THEORY, PROGRAMS, AND
RESEARCH ON SCHOOL-BASED
FAMILY SUPPORT
Michael Pullmann, Ph.D.
Ericka Wiggins, M.A.
Eric Bruns, Ph.D.
September 30, 2011
Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice Policy
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science
University of Washington School of Medicine
www.uwhelpingfamilies.org
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
2
Relevant Theory
6
Student Learning
6
Comprehensive Supports for Student Learning
7
Supports for Positive Student Behavior
8
Family Engagement and Involvement
10
Complementary Learning
11
Typology of Parent Involvement
11
Mechanisms for Increasing Parental Involvement
12
Relevant Programs
13
360 Communities Partners for Success
14
Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program
15
Parent Information and Resource Centers
15
Statewide Comprehensive System of Learning Supports
16
Project Follow-Through
17
Extended Schools in the United Kingdom
17
Supports for Positive Student Behavior
18
Relevant Evidence linking Actions to Outcomes
18
Summary of Research Findings
18
The National Network of Partnership Schools
20
Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program
21
Conclusion
22
1
Theory, Programs, and Research on School-Based Family Support
Executive Summary
This literature review is one part of a program evaluation of the Seattle Public Schools’
Family Support Program (FSP). It is intended to provide information to the FSP, the
Seattle Office for Education, and the evaluation team in order to inform the development
of the FSP and the evaluation approach and parameters. This review focuses on the
theory, programs, and research most relevant to the work of the FSP. The array of
literature on the theory, programs, and research on family support, family engagement,
and community collaboration in schools that was presented here provides a compelling
argument for the utility of family support to positively impact academic outcomes. There
are several important conclusions resulting from this literature review.
Many students face barriers to learning that are directly related to the opportunity gap
for families in poverty and families of color.
These barriers contribute to poor academic performance, behavior problems, and lack
of attendance.
These barriers can be addressed by providing a comprehensive, coordinated array of
empowering types of family support.
Addressing these barriers is facilitated by:
o De-marginalizing family support practices;
o Forming collaborative partnerships among schools, families, and
communities;
o Opening lines of communication among families, teachers, supportive school
staff, and community resources;
o Supporting and removing barriers to family participation and involvement in
education in school and at home.
There are several well-documented approaches and programs that provide student and
family support, but the approach of the Seattle Public Schools FSP seems fairly
unique.
Longitudinal studies of multicomponent early education programs that featured
family involvement and support as one component have demonstrated long-term
impacts of early intervention. Studies of early intervention programs from the 1960’s
and 1970’s found benefits of Kindergarten and preschool comprehensive education
and support programs that continued through age 28. These included higher academic
achievement, higher SES, less criminal involvement, and more stable social
situations. Every dollar invested resulted in over seven dollars of savings to society.
Studies have found a variety of non-academic family and student support to be
associated with academic success.
Research overwhelmingly supports a connection between family participation and
improved academic success, reduced behavior problems, and increased attendance.
Employing a wide array of targeted approaches to involving families in education can
work to increase family involvement, even for ―hard-to-reach‖ and disadvantaged
families.
2
o Several broad categories of parental perceptions and beliefs influence
involvement. Successful programs address a variety of these.
o They include the parental motivational beliefs (how parents’ conceive their
role in their child’s education, and how effective they feel they can be in their
child’s education);
o Parental perceptions of invitations to become involved (invitations include
general school invitations such as newsletters or emails, specific invitations
from teachers and staff, and specific invitations from students);
o Parental perceptions of life context (these include the parent’s skills and
knowledge about how to be involved, and their time and energy for being
involved).
Research on multicomponent school-based family support programs is extremely
limited and needs more work.
The research that has been done indicates that any attempt to design and implement
multicomponent family support programs requires ongoing evaluation of outcomes.
Research on multi-component family support interventions in schools is hampered by
several methodological issues. However, there has been one very high-quality
evaluation of a multicomponent, flexible, support-providing Family Resource Centers
in Kentucky, which found that:
o Better implementation of the program was related to better academic
outcomes, improved behavior, and increased attendance.
o Better implementation of the program was directly related to understanding
the ultimate mission of the program (improving academic success through
removing barriers to learning by providing comprehensive supports) and
ensuring that the ―flexible‖ activities by the program are directly tied to the
mission. Activities should avoid mission drift.
This review suggests several recommendations for the Seattle Office for Education
and the Seattle Public Schools’ Family Support Program.
Removing barriers to student learning through providing appropriate,
empowering forms of family support should be a central aspect of all schools,
and should be as highly valued as teaching and administration.
Multicomponent and flexible programs need to establish a clear, wellunderstood mission. While program activities can be flexible and tailored to
the unique context of each school, all activities should work towards that
mission. Regular evaluation is needed to avoid mission drift.
Family involvement and community collaboration is key to the process of
determining what types of support and what approaches to providing
support are most appropriate in their communities. This helps to ensure
culturally relevant and maximally effective activities.
Communication and family engagement in education is consistently related
to improved academic outcomes. When considering family engagement and
involvement practices, an array of types of involvement and types of
approaches to encouraging involvement should be considered in order to
enhance the maximum breadth of family participation.
3
Overall, this literature review provides theoretical and empirical justification for
the proposition that the services provided by the FSP will have a positive impact on
student achievement, behavior, and attendance, while reducing the opportunity gap for
families. There are several findings which can directly influence policy and practice.
However, the limited research on programs that are highly similar to the FSP presents an
opportunity for this evaluation to have a national influence on our understanding of the
connection between supportive activities, and student and family outcomes.
4
Theory, Programs, and Research on School-Based Family Support
This literature review is one part of a program evaluation of the Seattle Public School’s
Family Support Program (FSP). It is intended to provide information to the FSP, the
Seattle Office for Education, and the evaluation team in order to inform the development
of the FSP and the evaluation approach and parameters. This review focuses on the
theory, programs, and research most relevant to the work of the FSP. It was conducted
through a systematic review of academic research articles, monographs, evaluation
reports, and personal contacts with program staff and evaluators from various sites
around the nation. The work is divided into three, non-exclusive sections below. Each
section begins with an overview of the most relevant conclusions which can inform the
FSP and the evaluation, and then features more details on the theories, programs, or
research deemed important.
