.009 -0.027** 0.009 -0.027** 0.009 -0.027** 0.009 -0.028** 0.009 -0.028** 0.009
ELL/LEP 0.030** 0.011 0.030** 0.011 0.031** 0.011 0.024* 0.011 0.028* 0.011 0.027* 0.011
Home visits 0.020** 0.007 0.020** 0.007 0.016* 0.007 0.012 0.007 0.023** 0.007
Implementaon
qual. 0.019 0.01
Percepon of
support 0.125*** 0.011
Quality of home
visits -0.290*** 0.027
Percepon of
impact 0.087*** 0.024
Constant 0.121** 0.044 0.116** 0.044 0.033 0.062 -0.341*** 0.059 1.157*** 0.105 -0.239* 0.107
N=3167
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 25 -
September 2015
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE
TRC baseline 2.309*** 0.106 2.373*** 0.108 2.374*** 0.108 2.373*** 0.108 2.374*** 0.108 2.373*** 0.108
Race
Black -0.435 0.317 -0.353 0.319 -0.354 0.319 -0.354 0.319 -0.354 0.319 -0.353 0.319
Hispanic -0.151 0.326 -0.082 0.328 -0.084 0.328 -0.082 0.328 -0.084 0.328 -0.082 0.328
Other -0.032 0.394 -0.03 0.395 -0.029 0.395 -0.028 0.395 -0.029 0.395 -0.03 0.395
Grade
1st 0.995*** 0.144 1.001*** 0.144 1.001*** 0.144 1.001*** 0.144 1.001*** 0.144 1.00*** 0.144
2nd 0.858*** 0.147 0.845*** 0.147 0.846*** 0.147 0.845*** 0.147 0.846*** 0.147 0.845*** 0.147
3rd 0.816*** 0.158 0.843*** 0.159 0.843*** 0.159 0.842*** 0.159 0.843*** 0.159 0.843*** 0.159
4th 0.784*** 0.165 0.836*** 0.167 0.837*** 0.167 0.837*** 0.167 0.837*** 0.167 0.836*** 0.167
5th 0.820*** 0.177 0.903*** 0.179 0.903*** 0.179 0.904*** 0.179 0.903*** 0.179 0.903*** 0.179
FARM 0.153 0.266 0.156 0.267 0.145 0.267 0.155 0.267 0.149 0.267 0.156 0.267
Special educaon -0.834*** 0.122 -0.839*** 0.122 -0.839*** 0.122 -0.839*** 0.122 -0.839*** 0.122 -0.839*** 0.122
ELL/LEP -0.941*** 0.148 -0.947*** 0.148 -0.948*** 0.148 -0.947*** 0.148 -0.947*** 0.148 -0.947*** 0.148
Aendance 1.093*** 0.199 1.005*** 0.201 1.008*** 0.201 1.008*** 0.201 1.004*** 0.201 1.005*** 0.201
Home visits 0.441*** 0.098 0.441*** 0.098 0.442*** 0.098 0.440*** 0.098 0.441*** 0.098
Implementaon
qual. -1.814 1.456
Percepon of
support -1.276 1.609
Quality of home
visits -3.249 3.957
Percepon of
impact 0.262 3.496
Constant -0.498 0.655 -0.778 0.663 7.469 6.683 4.11 6.217 10.577 -1.789
N=3709
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Table B2: Mul-Level Models tesng FEP Eects on Students’ Grade Level Prociency for
Reading Comprehension
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 26 -
September 2015
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE
DIBELS baseline 3.038*** 0.161 3.038*** 0.161 3.047*** 0.16 3.040*** 0.161 3.037*** 0.161 3.044*** 0.161
Race
Black -0.498 0.621 -0.499 0.622 -0.579 0.616 -0.513 0.621 -0.501 0.622 -0.454 0.626
Hispanic 0.23 0.632 0.23 0.632 0.221 0.629 0.223 0.631 0.23 0.633 0.239 0.636
Other 0.276 0.74 0.276 0.74 0.245 0.734 0.255 0.739 0.27 0.741 0.249 0.741
Grade
2nd -1.508* 0.761 -1.508* 0.762 -1.413 0.749 -1.518* 0.762 -1.502* 0.763 -1.598* 0.760
3rd -2.129** 0.767 -2.129** 0.767 -2.071** 0.755 -2.136** 0.767 -2.123** 0.768 -2.204** 0.765
4th -1.860* 0.768 -1.860* 0.768 -1.780* 0.753 -1.876* 0.768 -1.853* 0.769 -1.953* 0.767
5th -2.419** 0.776 -2.419** 0.776 -2.313** 0.761 -2.430** 0.776 -2.412** 0.777 -2.517* 0.774
FARM -0.638 0.369 -0.638 0.369 -0.426 0.341 -0.637 0.368 -0.623 0.379 -0.603 0.365
