Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-Of-School Time [1 ed.] 9781617354496, 9781617354472

Citation preview

Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time

A volume in Family-School-Community Partnerships Series Editor: Diana B. Hiatt-Michael Pepperdine University

Family-School-Community Partnership Diana B. Hiatt-Michael, Editor Promising Practices for Family Involvement in Schools (2001) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices to Connect Schools with the Community (2003) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices Connecting Schools to Families of Children with Special Needs (2004) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices for Family Involvement in Schooling Across the Continents (2005) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices for Teachers to Engage with Families of English Language Learners (2007) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices for Partnering with Families in the Early Years (2008) edited by Mary M. Cornish Promising Practices for Family and Community Involvement during High School (2009) edited by Lee Shumow Promising Practices to Support Family Involvement in Schools (2010) edited by Diana Hiatt-Michael Promising Practices for Family Engagements in Out-of-School Time (2011) edited by Holly Kreider and Helen Westmoreland

Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time edited by

Holly Kreider Raising A Reader National Office and

Helen Westmoreland Flamboyan Foundation

Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Promising practices for family engagement in out-of-school time / edited by edited byHolly Kreider and Helen Westmoreland p. cm. -- (Family-school-community partnerships) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61735-447-2 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-448-9 (hardcover) -ISBN 978-1-61735-449-6 (e-book) 1. Home and school--United States. 2. School children--Family relationships--United States. 3. Education--Parent participation--United States. I. Hiatt-Michael, Diana B. LC225.3.P786 2011 371.19'2--dc22 2011012499

Copyright © 2011 IAP–Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, or by photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS Foreward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi SECTION I:

CONCEPTUALIZING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME (OST)

1. Engaging Families in Out-of-School-Time Programs Suzanne M. Bouffard, Kelly L. O’Carroll, Helen Westmoreland, and Priscilla M. Little. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. A Typology of Family Engagement in Youth Development Settings Holly Kreider and Shayna Cunningham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3. Developmental Assets as a Framework for Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Andrew J. Schneider-Muñoz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 SECTION II: FAMILIES’ SELECTION OF AND ADVOCACY THROUGH OST PROGRAMS 4. The Role of Parents in Students’ Structured and Unstructured Out-of-School-Time Activitiy Participation Amanda Sommerfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5. Faith-Based Out-of-School-Time Opportunities: Impacts of Faith-Based Initiatives on Children and Families S. Russell Vaden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6. Empowering Families to Guide and Advocate for Their Children’s Education: Lessons From the Higher Achievement Program Richard A. Tagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

v

vi

CONTENTS

SECTION III: USING OST TO HELP FAMILIES SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LEARNING PROCESS 7. Engaging Families in Student Homework: Action Steps for Educators Frances L. Van Voorhis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 8. Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes Through Shared Reading at Home Holly Kreider, Georganne Morin, Gabrielle E. Miller, and Angie Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 SECTION IV: REACHING FAMILIES THROUGH NONTRADITIONAL OST SETTINGS AND PARTNERSHIPS 9. Family Engagement Through Health Clinics Kathryn Nakagawa, Martha Cocchiarella, Emily Earl, Stacy Moreno, and Rebecca Birr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 10. It Takes a Village: Community Schools and Family Engagement Michael P. Evans and Darlene Kamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 11. Developing University and Community Partnerships That Support Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time Settings Barbara C. Jentleson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 List of Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

PREFACE

FOREWORD Family involvement as part of school reform has been the primary focus of the first decade of the monographs in the Family-School-Community Partnership (FSCP) Series. This monograph begins the second decade and will address family involvement in out-of-school time (OST). OST may be defined as time outside of the state required time limits for compulsory school attendance. Family engagement in OST programs is vitally important because, as during state-required schooling time, family engagement in OST is linked to student academic achievement. Prior to the turn of the century, families had to secure privately funded OST opportunities for their children. Thus, OST programs were dependent on for-profit or nonprofit organizations and not available for all children and youth. In recent years, well-known sports and entertainment personalities publicly attributed OST to their current success. Increasingly, federal, state and local funds have been allocated to the development of a variety of afterschool programs and other OST learning opportunities across the United States. Thus, during the past decade, educational evaluators and researchers within the United States have expanded their attention to study OST learning opportunities. Interest in OST has increased for several reasons. The three primary reasons are that the majority of students’ parents are employed outside the home, pressure has increased to improve student achievement at many schools, and communities express concerns regarding student undesirable afterschool activities. Holly Kreider, Director of Programs for the Raising A Reader National Office, and Helen Westmoreland, Director of Quality for The Flamboyan Foundation, enthusiastically accepted the roles of coeditors for this monovii

viii

D. B. HIATT-MICHAEL

graph because of their interest, work and research in OST. They recruited a wide range of notables to contribute to this monograph. These authors include researchers for nonprofit organizations, faith-based, health, and governmental agencies as well as university faculty. Please refer to the List of Contributors for their positions and affiliations. Family engagement in OST includes family involvement in academic activities within the home such as homework and literacy activities as well as involvement in OST activities outside the home. This monograph deals with description and educational outcomes of OST programs serving different age groups and student populations. Purposes for these OST programs include improvement in student academic achievement, cultural awareness and enhancement, and health. The monograph does not intend to be fully comprehensive or exhaustive of OST but will provide a wide range of OST opportunities, their educational benefits, and the importance of OST in the educational growth of children and youth in the United States. Chapters address federal, state, and local opportunities in OST. For both public and private funded OST, parents must choose to enroll their child into these programs and often agree to certain types of parental engagement. Thus, family involvement is part and parcel of the success of any OST student learning experience. Because parents are concerned about their child’s welfare and academic achievement, OST federally funded programs are in high demand. For example, evaluations from The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, serving approximately 6.5 million children and youth across the United States, report waiting lists for many of these programs. Because parents are aware that their child must maintain regular attendance in order to remain in a particular OST program, parents tend to regularly monitor their child’s attendance to assure that their child remains enrolled. Parental monitoring of their child’s attendance is one of many examples of family engagement in OST that are addressed throughout this monograph. A review of the chapters’ content reveals that types of family involvement in OST activities are similar to in-school family involvement. Sommerfield notes that parenting attitudes affect the choice of OST and the willingness of parents to chauffeur children to OST. Van Voorhis chapter describes how communication relates to family involvement in homework, a major concern of teachers and parents across localities and age groups. Kreider et al., promotes family engagement with learning at home through shared reading, affecting children’s language and literacy. Evans and Kamine argue for the importance of family and community volunteering in OST programs. Vaden details family engagement in collaboration with the community of faith-based organizations, fostering character-building in OST.

Foreword ix

However, family involvement also includes selecting the OST program as well as its location. Thus, family engagement in OST programs is broader than family involvement in public schooling for their children and becomes more similar to family involvement in charter, private, and faith-based schools. This series editor’s recent review of parental choice in public and faith-based schools indicated that parents report a higher commitment and satisfaction to schools that they have chosen for their children. This finding seems to be similar for family engagement in OST programs as reported across chapters. Bouffard, O’Carroll, Westmoreland, and Little’s chapter introduces the reader to family engagement in OST programs, benefits of family engagement, and sustainability of family engagement in OST. These authors remark that OST programs appear more open to parental input on logistics of the program, content to sustain student interest, and desired student outcomes than in-school programs. These program attributes appear to contribute to program sustainability. However, these authors also describe other significant practices to promote program sustainability. The application and benefits of these practices reappear in other chapters. For example, Nakagawa et al., describe how health clinics provide parenting skills to promote child development, nutrition, and safety—foundational needs for a child’s academic success. These clinics also connect parents to literacy and other OST academic programs. The editors acknowledge the contributions of various persons to the review and critique of the chapters in the Acknowledgments. They also note the support of members of the FSCP Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. This and the other volumes in this series would not have been possible without these members’ guidance, wisdom, and passion for the field of family and community involvement in schooling. As series editor, I am ever indebted to my FSCP colleagues for their persistence, guidance, and support as well to our publisher George Johnson for his annual enthusiastic commitment to promote our work. Diana B. Hiatt-Michael Series Editor, Family School Community Partnership Series Professor Emeritus, Pepperdine University January, 2011

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, we would like to thank all the authors who contributed chapters to this volume (see List of Contributors). The following experts also provided thoughtful external reviews of chapters in this volume: Susan Auerbach at California State University Northridge, Suzanne Bouffard at Harvard University, Margaret Caspe at Children’s Aid Society, Anne Henderson of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Amy Hilgendorf at University of Wisconsin Madison, Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey at Vanderbilt University, Ollie Moles formerly at the U.S. Department of Education, Sally Wade at Southwest Education Development Laboratory, and Chris Wimer at Stanford University. Finally, we would like to thank our devoted series editor, Diana Hiatt-Michael, the entire AERA special interest group on family-school-community partnerships, and the editorial staff at Information Age Publishing for their support.

xi

SECTION I CONCEPTUALIZING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME (OST)

CHAPTER 1

ENGAGING FAMILIES IN OUTOF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS Suzanne M. Bouffard, Helen Westmoreland, Kelley O’Carroll, and Priscilla M. Little

Out-of-school time encompasses a broad array of opportunities that support children and youth, including before- and afterschool programs and summer learning programs. One constant across these multiple settings where children learn is families. They are essential partners in successful out-of-school time (OST) programs and play many important roles: consumers, advocates, allies, and volunteers. Parents from many backgrounds place a high value on OST experiences (Afterschool Alliance, 2004a; Duffett, Johnson, Kung, & Ott, 2004) and they are among the key constituents helping to shape demand for these experiences. Voters, many of whom are parents, tend to support increased funding for afterschool programs even if it means a tax increase (Afterschool Alliance, 2004b), and national polls have highlighted parents’ voices in reporting unmet demand for programming, especially among low-income and ethnic minority families (Duffett et al, 2004). In addition to shaping the demand for OST programs, families can and do play active roles in their children’s OST experiences, and many federal, state, and local initiatives and policies now recognize the importance of family engagement in OST. ProPromising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 3–19 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

3

4

S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL.

grams today often include family involvement components as part of their program models. For example, the federal 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) program includes provisions that allow OST programs to spend funds on family literacy and other engagement activities. As schools and school districts consider ways to align and coordinate their services, fostering family engagement in OST programs emerges as a key strategy that can then lead to better engagement at home and at school. This growing interest in engaging families in OST is supported by decades of research documenting that family involvement matters at school and at home (Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2005), as well as emerging evidence showing that the ways families and OST programs engage with one another can lead to a range of positive outcomes (discussed in more detail below). Through improving OST participation, increasing family engagement in other settings, and leading to better student outcomes, family engagement has benefits for OST programs, families, and students. It is no surprise, then, that family engagement has become a common component of quality standards for OST programs (Westmoreland & Little, 2006), and practitioners and policymakers are asking for strategies to build and sustain it. This chapter draws from the latest research and evaluation on family engagement in OST to promote and improve family engagement practices in OST programs. Specifically, it is organized by, and addresses, three main questions: 1. What is family engagement in OST? 2. What are the benefits of family engagement in OST? 3. How can OST programs build and sustain family engagement in OST?