Relevant Theory
Figure 1. Connecting family support to student success (Adapted from Kalafat, 2004)
Student Learning
A logic model for family support within family resource centers in Kentucky, as
depicted in an article by John Kalafat (2004), lays out a clear rationale for the links
between support provision and student outcomes. We have adapted this model for use
within the SPS FSP and it is depicted above. Current state-of-the-art theory about student
learning recognizes the following factors:
There are large proportions of students who face barriers to learning. These
barriers are usually external, though often are misdiagnosed as internal learning
disabilities or attention problems. These barriers include lack of physical and
mental health care, unsafe neighborhoods, chronic anxiety and stress, lack of
family support for education, lack of peer support, and more.
These barriers directly contribute to the opportunity gap for youth in poverty and
youth of color.
5
Schools and students can function at their best when internal and external barriers
to learning are addressed, and any effective learning strategy must find ways to
overcome these barriers.
Unfortunately, providing supports which do not appear to be directly related to
academic outcomes is often marginalized; support programs often function in
isolation or are not coordinated.
Therefore, school districts and states should work to both de-marginalize and
coordinate efforts to provide school-based student and family support.
Comprehensive Supports for Student Learning
The Comprehensive Supports for Student Learning (http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/)
theory proposes that ―Internal and external barriers to learning and teaching contribute to
active disengagement from classroom learning and lead to significant learning, behavior,
and emotional problems. These barriers stem from a variety of widely discussed societal,
neighborhood, familial, school, and personal conditions that interfere with success at
school and beyond.‖ (Adelman & Taylor, 2000, 2010). Although Adelman and Taylor
believe that internal barriers like biologically-based learning disabilities can prevent
learning, they believe that external barriers are the primary reason children have learning,
behavior, and emotional problems in schools. These barriers include things such as lack
of home involvement in education, lack of peer support for education, negative peer
influences, lack of positive recreational opportunities, lack of community involvement,
and inadequate school, social, and health support services (Adelman & Taylor, 1997,
2000). These barriers prevent youth from fulfilling their cognitive potential and,
researchers argue, frequently contribute to incorrect diagnoses of learning disabilities and
attention problems. This likely has a disproportionate impact on marginalized
communities.
Adelman and Taylor argue that any effective learning strategy must address
barriers to learning, including barriers due to the broader context of students’ lives
(Adelman & Taylor, 1997). Chronic and persistent barriers prevent sustained student
involvement, positive classroom behavior, and learning. When there are high proportions
of youth who are affected by these contextual barriers, a school- or district-wide approach
may be necessary. Unfortunately, student supports are marginalized in policy and
practice, and are organized and function in relative isolation, resulting in uncoordinated
interventions. Student support is often focused on narrow or discrete problems and
provides specialized services for individuals and small groups, rather than addressing the
comprehensive array of problems which affect learning. Schools may feature a long list
of interventions which are disconnected from each other, for example truancy programs,
physical health programs, free or reduced lunch programs, tutoring, and parent
engagement programs.
School policy has emphasized three overlapping approaches to providing support
to eliminate or overcome barriers. These include 1. ―Categorical‖ or auxiliary programs
such as family and youth resource centers, violence prevention programs, school-based
health centers, mental health screening and treatment, and similar types of programs; 2.
Efforts to link community resources to schools through school-community partnerships;
and, 3. Initiatives to build coordination and collaboration among government, service
6
agencies, schools, and communities in order to facilitated integrated comprehensive
service provision.
Figure 2. Uncoordinated School Supports
Adelman and Taylor call for system transformation in order to de-marginalize efforts to
address barriers by unifying fragmented efforts with a comprehensive approach. In effect,
this means that schools would move from having two primary components
(instruction/teaching and governance/administration) and an array of interventions, to
three primary components (instruction, governance, and student supports for learning).
They call for a comprehensive, multifaceted, and cohesive system of learning supports
which identifies and builds on existing supports. These supports, they argue, are essential
elements of student learning and are necessary for schools to serve their purpose. Some
states and school districts have attempted this comprehensive school transformation, with
mixed results. The earliest and most thoroughly implemented is probably the Hawaii
Comprehensive Student Support System, described later.
Figure 3. Comprehensive Student Support System
Supports for Positive Student Behavior
Student behavior is critical to student learning, and individuals’ behaviors can
have positive or negative effects on other students’ learning in the classroom, and schoolwide (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002). An area of programming,
practice, and research entitled Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) provides a nexus for
several thinkers and practitioners who aim to promote and support positive student
7
behavior (Safran & Oswald, 2003; Sugai & Horner, 2006). The Elementary and Middle
Schools Technical Assistance Center (EMTAC) has spent years focusing on ways to
promote positive student behavior
(http://www.emstac.org/registered/topics/posbehavior/index.htm). They have developed
ten principals for promoting positive behavior:
1. Emphasize academic achievement: Students who are struggling with academic
success are more likely to act out, whereas success in school reinforces positive
behavior.
2. Implement a system of school-wide, targeted-early, and targeted-intensive
interventions (see discussion later).
3. Clearly state behavioral expectations: Rules and expectations should be clearly
displayed and communicated to students and parents. These should focus on the
positive behavior expectations rather than inappropriate behaviors. Students and
families should receive regular feedback on positive and negative behaviors.
4. Provide consistent consequences: The same behavioral consequences should
apply to every student and be used by every staff member.
5. Utilize developmentally and culturally appropriate interventions: Behavioral
interventions should be appropriate for the age and development of the child and
culture of the student. Including a diverse group of teachers, staff, and parents in
reviewing behavior policies can help ensure this is upheld.
6. Make connections across individual, classroom, and school-wide behavioral
consequences: Students should be taught that their positive behaviors contribute
to themselves, their classrooms, and their entire school.