Special Educaon -1.474*** 0.282 -1.474*** 0.282 -1.507*** 0.284 -1.476*** 0.282 -1.474*** 0.282 -1.483*** 0.282
ELL/LEP -0.839*** 0.236 -0.839*** 0.236 -0.858*** 0.234 -0.842*** 0.236 -0.839*** 0.235 -0.843*** 0.235
Aendance 0.874* 0.344 0.874* 0.345 0.837* 0.337 0.842* 0.348 0.878* 0.346 0.851* 0.344
Home visits -0.002 0.162 -0.012 0.16 -0.004 0.162 0.001 0.163 0.021 0.162
Implementaon
qual. 0.924*** 0.226
Percepon of
support 0.226 0.366
Quality of home
visits 0.151 0.876
Percepon of
impact 1.104 0.700
Constant 0.853 0.981 0.854 0.982 -3.591* 1.454 0.018 1.676 0.302 3.342 -3.38 2.862
N=1362
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Table B3: Mul-Level Models tesng FEP Eects on Students’ Grade Level Prociency for
Reading Fluency
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 27 -
September 2015
Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE Coecient SE
Re-enroll-
ment (2012-
13)
0.189 0.169 0.180 0.173 0.172 0.173 0.176 0.172 0.180 0.173 0.182 0.173
Race
Black -1.638 1.061 -1.631 1.062 -1.621 1.062 -1.620 1.062 -1.629 1.062 -1.633 1.062
Hispanic -1.115 1.072 -1.109 1.072 -1.101 1.072 -1.112 1.072 -1.104 1.072 -1.109 1.072
Other -0.197 1.275 -0.195 1.275 -0.198 1.275 -0.223 1.275 -0.200 1.275 -0.192 1.275
Grade
2nd 0.017 0.195 0.017 0.195 0.019 0.195 0.016 0.195 0.017 0.195 0.017 0.195
3rd 0.107 0.201 0.107 0.201 0.105 0.201 0.104 0.201 0.106 0.201 0.107 0.201
4th -0.063 0.202 -0.058812 0.203 -0.059 0.202 -0.064 0.202 -0.058 0.203 -0.058 0.203
FARM -0.081 0.617 -0.081 0.617 -0.007 0.622 -0.100 0.613 -0.038 0.628 -0.093 0.620
Special edu-
caon -0.016 0.186 -0.017 0.187 -0.022 0.187 -0.018 0.186 -0.018 0.187 -0.017 0.187
ELL/LEP -0.057 0.286 -0.056 0.286 -0.055 0.286 -0.064 0.285 -0.055 0.286 -0.054 0.286
Aendance 1.246*** 0.295 1.240*** 0.296 1.232*** 0.296 1.200*** 0.297 1.245*** 0.296 1.242*** 0.296
Home visits 0.039 0.151 0.037 0.151 0.036 0.151 0.041 0.152 0.037 0.152
Implementa-
on qual. 0.413 0.500
Percepon of
support 0.675 0.484
Quality of
home visits 0.503 1.368
FEP impact -0.235 1.136
Constant 3.045** 1.111 3.029** 1.113 1.090 2.614 0.491 2.156 1.226 5.030 3.948 4.570
N=2461
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Table B4: Mul-Level Models tesng FEP Eects on Student Re-enrollment
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 28 -
September 2015
References
n Balfanz, R., Herzog, L. and Mac Iver, D.J. (2007). Prevenng student disengagement and keeping
students on the graduaon path in urban middle-grades schools: early idencaon and eec-
ve intervenons. Educaonal Psychologist, 42, 223-235.
n Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
n Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., and Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and
low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associaons between and within families. Journal of
Educaonal Psychology, 98, 653–664.
n Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Im-
proving Schools, 2nd Edion. Westview Press.
n Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.G., Sheldon, S.B. et al. (2009). School, Family and Community Partner-
ships: Your Handbook for Acon (3rd edion). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
n Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A me-
ta-analysis. Educaonal Psychology Review, 13, 1–22.
n Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, and Hevey, (2000). Parental resources and the transion
to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 465–488.
n Hemphill, F. C., and Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students
in Public Schools Perform in Mathemacs and Reading on the Naonal Assessment of Educa-
onal Progress (NCES 2011-459). Naonal Center for Educaon Stascs, Instute of Educaon
Sciences, U.S. Department of Educaon. Washington, DC.
n Henderson, A., and Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family,
and Community Connecons on Student Achievement. Ausn, TX: Southwest Educaonal Devel-
opment Laboratory.
n Hill, Nancy E. and Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta analyc as-
sessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740-763.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 29 -
September 2015
n Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the ecacy of dierent types of parental involvement programs
for urban students. Urban Educaon, 47, 706-742.
n Jeynes, W. (2007). The relaonship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student
academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Urban Educaon, 42, 82–110.
n Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relaon of parental involvement to urban elementary school
student academic achievement. Urban Educaon, 40, 237–269.
n Mac Iver, M. A., and Messel, M. (2013). The ABCs of keeping on track to graduaon: Research ndings
from Balmore. Journal of Educaon for Students Placed at Risk, 18(1), 50–67.
n Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathemacs: The eects of parental involvement. Teachers
College Record, 101, 60–81.
n Mapp, K. L. and Kuner, P. J. (2013). Partners in Educaon: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for
Family-School Partnerships. Southwest Educaon Development Laboratory. Ausn, TX.
n McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Dierenal eecveness on science achieve-
ment, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 117–144.
n Paoli, J. B., Hornig-Fox, J., Ingram, E. S., Maushard, M. Bridgeland, J. M. and R. Balfanz. (2015). Building a
Grad Naon: Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic. Civic Enterprises and
Everyone Graduates Center at the School of Educaon at Johns Hopkins University, Balmore, MD.
n Pomeranz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., and Litwach, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always beer. Review of Educaon Research, 77,
373–410.
n Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student aendance with a school-wide approach to school-family-com-
munity partnerships. Journal of Educaonal Research, 100, 267–275.
n Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Tesng a structural equaon model of partnership program implementaon and
parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106, 171–187
n Sheldon, S. B., and Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and
community involvement. Educaon and Urban Society, 35, 4–26.
n Sheldon, S.B. and Hutchins, D. (2014). Year 1 Outcomes of the Flamboyan Foundaon Iniave. Center
on School, Family and Community Partnerships.
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 30 -
September 2015
n Sheldon, S. B., and Jung, S. B. (2015). Exploring how school-family partnerships improve aendance:
Principals, teachers, and program organizaon. Paper presented at the 2015 Annual Conference of
the American Educaonal Researchers Associaon in Chicago, IL.
n Smith, R. S. (2011). An introducon to the campaign for grade-level reading. Naonal Civic Review,
100, 4.
n U.S. Department of Educaon. (2012). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2000–
01, 2005–06, 2009–10, and 2010–11. Naonal Center for Educaon Stascs. Washington, DC.
n Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement Gaps: How
Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathemacs and Reading on the Naonal
Assessment of Educaonal Progress, (NCES 2009-455). Naonal Center for Educaon Stascs, Ins-
tute of Educaon Sciences, U.S. Department of Edu
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 31 -
September 2015
The Family Engagement Partnership Student Outcome Evaluaon
- 32 -
September 2015
Johns Hopkins University
School of Educaon
Center on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships
September 2015
The Family Engagement Partnership
Student Outcome Evaluation
By Steven B. Sheldon and Sol Bee Jung
... . También está asociado con mejores resultados en áreas no académicas, como la satisfacción de los padres y alumnos con la escuela, menores problemas de disciplina y programas escolares más efectivos. A su vez, la participación parental beneficia a la escuela como organización, pues mejora sus índices de resultados y su capacidad de gestión (SHELDON;BEE, 2015). ...
... . También está asociado con mejores resultados en áreas no académicas, como la satisfacción de los padres y alumnos con la escuela, menores problemas de disciplina y programas escolares más efectivos. A su vez, la participación parental beneficia a la escuela como organización, pues mejora sus índices de resultados y su capacidad de gestión (SHELDON;BEE, 2015). ...
