![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Historically, it has been evident that local, state, and federal policies have either facilitated or inhibited the development and implementation of parent and community involvement programs. Four levels of policy are important to this discussion:
A number of other trends and factors have been identified as either positively or negatively influencing parent and community involvement efforts, regardless of the organizational structure of the school:
The literature reveals at least three factors directly affecting middle grade parent and community involvement:
Exploration of four contemporary policy levels (school, district, state and federal) may facilitate and/or inhibit the involvement of parents and communities in educational processes, programs, and practices (Strong Families, Strong Schools, l994). Generally, policies are not written explicitly for middle grades, but it is noted where they exist.
School Policies. Current school level policies and expectations tend to center on what parents can provide for teachers and schools rather than what teachers and schools can provide for parents and there is evidence that policies and resource constraints in the schools themselves may inhibit parent involvement. There are few programs to assist parents in attaining skills to work with their children (Dauber and Epstein, l99l).
Conflicting expectations for the student may surface between parents and teachers. A similar problem occurs if there is a lack of materials or other resources for teachers to use to design or implement the home learning activities (Chrispeels, 1991b). Schools need to implement home learning policies that provide sufficient resources - funds, time, staff, and training - to enable teachers to be more effective in this area (Zeldin, 1989; Chrispeels, 1991a; Dauber and Epstein, 1991; McLaughlin and Shields, 1987).
District Policies. District level policy initiatives mirror federal and state initiatives. Chavkin and Williams (1987) surveyed educators, school board members, and parents in five southwestern states and found that parent involvement policies at the district level were virtually non-existent as of 1983 although educators and parents desired more school policies about parent involvement.
In 1988 San Diego City Schools adopted a district parent involvement policy that closely paralleled the state policy. The policy addresses structures for effective parent involvement, supports for teachers and parents, and the use of community resources (Chrispeels, 1991b). Indianapolis Public Schools view parent involvement as "an important component of the district's school improvement plan" (Warner, 1991:373).
State Policies. The development of policy by state education agencies " stems from the acknowledgement that schools alone cannot ensure that all students are successful and the additional resources of home and the community must also be brought to bear on the task at hand" (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1991). Additionally, parent and community involvement policy may serve to provide state education administrators with information on educational practices (Nardine, Chapman, and Moles, 1989). Nardine and Morris (l99l) surveyed state legislation and found that 20 states had enacted parent involvement legislation, six states had written guidelines, and 21 states had neither legislation nor written guidelines governing parent involvement. The authors reported that legislation on parent involvement was not a high priority and that a wide diversity exists from state to state in the decisions about policies and guidelines.
Federal Policies. The first active intervention in parent involvement by the federal government came with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. Title I of the ESEA was created as much to empower poor communities to solve their own problems as to provide funding for the education of disadvantaged children (Snider, 1990b). Legislative requirements for the establishment of parent advisory councils at the district and school levels were enacted by 1978. With changes in l98l, parents and community members were given minimal responsibility as "advisors" . Without federal requirements of parent involvement, most state and local education agencies chose to give little more than lip service to parent involvement (Nardine and Morris, l99l).
The 1988 reauthorization of Chapter 1 included the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments to the ESEA. Federal requirements concerning parent involvement were reinstated in the development of parent involvement policies. With the enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Title I (formerly Chapter 1) focuses attention on the involvement of families through Parent Compacts.
Henderson and Marburger (1990) describe six federal educational programs, in addition to Chapter 1 legislation, that include policies pertaining to parent involvement as a necessary component of success: the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended); the Education of the Handicapped Act, P.L. 94-142 (1974); the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974); Even Start (Part B of the Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988); Head Start (1965); and FIRST (Fund for the Improvement and Reform of Schools and Teaching, authorized in the Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988).
Researchers argue that policy plays a critical role in parent involvement and should be a priority for policymakers (Davies, 1987; and McLaughlin and Shields, 1986, 1987; Oakes and Lipton, l990). Heath and McLaughlin (1987) call for the development of a national child resource policy.
The next section looks at trends and factors which influence, both positively and negatively, parent and community involvement in schooling and can have a powerful effect on policies.
Families. In a seminal article on family diversity and school policy, Lindner (1987) analyzes three myths about families: the myth of the monolithic family form, the myth of the independent family, and the myth of parental determinism.
The monolithic family has been replaced by other family forms such a single parents, blended families, dual career families, extended families, and so on. In fact, a diversity of family forms has existed throughout American history. Families are now expected to meet challenges that lead to a dependence on experts outside the home ( Kenniston in Lindner, 1987:9). How much of a child's life experiences are determined by parents and how much by others is vague. However, changes within social and economic systems have a great impact on families: an impact which may be difficult to overcome.
Communities. Contemporary communities are difficult to characterize because of their diversity: there are large communities and small communities; there are communities that are culturally diverse and there are communities that are populated by persons of one culture; there are urban, suburban, and rural communities. Examples of population demographics illustrating the diversity in communities abound. Bliss (l986) suggests several ways schools can enhance parent involvement in these diverse communities: l) have more realistic expectations of parent capabilities; 2) recognize that children adapt faster to language and cultural diversity than do parents; 3) focus on programs for middle schools and junior high; and 4) understand that children with greatest needs often do not have a parent available to become involved.