WHAT IS FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN OST? Though there are many definitions and frameworks that describe family engagement, we based the strategies in this chapter on a broad conceptualization of how families support their child’s learning that includes: • Family engagement is a shared responsibility in which schools and other community agencies and organizations are committed to reaching out to engage families in meaningful ways and in which families are committed to actively supporting their children’s learning and development.

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 5

• Family engagement is continuous across a child’s life and entails enduring commitment but changing parent roles as children mature into young adulthood. • Effective family engagement cuts across and reinforces learning in the multiple settings where children learn—at home, in prekindergarten programs, in school, in afterschool and summer programs, in faith-based institutions, and in the community (Harvard Family Research Project, 2008). Just as families play many roles in children’s and youth’s lives, they play many roles in OST. Family engagement in OST includes activities that happen in the schools and sites where programs are located—for example, through parent volunteer work and participation on committees. However, family engagement also includes all of the family beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that influence children’s development and learning within OST settings. This can include supportive parenting that aligns with program expectations for behavior, encouraging a child’s OST participation, helping a child or adolescent make informed choices about programming, discussing a child’s progress in the OST program with staff, reinforcing skills from the program at home, and being an advocate for and/or leader in the program. In OST, as in schools and other settings, such a broad definition of family engagement holds the potential to reach, engage, and support a larger community of families, children, and youth.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN OST? Research demonstrates that when families are involved, their children are not the only ones who benefit; the benefits extend to other youth in the program, family members, programs, communities, and even schools. Specifically, family engagement can: (1) support increased youth participation in OST programs; (2) benefit youth OST participants; (3) support program quality; and, (4) impact family engagement at home and at school. Each of these benefits is described below.

(1) Family Engagement Can Support Increased Youth Participation in OST Programs Families can influence their children’s OST participation, both directly (through explicit encouragement or discouragement) and indirectly (through emotional support and modeling their own engagement in the community). These influences may not seem surprising in elementary

6

S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL.

school, when many children participate because of their parents’ desires and requirements (Lauver & Little, 2005). However, parents also influence the participation of middle and high school students, who “vote with their feet.” Parents may encourage participation by communicating the benefits and goals of programs to their children and helping them to make good choices. Such communication includes explicit discussions about current and future choices and monitoring of time use (Kreider, Caspe, Kennedy, & Weiss, 2007) as well as modeling participation behaviors. For example, some studies suggest that children and youth are more likely to participate in OST activities when their parents participate in community activities, such as volunteering (Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder & Sameroff, 1999); support learning at home; and are highly involved in school (Fredericks & Eccles, 2002; Simpkins et al., 2009). In contrast, when parents discourage participation, their teenagers are less likely to participate (Borden, Perkins, Villaruel, & Stone, 2005). Once youth are enrolled, family engagement can also be a factor in sustaining participation. For example, a study of youth participation in over 600 summer and afterschool programs run by New York City’s Department of Youth and Community Development showed that programs with a paid or volunteer parent liaison had higher levels of youth attendance and retention, especially for high school and community-based programs. Furthermore, the intensity of communication with families—such as holding meetings, sending materials home, and having phone conversations—was also positively associated with youth attendance rates (Russell, Mielke, & Reisner, 2008; Pearson, Russell, & Reisner, 2007). Most recently, a study of OST participation among older youth in almost 200 programs across six cities found that programs that retained at least 50% of their middle- and high-school-aged participants for at least twelve months appeared to use a greater variety of parent engagement techniques than programs with lower sustained participation rates (Deschenes et al., 2010). Higher retention programs used an average of over seven different family engagement strategies (see next section for more information on specific strategies), suggesting that family engagement can be a factor in sustained participation. As an added benefit, there is some evidence that OST programs that engage families can influence youth attendance and engagement in school. For example, a quasi-experimental evaluation of New York City’s Chinatown YMCA 21st CCLC family program found that youth whose families participated in the program had higher attendance rates in school than those in a comparison group (Bennett, 2004).

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 7

(2) Family Engagement in OST Can Have Benefits for Children and Youth In addition to the benefits described above, there is limited but promising evidence that family engagement in OST programs can ultimately have a positive effect on youth outcomes. For example, a quasi-experimental evaluation of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program, an 8- to 10-week afterschool program for both families and children, found that students who participated displayed increased academic competence and social skills, decreased instances of special education referrals, and reduced anxiety and aggression (Pinsoneault & Sass, 1998). An evaluation of another set of programs, which target prevention of risky behaviors through parent involvement strategies and monthly parentchild meetings, found that youth in Boys & Girls Club sites that used the programs reported an increased ability to refuse alcohol and drugs (St. Pierre, Mark, Kaltreider, & Aikin, 1997). It is important to note that both of these programs had significant family components as core elements of their models, and that the amount of family engagement necessary to directly impact youth outcomes in the short term is not yet clear.

(3) Family Engagement in OST Can Support Program Quality Family engagement in OST is also a component of overall OST program quality. For example, the Massachusetts After-School Research Study, which examined quality characteristics via observations and surveys in 78 afterschool programs, found that communication with families during pick-up and drop-off time was associated with more positive youth relations with OST program staff and better family and community support for the program, key elements of program quality and, in turn, positive youth outcomes (Intercultural Center for Research in Education & National Institute on Out of School Time, 2005). Similarly, another correlational study of 96 school-based afterschool programs supported by The After-School Corporation (TASC) identified connections between program staff and families as one of the shared features of high-performing programs. Efforts to engage families (including hiring a parent coordinator and communicating regularly with families at pick-up time) were some of the most common features among the 10 programs whose participants had the highest academic performance (Birmingham, Pechman, Russell, & Mielke, 2006). Parents, too, identify family engagement as one of the characteristics of quality programs (Robinson & Fenwick, 2007).

8

S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL.

(4) Family Engagement in OST Can Impact Family Engagement at Home and at School Family engagement in OST is associated with families’ behavior at home, including their efforts to support learning. For example, a qualitative evaluation of the Math and Parent Partnerships (MAPPS) program, which provides concurrent tutoring and support to both parents and youth, found that parents who participated in the program were more likely to do math with their children at home (Civil, Bernier, & Quintos, 2003; Civil, Guevara, & Allexsaht-Snider, 2002). Similarly, other studies have found that families who participate in OST encourage reading and read more frequently with their children (Chaplin & Capizzano, 2006), and help their children with homework more and ask their children about class more than nonparticipating families (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Although research has not specifically examined the reasons for these associations, a possible explanation is that parents can gain information from OST programs about how to be involved in their child’s education (either through activities designed for this purpose or through speaking informally with program staff), and then put that information to use at home and at school. Family engagement in OST programs is also associated with more positive parent-child relationships at home. In a review of nonexperimental OST program evaluations examining family involvement, Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) found that parents who volunteer with programs report feeling closer to their children (Harris & Wimer, 2004). For example, in an evaluation of the New York City Beacons Initiative, parent volunteers reported that the opportunity to volunteer contributed to parents feeling closer to their children and more connected to their neighborhoods (Warren, Brown, & Freudenberg, 1999). One reason for this increased closeness may be related to the fact that engagement in OST programs gives parents the opportunity to see their children in a context other than home or school; for example, an evaluation of 10 extended service schools initiatives found that 86% of surveyed parents reported that the program helped them better appreciate their child’s talents (Grossman et al., 2002). Some studies also find that families who participate in OST programs are more likely to participate at school. A 2-year quasi-experimental evaluation of the Generacion Diez (G-10) program, which provides afterschool support to Latino students and their families, found that by the end of the second year of the program, parents of children with higher attendance rates in the G-10 program reported significant increases in the quality and quantity of parent-teacher contact as well as engagement in

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 9

their children’s school activities (Riggs & Medina, 2005). Similarly, a nonexperimental evaluation of programs run by The Afterschool Corporation (TASC) found that 31% of principals surveyed reported that TASC programs “very much” increased parents’ attendance at school events and 15% reported that the programs “very much” increased parents’ participation in parent-teacher meetings (Reisner, White, Russell, & Birmingham, 2004). This research is unclear about whether families’ increased participation in school is a result of specific strategies that OST programs employ, or whether families of children in OST are, by nature, more inclined to participate in their child’s education. Regardless, OST programs, as the bridge between home and school, are well-positioned to influence families’ engagement in their child’s education.

HOW CAN OST PROGRAMS BUILD AND SUSTAIN FAMILY ENGAGEMENT? Although OST professionals often realize that family engagement is important and can have the benefits described above, many report that involving families is challenging. Specific challenges include lack of time and competing demands (for both families and providers), cultural and/ or language differences, inadequate transportation and child care among families, insufficient program funds to support family engagement activities, lack of staff training on family engagement, and staff perceptions that parents are uninterested—which is often untrue (Deschenes et al., 2010; Weiss & Brigham, 2003). Despite these challenges, and in part to overcome them, recent research and practice have identified a set of effective family engagement strategies that can help OST programs leverage family engagement in meaningful and strategic ways that go beyond getting families to “show up” for program-sponsored events. Research and field experience suggest six core strategies to foster effective family engagement in OST programs (adapted from Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffey, 2006): • • • • • •

Support families and their basic needs Communicate and build trusting relationships with families Be intentional about staffing and hiring practices Build linkages across individuals and organizations Use a variety of family engagement practices Make family engagement a key component of program quality

10 S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL.

Support Families and Their Basic Needs Programs can build trusting relationships with families by providing support and information matched to families’ needs. Such support includes addressing common logistical challenges to youth participation and family involvement, such as providing child care, transportation vouchers, and meals, but it also includes addressing broader family needs and desires. This strategy can include asking for parent feedback on OST programming, helping families promote learning at home, providing food, and offering links to community-based social services. Outreach to families and opportunities for input should begin early and focus on both strengths and needs in the family. For example, OST programs can begin the year with a “getting to know you” survey—inquiring about families’ favorite activities, skills they hope to see the program address for their children, ideas for the program, and interest in workshops and other activities—to avoid making assumptions about families and gather data about their needs. Continuing to include families in program planning is essential—including not just the “what” of activities but also the “when, where, and how”—to ensure that services are useful and relevant. By making it convenient for families to attend OST activities, a program will not only generate family participation in events but also make clear to families that their needs are valued (Burkhauser, BronteTinkew, & Kennedy, 2008). Programs can also support families by helping them support their children’s learning. Experts on family involvement in learning concur that youth are most likely to benefit when family engagement is “linked to learning” rather than consisting of random, isolated “bake sale” types of events (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007). OST programs can provide parents with valuable information such as how to help with homework and navigate the school system. Thinking beyond academics, they can also provide tips on topics such as building positive parent-child relationships.