... Es importante tener en cuenta que ciertas prácticas de involucramiento pueden ser más efectivas que otras. Por ejemplo, que las familias tengan altas expectativas, tengan metas, monitoreen el progreso y apoyen activamente el aprendizaje en el hogar hará más probable que al niño le vaya bien en la escuela (SHLEDON; BEE, 2015). Pero si se entiende a la educación como una responsabilidad compartida a través de una alianza entre las familias y escuelas, éstas no debiesen asumir un rol pasivo en el fortalecimiento de la relación, sino que por el contrario, debiesen crear e implementar estrategias para impulsar la participación activa. ...
Article
Full-text available
Resumen En el tema de la relación familia-escuela se ha estudiado más sus beneficios que las estrategias para fomentarla. Por ello este artículo tiene como propósito explorar la visión que tienen directores sobre la participación parental en la educación y describir las estrategias implementadas en sus escuelas, mediante la aplicación de entrevistas a directores de veintinueve escuelas públicas básicas de la Región Metropolitana, Chile. Los resultados muestran altas expectativas hacia las familias en la definición de participación, al mismo tiempo que una evaluación crítica del estado en la que ella se encuentra en sus escuelas. También se describen las estrategias implementadas, entre las que están: actividades festivas, de esparcimiento y de celebración de las familias; instancias formales de encuentro entre familias, profesores y directores; actividades de formación integral de padres; visitas domiciliarias de los trabajadores sociales a las familias; y el uso de tecnologías de información y comunicación como forma de acercamiento a las familias. Estas estrategias son discutidas a la luz del modelo de participación parental de Joyce Epstein (2011). Se concluye que las estrategias que las escuelas implementan para fomentar la relación con las familias son limitadas, tradicionales y no reconocen la pluralidad de estructuras familiares, por lo que no están de acuerdo a los cambios que ha experimentado la sociedad chilena. A diferencia de lo propuesto por el modelo de Epstein, en las escuelas estudiadas no se refirieron a prácticas relativas al ejercicio del voluntariado de padres y profesores, a estrategias de colaboración con la comunidad, ni tampoco a experiencias que se orientasen explícitamente a apoyar el aprendizaje en el hogar.
... Research also has established consistent and reliable connections between families' involvement in student achievement and attendance (Pomeranz, Moorman, & Litwach, 2007;Jeynes, 2012). In today's education landscape, research, policy, and practice discussions no longer center on if family engagement matters but, rather, on what types of family engagement matter and how families can be supported to play those roles, particularly in an increasingly diverse public school system (Sheldon & Jung, 2015). Home visit programs have emerged as one of the effective ways to engage families and have become an increasingly popular approach schools and districts adopt to strengthen familyschool relationships. ...
... Specifically, by guiding families to hold higher expectations for their children with respect to regular school attendance home visits may result in greater parental investment in getting students to school ( Figure 1). Several studies have shown that participation in home visits is associated with elementary school outcomes including higher rates of daily attendance and grade-level reading comprehension (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002;Sheldon & Jung, 2015). Analyses elsewhere suggest that teachers' participation in home visits is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction (Sheldon & Hutchins, 2014) as well as teacher perceptions that students are benefiting academically from home visits (Wright, Shields, Black, & Waxman, 2018). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The findings of this study do more than support the existing research literature suggesting that family engagement promotes student success; they affirm the efficacy of school outreach to families as a strategy to improve student attendance and achievement outcomes. Specifically, the findings support the implementation of PTHV as an evidenced-based family engagement approach to improve student outcomes. Using a large dataset, with information about thousands of students drawn across several districts and controlling for important student variables including prior outcome measures, the analyses provide strong support for implementing home visits. In particular, two important patterns emerged from the analyses. First, students whose families participated in at least one home visit were less likely to be chronically absent in school, accounting for whether they were chronically absent the year before and important background characteristics. In addition, the analyses showed that students attending a school conducting home visits systematically were less likely to be chronically absent and more likely to score proficient on the standardized ELA assessment, regardless of whether their family participated in a home visit. Implementing PTHV, therefore, may not just benefit the students whose families participate directly in a home visit but may have a positive impact for all students attending those schools.
... Angažovanje roditelja takođe smanjuje izostanak s nastave. Na primer, kada su nastavnici stupili u interakciju sa roditeljima tokom kućnih poseta, izostajanja učenika smanjila su se za 20% (Sheldon & Jung, 2015). ...