7. Listen to students: Students will be more committed to engaging in positive
behaviors if they participate in making the rules.
8. Provide staff training and professional development.
9. Reach out for family support: When families are involved in the school, students
are more likely to engage in positive behaviors.
10. Collect data to monitor intervention effectiveness and student outcomes:
Programs need to be monitored in order to gauge their effectiveness, student
changes in behavior, and academic outcomes; programs that show no progress
should be modified (Sugai & Horner, 2006).
Based on these principles, the EMTAC has identified or developed several
programs and strategies for improving positive student behavior. These include three tiers
of intensity: school-wide strategies and programs for all youth, targeted early
interventions, and targeted intensive interventions. School-wide strategies and programs
are important for establishing a school milieu that expects positive behavior, where
teachers, staff, students, and families agree on rules, expectations, and appropriate
consequences. Students can function at their best when the school environment is
predictable. In addition to universal program, there is also a place for targeted early
interventions. These include approaches such as anger management skills development
groups, providing teachers and parents with strategies to address the needs of acting-out
children, in-school suspension programs, and school-based mentoring. Targeted intensive
interventions serve the students with the highest needs and most extreme behavior
8
problems. These include alternative educational strategies and schools, comprehensive
school-based mental health services, and coordinated medical interventions. An
important element of all school programs to address behavior is ongoing evaluation of
outcomes as a means of informing the system about the effectiveness of its approach
(Sugai & Horner, 2006). A research review of several PBS programs, including all three
tiers of intensity, demonstrated that these programs consistently resulted in improved
behavior and decreased behavior problems (Safran & Oswald, 2003).
Overall, the programs and interventions described by EMTAC tend to be based in
an applied behavior analysis approach, and focused on programs using operant
conditioning to sculpt behavior (i.e. providing consistent rewards for positive behaviors
and consequences for negative behaviors). There is much less focus on providing family
support or addressing and removing barriers to learning.
Family Engagement and Involvement
Family engagement and involvement in education is a key factor in student
performance. Theories on family engagement argue that:
All families can be involved in their child’s education at home and in the school,
but some families face barriers or lack opportunities to participate. Schools can
work to reduce these barriers.
There are several types of involvement, and each is important. Different families
may be motivated to engage in different types of involvement. These include
communicating with the school, volunteering or attending school activities,
learning at home, decision-making at advisory levels, and collaborating with the
community.
There are several broad categories of parental perceptions and beliefs which
influence involvement, and when schools address these, involvement increases.
This is true for parents from all types of socioeconomic status. These include:
o Parental motivational beliefs
 Parental role construction—what parents feel their role is in their
child’s education
 Parental self-efficacy—how effective parents feel they can be in
their child’s education
o Parental perceptions of invitations to be involved
 General school invitations—newsletters, emails, and community
announcements
 Specific invitations from teachers/staff
 Specific invitations from students
o Parental perceptions of life context variables
 Skills and knowledge for involvement
 Time and energy for involvement
Family engagement, involvement, and participation is additionally enhanced by:
o Creating a shared vision of family engagement, with parents, teachers, and
school staff.
o Viewing family involvement as a core instructional strategy, as opposed to
an ―add on‖.
9
o Viewing family involvement as one element of broader school, family,
and community partnerships.
Parental Involvement in Schools and Complementary Learning: The Harvard Family
Research Project
The Harvard Family Research Project (http://www.hfrp.org) focuses on
improving academic success, especially for students with fewer childhood enrichment
opportunities. Complementary Learning is a theory-driven systematic approach to
integrate school and non-school supports (Harvard Family Research Project, 2008). Since
schools cannot meet students’ needs alone, the Complementary Learning approach aims
to integrate community resources, schools, and families from birth to young adulthood. It
encompasses a wide variety of learning systems which share in one thing: learning
supports are intentionally connected and coordinated, rather than disorganized and
fragmented. Similar to Adelman and Taylor, Complementary Learning emphasizes the
alignment of resources to reduce duplication of efforts and maximize efficiency. It also
emphasizes providing disadvantaged children with access to the same opportunities as
middle class children; establishing a comprehensive array services, focusing on seamless
transitions between grades and programs, and promoting success from birth through
adolescence. A Complementary Learning approach provides and coordinates
opportunities for family support, early childhood programs, out-of-school time activities,
health and social services, community-based institutions, and colleges and universities
(Bouffard, Brown Goss, & Weiss, 2008).
A necessary component of Complementary Learning is parental involvement in
learning, which necessitates school-parent communication and parental engagement. The
Harvard Family Research Project has one of the most comprehensive collections of
literature on the topic, and the project sends regular email updates about the progress of
efforts to improve educational performance. Through theory and research, they have
identified several promising practices school districts can employ to increase parental
engagement. These include:
Creating and articulating a shared vision of family engagement.
Purposeful connections to learning—family engagement is seen as a core
instructional strategy, as opposed to an ―add on‖.
Investments in high quality programming and staff—building an organizational,
rather than individual, approach to professional development.
Robust communication systems.
Evaluation for accountability and continuous learning.
Similar to Adelman and Taylor, the Harvard Family Research Project argues that the
most effective approaches to increasing family engagement include the integration of
family engagement approaches as a key component of the school, rather than an
additional program.
Typology of Parent Involvement
In contrast with the work described thus far, other researchers have focused more
concretely on the types of parental involvement that are possible, and they postulate six
non-exclusive types of involvement through which schools can connect with families and
the community to improve student outcomes (Epstein, 1997; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006;
10
Sheldon & Epstein, 2002). These include parenting, communicating, volunteering,
learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community.
Involvement through parenting means helping families to understand child and
adolescent development and establish home environments that support children
and students. The examples they provide include conducting workshops about
getting children to school, making home visits, and using contracts to commit
parents to getting child to school.
Involvement through communicating means designing and conducting effective
two-way communication about school programs and children’s progress.