Communicate and Build Trusting Relationships Once programs have identified how they can support families’ basic needs, they must communicate their strategies effectively in order for parents to take advantage of these opportunities. Communication keeps information flowing between families and program staff and also fosters trust and positive relationships. When mutually trusting relationships have been established, the possibilities for family engagement grow; for example, families may be more willing to invest their time and effort in

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 11

the program, and more informed about opportunities for doing so. Program staff can build relationships with families by communicating frequently, and in ways that welcome families to initiate contact, and by showing families that staff are there for them (Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffey, 2006). Research shows that families are more likely to be involved when staff reach out to them and also when they feel that their involvement is appropriate and will be effective (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). OST programs that are explicit about the ways that families can be involved are more likely to be successful in their family engagement efforts. For example, asking parents to take on particular roles in the program may send the message that their presence and input are highly valued and appreciated. The After-School Corporation has addressed this issue by asking families to volunteer for a certain amount of time to encourage some level of involvement and guarantee staff-family communication that may cultivate strong relationships (Birmingham, Pechman, Russell, & Mielke, 2006). However, such requests should be balanced with the importance of providing options so that families can choose the roles they find most comfortable. The forms and methods that OST programs use to extend invitations for family engagement and communication are also important. Program staff may choose to send notes home, call parents themselves, institute a parent phone tree, use e-mail, make home visits, or hold on-site meetings. Often, the most effective communication and relationship-building is done face to face. OST programs can take advantage of time when parents are already on site, such as during drop-off or pick-up hours, by having brief but meaningful conversations. If parents do not pick up or drop off their children, OST program staff can schedule conferences or home visits to talk with parents about their child’s progress in the program. As OST programs consider how to communicate, they should take into account the language spoken at the family’s home, as well as parent literacy level, schedule demands, comfort level, and access to various forms of communication (especially Internet-based technology, which may not be accessible to many low-income families). Programs must also consider the active role of youth in encouraging family engagement, particularly among middle and high school youth, who often mediate programs’ family engagement efforts by making decisions about whether and how they want their parents to be involved. Providers can make youth an active part of this process by discussing with them the importance of family engagement, asking how they would like their families to be engaged, and encouraging youth to invite their parents (e.g. through creative projects and also through parent-child discussion).

12 S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL.

Be Intentional About Staffing and Hiring Practices At the heart of quality OST programs are the staff who run them. Staff hiring practices should reflect a commitment to family engagement. Just as OST programs look to hire staff with skills in program planning, budgeting, and management, so should they consider potential staff members’ interest and experience in engaging with families. Efforts to welcome families can be aided by staff who have strong skills in this area and also by staff who have backgrounds similar to that of the families and communities that the program serves. Programs may therefore look for staff who are from the community or have strong cross-cultural communication skills and the ability to build bridges across differences in class, race, language, and life experience. One promising practice is to designate a staff member to oversee family outreach and engagement. A study of the 21st CCLC programs found that programs with such a designated staff person were more likely than others to build family support for student learning, to offer services to families, and to have family members in program leadership roles (James & Partee, n.d.). Designated staff members have more time to plan family engagement strategies, communicate with families, and support other staff in their family engagement efforts. Having a designated staff member also gives families a clear and consistent point of contact and the opportunity to develop a long-term relationship. Once staff are hired, professional development should continue to build on the importance of family engagement. Ongoing professional development can help staff members strengthen their skills and share ideas about their family engagement work. OST program directors can support commitment to and strategies for family engagement by providing staff with trainings, workshops, mentoring, networking opportunities, resource libraries, and other tools. Embedding family engagement into ongoing professional development and staff meetings can make family engagement efforts more central and also help programs cope with limited professional development resources. Build Linkages Across Individuals and Organizations While they cannot provide all of the supports that families require, OST programs are uniquely positioned to be “cultural brokers,” that is, to help connect families to other institutions and services in their communities (Delgado-Gaitan, 1996). For example, OST program staff can make referrals to help families access social and health services. OST programs can also build connections between families and schools by reinforcing school-day learning and by serving as liaisons who share information

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 13

between the two parties. Anecdotal evidence suggests that families often feel more comfortable discussing their children’s progress and learning strategies with OST providers than with teachers, because OST providers are more likely to share their cultures and neighborhood ties. These connections can benefit all parties, including OST programs, their school partners, and families: A review of ten high-performing afterschool programs showed that successful programs built connections between school day and afterschool academic priorities (Birmingham, Pechman, Russell, & Mielke, 2006). Often, these connections were facilitated by a parent liaison who worked with both the school and afterschool program. Building such connections across programs addresses another dimension of family support and increases the likelihood that families will be engaged. OST programs can also help build families’ knowledge and capacity by creating opportunities for networking and dialogue among families. Parents in the Black Alliance for Educational Options Afterschool Study reported that they wanted to share their ideas and hear ideas from others, and that this strategy could help improve program quality (Robinson & Fenwick, 2007). Research demonstrates that the quantity and quality of parents’ relationships can help them access information through social and cultural capital (Lareau, 2008). For parents in OST programs, this may mean sharing ideas related to discipline, additional community resources, navigating school policies, and more. By being connected to one another, parents can form networks of relationships and strategies on which they can draw to help their children succeed. Use a Variety of Family Engagement Practices A recent study found that high-retention OST programs for middleand high-school-aged youth appear to use multiple techniques to engage parents. Recognizing individual family needs and engagement styles, these OST programs do not solely rely on one specific engagement practice but instead employ a variety of practices to support participation. As Table 1.1 shows, in a survey of almost 200 middle and high school OST programs, all programs sent information to parents about the program and almost all (95%) held events specifically for parents. Eighty percent or more reported holding individual meetings with parents, sending information about programs and community resources to parents, getting parent input through surveys and group meetings, and holding events for parents. Just over half (52%) reported providing courses for parents. Together, these findings reveal a multipronged engagement strategy that places a premium on effective and diverse communication practices (Deschenes et al., 2010).

14 S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL. Table 1.1.

Family Engagement Activities

Family Engagement Activities

High-Retention Program Usage Rates

Send information about program to parents

100%

Hold events for parents

95%

Hold individual meetings with parents

85%

Send newsletters with community resources

83%

Get parent input through surveys/group meetings

80%

Provide courses for parents

52%

Note: High-retention programs are those that retain 50% or more of their youth for 12 months or more. Only practices that were significantly correlated with retention are presented here.

Make Family Engagement a Key Component of Program Quality With growing endorsement from families, researchers, and practitioners alike, family involvement in OST is clearly an important factor for program quality. Following the maxim that “what gets measured matters,” OST programs are incorporating family engagement into quality standards and program evaluation and assessment processes. In a scan of programmatic, municipal, and statewide quality assessment tools, HFRP found that 17 of the 42 quality assessment tools identified included categories of standards that explicitly addressed linkages with families, schools, and communities (Westmoreland & Little, 2006). Common standards for family engagement included: • The program has a plan in place for family engagement. • The program effectively communicates program information with ALL families. • The program offers families the opportunity to meet with staff. • The program encourages family participation in events, celebrations, decision-making, and program planning. • The program provides information about and connections to community resources for youth and families. • The program provides learning opportunities for families. In addition to creating or using standards for family engagement, OST programs can integrate family engagement into their quality practices by including families in their program evaluations. OST programs can

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 15

collect information from families—through surveys, focus groups, and/ or interviews—on what they would like to see from the program, as well as how it is impacting their own and their child’s attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors at home, in school, and in the community. For example, studies such as the Black Alliance for Educational Options Afterschool Study suggest that African American and Latino families, as well as low-income families, report placing a higher priority on academic goals for OST programs than do middle-class and White families, with some studies finding academics rated as the most important (Duffett, Johnson, Kung, & Ott, 2004; Gutman & McLoyd, 2000; Robinson & Fenwick, 2007). OST programs that collect this type of information from families are better positioned to create programming that best recruits and retains youth, and to communicate to families what is most important to them.

MOVING FORWARD: DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A FAMILY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY In the current context of increasing momentum for education reform initiatives that support a more holistic approach to learning by including nonschool supports, family engagement in OST has emerged as a fundamental strategy to support reform. This is supported by research that indicates that fostering connections among families and OST programs, as well as expanding these partnerships to also include schools, is critical to the well-being of children, communities, schools, and families alike. OST programs share responsibility with parents for promoting family engagement and, as described above, they can encourage meaningful and effective family engagement by implementing key strategies. Successfully implementing these strategies begins with programs’ developing a clear vision for family engagement, including a broad but specific definition that is shared among staff and families, as well as a set of specific practices that are derived from this vision. Families and youth must be essential partners in developing this vision and carrying it out. In addition, policymakers and funders also have important roles to play by setting the expectations and conditions for family engagement, and then enabling resources such as funding, capacity-building, and evaluation support. With strong commitments from all of these stakeholders, family engagement can and should become an integral component of the daily operations of OST programs, where family engagement is seen not as a bonus but as a must.

16 S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL. Table 1.2.

Strategies OST Programs Can Use to Engage Families

Program Strategies

Tips and Ideas

Support families and their basic needs.

Address challenges to engagement. Early on, ask families the “what, how, when, and where” of their engagement. Link family engagement to student learning.

Communicate and build trusting relationships.

Make frequent and positive invitations for engagement. Be explicit and personal about opportunities for engagement. Consider the best method of communication.

Be intentional about staff and Hire staff who know how to effectively involve families. hiring practices. Designate a staff person responsible for overseeing family engagement. Provide ongoing professional development. Build linkages across individ- Refer families to additional services and programs. uals and organizations. Bridge family engagement with schools. Connect families to one another. Make family engagement a core component of program quality.

Ask families to help evaluate your program. Assess family engagement practices using quality standards.

Use a variety of family engagement practices.

Employ an integrated set of family engagement practices to maximize engagement. Use written, verbal, individual, and group communications practices.

REFERENCES Afterschool Alliance. (2004a). America after 3 PM: A household survey on afterschool in America. Working families and afterschool. A special report from America after 3 PM. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.after-schoolalliance.org/ press_archives/america_3pm/Executive_Summary.pdf Afterschool Alliance. (2004b). Across demographic and party lines: Americans clamor for safe, enriching afterschool programs. Afterschool Alert Poll Report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/polling/ poll_jan_2004.pdf Bennett, E. T. (2004). Family involvement and school performance in the Chinatown YMCA 21st Century Community Learning Center. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fordham University, New York, NY. Birmingham, J., Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Mielke, M. (2006). Shared Features of High-Performing After-School Programs. New York, NY: The After-School Corporation Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F., Villarruel, F. A., & Stone, M. R. (2005). To participate or not to participate: That is the question. New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 33–49.