Article
This paper discusses the framework in which the educational process takes place and the impact of family variables on student success. The aim of the research is to determine the basic characteristics of the connection between the contextual factors of the family environment and the school success of students, in the field of mathematics and the Serbian language. The research involved 300 teachers – 150 mathematics teachers and 150 Serbian language teachers, as well as 600 of their students. A descriptive method was used, and data were collected using a survey and scaling technique. For the success of students, the interest of parents in school and the success of students, the involvement of parents in school activities are more important than the overall conditions for learning and working at home. The grade in mathematics is conditioned by the general conditions for learning at home. However, only 6.1% of the dependent variable (mathematics grade) explains the independent variables. 9.3% of the variance in the assessment of the Serbian language was explained by the conditions for learning and working at home. Parents' interest in school explains 13.1% of the variance in mathematics. Parents' interest in school explains 14.3% of the variance of the grade in the Serbian language.
... Parents also have to participate in decision-making about their children's welfare. In addition, parents' involvement is also helpful for the development of social skills, moral and democratic values [13]. ...
Article
This case study reveals how parents perceive their involvements and expectations of their children’s academic achievements. The primary purpose of this study is to explore parental involvement in the academic achievement of primary students in Nigerian schools and to assess parental involvement at the Primary School level and how it enhances academic achievement. The researcher chooses the qualitative research method for this study and makes use of Semi-structured interviews to collect data on the first-hand experiences of two international post-graduate (PG) students at International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). The major finding of this study is parental involvement with their children. The Parents went to school to communicate with the class teacher and also they assisted with their children’s homework at their residential premises. Parents had high expectations of their children’s academic achievement in the class. There were some differences in the way the two parents were involved in the academic work of their children. This is because of some causes such as lack of time, new subject matter and distance to the schools. The findings of this study have implications mostly for teachers, teacher educators and educational decision-makers.
... They conclude that strong communication and relationship among parents, children, schools, and communities plays a good role in students motivation and engagement. Parental involvement was further explored by Many other studies, Hill and Tyson (2009) and Sheldon and Jung (2015), and Waterford.org (2019), deeply discussed the roles of parents in learners' engagement. ...
Article
Full-text available
Students’ engagement has been a hot topic since the origin of teaching and learning; and is developing rapidly with time and technology. With the recent advances in Information and Communication Technology (e.g, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence and 5G), it is a need of the hour to revive its smart use in academia. In underdeveloped countries, parents are offended by financial burdens and educating children is not a priority, resulting students are not effectively engaged in learning. Smartphones are mostly used for fun and entertainment, why not for teaching, learning and monitoring to reshape pedagogy. This study investigated the role of social media in learners’ engagement (l = 734) by making a productive relationship among the parents (p = 400), teachers (t = 21) and Principal in underdeveloped countries’ schools. The results of the study are promising. The statistics for 2018-2019 (i.e, without social media), shows only 3% to 4 % parental participation in meetings and scarce teachers interest in schooling, resulting in the learner disengagement. However, the statistics from 2019-2020 (i.e, use of social media), shows improvements in the parental engagement up to 20% and teachers engagement up to 70%, resulting in a productive learners engagement. It is worth mentioning here that the school (located in the village), learner average attendance increased to 95% (dropped the truancy to almost zero), which got higher authorities admiration.
... Within the small body of research on elementary and secondary home visiting, researchers have identified several benefits associated with home visits. Those benefits generally center on outcomes like improved student attendance (Sheldon & Jung, 2015), academic achievement (Wright et al., 2018), parental involvement (Acosta et al., 1997) and parent-teacher as well as student-teacher relationships (Cowan et al., 2002). However, there is a dearth of research exploring the potential of home visits to support elementary teachers' instruction. ...
Article
Full-text available
To differentiate effectively, we need to know children. Through home visiting , teachers spend time learning more about students' lives, interests, and cultures. Research has begun to provide insight regarding the benefits of home visits in the elementary years, particularly in terms of family engagement in schools. We know less about the nature of home visits themselves or about what teachers learn from the visits that they can use to support individual learners. We studied how one teacher's learning about children's homes and families supported her differentiated literacy instruction with four focal students. This work has implications for practitioners conducting home visits and employing differentiated classroom instruction. Furthermore, our work adds to the literature on how teachers' knowledge of place can inform differentiated classroom instruction. Future research should continue to examine the intersection of differentiated instruction and place-based education (PBE).