Examples include conducting parent orientations to explain school expectations
and policies regarding attendance, sending home newsletters listing names of
children with excellent attendance, providing information on how to contact the
school, and providing access to children’s attendance information on the internet.
Involvement through volunteering means recruiting and organizing help and
support for school programs and student activities, and can even stretch to such
less-active ―volunteering‖ activities as inviting parents to attend award
ceremonies.
Involvement through learning at home means providing information and ideas to
families about ways to help students at home with homework and curricularrelated activities and decisions.
Involvement through decision-making means including parents in school
decisions, developing parent leaders, and featuring parent representation on
school committees and advisory boards.
Involvement through collaborating with the community means identifying and
integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen and support
schools, students, and their families. Examples include bringing in speakers to
talk about the importance of completing schools and connecting chronically
absent students with a community mentor.
More recent work by Epstein and colleagues has shifted the focus from ―parental
involvement‖ to ―school, family, and community partnerships,‖ which implies more
reciprocal support and shared responsibility for learning (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). This
shift fits better with the general trend towards viewing education as an element in all
parts of individuals’ lives rather than as an activity which is contained to the classroom.
Mechanisms for Increasing Parental Involvement
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s theory of parental involvement provides concrete
mechanisms and approaches for increasing parental involvement in the schools (HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997). Along with Adelman and Taylor and the Harvard
Family Research Project, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler also argue that parental
involvement in schools is an essential component of education. Considerable research
demonstrates that parental involvement is related to family factors such as socioeconomic
status; however, these studies are descriptive and do not explain the reasons why these
factors would be related.
11
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler proposed that invitations for parents to be involved
in schools will only meet success if schools also address certain parental barriers to
involvement. They propose three broad categories of parental perceptions and beliefs
which influence involvement: 1. Parental motivational beliefs, 2. Parental perceptions of
invitations from others, and 3. Parental perceptions of life context variables.
Parental motivational beliefs are captured primarily by issues related to parental
role construction, which are beliefs about what parents are supposed to do in their
children’s education and parental sense of self-efficacy for helping children
succeed in school, which is the belief that they can be effective in helping their
children.
Parental perceptions of invitations to involvement from others are influenced by
general school invitations such as school newsletters and group emails, specific
teacher invitations, and specific invitations from the student.
Parental perceptions of life context variables include skills and knowledge for
involvement, which are the parents’ perceptions of what involvement entails and
their beliefs about their ability to be involved, and time and energy for
involvement.
Importantly, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler propose that these mechanisms will
increase involvement regardless of parents’ socioeconomic status. Research has
generally supported the effectiveness of these theoretical mechanisms, as described in the
section on research that links actions to outcomes (pg. 14), and has found that using a
variety of approaches to reducing barriers to involvement is successful at increasing
involvement, regardless of parents’ SES.
Relevant Programs
There are many types of family support programs provided in schools, including
family resource centers, home visiting programs, and comprehensive family-based
preschool and Kindergarten programs (Head Start and similar programs). However, the
literature is relatively scarce on school programs that provide the broad range of
emotional, practical, and resource support to families as does the Seattle Public Schools
Family Support Program. We were only able to identify one program—360
Communities’ Partners for Success in Minnesota—which appears to deliver similar types
of services as the Seattle Public Schools Family Support Program. Other related
programs provided services and supports in very different ways. For instance, the
Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion program, a Head Start-type of intensive
preschool and Kindergarten, provides a diverse array of educational services, parent
involvement and outreach, health and nutrition, and transition supports. There are also
several statewide initiatives to provide comprehensive supports for student learning,
especially those modeled on Adelman and Taylor’s theory of Comprehensive Learning
Supports, though details on the programmatic aspects of these initiatives are hard to
locate. We describe those with some documentation below. Academic or scientific
articles, such as peer-reviewed journal articles or academic books and monographs, on
any specific programs are relatively rare. The most frequent academic documentation is
12
on several programs which are focused on increasing parent engagement and
involvement in the schools, and increasing school-parent communication. While these
provide limited or no ―family support,‖ they still may be helpful examples for the FSP.
We also provide information about a historical program – Project Follow-Through –
which existed from 1968 until 1995 and was the largest educational project of its kind.
Some schools involved in Project Follow-Through implemented comprehensive family
supports. Finally, we briefly describe the efforts of the United Kingdom to develop
Extended Schools, which build upon schools so they can become a hub of community
support, services, and resources. This review of programs is only a small selection of
what is available.
360 Communities’ Partners for Success
The 360 Communities Partners for Success program is the program most similar
to the FSP which we were able to locate. Their website is:
http://www.360communities.org/services/Partners_For_Success.aspx. This program is
based in Minnesota’s Dakota and Scott Counties’ Elementary and Secondary Schools. Its
goals are to help families address challenges to success in school, particularly through
creating a home environment that values and encourages learning and achievement.
Students are prepared for transition to post-secondary education and/or a career. Family
Support Workers interact directly with families, teachers, and school administration to
help families address their challenges.
Students are referred to the program mostly due to problems with academics,
attendance, behavior, homework completion, or family struggles with food, financial
difficulties, or family crises. The Family Support Workers collaborate with parents, the
student, and teachers to develop Family Learning Plans with concrete goals, strategies to
achieve those goals, and scheduled follow-ups with parents, teachers, and students to
evaluate whether the plan is being implemented by the family and school, and whether
progress towards goals is being made. If progress is not being made, then barriers to
progress are identified, and strategies in the learning plan are modified to address those
barriers.
In Elementary schools, the Family Support Workers: partner with school staff to
identify students who are struggling, especially with reading; develop plans to help
families implement home-based strategies; act as a communication liaison between
school and families about academic and social progress; assist families in acquiring basic
needs (defined as food, housing, safety, and community resources); and provide ongoing
support and sustained follow-up to ensure plans are implemented.
In Secondary Schools, the Family Support Workers: partner with the school to
identify students who are not progressing adequately; educate and inform families about
the value of academic success, graduation requirements, credit accumulation, options for
credit recovery, and the progress of their child; act as a communication liaison between
school and families; assist families with basic needs; and provide ongoing support and
sustained follow-up to ensure plans are implemented.