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 17 Burkhauser, M., Bronte-Tinkew, J., & Kennedy, E. (2008). Building community partnerships: Tips for out-of-school time programs. Practitioner Insights: Research-toResults. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Chaplin, D., & Capizzano, J. (2006). Impacts of a summer learning program: A random assignment study of building educated leaders for life (BELL). Report prepared with support from the Smith Richardson Foundation and the William T Grant Foundation as part of an evaluation study of the BELL summer learning program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Civil, M., Bernier, E., & Quintos, B. (2003, April ). Parental Involvement in mathematics: A focus on parents’ voices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://mapps.math.arizona.edu/papers/ AERA_2003_Parental.pdf Civil, M., Guevara, C., & Allexsaht-Snider, M. (2002). Mathematics for parents: Facilitating parents’ and children’s understanding in mathematics. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Retrieved from http://mapps.math.arizona.edu/ papers/PME.pdf Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1996). Protean literacy: Extending the discourse on empowerment. London: Falmer. Deschenes, S. N., Arbreton, A., Little, P. L., Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Weiss, H. B., et al. (2010) Engaging older youth: Program and city-level strategies to support sustained participation in out-of-school time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Duffett, A., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Kung, S., & Ott, A. (2004). All work and no play? Listening to what kids and parents really want from out-of-school time. New York, NY: Public Agenda. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sextyped domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533. Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Jucovy, L. Z., Kotloff, L. J., Raley, R., et al. (2002). Multiple choices after school: Findings from the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Gutman, L. M., & McLoyd, V. C. (2000). Parents’ management of their children’s education within the home, at school, and in the community: an Examination of African-American families living in poverty. The Urban Review, 32, 1–24. Harris, E., & Wimer, C. (2004). Engaging with families in out-of-school time learning. Out-of-school Time Evaluation Snapshot No. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Harvard Family Research Project (2008). Building the future of family involvement. The Evaluation Exchange, 14(1&2). Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York, NY: The New Press.

18 S. M. BOUFFARD ET AL. Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A New wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: SEDL. Hill, N. & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 730–763. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42. Intercultural Center for Research in Education & National Institute on Out-ofSchool Time. (2005). Pathways to success for youth: What counts in after-school. Boston, MA: United Way of Massachusetts Bay. James, D. W., & Partee, G. (n.d.). No more islands: Family involvement in 27 school and youth programs. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved from www.aypf.org/publications/nomoreisle/index.htm Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237–226. Kakli, Z., Kreider, H., Little. P., Buck, T., & Coffrey, M. (2006). Focus on families! How to build and support family-centered practices in after school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project and Build the Out-of-School Time Network. Kreider, H., Caspe, M., Kennedy, S., & Weiss, H. (2007). Family involvement in middle and high school students’ education. Family Involvement Makes a Difference, 3 (Spring). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.  Lareau, A. (2008). Unequal Childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lauver, S., & Little, P. M. D. (2005). Recruitment and retention strategies for outof-school time programs. New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 71–89. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132−141. Pearson, L. M., Russell, C. A., & Reisner, E. A. (2007). Evaluation of OST programs for youth. Patterns of Youth Retention in OST Programs, 2005−06 to 2006−07. Report submitted to the Department of Youth Development, NY. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Pinsoneault, L., & Sass, J. (1998, November). Families and schools together: Lessons from five years of evaluation of a program for at-risk children and their families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago, IL. Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality, scale, and effectiveness in after-school programs: Summary report of the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Riggs, N. R., & Medina, C. (2005). The Generacion Diez after-school program and Latino parent involvement with schools. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(6), 471–484. Robinson, G., & Fenwick, L. (2007). More than homework, a snack, and basketball: After-school programs as an oasis of hope for Black parents in four cities. Washington, DC: Black Alliance of Educational Options.

Engaging Families in Out-of-School Time Programs 19 Russell, C. A., Mielke, M. B., & Reisner, E. R. (2008). Evaluation of the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development Out-of-School Time Programs for youth initiative: Results of efforts to increase program quality and scale in year 2. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Simpkins, S., Bouffard, S. M., Kreider, H., Dearing, E. R., Wimer, C., Caronongan, P., et al. (2009). Adolescent adjustment and patterns of parents’ behaviors in early and middle adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 530–557. St. Pierre, T. L., Mark, M. M., Kaltreider, D. L., & Aikin, K. J. (1997). Involving parents of high-risk youth in drug prevention: A three-year longitudinal study in Boys & Girls Clubs. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 21–50. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). When schools stay open late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Learning Centers Program, first year findings. Washington, DC: Author. Warren, C., Brown, P., & Freudenberg, N. (1999). Evaluation of the New York City Beacons: Summary of Phase I findings. New York: Academy for Educational Development. Retrieved from www.aed.org/news/articles/beacons.html Weiss, A. R., & Brigham, R. A. (2003). The family participation in after-school study. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education. Westmoreland, H., & Little, P. M. D. (2006). Exploring Quality Standards for Middle School After School Programs: What we know and what we need to know. A Summit Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/fckeditor/File/ summit-2005-summary.pdf

CHAPTER 2

A TYPOLOGY OF FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SETTINGS Holly Kreider and Shayna Cunningham

In the following chapter, we first summarize the major typologies of practice available for guiding family engagement efforts and discuss the benefits and limitations of such frameworks for informing practice that engages families in youth development settings and other out-of-school time (OST) contexts. Next, we present a typology of family engagement activities derived from evaluation research in youth development settings, and discuss the added value of this context-specific typology for guiding family engagement efforts in OST settings.

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS Family engagement researchers have long called for the development of more field-specific theories to guide practice (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Kreider & Sheldon, 2010). In the interim, however, researchbased typologies and frameworks that organize family engagement activities and strategies into concepts and categories are relatively prevalent Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 21–29 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

21

22 H. KREIDER and S. CUNNINGHAM

and, in some cases, widely utilized by practitioners (Epstein, 1995; Epstein et al., 2009; Harvard Family Research Project, 2003; Swap, 1993). In other words, although we have yet to acquire complete understanding of why family engagement occurs and matters for children’s outcomes, we have helpful systems that classify the what and how of family engagement practice. Overall, the importance of these research-based frameworks or typologies for informing practice are many. First, such typologies can aid in the identification and selection of practices to support family engagement. Specifically, typologies by their nature present a breadth of practices from which individuals and programs can select, depending on their identified goals and target audience, as well as on their programmatic resources and limitations. Beyond naming categories of practice, typologies may also highlight, and therefore help practitioners with consideration of the metadimensions of practice, by revealing their sequential, nested, or otherwise interrelated nature. For example, Swap (1993) concludes from the trio of approaches she identifies that effective parent engagement must be comprehensive in nature, with the school consistently interfacing with parents at many points and in many venues over the course of the schooling years. Finally, typologies can help programs design and conduct evaluations to assess their progress and needs. To date, existing typologies have focused primarily on family engagement in schools and homes. Most prominent among these is a typology developed by Joyce Epstein. The typology builds on Epstein’s prior research and was later incorporated by she and her colleagues at the National Network for Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University into a systematized approach to family-school-community partnerships (Epstein, 1995; Epstein, et al., 2009). Epstein names six key types of family engagement: (1) parenting, including parenting skills and home conditions that support children as students; (2) communicating from school-to-home and home-to-school; (3) volunteering in various locations and at various times; (4) learning at home via homework help and other curriculum-related activities and decisions; (5) decision making, as participants in school decisions and other leadership roles; and 6) collaborating with the community, including services for families, students, and the school. The Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP, 2003) categorized concepts and models of family involvement by examining prevalent programs and their central approaches. The resulting typology closely mirrors two of Epstein’s involvement types, by identifying parenting and family-school partnership as central types of engagement. But HFRP’s typology also extends Epstein’s construct of decision making to include parents’ roles as individual and collective agents of change, by acknowl-

A Typology of Family Engagement 23

edging that exercising school choice for one’s child and engaging in democratic participation around school reform efforts are two additional types of engagement. Both of these school-based family engagement frameworks can be used to inform family engagement in OST, inasmuch as they recognize connections between families and communities. However, both typologies predate OST as a mature field of study, and so risk underrepresenting its unique nature and potential for engaging families. Fortunately, the OST field has also begun to produce its own conceptual frameworks. For example, a series of case studies of family engagement in OST programs in Boston identified four central programmatic practices to engaging families: (1) supporting families by focusing on their assets, attending to their needs and interests, and soliciting their input, (2) communicating and building trusting relationships with families through frequent, positive and two-way communication, active listening and support, and parent leadership opportunities; (3) hiring and developing a family-focused staff by designating a staff member with family engagement responsibilities, hiring staff with family engagement experience and shared backgrounds with families, and offering professional development opportunities; and (4) building linkages across individuals and organizations—by collaborating with local organizations, acting as liaison between families and schools, and helping parents develop advocacy skills (Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffrey, 2006; See Chapter 1 in this volume for elaboration of these strategies and the addition of two others). Another framework organizes activities by identified goals—to support OST programs (e.g., by involving families through volunteering or leadership), to directly support families themselves (e.g., through adult education and parent-child social events), or to support children’s learning (through facilitating home-school-OST communication that fosters family engagement) (Wimer, 2004). Across all of the existing frameworks for family engagement in schools and OST described above, there are some commonalities. In particular, communication and relationships appear as a common thread and are foundational for successful partnerships between any individuals or organizations. However, the OST-derived frameworks also have a unique contribution: attention to activities that build tripartite linkages—across schools, OST settings, and homes. The commonalities and differences across these school- and OST-based typologies suggests both the universality of what families can and are doing to support their children’s development in partnership with others, as well as the context-specific activities and strategies that various organizations take to engage families. This latter point argues for attention to typologies that are derived from research in OST settings—a relatively new arena for family engagement research and practice.

24 H. KREIDER and S. CUNNINGHAM

THE FAMILY PLUS FRAMEWORK Below we share a research-based typology for engaging and strengthening families through youth development settings, culled from a 3-year evaluation of the Family PLUS initiative of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) (detailed in the study background section below). We also discuss metadimensions of the typology, present a set of key strategies through which its activities have been implemented, and discuss its contributions and alignment with prior typologies in the broader family engagement field.

Study Background In cooperation with the Kimberly Clark Corporation, BGCA launched Family PLUS (Parents Leading, Uniting, and Serving) in 2006 to integrate family support programming in its clubs across the country. The initiative provided seed grants to 20 clubs each year; training, technical assistance and informational resources; and support for five key programmatic areas: (1) outreach activities, (2) father involvement, (3) economic opportunity, (4) kinship care, and (5) the FAN Club (an evidence-based family support program). An external process and outcome evaluation was conducted with grant-receiving clubs from 2008 and 2009 via quantitative surveys with club leaders, staff and parents; qualitative focus groups with club leaders, parents, and youth; and site visits with a stratified sample of clubs receiving grants. Included among the major aims of the evaluation were to identify family support activities constituting Family PLUS in local clubs, and the primary approaches through which these activities were delivered.

A Typology of Activities A breadth of family engagement activities surfaced through youth, parent, and club leader focus groups and surveys. The activities clustered into: social events (in varying forms); academic support for children; parent outreach, information and communication; adult education; and family support (Table 2.1 describes each of these family engagement types in more detail and provides examples). These types of family support also confirmed those identified in an earlier pilot evaluation of Family PLUS (Kreider & Raghupathy, 2008, 2010).