Article
Improving student learning and development requires a constant exploration of practical collaboration methods with families and educational service providers. Using Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological systems theory can help stakeholders understand how internal and external factors affect a student’s overall performance and raise families’ and educational service providers’ awareness of their roles. The application of this theory encourages stakeholders to extend the existing dual capacity framework between families and schools to the quadruple partnership that further involves communities and universities. When families and educators become more aware of the complexities of the factors and make intentional efforts, they are more likely to create an effective partnership for facilitating student learning and development. Our article utilizes Bronfenbrenner’s theory to address the quadruple partnership of families, schools, communities, and universities. This article summarizes Bronfenbrenner’s theory and discusses how the idea can be applied to quadruple partnerships to improve the collaboration among stakeholders. Implications for practitioners and researchers are further discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The vital role of parents in Indigenous children's education has long been recognised in the school system; however, there is still limited understanding of the complex challenges experienced by parents in their educational engagement. This systematic review synthesised evidence from 41 studies to provide an understanding of Indigenous parents' perceptions about their educational engagement and strategies used by schools to facilitate their engagement. By employing a qualitative thematic synthesis, we identified three main themes: (1) the self‐perceived roles of Indigenous parents; (2) factors that hinder educational engagement; and (3) strategies that can support Indigenous parents. The findings suggest that cultural issues greatly influence the way parents perceive their role and are at the root of the hindering factors and effective strategies for increasing parental engagement. Schools' personnel can create opportunities for authentic collaboration with parents by undertaking a comprehensive identification of impeding factors and employing a strength‐based framework that acknowledges the importance of integrating cultural aspects and culturally responsive approaches. Context and implications Rationale for this study Indigenous parental engagement in schools has continued to be a concern. Although such engagement is widely recognised as essential, fundamental enablers of parental engagement are not thoroughly examined. This study aimed to explore how home‐school relations could be established in ways that accommodate the preferences of Indigenous parents. Why do the new findings matter This study provides a comprehensive analysis of how home‐school partnerships could be undertaken to produce an authentic collaboration between schools and Indigenous parents. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the factors hindering Indigenous parental engagement and culturally responsive strategies to enhance it. Implications for practitioners and policy makers With the recognition of Indigenous cultures, schools can strengthen their genuine commitments to build an authentic and inclusive collaboration with Indigenous parents by empowering parents to engage in their children‘s education, building culturally responsive relationships with parents, and supporting the whole family and students‘ development. Moreover, policy makers might comprehensively investigate any culturally inappropriate and unsafe regulations in the existing policies and consider holistic programmes that are more culturally responsive. Indigenous parental engagement in schools has continued to be a concern. Although such engagement is widely recognised as essential, fundamental enablers of parental engagement are not thoroughly examined. This study aimed to explore how home‐school relations could be established in ways that accommodate the preferences of Indigenous parents. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of how home‐school partnerships could be undertaken to produce an authentic collaboration between schools and Indigenous parents. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the factors hindering Indigenous parental engagement and culturally responsive strategies to enhance it. With the recognition of Indigenous cultures, schools can strengthen their genuine commitments to build an authentic and inclusive collaboration with Indigenous parents by empowering parents to engage in their children‘s education, building culturally responsive relationships with parents, and supporting the whole family and students‘ development. Moreover, policy makers might comprehensively investigate any culturally inappropriate and unsafe regulations in the existing policies and consider holistic programmes that are more culturally responsive.
Article
Full-text available
Home visits have a large influence on the academic achievement of students and the relationship between teachers and students. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of home visits on students’ academic success and behavior in the classroom. This study investigated the parent involvement of the students who were visited by teachers compared to students who were not visited by teachers. An explanatory mixed research method was used to determine the influence of the home visits on the academic achievement and classroom behavior of students compared to students whose homes were not visited. The first phase of the study was a survey instrument to measure the perspectives of teachers regarding the academic success and behavior of students. The second phase of the study included interviews with teachers to investigate their perceptions of the home visits. This study used a sample of 15 volunteer-students from grade nine and their parents/guardians, 4 teachers teaching those students in Gelephu HSS. The results of the study indicate that home visits and family engagement have positive impacts on students’ academic achievements and attitudes in school. Findings also state that home visit is an effective strategy to influence a child’s perception on developing the quality student-teacher relationship and strengthen the relation between parent and teachers for encouraging child’s academic performance.