Partners for Success emphasizes reading proficiency as a critical marker of a
child’s educational development, hence students are selected to participate based on
difficulty with reading proficiency, and programs focus on developing reading skills. An
evaluation of the program is being conducted by Delia Kundin at the University of
13
Minnesota Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. This evaluation is
conducting interviews with program staff, teachers, and families, observing and
collecting satisfaction data at in-service trainings, and analyzing Family Learning Plans
and student data. At this point, the evaluation has made available some descriptive
information about the numbers of Family Learning Plans, the types of issues addressed
by the plans, and other descriptive information, but no reports are yet available on the
impact of the program.
Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program (Chicago Longitudinal Study)
The Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program is a center-based,
early-intervention, comprehensive program designed to facilitate transition into preschool
and kindergarten for high-risk youth, with a simultaneous focus on educational support
and family/student resource support (Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga, & White, 2011). It
is a well-known program which has received considerable scientific study, known as the
Chicago Longitudinal Study. It begun in 1967 and currently operates in 25 centers
throughout Chicago. The website for the programs and the study is found at
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/cls/. The program is designed to help facilitate a stable and
enriched learning environment during the early years of a child’s life and to encourage
parental participation in education. Similar to the Partners for Success program described
above, an emphasis is placed on language-based instructional activities as the program
theory feels these are most connected to academic and social success. The program aims
for low child-to-teacher ratios in preschool (17 to 2) and kindergarten (25 to 2) for more
individualized learning. Parent involvement and parent education is encouraged through
activities in the Parent Room (which is adjacent to the classroom), volunteering in the
classroom, attending school events, and educational courses, under the supervision of the
Parent-Resource Teacher. Parents can attend GED classes and take classes on consumer
education, nutrition, personal development, health and safety, and homemaking arts. The
Parent Program requires at least one half-day per week of parental involvement. A
School-Community Representative coordinates outreach activities through home visits
and resource mobilization. The program provides nutrition and health services through
screenings, nursing services, free breakfasts and lunches, and speech therapy. Reduced
class sizes, the presence of teacher aids, and coordination of teacher activities with
parent-program activities facilitate transition to elementary school. Several large
longitudinal research studies have been conducted on this program, and these are
described in the section on research that links actions to outcomes (pg. 17).
Parent Information and Resource Centers
Parent Information and Resource Centers (PIRCs) or Family Resource Centers
(FRCs) are also similar to the FSP in terms of philosophy and activities. They are fairly
common, frequently being funded by the U.S. Department of Education to implement
parental involvement policies and programs. In Hawaii, for instance, there are seven sites
across the state, where PIRCs work to provide information, support, and referral; to offer
parenting classes and support groups; to provide joint trainings and activities for parents,
school staff, and the community; and to provide training and technical assistance to the
Hawaii Department of Education. In Nebraska, the Parental Information and Resource
Center connects family engagement efforts with after school programs, Title I schools,
14
and early childhood programs. It consists of councils which are made up of principals,
parent representatives, teachers, and afterschool program staff, who regularly meet to
discuss strategies to increase parent engagement in schools.
The Kentucky Family Resource Center is probably the best-researched FRC (with
outcomes described in more detail in sections below). This program is the result of a
statewide initiative, and consists of school-based resource centers to provide family
support, with the mission of ensuring that children are prepared to learn, healthy, and safe
(Kalafat, 2004; Kalafat, Illback, & Sanders, 2007). They provide comprehensive services
to address student and family needs on multiple levels, empower families to participate in
education, and build connections with community resources. They also appear to have
been challenged by some of the same issues which face many multicomponent support
programs. These include maintaining fidelity to the core program goals (i.e. avoiding
―mission drift‖), a tension between empowering and enabling families, program visibility
in the school and community, principal support, and teacher involvement in the program.
Statewide initiatives to provide a Comprehensive System of Learning Supports
Several states and regions have adopted, or attempted to adopt, a Comprehensive
System of Learning Supports as described earlier by Adelman and Taylor. Readily
available information on these programs is scarce; most reports describe an initial process
for developing the system (i.e. stakeholder meetings, the goals of the system redesign,
etc.) but there is little to no information about the system outcomes, if and how outcomes
are being measured, and whether goals are being met. Due to this lack of information, it
is difficult to provide an evaluative context for this overall approach.
Hawaii. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/wheresithappening/hawaii.pdf. Based
on our review of available reports, Hawaii is probably the most complete and earliest
adopter of the Comprehensive System of Learning Supports. The state began work in
1996 and implemented a student support branch in the State education offices. Every
school is considered to have a Comprehensive Student Support System (CSSS),
providing access to mentors, links to external resources, personalized classroom climate,
prevention and early intervention, supports for transition, community outreach and
support, family involvement and participation, specialized assistance and crisis and
emergency support. Hawaii focuses on building a system that meets the priority areas
described by Adelman and Taylor: personalized classroom climate, prevention and early
intervention, supports for transition, community outreach and support, family
involvement and participation, specialized assistance and crisis and emergency support.
However, data on outcomes is not readily available. During personal communication with
the evaluator, we found out that the data quality and breadth has not been great enough to
actually evaluate the success of the program. Hence, while Hawaii appears to be the most
complete adopter of the Adelman and Taylor approach, we cannot derive any conclusions
about the effectiveness of the approach.
Louisiana. http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/15044.pdf. Louisiana has
used the Learning Support System as a process for schools, families, and communities to
work together to facilitate learning by alleviating internal and external barriers to learning
(Lousiana Department of Education, 2009). Proponents emphasize that the Learning
15
Support System is not a case-oriented approach focused on individual students, rather it is
a system-level approach for collaboration. Details available on the current progress
indicates that one district has restructured its office to include a Learning Support
division, and positions for Regional Learning Supports Facilitators have been developed.
Project reports conclude that success is dependent on clear leadership and shared vision.