A Typology of Family Engagement 25

Table 2.1. Typology of Family Engagement Activities Type/Definition

Examples

Family Social Events /Bringing children, their parents, and other family members together for fun or celebratory activities

• Holiday dinners, sometimes with family portraits (e.g., Thanksgiving dinner, Haunted Halloween House, Posada celebration) • Game nights (e.g., Bingo, Spades, Movies, Trivia) • Talent shows (e.g., graduation celebrations, award ceremonies, appreciation dinners) • Sport events (e.g., basketball clinics, football and cheerleading banquets, pool parties, sports tournaments and fundraisers) • Outings (e.g., bowling, amusement parks, malls, neighborhood clean-ups, baseball games) • Other family fun nights (e.g., arts & crafts night, fashion shows, father and son activities, chaperoned dances)

Academic Support for Children /Supporting parents’ involvement in their children’s academic learning and school success

• • • • • •

Liaison with teachers and schools Parent-involvement-in-school workshops “Feed and Read” events College financing/preparation parent workshops College scholarships Homework help and tutoring

• • • • • •

Club orientations and walking tours Event flyers, bulletin boards and calendars Suggestion boxes, advisory groups, and focus groups “Personal asks” by staff for event attendance and volunteering Parent-staff communication regarding child Children as messengers to champion events with parents

Outreach, Information, and Communication /Sharing program or child-specific information with and soliciting input from parents Adult Education Courses /Offering parents education for personal, professional, or parenting goals

• Education and employment courses (e.g., ESL, citizenship, GED, computers, resume writing) • Personal health classes (e.g., nutrition, stress management, exercise) • Parenting mentors and classes (e.g., parent-child communication, discipline, college preparation) Table continues on next page.

26 H. KREIDER and S. CUNNINGHAM Table 2.1. Type/Definition

Continued Examples

Family Support /Providing direct or referred services to support parents and families with health, mental health, economic and other needs.

• Health and dental screenings, services, supplies (e.g., eyeglasses) • Counseling services, referrals, space for noncustodial parents to meet with their children • Social support for couples/families (e.g., Parents’ Night out, marriage counseling) • Giveaways – food pantry, Christmas gifts, turkeys for Thanksgiving, clothes and supplies, car seats, bikes and backpacks • Other economic support – scholarships, job training, credit counseling, utility bill assistance, finance classes, and club employment

Volunteerism and Civic Engagement /Engaging parents • Programmatic volunteerism (e.g., dance chaperone, social event in support or leadcoordinator) ership roles in clubs • Programmatic input/leadership (e.g., parent surveys and focus and beyond groups, advisory councils) • Staff and paraprofessional roles (e.g., front desk staff, parent liaison) • Political awareness and action (e.g., voter registration drives, community service, creating PSAs, community mock debates)

Although all of the activity types detailed in Table 2.1 are relatively selfexplanatory, a few warrant elaboration based on their prevalence, extensive commentary by club staff and families, and/or innovation. By far, family social events represented the most predominant type of engagement seen across clubs. Club staff made it clear that they prioritized children and youth, and worried that a focus on families might detract from this child-centered mission. By focusing on social activities that directly include not only families but also youth (and even place them at the center of celebrations of their talents), staff concern about family engagement activities that detract energy from youth is addressed. As fun and engaging activities, social events also align well with the overall philosophy of Boys & Girls Clubs as “a positive place for kids” (and families, for that matter). Many club leaders spoke of “getting parents in the door” as the first step in providing other services, activities and communications with parents. Through big outreach events (featuring children’s talents and fun parent-child time; offering dinner and childcare, and in some cases transportation; and scheduled at convenient times), attendance levels were boosted and crucial initial contacts were made. Parent volunteerism, on the other hand, was less prevalent, yet represents a form of engagement that views parents not only as recipients of

A Typology of Family Engagement 27

support, but as resources as well. Clubs that required parents to volunteer each month in order for their child to stay enrolled know this fact well, with a volunteer corps that helped keep their clubs running smoothly. At one club, parents could trade volunteer hours for club fees, simultaneously providing additional person power to the club and increasing its affordability for children from low-income families. Parent advisory councils also provided a mechanism for intensive volunteer involvement, assisting clubs by recruiting parent volunteers, hosting fundraisers, and spearheading events. Clubs also supported other types of civic engagement by parents, youth, and community members. One club hosted a course on film production, in which parents and youth learned about and then performed their own public service announcements. Taken together, these sets of OST-derived family engagement activities can be compared and contrasted with those of other typologies. This typology echoes activities central to those of Epstein and others described earlier, in that parents’ support for children’s academic learning, communication between parents and professionals, and parent volunteerism, are all prominent categories of engagement. Yet this new typology also adds unique value to our understanding of what does and can occur between families and OST settings. Volunteerism, for example, is often done in conjunction with youth themselves, and takes on a uniquely communitybased feel. Likewise, adult education, family support, and referral activities are prominent across clubs, but in strictly educational contexts might be expected to appear only in those schools with family resource centers. Social events also appear to be elevated within clubs, providing an opportunity for positive parent-child relationship building outside of the home. In this sense, the typology reflects the mission of the setting in which these activities are nested—one in which a positive place for youth (and for youth and their parents together) is central. This typology and others can serve as a similar tool for other organizations—to select activities that reinforce or extend their specific family engagement mission.

Implementation Strategies Site visits and interviews with club leaders also revealed primary approaches through which these activities were effectively implemented (see also Kreider & Raghupathy, 2010). First, many clubs designated a family friendly staff person to oversee family strengthening programming. Club leaders described finding staff members who are particularly friendly and effective with families among those with social work training, roots in the community, and even prior status as a parent volunteer in the club. A receptive staff and family audience were also found among those

28 H. KREIDER and S. CUNNINGHAM

engaged in related efforts, for example, in programs addressing preschool education and prevention efforts—such that family engagement projects were paired with or placed within these other efforts. Second, family programming met with success when it responded to the needs and interests of children, parents, and the local community. As one example of this, all informants recognized the value of placing children at the center of programming to appeal to parents’ priorities. Even youth knew that their parents were more likely to attend a club gathering that showcased their child’s talents. Finally, partnerships with other organizations and with schools also helped to build and sustain family programming. Partnerships tended to increase the availability of coordinated services, activities, and vital information to families, and to create an exchange of value between the club and other agency. For example, one club partnered with the local art museum yielding, among other things, a highly attended arts and crafts night for youth and families. A museum representative summed it up: “We have the art and they have the kids.”

Implications for Practice The typology of family engagement activities presented in Table 2.1, and the implementation strategies described above, held constant across categories of informants (club leaders, parents, and youth) and across evaluation phases (confirming trends from the pilot evaluation). The variety of activities and strategies emerged as a direct result of the flexibility inherent in the Family PLUS grant for clubs to determine their own community-specific programming, yet also reveal commonalities across clubs. Findings offer several implications for practice. First, staff leaders at clubs and other youth development settings might wish to contemplate the full set of family strengthening activities and implementation strategies presented above, to identify those well-suited to their goals and unique situation. Second, they might also consider taking stock of their existing relationships with children’s families, to determine whether a focus on building initial connections through social events, or deepening current relationships through volunteerism or leadership opportunities is called for. Third, OST program leaders might also consider the metadimensions of this typology and its implications for practice. For example, this new typology may in fact be sequential or interrelated in nature, in that family social events can provide an entry point towards further activities with greater family engagement. Depending on the goals of one’s OST program and its prior standing with families, different sets of activities may be warranted. Finally, OST leaders would do well to take a long view of family engagement. Not just with parent-program relations, but also parent-child

A Typology of Family Engagement 29

relations, relationship-building over the long haul may be an outcome of interest for future evaluations, employing a longitudinal design that assesses the benefits of Family PLUS and other similar family engagement efforts on parent and child outcomes over time.

REFERENCES Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share: Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701−712. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., et al. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harvard Family Research Project. (2003). Concepts and models of family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Author. Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 16(1), 3−42. Kakli, Z., Kreider, H., Little, P., Buck, T., & Coffrey, M. (2006). Focus on families! How to build and support family-centered practices in after school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Kreider, H., & Raghupathy, S. (2008). The Boys & Girls Clubs of America Family PLUS Initiative: Preliminary evaluation findings from Year 1 and 2 Pilot Sites. Unpublished report submitted to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America National Office. Kreider, H., & Raghupathy, S. (2010). Engaging families in Boys & Girls Clubs: An evaluation of the Family PLUS pilot initiative. School Community Journal, 20(2), 9−22. Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University. Wimer, C. (2004). Engaging with families in out-of-school time learning. Out-ofSchool Time Evaluation Snapshot, 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS AS A FRAMEWORK FOR ENGAGING FAMILIES IN OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME Andrew J. Schneider-Muñoz

At the University of Pittsburgh, I teach a course for university students, out-of-school-time (OST) program professionals, and parents, focused on the core competencies for child and youth care. Karen VanderVen (2003), who originally founded the course, wanted to help aspiring child and youth care professionals understand and apply a developmental assets framework in their programming—meaning those qualities that youth possess internally and adult stakeholders confer externally to support positive youth development. The course utilizes multiple pedagogies to achieve its aims, including expert guest lecturers; engagement in action research; site visits to OST settings like day care centers, Boys & Girls Clubs, and urban community centers; and an open invitation to youth in OST programs and their parents, as well as the family members of students in the course to attend class (Schneider-Muñoz & Fasano, 2011). A recent action research activity in the course focused on the developmental asset category of constructive use of time, and the specific asset of Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 31–41 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

31

32 A. J. SCHNEIDER-MUÑOZ

time spent at home (See Asset #20, Table 3.1). Students were charged with working together with youth and parents to establish guidelines and tools for the productive use of time to successfully complete homework. Especially in an era of school performance and accountability, many youth and families struggle with the large amount of subject drilling, reading, and responding to worksheets that must be completed each day after school (See VanVorhees, this volume, for more discussion on homework). Using the developmental assets framework described later in this chapter as a heuristic, students, parents, and youth first articulated homework successes and examples of how common homework challenges have been overcome. Then they divided into an adult group and a youth group to brainstorm next steps for supporting accurate and consistent homework completion. They then reconvened to discuss youth needs, desires, and willingness, as well as available resources and supports from the adults—considering both the internal assets of youth as well as external assets from their families and communities. These conversations culminated in the generation of a set of strategies that reflected youth, family and community strengths, including establishing a youth/parent phone tree, rotating study nights in different homes, a list of older youth and adults ready to tutor subjects, and the commitment from each family to discuss once a night how they could support not only their own children, but other families and children in getting homework done. These strategies were then implemented in the community. For example, one father set up a nightly phone tree to assess the homework support needs and availability of children and parents on his block. He coordinated parents’ responses and by text message shared which parent was available at what time for group tutoring. As a result, an informal neighborhood network for homework support was established. At the end of the semester, those involved reported a shared set of values in the community for getting homework done, as well as clearer and mutually-agreed upon homework guidelines and consequently healthier family boundaries. This example echoes earlier research on developmental assets describing asset-rich communities in which families organize study support nights in each others’ homes and parents and older youth collaborate in providing content and moral support for homework completion (Benson, 2008). This example also shows how a developmental assets framework and other strength-based frameworks can serve as a heuristic to help problem-solve challenges with homework and other key youth and family learning activities. In particular, successful management and completion of homework reflects, among other things, the internal assets that youth possess, as well as the external assets that families and others confer on youth. Youth’s commitment to learning, constructive use of time, and positive values are key to their own and others’ homework success, as are fam-

Developmental Assets as a Framework 33

ily boundaries and expectations, good family communication, and community network of support. Below I present an overview of the developmental assets framework, describe its key features and limitations, and discuss what the framework implies for how families can be engaged to support positive youth development.

OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS FRAMEWORK The developmental assets (Benson, 1990, 1997, 1999) are a set of strategies for basic care, community supports, positive youth development activities, and positive behaviors based in social skills and competencies—that promote healthy development across childhood and adolescence with increasing power to reduce risk and instead replace it with resiliency. The 40 developmental assets are divided into eight asset categories. The first four categories focus on external structures, relationships, and activities that provide a positive environment in which young people can thrive. These include supports, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time. The remaining four are internal assets that result from this development, especially values, skills, and beliefs that youth need to effectively interact with the world around them. These include commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity. This complement of external and internal assets reflects a social ecological perspective on child development, acknowledging the reciprocal influence of the child and the nested and interrelated environments within which he or she develops (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The current developmental assets framework is the culmination of decades of research by the Search Institute (www.Search-Institute.org). And over the past 20 years, the assets framework has been widely adopted —300,000 people have received asset-building training and 3 million young people have been surveyed about their assets.

KEY FEATURES OF THE ASSETS FRAMEWORK The assets framework boasts many qualities that OST program professionals and other professionals committed to family-school-community partnerships strive for in their programming and outreach efforts. Specifically, the framework is simultaneously evidence-based, strength-based, and developmental in nature.

34 A. J. SCHNEIDER-MUÑOZ

Table 3.1.

The Search Institute’s Framework of Developmental Assets

External Assets

Internal Assets

Support

Commitment to Learning

1. Family support—Family life provides high levels of love and support. 2. Positive family communication—Young person and her or his parent(s) communicate positively, and young person is willing to seek advice and counsel from parents. 3. Other adult relationships—Young person receives support from three or more nonparent adults. 4. Caring neighborhood—Young person experiences caring neighbors. 5. Caring school climate—School provides a caring, encouraging environment. 6. Parent involvement in schooling—Parent(s) are actively involved in helping young person succeed in school.

21. Achievement motivation—Young person is motivated to do well in school. 22. School engagement—Young person is actively engaged in learning. 23. Homework—Young person reports doing at least one hour of homework every school day. 24. Bonding to school—Young person cares about her or his school. 25. Reading for pleasure—Young person reads for pleasure three or more hours per week.

Empowerment

Positive Values

7. Community values youth—Young person perceives that adults in the community value youth. 8. Youth as resources—Young people are given useful roles in the community. 9. Service to others—Young person serves in the community one hour or more per week. 10. Safety—Young person feels safe at home, school, and in the neighborhood.

26. Caring—Young person places high value on helping other people. 27. Equality and social justice—Young person places high value on promoting equality and reducing hunger and poverty. 28. Integrity—Young person acts on convictions and stands up for her or his beliefs. 29. Honesty—Young person “tells the truth even when it is not easy.” 30. Responsibility—Young person accepts and takes personal responsibility. 31. Restraint—Young person believes it is important not to be sexually active or to use alcohol or other drugs.

Developmental Assets as a Framework 35 Boundaries and Expectations

Social Competencies

11. Family boundaries—Family has clear rules and consequences and monitors the young person’s whereabouts. 12. School boundaries—School provides clear rules and consequences. 13. Neighborhood boundaries—Neighbors take responsibility for monitoring young people’s behavior. 14. Adult role models—Parent(s) and other adults model positive, responsible behavior. 15. Positive peer influence—Young person’s best friends model responsible behavior. 16. High expectations—Both parent(s) and teachers encourage the young person to do well.

32. Planning and decision making—Young person knows how to plan ahead and make choices. 33. Interpersonal competence—Young person has empathy, sensitivity, and friendship skills. 34. Cultural competence—Young person has knowledge of and comfort with people of different cultural/racial/ethnic backgrounds. 35. Resistance skills—Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous situations. 36. Peaceful conflict resolution—Young person seeks to resolve conflict nonviolently.

Constructive Use of Time

Positive Identity

17. Creative activities—Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons or practice in music, theater, or other arts. 18. Youth programs—Young person spends three or more hours per week in sports, clubs, or organizations at school and/or in the community. 19. Religious community—Young person spends one or more hours per week in activities in a religious institution. 20. Time at home—Young person is out with friends “with nothing special to do” two or fewer nights per week.

37. Personal power—Young person feels he or she has control over “things that happen to me.” 38. Self-esteem—Young person reports having a high self esteem. 39. Sense of purpose—Young person reports that “my life has a purpose.” 40. Positive view of personal future—Young person is optimistic about her or his personal future.

Source: Table adapted from the 40 Developmental Assets (Search Institute, 2006).

Evidence-Based Three areas of applied research on children and youth undergird the developmental assets framework: positive youth development, which highlights the core processes that facilitate growing up healthy; prevention, which focuses on factors that protect children and youth from high risk behaviors; and resiliency, which focuses on the ability to succeed despite adversity. Comprehensive reviews of research in these areas inform and align well with the 40 developmental assets (Benson, Scales, Hawkins, Desterle, & Hill, 2004), which when tested against risk behaviors show an inversely proportional relationship to the number of supports available to

36 A. J. SCHNEIDER-MUÑOZ

the young person. The larger the number of assets present, the fewer risks to health and educational success (Benson, Scales, & Mannes, 2003). In addition, using youth, parent, and community surveys designed to measure the 40 developmental assets, research suggest that the overall level of assets are positively predictive of young people’s behaviors, including doing well in school, avoiding high-risk behaviors, and engaging in positive, thriving behaviors. Levels of assets when youth are younger are also associated with achievement, as well as high-risk behaviors and thriving, up to 3 years later (Roehlkepartain, Benson, & Sesma, 2003; Scales & Leffert, 2004; Scales, Sesma, & Bolstrom, 2003). Research also suggests that the assets are beneficial to youth across racial, ethnic and socioeconomic lines (Search Institute, 2003). Note the assets have been translated into 15 languages for use with various linguistic communities.

Strengths-Based The developmental assets framework is first and foremost a strengthsbased model. Before strength-based frameworks appeared in the fields of education and youth development, educators and youth workers often set a norm for mastery external to the child’s experience of relationships and almost exclusively emphasized observation, correction, and remediation if the child did not meet a particular developmentally appropriate marker. Today, we not only compensate for deficits, but first pay attention to what the child can do and build strengths from there. Since its inception, the framework has also evolved to reflect the various contexts in which children are nested as well as demonstrate predictive power as a strengthbased model that promotes positive youth development. Roth and colleagues (1998) reviewed 60 evaluations for youth development programs using the developmental assets as the framework for meta-analysis and found that asset-building programs were successful in promoting strengths as outcomes and decreased risk-behavior.

Developmental Although the assets framework originally focused on adolescents, the list has since been tailored to apply to four specific age groups—early childhood (ages 3−5), kindergarten to third grade (ages 5−9), middle childhood (ages 8−12), and adolescence (ages 12−18). Research suggests that developmental assets decline normatively in early adolescence (Grades 6−8), as risk-taking behavior becomes a feature of identity and value formation. Ultimately these risks can be countered with asset-based

Developmental Assets as a Framework 37

experiences as youth begin to recognize a competent sense of self capable of mastering a healthy adolescence (Grade 12) (Roehlkepartain, Benson, & Sesma, 2003).

Limitations It is important to note that the developmental assets model has not yet been tested by experimental design. However, a recent award from the U.S. Department of Education is supporting a randomized assignment and comparison group study of developmental assets in St. Louis Park, Minnesota; the first community to originally launch the developmental assets. In addition, much work has yet been done to test the interactions among sets of assets or to propose a sequence with which assets most effectively build strengths. Thus far, the model relies primarily on correlational research that positively associates number of assets with youth outcomes. Yet the model offers much value in presenting a powerful portrait of youth in a given community and the categories of supports that are either present or absent, and in turn can effectively mobilize and guide families and communities in what areas action needs to be taken to improve the potential for the success of youth.

ROLE OF FAMILIES IN THE ASSETS FRAMEWORK Among its many uses, the assets framework can help practitioners view families as part of the culture of caring surrounding youth, engage families in supporting specific youth assets, and inform the strengthening and empowerment of families themselves.

Families as Part of the Culture of Caring The developmental assets framework—which names schools, neighborhoods, and homes among the institutions with responsibilities toward youth—seeks to organize all of us who in some way can be considered a part of the extended family, to provide a culture of caring that helps children and youth to thrive in the community as a whole. Peter Benson (2008) defines a culture of caring as a developmentally-attentive community in which the vast majority of adults and families work together to provide an asset-rich environment of multiple activities and supports that repeat throughout the day in the life of each child. More specifically, the culture of caring is the set of interconnected relationships that grow in the

38 A. J. SCHNEIDER-MUÑOZ

neighborhood networks when an increasing numbers of adults invest time, talents and resources in providing activities and supports. These relationships are not only interconnected, but also reciprocal, such that OST professionals view themselves as learners as well as teachers, and are open to family members’ differing interpretations about what is the best course of action in supporting youth.

Families as Supporters of Specific Developmental Assets Several categories of external assets highlight the critical role of families in young people’s development. First, the framework demonstrates that families provide a key system of support surrounding youth, creating a nurturing environment, communicating positively, and supporting children’s school success. In the above example, a father spearheaded a group of neighborhood parents and older youth to support homework completion. Second, families provide important boundaries and expectations that guide children and youth, for example by establishing clear rules and consequences, monitoring young people’s whereabouts, and modeling positive, responsible behavior. Finally, the framework points to the home setting as a source of potential physical and psychological safety, and as a space for completing nightly homework, which in the above example includes youth’s own homes as well as neighbors’ homes. Other best-practice activities that families can engage in, and OST professionals can encourage, include asset-themed play, and physical, cultural and spiritual activities that together lead to synergistic developmental effects (VanderVen, 2008). Activities that can be done equally well at home and in OST settings are perhaps the most powerful ones for promoting developmental assets, by reinforcing consistent intentions and the developmental practice necessary for children to fully acquire skill sets and utilize competencies appropriately.