Article
Full-text available
This article considers the practical, conceptual, and empirical foundations of an early identification and intervention system for middle-grades schools to combat student disengagement and increase graduation rates in our nation's cities. Many students in urban schools become disengaged at the start of the middle grades, which greatly reduces the odds that they will eventually graduate. We use longitudinal analyses—following almost 13,000 students from 1996 until 2004—to demonstrate how four predictive indicators reflecting poor attendance, misbehavior, and course failures in sixth grade can be used to identify 60% of the students who will not graduate from high school. Fortunately, by combining effective whole-school reforms with attendance, behavioral, and extra-help interventions, graduation rates can be substantially increased.
Article
Full-text available
This study reports the results of efforts of school officials to implement family and community involvement activities to reduce the number of disciplinary actions and to ensure a school climate focused on learning. Using longitudinal data from elementary and secondary schools, analyses indicate that regardless of schools’prior rates of discipline, the more family and community involvement activities were implemented, the fewer students were disciplined by being sent to principals’offices or given detention or in-school suspension. Activities for two types of involvement, parenting and volunteering, were most predictive of reducing the percentages of students who were subject to discipline. Also, schools that improved the quality of their partnership programs reported fewer students in need of discipline. The results suggest that creating more connections and greater cooperation among the school, family, and community contexts may be one way for schools to improve student behavior and school discipline.
Article
Using the concepts of cultural and social capital, I provide a theoretical framework for why there should be differential effects of parental involvement across cognitive (e.g., science achievement) and behavioral (e.g., truancy and dropping out) outcomes. Findings indicate that parental involvement is generally a salient factor in explaining behavioral but not cognitive outcomes, with greatest support for parent-child discussion and involvement in parent-teacher organizations. Findings also indicate that specific dimensions of involvement have greater effects for more affluent and white students, providing empirical evidence to support Lareau's (1989) contention that the greater levels of cultural capital possessed by members of the upper class magnify parental involvement's effect for advantaged students. The theoretical framework and associated findings provide insight into the seemingly inconsistent findings revealed in much previous research on parent involvement and achievement.
Article
This study of graduation outcomes in Baltimore uses multivariate analysis of longitudinal student cohort data to examine the impact of factors identified in previous research as early warning indicators of a dropout outcome. Student cohort files were constructed from longitudinal administrative data (following all first-time 2004–2005 and 2005–2006 9th graders forward in time until their on-time graduation year and 1 year past). Sequentially estimated logistic regression hierarchical linear modeling models indicated the strongest predictors of graduation were 9th-grade attendance and course failure, although gender was still significant. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship between the 4 categories of college enrollment outcomes (enrollment in a 4-year college, enrollment in a 2-year college, graduation with no college enrollment, and nongraduation) and student-level predictor variables, including grade point average (GPA) and 8th-grade test scores. Results suggest that equipping schools to implement interventions to address chronic absenteeism and course failure in 9th grade is a crucial strategy for increasing both high school graduation and college enrollment.
Article
This meta-analysis of 51 studies examines the relationship between various kinds of parental involvement programs and the academic achievement of pre-kindergarten-12th-grade school children. Analyses determined the effect sizes for various parental involvement programs overall and subcategories of involvement. Results indicate a significant relationship between parental involvement programs overall and academic achievement, both for younger (preelementary and elementary school) and older (secondary school) students as well as for four types of parental involvement programs. Parental involvement programs, as a whole, were associated with higher academic achievement by .3 of a standard deviation unit. The significance of these results is discussed.
Article
Researchers and policy makers have questioned the efficacy of family-involvement interventions. They believe that more studies are needed to compare outcomes of students whose families received a partnership intervention with those who did not. The author used data from the state of Ohio to compare student attendance in elementary schools that developed school-wide programs of school, family, and community partnerships with the attendance of students in schools that did not develop the programs. Analyses showed that in schools working to implement school, family, and community partnerships, student attendance improved an average of .5%, whereas in comparison schools, rates of student attendance declined slightly from 1 year to the next. Further analysis suggested that school outreach to families was the driving mechanism that caused this effect.
Article
A key goal of much educational policy is to help parents become involved in children’s academic lives. The focus of such efforts, as well as much of the extant research, has generally been on increasing the extent of parents’ involvement. However, factors beyond the extent of parents’ involvement may be of import. In this article, the case is made that consideration of the how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives is critical to maximizing its benefits. Evidence is reviewed indicating that how parents become involved determines in large part the success of their involvement. It is argued as well that parents’ involvement may matter more for some children than for others. The issue of why parents should become involved is also considered. Implications for future research and interventions are discussed.