Cultural heritage, another important component of a diverse community, is often overlooked in education. American Indians, for example, see a need for education reforms to better meet their needs (American Indian Science and Engineering Society, l989).
Economies. The economic system may have the greatest interactive effect on other systems. A strong economic system impacts families and communities in positive ways. Poverty, once thought to be the exclusive domain of urban centers with high concentrations of low socioeconomic populations, is now affecting urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. The perceptions of parents from low socioeconomic conditions can provide valuable lessons as educators seek to involve these parents.
Brantlinger (1985b) interviewed low-income parents and found that the majority of those parents felt that schools favor students from higher income families and they generally felt powerless to change these perceived inequities (Lyons, Robbins and Smith, l993). The perceptions of parents from low socioeconomic conditions can provide valuable lessons as educators seek to involve those parents. In restructuring parent involvement programs family, community and economic systems must be taken into account.
The reputed disinterest of low income and less educated families has been refuted by many researchers who have found that, in general, these parents do wish to become involved, but often lack the information needed to do so (Epstein and Becker, l982; Clark, l983; McLaughlin and Shields, l987; Davies, l988, Dauber and Epstein, l99l; Epstein, l984a; l986b; l99la; Epstein and Salinas, l993). In fact, Lightfoot (l975) found that not only do low income parents value education, but they view schooling as an avenue for economic and social success. Single parent and dual career families also want to get involved (Metropolitan Life Survey, l987; Epstein, l984a).
The Parent Involvement Education Project (Williams, 1984) surveyed parents, teachers, principals, and other school professionals on five aspects of parent involvement: 1) attitudes; 2) decisions; 3) roles; 4) activities; and 5) teacher training. The study showed a high interest in home-school partnerships by parents (Moles, l987; Williams, l984; Herman and Yeh, l983) but with a more expanded role for the parents such as participation in advisory and governance activities (Williams and Stallworth, l983; Ahlenius, l983). Chavkin and Williams (l987) conducted a survey that corroborates this interest by the parents. The authors suggested that administrators envision a broader role for parents and use them as educational resources.
The next section of this review explores factors that influence the development of programs specifically at the middle grades.
Recognizing that such barriers exist, the Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy (1987) strongly states, "We urge that these (junior high and middle) schools become the subject of new and comprehensive research and scrutiny. If not, it is doubtful that successful reform can be implemented" (p. 57).
Middle and junior high schools in particular present difficult challenges to involving parents in learning activities because they typically are large and impersonal with each student having many teachers.
Epstein and Dauber (1989b), for example, found that teachers in self-contained classrooms are more likely to involve parents than teachers in teamed or departmentalized programs. Teachers of reading or English are also more likely to engage parents in home learning activities. Further, Dauber and Epstein (1991) reported that parents of sixth and seventh grade students are more likely to be involved with their children's education at home whereas parents of eighth grade students are more involved at the school building level.
The relationship between parents and their children also changes as the children mature, as does parents' confidence in their own skills and knowledge (Maccoby, 1984; Sigel, et al., 1984). While parents generally gain confidence in their abilities to guide and interact with their children, they lose confidence in their ability to help their children with their school work (Epstein, 1986a).
All of this is complicated by the fact that as students enter middle school or junior high school, report card grades tend to decline even as overall competence increases (Peterson, 1986). This occurs because middle school students are being compared with a new, larger group of students who also did well in elementary school and because the students are presented with more demanding tasks and more competition for grades (Epstein, 1987b).
Differences in academic expectations and classroom organization between the middle grades and the elementary grades caused some students and their families to misperceive their relationship when it came to schooling (Epstein, et al., 1990). Many felt that all homework was designed to be done alone. Some parents may think that they should not try to help their children if they are not "experts" at the particular academic subject matter.
A study of inner city elementary and middle schools by Dauber and Epstein (1991) showed that the parent involvement programs in elementary schools are stronger, more positive, and more comprehensive than those for children in the middle grades. Useem (1990) found a similar pattern: parents of children in the middle grades received less information and guidance precisely at a time when they needed more in order to understand the larger and more complex schools, subjects, and schedules.
Low-income Black parents from two junior high schools in Washington, D.C. identified economic and educational differences between themselves and their children's teachers as barriers to home-school collaboration (Leitch and Tangri, 1988). While low socioeconomic status Black families often lack both human and material resources, their participation in their children's education enhances educational achievement (Slaughter and Epps, 1987).
The diversity within families, communities, cultures, and economies, however, make uniform conceptualization of a school/parent/community partnership difficult. Given the inherent interdependence of such systems, however, the partners must find a way to accommodate both universal and local concerns. Added to this challenge are the differing perceptions on the part of each group regarding the definition of appropriate roles and relationships. In some cases, these disparate views are compounded by the differences in socioeconomic characteristics of school staff and families.
Factors within the school setting itself may also serve to inhibit involvement and skew perceptions. Schools that are departmentalized or are very large, that are located in areas that are not easily accessible or are perceived to be unsafe, or that are confusing in their physical layout may, by their nature, discourage parents from coming onsite. Curriculum that surpasses the skills that parents have also discourages involvement.
Finally, the students themselves influence the nature and scope of the family/school partnership. During the middle grade years, the children change physically, mentally, and socially. They tend to seek more independence from their families while at the same time needing more support as they face greater academic challenges. Student and teacher expectations for themselves and each other may also shift during this time.
-###-
[Summary Review of the Literature - Chapter 3]