Families as Recipients of Asset Support The defining features of the asset framework as a whole apply not only to fostering positive youth development, but also to supporting and engaging families (Roehlkepartain, 2006; Vander Ven, 2008). Much as the fields of risk and resiliency in child development focuses on children’s strengths and how they defy negative predictors (e.g., Rutter, 2002), the family support field has begun to rename and redefine itself as a familystrengthening field (e.g., The Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2004). At its heart it recognizes that all parents strive to be good parents, but

Developmental Assets as a Framework 39

need opportunities and support to do the best they can for their children (Weiss, Woodrum, Lopez, & Kraemer, 1993). The depth of family engagement and support offered should be guided to move from participation, to involvement, and finally engagement (Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffrey, 2006). Participation refers to family attendance at program activities that highlight one or more developmental asset. Involvement refers to families’ increasing role in deciding the content and delivery strategies for asset-building OST activities. Finally, engagement refers to families empowered to decide and deliver a comprehensive range of asset activities together with youth themselves. In this scenario, OST program leaders serve more as advisors and guides in setting up opportunities to experience assets rather than acting like instructors. The example above illustrates this well—neighborhood parents and youth had equal if not greater voice along with university faculty and students in investigating homework needs, coconstructing strategies, and implementing these strategies in the community.

CONCLUSION In sum, the developmental assets framework reminds us that families provide critical supports, boundaries and expectations, and spaces through which children and youth thrive. And families are best understood, supported, and engaged in much the same ways that youth are—as actors in interrelated social systems, as possessors of resiliency and strength, and as constantly developing human beings with much promise to change individual lives and communities. To engage families in asset-building activities in the OST context offers a societal message of giving. While children and youth are receiving developmental opportunities to grow toward maturity, families are simultaneously experiencing interactions and systems of support that are fun, fulfilling, and predict a healthy and successful future for the whole community.

REFERENCES Benson, P. L. (1990). The troubled journey: A portrait of 6th to 12th grade youth. Minneapolis: MN: Search Institute. Benson, P. L. (1997). All our kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Benson, P. L. (2008). Sparks: How parents can ignite the hidden strength of teenagers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40 A. J. SCHNEIDER-MUÑOZ Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Leffert, N., & Roehlkepartain, E. R. (1999). A fragile foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Mannes, M. (2003). Developmental strengths and their sources: Implications for the study and practice of community building. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Ed.), Handbook of applied developmental science: Applying developmental science for youth and families (Vol 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hawkins, J. D., Desterle, S., & Hill, K. G. (2004). Successful young adult development. Report prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844−850. The Family Strengthening Policy Center. (2004). Introduction to family strengthening (Policy Brief No. 1). Washington DC: National Human Services Assembly. Kakli, Z., Kreider, H., Little, P., Buck, T., & Coffrey, M. (2006). Focus on Families! How to build and support family-centered practices in after school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Roehlkepartain, E. C., Benson, P. L., & Sesma, A. (2003). Signs of progress in putting children first: Developmental assets among youth in St. Louis Park, 1997−2001. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Roehlkepartain, J. L. (2006). Parenting pre-schoolers with a purpose: Caring for your kids & yourself. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute Press. Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescence: Synthesis of youth program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123−158. Rutter, M. (2002). Nature, nurture, and development: From evangelism through science toward policy and practice. Child Development, 73(1). Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development (2nd ed). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Scales, P. C., Sesma, A., & Bolstrom, B. (2003). Coming into their own: How developmental assets promote positive growth in middle childhood. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Schneider-Muñoz, A., & Fasano, M. E. (2011, forthcoming). Recognizing the future: Current trends in youth work and education, Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 23, 25-35. The Search Institute (2003). Unique strengths, shared strengths: Developmental assets among youth of color. Insights and Evidence, 1(2). Retrieved from http:// www.search-institute.org/system/files/InsightsBrief-11-03.pdf The Search Institute. (2006). The asset approach: 40 elements of healthy development, 2002−2006. Minneapolis, MN: Author. VanderVen K. (2003). Activity-oriented family-focused child and youth work in group care: integrating streams of thought into a river of progress. Child and Youth Services, 25, 15−30. Vander Ven, K. (2008). Promoting positive development in early childhood. Springer, NY. The Search Institute’s series on developmentally attentive community and society.

Developmental Assets as a Framework 41 Weiss, H. B., Woodrum, A., Lopez, M. E., & Kraemer, J. (1993). Building villages to raise our children: From programs to service systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

SECTION II FAMILIES’ SELECTION OF AND ADVOCACY THROUGH OST PROGRAMS

CHAPTER 4

THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN STUDENTS’ OUT-OFSCHOOL-TIME ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION Amanda Sommerfeld

THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN STUDENTS’ STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED OUT-OF-SCHOOL-TIME ACTIVITIES

Perhaps the greatest universal expectation of children and adolescents in the United States is school attendance. On average, however, primary and secondary education students spend only 20% of their waking hours in school,1 leaving the remaining 80% to be filled with family and out-ofschool time (OST) activities. With statistics such as these, it’s no wonder that scholars across the social sciences have invested considerable effort in understanding not only the benefits and drawbacks of activity involvement but also the reasons why students participate in the OST activities that they do. With regard to the latter, research has consistently identified one factor above all others that determines OST activity involvement: Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 45–53 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

45

46 A. SOMMERFELD

parents. By discovering, permitting, funding, and supporting activities, it is parents and caregivers that hold considerable influence over how students spend their OST. However how and why parents encourage involvement in certain OST activities is not as simple as it may seem; myriad factors including the availability, benefits, perceived accessibility, and safety all determine what activities parents and caregivers support. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to explore the role of parents and caregivers (referred to jointly as parents) in students’ OST activities and discuss some of the contextual factors that moderate student involvement.

BENEFITS OF ACTIVITY INVOLVEMENT In order to begin this consideration of the role of parents in OST activity selection, we must first begin with the shared knowledge that, despite some methodological issues and confounding variables that obscure results, research has generally supported the idea that participating in high-quality, structured OST activities is beneficial for students. That is not to say that unstructured activity involvement is without merit. In fact, unstructured, child-initiated play has long been deemed essential for exploring and mastering environments (cf. Elkind, 2007), and unstructured, “pick-up” sports games or impromptu music “jam sessions” provide opportunities for spontaneity, creativity, and leadership (Shannon, 2006). However, an examination of the literature consistently shows that it is the opportunities to “establish … personal identity, … [practice] social and cooperative skills, [achieve] specific intellectual or physical attainments, and [explore] a variety of peer, family, and community roles” (Willits & Willits, 1986, p. 190)—opportunities most often found in structured, well-planned, adult-directed activities—that produce the greatest outcomes. In particular, research has demonstrated connections between involvement in high-quality, structured OST activities and better academic outcomes, including higher academic achievement (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Marsh, 1992), lower drop-out rates (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; McNeal, 1995), and higher college acceptance rates (cf. Kaufman & Gabler, 2004), as well as more favorable psychological and social outcomes, including lower subjective reports of depression and isolation (Mahoney, Schweder, & Stattin, 2002; Richards et al., 2004), greater confidence (Eccles & Barber, 1999) and self-esteem (Pedersen & Seidman, 2005), and greater feelings of personal satisfaction (Hanson, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Hills & Argyle, 1998).

Parents’ Role in OST Activities 47

FACTORS THAT PARENTS MUST CONSIDER IN OST ACTIVITY SELECTION Based on the findings listed above, we may be led to believe that the decision for students to participate in structured OST activities is a foregone conclusion; surely all parents would want the positive benefits of structured activity involvement for their children. However not all activities are created equal, with significant variability being seen among structured activities in terms of their organization, supervision, and even safety. For example, in their study of youth recreation centers, Mahoney and colleagues (2004) found that in those centers lacking consistent supervision and structure, students were actually shown to deteriorate over time, showing increased antisocial behaviors. The authors hypothesized that these findings were directly related to the type of modeling that took place in the centers, with the lack of proper adult supervision allowing for negative peer influence. This research provides one example of the challenges that parents face in selecting OST activities—just because an activity is said to be “structured” does not guarantee its safety or integrity, and just because a program is safe or beneficial does not mean that it’s accessible. In order to protect against the possibility of deleterious programs, many parents simply enroll their children in school-based activities under the presumption that these activities will be available, well supervised and safe. However because of the differences in school resources, even this strategy presents its challenges. As Quiroz (2000) points out, educational budget cuts often target extracurricular programs first, reducing the number and type of possible activities and decreasing school support for such activities. As a result, schools are often left unable to support structured activities for students. One residual effect of decreased school support for extracurriculars is the resulting cost to families of participation. Current estimates of the cost of participation in structured extracurricular activities ranges from hundreds to thousands of dollars each year (Benjamin & Correa, 2010), with many schools instituting a “pay-to-play” policy. And although some school districts do have the resources to assist families financially, others require the student themselves to fundraise. Oftentimes this fundraising comes through bake sales or other on-campus events that, in high-poverty urban schools, creates significant competition between clubs or activities for limited student resources. As the above suggests, the context in which a family resides holds significant implications for the types and quality of OST activities available. Families residing in lower-income urban settings, in particular, are presented with appreciably greater challenges to finding high quality, easily accessible programs because of the limited support available for both

48 A. SOMMERFELD

school- and community-based programs in these areas (Carnegie Foundation, 1992). As a result, parents are often reliant on school personnel to assist in the identification of appropriate programs. Unfortunately, just as urban schools sometimes struggle to locate the resources for extracurricular activities, school personnel also struggle to find the time during which they can communicate possible OST activities to parents. For example, Quiroz (2000) found that conversations about the importance of extracurricular involvement were often omitted at the urban school that she studied as a result of the incredible demands placed on educators. One counselor in her study noted that No, no I don’t usually discuss activities with students. I don’t really discuss anything beyond the course scheduling. I have three hundred students whom I have to counsel on courses once a year … [and so I] don’t have a lot of time to spend with students. (p. 269)

Because of this, students and parents were denied information pertaining to the availability and importance of activities. Conversations between urban parents and school personnel may also be complicated by the history of racial and social class oppression of urban families by organized education; oppression which persists today. For example, as Lareau and Horvat (1999) describe, even in schools located in non-White or working class communities, White, middle class norms around values and interactional patterns are often upheld within school walls. As a result, in their study educators were often seen misattributing the questions and concerns of parents as hostile attacks rather than as inquiries, thereby denying parents the information they sought. In terms of OST activity information, then, because of misunderstandings due to language, interactional style, or even trust, parents might not get the information they need in order to identify acceptable programs within or outside their neighborhoods. Even if parents were to find acceptable programs, parents and students are then faced with the pragmatic issues of mobility and transportation, which also complicate activity involvement for urban youth. As McMeeking and Purkayastha (1995) write, mobility of urban students is significantly compromised due to the fact that many urban families choose to rely on public transportation rather than cars. Unlike their suburban counterparts, then, who may rely on parents to chauffeur them to various activities, urban youth are faced with negotiating the routes and schedules of buses and trains, making it difficult to participate in structured activities that are outside of their neighborhood. Even when public transportation is available, parents of urban youth must consider the safety of letting children travel on their own. With

Parents’ Role in OST Activities 49

greater rates of violence, gang-related activity, and drugs in urban versus suburban environments (Larson, Richards, Sims, & Dworkin, 2001), parents may be less willing to have their children spend time unsupervised in neighborhoods, including during commutes. This concern over community factors is identified as one reason why urban students may spend more time in the home either idling or watching television (Jarrett, 1997). As Jarrett writes, because of the dangers inherent in some urban, public environments, parents are forced to be hypervigilant in overseeing children’s involvement in activities outside of the home. Parents of urban youth are therefore left to decide if the known benefits of structured activities outweigh the realistic barriers that such involvement presents. This cost/benefit analysis is of great consequence, as research has suggested that parent attitudes are a key predictor of children’s OST activities (Shannon, 2006).