Successful teams communicated frequently and met often to discuss progress. Training
should focus on tools, materials, and teamwork time that are immediately applicable, and
information sharing among team peers is essential.
Iowa. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/wheresithappening/AIRFinalreportIowaDataGrant.pdf. Iowa states that it has made great progress towards implementing a
Comprehensive System of Learning Supports (Shaewitz, Kendziora, & Osher, 2007).
Schools have implemented a wide variety of activities tailored to the needs or wants of
each individual school. These included family fun nights, parent communication,
freshman transition supports, and reward systems. However, none of these activities
appears to be focused on family support. In fact, one of the concerns noted by the school
teams was that the project has helped them identify child needs, but did not provide the
resources to address those needs.
Project Follow-Through
The Project Follow-Through Program was funded 1968-1995 and at the time was
the largest, longest running, and most expensive education project funded by the US
government. The project was originally intended to complement Head Start and help
families transition from Head Start to elementary school, but quickly expanded to other
purposes. It was developed during a time when large-scale government-funded social
research programs were highly utilized. Hence, as part of the social research agenda, this
program featured ―planned variation,‖ or widely varying models from community to
community, with the intent of studying the impact of these varying models. Models were
focused on different modes of instruction and education for youth. Some models featured
a ―comprehensive services‖ element, which involved assisting families’ links to services,
and is the salient feature in regards to the SPS FSP. Programs with the comprehensive
services element resulted in several positive findings for parents. Parents in the program
developed advocacy skills, acted as decision makers in a Policy Advisory Committee,
developed greater awareness of themselves as teachers, increased involvement as
volunteers in classrooms, and participated in home visits (Olmsted, 1991). As a result of
this work, research-based suggestions for programs include: discuss attitudes about
parent involvement with school personnel; establish program goals that meet the needs of
the school and families; include parents and school personnel in governing the program;
include several types of parent involvement activities; utilize home visits to involve
parents who do not respond; and implement a parent-as-teacher component.
Extended Schools in the United Kingdom
A final interesting example of school-based family support provision is legislation
in the United Kingdom which required that by 2010, all schools were expected to become
community hubs for a range of health, education, employment and leisure services aimed
at children, families and communities. Extended schools need to provide a variety of
16
services: wraparound childcare from 8am to 6pm, access, or 'fast track' referral pathways
to specialized health and social services, after-school clubs and study support, adult
education and family learning sessions, parenting programs and other family support, and
access for the community to information and communication technology (ICT), sports
and art facilities. In this model, the school moves far beyond education for youth, and
acts as a centralized resource hub for enriching and connecting the community.
Supports for Positive Student Behavior
As described earlier, EMTAC works to encourage and enhance supports for
positive student behaviors. Their website
(http://www.emstac.org/registered/topics/posbehavior/index.htm) provides information
and links to many programs which operate within their principles for support. Though
one of their principles encourages family involvement in schools (because family
involvement is related to decreased behavior problems and improved positive behaviors),
our review of these programs found only a few which explicitly emphasize family
support and family involvement. As mentioned earlier, the programs and interventions
described by EMTAC tend to be more focused on programs which reward positive
behaviors and administer consequences for negative behaviors, and they are less focused
on providing family support or removing barriers to learning. Two programs which have
a family component are described below.
Project PATHE. Project PATHE is a comprehensive, school-wide program in
Middle and High Schools intended to improve students’ attitudes towards school. It
focuses on staff, student, family, and community participation in examining and revising
school policies and other school changes. Rather than being a defined program, it is more
of an approach to community involvement in determining school needs and developing
school programs, with particular emphasis on programs for academic improvement and
improvements in school climate.
First Steps to Success. First Steps to Success is a Kindergarten early intervention
program, targeted to children who are identified as displaying aggressive behaviors.
Consultants or school-based mental health staff work to teach teachers and parents
strategies for working with these students, focusing on developing positive social skills
and alternatives to aggression. Teachers and parents are taught how to use positive
reinforcement to encourage prosocial behaviors. There is a classroom element and a
home element. Teachers provide parents with daily update about students’ behaviors, and
parents are encouraged to reward prosocial behaviors by spending extra time with them
on fun activities.
Relevant Evidence linking Actions to Outcomes
Summary of Research Findings
Research on predictors of academic success, as salient to the SPS FSP, have
demonstrated some consistent findings which are summarized below. Some of the more
interesting and important studies are described in further detail below this list.
Research on multifaceted, full-service school-based support programs is limited and
needs more work. There are inherent challenges to conducting rigorous research on
17
effectiveness and causal mechanisms within any complex program or intervention.
The unique elements that comprise individual public schools (i.e. widely varying
individual, family, neighborhood, and community contexts), combined with the
challenges of measuring implementation breadth and depth in school-wide programs,
make conducting research on multicomponent school-based support programs very
difficult (Kalafat, 2004; Kalafat, et al., 2007). Due to the individualized nature of
these programs, treatment is not standardized and program parameters are very
difficult to define. Identifying an appropriate comparison group is very difficult
because program effects are likely not isolated to the students and families who are
directly served, and the reasons for participation may be difficult to identify. These
factors likely contribute to the relative lack of available research in this area.
A large study of twenty Kentucky Family Resource Centers found that higher and
better program implementation was positively related to student performance on
proficiency exams and teacher ratings of social and academic functioning. This study
indicated that there were several factors which influenced the success of Family
Resource Centers in improving student outcomes (Kalafat, 2004; Kalafat, et al.,
2007). These included: 1. The degree of focus on the mission of improving
educational readiness; 2. The degree of teacher and principal knowledge of and
familiarity with the center; 3. The degree of teacher active involvement with the
center; 4. The degree of center involvement with families and the community; and 5.
The degree of teacher awareness of the mission of the center.
