January 5, 2017

Why Policy is Not Enough for Effective and Equitable Programs

of Family and Community Engagement

Joyce L. Epstein, Director, and Steven B. Sheldon, Associate Director, NNPS

Just about all states, districts, and schools have policies, recommendations, or priorities that direct educators to work with all students’ parents as partners in education to increase student learning and success in school. What does it mean to have a policy for family engagement “on the books?” Why don’t all schools enact the policy? Why are NNPS schools making progress in implementing policies to develop strong and sustainable programs of family and community engagement?

Policies tell educators to do something, not how to enact a law. In the field of school, family, and community partnerships, there is a serious gap between the intent of policies and the enactment of policies. NNPS works to fill that gap with research-based guidelines for developing effective and equitable programs of family and community engagement.

In a new publication, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, we analyzed 2015 UPDATE data from districts and schools in NNPS. The study asked these questions:

• What is the role of policy in promoting school partnership programs?

• What are key school and district variables that contribute to the quality of partnership programs, outreach to parents, and results for students?

A bit of background and context. Our study was reported at a conference celebrating the 50^th anniversary of the Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO) Report (also called the “Coleman Report” for the first author). In the historic survey released in 1966, the authors reported that only some parents were involved in their children’s education–especially those with more formal education and higher incomes—and their children did better in school. The data revealed the importance of family engagement for student success, but also spotlighted the inequality of engagement, as most parents were not engaged with their children’s schools.

In 1981, the results of the EEO Report and other early studies prompted Joyce Epstein and her colleagues at Johns Hopkins University to ask a new research question:

IF family involvement is so important for student success, how can all schools help all families become engaged in their children’s education, and if they did, would more students succeed in school?

This question focused on school organization for more equitable involvement. It led to many years of basic research, the development of the theory of overlapping spheres of influence (1987), the framework of six types of involvement (1992), and the establishment of the National Network of Partnership Schools (1996).

In our new study, we analyzed data from 347 schools in 21 districts in NNPS to identify variables that affected the quality of schools’ partnership programs. Because the schools were “nested” in districts, we were able to use rigorous methods (i.e., hierarchical linear modeling—HLM) to learn how school factors and district leadership simultaneously and independently affected the quality of school-based partnership programs. We also conducted analyses to learn how school programs affected the percentage of parents who were engaged as partners in students’ education, and how this was linked to results for students—specifically student attendance. Still other analyses explored whether having a written policy for partnerships affected leaders’ actions to facilitate school teams, and whether years of experience in NNPS influenced the extent of district facilitation of school-based programs of family and community engagement.

Results confirmed and extended prior research:

1. Data from schools showed that principal leadership and support for partnerships and reports by Action Teams for Partnerships on the extent and usefulness of district facilitation were significantly linked to the quality of basic structures and processes to organize schools’ partnership programs (e.g., have a team, write a plan, build collegial support, evaluate progress).
2. Data from districts revealed that more active district facilitation was significantly linked to stronger basic partnership programs.
3. Other analyses indicated that principals’ support for partnerships and the quality of the basic program significantly predicted the extent of advanced outreach to involve hard-to-reach families at home and at school.
4. Schools with more advanced outreach reported that more and different families were engaged, as measured by the percentage of parents as good partners.
5. Finally, with grade level and demographics statistically controlled, schools that engaged more parents as partners reported higher rates of student attendance

In addition, supplementary analyses indicated that the number of years districts worked with NNPS was positively and significantly correlated with measures of leadership such as more active facilitation of schools, evaluating progress, more collegial support, and reports that schools were making good progress.

In sum, a policy on family engagement may be a good first step, but other factors—i.e., principals’ support for family and community engagement and active facilitation by district leaders—were more important for establishing the basic structure of a school’s partnership program and more advanced activities to engage more and different families. And, schools with more engaged families reported higher rates of student attendance. The study suggests a sequence of actions and results:

These steps underlie NNPS guidelines for developing programs of family and community engagement over time.

The results of this study have implications for policy and practice. It is clear that education policy is not an end in itself. Rather, district and school leadership to establish the structures and processes of well-organized partnership programs and on-going efforts predict the quality and equality of family and community engagement.

In contrast to reports in 1966 that parents with high incomes and more formal education were the “involved parents,” districts and schools in NNPS are showing that family involvement is not a prescribed or “fixed” behavior. When official policies are accompanied by conditions that support enactment, districts and schools take action—step by step—to develop and continually improve programs that engage more and different families in goal-linked practices that contribute to improved attendance and student success in school.

Blog with NNPS. What do you think?

1. How has your partnership program moved from policy to good practice?
2. How is your program going beyond “some” involvement to engage parents with low incomes and few years of formal education in their children’s education at school and at home?
3. Why are the results of this study of interest to you?