Longitudinal studies of multicomponent education programs which featured family
involvement and support as one component have demonstrated long-term impacts of
early intervention. Even at the age of 28, people served in an intensive family-based
kindergarten intervention had better outcomes than a control group, including higher
educational attainment, higher socioeconomic status, higher rates of health insurance
coverage, lower rates of justice system involvement, and lower rates of substance
abuse (Reynolds, 1995; Reynolds, et al., 2011; Reynolds, Temple, & Suh-Ruu, 2003).
There is little evidence that states or localities have been able to successfully and
fully implement a Comprehensive System of Learning Supports as advocated by
Adelman and Taylor. The reports from states which exist describe some progress
towards establishing centralized, coordinated offices of school support, but there is
very little evidence on the degree of implementation, the acceptance of the program,
or the outcomes for students, families, and schools.
Studies have found a variety of non-academic family and student support approaches
to be associated with academic success. Several studies have found multiple
connections between non-academic support and student success. A research review of
several programs found that income, economic support, and wage supports for
parents was consistently related to academic improvements (Greene & Anyon, 2010).
Our work, conducted in collaboration with Seattle Public Schools, indicated that
School Based Health Centers, which provide students with physical and mental health
supports not directly connected to academic success, were associated with improved
18
grades, improved attendance, and increased graduation (Kerns, et al., in press;
Walker, Kerns, Lyon, Bruns, & Cosgrove, 2010).
Employing a wide array of targeted approaches to involving families in education
can work to increase family involvement, even for “hard to reach” and
disadvantaged families. Research consistently disproves the outdated and narrow
notion that certain types of parents—parents in poverty, parents without a high school
diploma, immigrants, and others—cannot be engaged in their child’s education
(Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Van Voorhis, 2001). Certain
parents and families may have barriers to participation, but working to reduce these
barriers is connected to successful engagement (Greene & Anyon, 2010; Kratochwill,
McDonald, Levin, Scalia, & Coover, 2009).
Parent involvement in education is consistently related to improved academic
outcomes and behavior. A plethora of studies has established a connection between
parent involvement in education (in both school and at home) and academic success,
positive behaviors, and improved attendance (Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992;
Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers, 1987; Institute of Education Sciences, 2007;
Kratochwill, et al., 2009; Sheldon, 2003; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002, 2004; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbush, & Darling, 1992; Stevenson & Baker, 1987).
The National Network of Partnership Schools
The National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins’
University studies parent involvement, parent engagement, and community partnerships
(Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Sheldon, 2003; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002, 2004). Their
research has linked eight ―essential elements‖ to higher-quality programs, greater
outreach to parents, and more parents involved from one year to the next
(http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/pdf/Research%20Summary.pdf). These elements include
leadership, teamwork, action plans, implementation of plans, funding, collegial support,
evaluation, and networking. Their research combined school data across 37 elementary
and 10 secondary NNPS schools that had implemented a variety of approaches to
improving parent involvement and engagement. By combining this data, they were able
to identify which approaches school-family communication and parent involvement were
correlated with improved student grades, attendance, and disciplinary actions, after
statistically controlling for school characteristics. However, because program approaches
and school characteristics were not experimentally manipulated, these results are
considered exploratory and tentative.
At the school level, their research has found that ongoing technical assistance on
partnerships helps schools improve the number and quality of actions taken to organize
programs of family and community involvement. This was especially related to
addressing the challenges related to reaching ―hard to reach‖ families, which is one of the
major barriers described by school staff. Parental involvement in schools and students’
education was related to higher achievement, better attendance, more course credits
earned, more responsible preparation for class, and other indicators of success. Schools
with programs focused on family involvement in reading, math, behavior, and homework
completion have found improvements in each (respectively). Parental involvement in
19
high school ameliorated the effect of neighborhood poverty on math test scores. Schools
that communicated clearly with families about attendance policies saw youth attendance
improve.
Schools with increased approaches to overcome barriers to parental involvement
had higher percentages of students scoring above satisfactory on state achievement tests
(Sheldon, 2003). The approaches included the following: getting information to families
who couldn’t come to meetings; communicating with all families (writing with clarity,
providing translations, using large print); establishing mechanisms for two-way
communication; providing opportunities for volunteers at home and in schools; helping
teachers develop homework for students to share their learning with their family;
ensuring that diverse groups of families are represented in school leadership; using
community resources; and developing ways for the school, families, and students to
contribute to the community.
Several specific approaches to school-family communication were related to
improved attendance (Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). Decreases in chronic absenteeism were
related to schools that communicated with families about attendance by 1. Orienting
parents about school expectations and policies, 2. Including a list of students with
excellent attendance in school newsletters that were sent home, and 3. Connecting
chronically absent students with community mentors.
Several specific approaches to involve parents were related to decreases in
disciplinary actions (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002). Schools with more activities to help
families understand school expectations for student behavior, more activities focused on
developing parenting skills, and more activities on helping parents understand how the
home environment may affect student behavior reported fewer principal office visits and
less detention. Schools that provided more opportunities for family and community
volunteers had fewer principal office visits and less detention.
At the district level, data revealed that three factors affected district leadership
and district leaders’ impact on school programs: 1) years of experience and time on
partnerships; 2) use of NNPS planning and evaluation tools and technical assistance; and
3) the district leaders’ direct assistance to schools.
Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program
As described in the section on relevant programs, the Chicago Child-Parent
Center and Expansion Program is the longest ongoing study of its kind, and outcomes of
children involved in the project during preschool and Kindergarten have been studied up
to age 28 (Reynolds, 1995; Reynolds, et al., 2011; Reynolds, et al., 2003).
This research confirmed that children who were served in the program had better
outcomes than students in a control group; they had higher reading and math scores,
higher teacher ratings of school adjustment, and lower cumulative rates of grade retention
(Reynolds, 1995; Reynolds, et al., 2003). Every dollar invested in the center was
estimated to have saved $7.14 to society (Reynolds, et al., 2003). The most recent study
conducted (Reynolds, et al., 2011), which followed 1,386 people up to age 28, found that
program participation was linked to higher educational attainment, higher socioeconomic
status, higher rates of health insurance coverage, lower rates of justice-system
involvement and lower rates of substance abuse. The strongest evidence of long-term
effects was found for those who attended the program beginning in preschool, males, and
20
children of high school dropouts. Males and children of dropouts are generally very highrisk categories, so this evidence demonstrates that the program helped to ameliorate the
negative impact of these factors.
Conclusion
The array of literature on the theory, programs, and research on family support,
family engagement, and community collaboration in schools that was presented here
provides a compelling argument for the utility of family support to positively impact
academic outcomes. While many students face significant barriers and challenges to
learning, a coordinated, comprehensive, school-based approach may help to remove those
barriers. Community collaboration on planning these approaches can facilitate the
development of programs that are culturally-competent and responsive to the unique
needs of the context for each individual school and the communities it serves. While
research on programs similar to the Seattle Public Schools’ Family Support Program is
limited, the research which is available suggests that multicomponent interventions and
support can be both beneficial and cost-effective.
There is, however, a great deal of research establishing a connection between
family engagement in education and academic success. This report details several ways
parents can be involved in their child’s education and the parental perceptions which lead
to increased involvement. Schools that actively work to influence those perceptions are
more successful in engaging parents, even parents typically considered hard-to-reach.
The research that has been done on multicomponent interventions to support
families in school indicates that this work requires ongoing evaluation of outcomes,
fidelity to the ultimate mission of the program, providing empowering (rather than
enabling) types of support, increasing program visibility in the school, involving teachers
in the program, and securing principal support of the program.
Overall, this report provides an outline for some theory- and research-based
practices and approaches to supporting families in order to improve academic success.
However, this nascent field of research is relatively limited. More work in this area,
particularly work within a longstanding support program such as the Seattle Public
Schools’ Family Support Program, will help to delineate the core elements of family
support. Cross-referencing this program with the existing research will also result in
actionable steps that the FSP can apply to maximize their effectiveness.
21
References
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning: Beyond schoollinked services and full-service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
67(3), 408-421.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Looking at school health and school reform policy
through the lens of addressing barriers to learning. Children's services: Social
policy, research, and practice, 3(2), 117-132.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2010). Creating successful school systems requires
addressing barriers to learning and teaching. The F. M. Duffy Reports, 15(3), 1-11.
Bouffard, S., Brown Goss, C., & Weiss, H. (2008). Complementary learning: Emerging
strategies, evolving ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project,
Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D.
(2002). Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on
Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs. [Article]. Prevention &
Treatment June, 24, 5.
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student
achievement: An avenue to increase students' success. School Psychology
Quarterly, 7, 178-206.
Epstein, J. L. (Ed.). (1997). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your
Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school,
family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE
handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fehrman, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school
learning: Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school
grades. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330-337.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007).
Parents' motivations for involvement in children's education: An empirical test of
a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(3), 532-544.
Greene, K., & Anyon, J. (2010). Urban School Reform, Family Support, and Student
Achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(3), 223-236.
Harvard Family Research Project. (2008). Complementary Learning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's
education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 311331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why Do Parents Become Involved in
Their Children's Education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.
Institute of Education Sciences, W. D. C. (2007). Success for All. What Works
Clearinghouse Intervention Report: What Works Clearinghouse.
Kalafat, J. (2004). Enabling and empowering practices of Kentucky's school-based family
resource centers: a multiple case study. [doi:
22
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2003.05.001]. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27(1),
65-78.
Kalafat, J., Illback, R. J., & Sanders, D., Jr. (2007). The Relationship between
Implementation Fidelity and Educational Outcomes in a School-Based Family
Support Program: Development of a Model for Evaluating Multidimensional FullService Programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(2), 136-148.
Kerns, S. E. U., Pullmann, M. D., Walker, S. C., Lyon, A. R., Cosgrove, T. J., & Bruns,
E. J. (in press). Adolescent use of school-based health centers and high school
dropout. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Scalia, P. A., & Coover, G. (2009).
Families and Schools Together: An Experimental Study of Multi-Family Support
Groups for Children At Risk. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), 245-265.
Lousiana Department of Education. (2009). Addressing the internal and external barriers
to learning and teaching. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Education.
Olmsted, P. P. (1991). Parent Involvement in Elementary Education: Findings and
Suggestions from the Follow Through Program. The Elementary School Journal,
91(3), 221-231.
Reynolds, A. J. (1995). One year of preschool intervention or two: Does it matter? [doi:
10.1016/0885-2006(95)90024-1]. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 131.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S.-R., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011).
School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing,
dosage, and subgroups. Science, 9.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Suh-Ruu, O. (2003). School-Based Early Intervention
and Child Well-Being in the Chicago Longitudinal study. [Article]. Child
Welfare, 82(5), 633.
Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive Behavior Supports: Can Schools Reshape
Disciplinary Practices? [Feature ABI: Y FTI: Y; P]. Exceptional Children, 69(3),
361-373.
Shaewitz, D., Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2007). Learning supports implementation in
Iowa: Year 2 evaluation and final report. Washington DC: American Institutes
for Research.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking School-Family-Community Partnerships in Urban
Elementary Schools to Student Achievement on State Tests. [Feature ABI: Y FTI:
Y; P]. The Urban Review, 35(2), 149-165.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving Student Behavior and School
Discipline with Family and Community Involvement. Education and Urban
Society, 35(1), 4-26.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and
community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. The School Community
Journal(Fall/Winter), 39-56.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbush, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
Parenting Practices on Adolescent Achievement: Authoritative Parenting, School
Involvement, and Encouragement to Succeed. [Article]. Child Development,
63(5), 1266-1281.
23
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The Family-School Relation and the Child's
School Performance. [Article]. Child Development, 58(5), 1348.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining
school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245259.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and
school connections. NASSP Bulletin, 85(85), 20-32.
Walker, S. C., Kerns, S. E. U., Lyon, A. R., Bruns, E. J., & Cosgrove, T. J. (2010).
Impact of School-Based Health Center Use on Academic Outcomes. [doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.07.002]. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3), 251-257.
24