PARENTS’ ATTITUDES AS DETERMINING OST ACTIVITIES Logically parents of younger children play a central role in determining the activities in which their children are involved; in comparison to adolescents, younger children are less likely to self-identify possible alternatives. However as the research suggests, even in adolescence students rely on their parents to make decisions about OST. In her study investigating the role of parental messages in determining adolescents’ OST activities, Shannon (2006) noted that expectations regarding parental support for activities were an essential factor in adolescent choices. According to her participants, parental messages about leisure activities fell into two categories: either that they are valuable as a means to an end (i.e., that activities resulted in skill development, resume building, leadership, etc.) or that they are worthwhile because they allow for relaxation. Of these two messages, the adolescents in her study perceived their parents to be more supportive of activities that met the former requirement, as a means to an end. As one of her participants noted, I live a ways out of town … and that’s a problem sometimes because if I want to go to the mall or hang out … my parents won’t make a trip in to get me. If I have to stay at school for band or volleyball practice … they have no problem with that … they have ideas about what is worth a trip into town and that pretty much influences [my] activities. (Shannon, 2006, p. 410)

For the families in this study, then, decisions about the relative worth of activities were based on perceived long-term benefits; a perspective that is often reinforced in high-performing middle-class suburban schools where parental resources are abundant.

50 A. SOMMERFELD

In these higher socioeconomic class environments, parental attitudes about OST activities are often predicated on what will help students be more competitive on college applications and in the job market (Luthar, Shoum, & Brown, 2006). Furthermore, the school environment serves to reinforce this outlook by prioritizing maximum involvement in extracurriculars despite the associated costs (Quiroz, 2000). However in urban environments as well as in lower-performing urban schools, parental considerations and resulting attitudes require greater pragmatism, with decisions having to consider the availability and accessibility of available options rather than just the long term benefits of structured OST activities. It is, perhaps, for this reason that we see such differential rates of student involvement in structured OST activities across suburban and urban students.

RESULTING DIFFERENCES IN RATES OF OST INVOLVEMENT In studies examining relative involvement in structured OST activities, researchers have consistently found that working-class and poor youth from urban neighborhoods spend significantly less time in structured activities than their middle-class, suburban peers (McMeeking & Purkayastha, 1995), with some research estimating that urban youth spend as little as one-third as much time in structured activities as suburban youth (Larson et al., 2001). Therefore, while suburban youth may be spending their time in enriching activities meant to further develop their identity and skills while also enhancing their college applications (Quiroz, 2000), lack of accessible and high quality OST options may force some urban students to fill their time with unstructured activities such as watching television, “hanging out,” or “idling” with peers at home (i.e., thinking, waiting, doing nothing, listening to music” [Bohnert, Richards, Kolmodin, & Lakin, 2008; Lippmann, Burns, McArthur, Burton, Smith, & Kaufman, 1996]). And although these activities certainly do not provide the enrichment benefits of high quality structured activities, they do assure parents of child safety (Larson et al., 2001; Richards et al., 2004), which necessarily must be considered first.

SUGGESTIONS FOR OST PROGRAMMING As the previous research suggests, the benefits of high quality, structured activity involvement are well-documented: Greater academic achievement, better social functioning, and increased emotional well-being. However because of the unrecognized barriers that parents must confront

Parents’ Role in OST Activities 51

so their children can participate in structured activities, efforts to increase the availability of high quality programs for all students have fallen short. To change this, high-quality, structured OST programs must be created not only with an eye to the goals of the program, but to their accessibility as well. OST activity creators must be mindful of the population they are seeking to serve and what is required in order for that population to participate. For example, program creators of OST activities for urban students should pay attention to factors such as cost, transportation, and safety, and should communicate to parents their attention to these issues. If activity involvement requires a fee, program creators might consider devising fundraising strategies that can be integrated into the program in order to supplement costs. Furthermore, because of the importance of location and transportation, program developers should be mindful of where the activities are taking place and, if they require significant travel from participants, arranging for safe or supervised transportation. Finally, given the importance of parent buy-in for student involvement, program developers might want to consider the advice of Shann (2001) and consult with parents, school personnel, and community members early on in order to identify the needs of families and the barriers to involvement. In doing so, program developers might be able to identify key issues that require attention in order for the program to be successful and specific populations that should be targeted for outreach. By attending to these contextual factors, new program creators might be able to do that which has previously proven challenging: making high quality, structured OST activities available to a wider array of students.

NOTE 1.

Based on estimate of 6.5 hours per day, 180 days per year (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

REFERENCES Benjamin, M., & Correa, T. (2010). USJF defends families paying for extracurricular activities. United States Justice Foundation. Retrieved from http://usjf.net/ 2010/04/usjf-defends-families-paying-for-extracurricular-activities/ Bohnert, A.M., Richards, M. H., Kolmodin, K. E., & Lakin, B. L. (2008). Young urban African American adolescents’ experience of discretionary time activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(3), 517−539. Carnegie Foundation. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.

52 A. SOMMERFELD Eccles, J., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43. Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How Spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Hanson, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25−55. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 523−535. Jarrett, R.L. (1997). African American family and parenting strategies in impoverished neighborhoods. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 275−288. Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics, 32, 145−168. Lareau, A., & Horvat, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37−53. Larson, R., Richards, M. H., Sims, B., & Dworkin, J. (2001). How urban African American young adolescents spend their time: Time budgets for locations, activities and companionships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 565−597. Lippmann, L., Burns, S., McArthur, E., Burton, R., Smith, T., & Kaufman, P. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty, NCES 96-184. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Luthar, S. S., Shoum, K. A., & Brown, P. J. (2006). Extracurricular involvement among affluent youth: A scapegoat for “ubiquitous achievement pressures”? Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 583−597. Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241−253. Mahoney, J. L., Schweder, A. E., & Stattin, H. (2002). Structured after-school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with detached relations to their parents . Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 69−86. Mahoney, J.L., Stattin, H., & Lord, H. (2004). Unstructured youth recreation centre participation and antisocial behaviour development: Selection influences and the moderating role of antisocial peers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(6), 553−560. Marsh, H.W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 553−562. McNeal, R. (1995) Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of Education, 68, 62−81. McMeeking, D., & Purkayastha, B. (1995). “I can’t have my mom running me everywhere”: Adolescents, leisure, and accessibility. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4), 360−378. Pedersen, S., & Seidman, E. (2005). Contexts and correlates of out-of-school activity participation among low-income urban adolescents. In J. Mahoney, R.

Parents’ Role in OST Activities 53 Larson, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 85−109). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Quiroz, P. (2000). A comparison of the organizational and cultural contexts of extracurricular participation and sponsorship in two high schools. Educational Studies, 31(3), 249−275. Richards, M.H., Larson, R., Miller, B.V., Luo, Z., Sims, B., Parrella, D. P., et al. (2004). Risky and protective contexts and exposure to violence in urban African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 138−148. Shann, M.H. (2001). Students’ use of time outside of school: A case for after school programs for urban middle school youth. The Urban Review, 33(4), 339−356 Shannon, C.S. (2006). Parents’ messages about the role of extracurricular and unstructured leisure activities: Adolescents’ perceptions. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(3), 398−420. U.S. Department of Education (2002). Average length of school year and average length of school day, by selected characteristics: United States, 2001−02. National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2001−2002. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/ table_2004_06.asp Willits, W., & Willits, F. (1986). Adolescent participation in leisure activities: ‘The less, the more’ or ‘the more, the more’? Leisure Sciences, 8, 189−205.

CHAPTER 5

FAITH-BASED OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME OPPORTUNITIES Impacts of Faith-Based Initiatives on Children and Families S. Russell Vaden

General family background characteristics and interests have been documented as a known influence upon children’s outcomes in afterschool program participation (Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007). Important family characteristics such as socioeconomic status, family composition, family education, and family faith history all are indicators that have been shown to influence the family’s decision of how to structure participation in educational and out-of-school time (OST) programs (Borden, Perkins, Villarreal, & Stoner, 2005; Lareau, 1987; Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007; Wallace, 2002). When considering those variables which appear to bolster family choice and support of afterschool programs, it is interesting to ponder the effects of family interactions with faith-based or religiouslyaffiliated OST opportunities. Some may wonder whether the relationship between this program type and the general student outcomes rests more solidly upon the structure of the faith-based program or upon the family’s Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 55–67 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

55

.

56 S. RUSSELL VADEN

perception of such an outlet for afterschool involvement. Therefore, this discussion of faith-based OST programs will focus primarily on family perceptions as functions of program choice and support. The organizational mission statement of the National Institute on Out-ofSchool Time (NIOST) includes the belief in the importance of establishing initiatives that “ensure that all children, youth, and families have access to high quality programs, activities, and opportunities during non-school hours,” as well as the foundational proposition that such “experiences are essential to the healthy development of children and youth, who then can become effective and capable members of society” (NIOST, 2010, http:// www.niost.org). Across various sectors of the social backdrop of most communities, there are many institutions and agencies—such as churches— that emerge as logical providers of such an aim for children’s welfare and benefit. Of interest to scholars and community leaders is the set of factors that lead families and students to the decisions that they make when considering choices in the community with regard to which OST programs to support and attend. Levels of community support and analysis of perceived barriers to quality service appear to be key indicators of families’ choices in this arena (Borden et al., 2005). However, just as critical are the issues of family faith and church identification (Wallace, 2002). When considering ways in which issues of faith and religion couch a family’s choice of OST program, it is helpful to consider a series of interrelated factors. There are many objectives that churches meet when establishing and sustaining quality OST opportunities. Typically, faith-based programs work toward many of the same outcomes that other institutions do in this area, but with different processes and means in mind. By structuring afterschool services around faith-based initiatives, church-affiliated OST programs generally work toward lowering juvenile delinquency, increasing literacy achievement, strengthening family centeredness, and improving young people’s self-esteem and positive outlook (Blank & Davie, 2004). Two primary types of church-related OST programs commonly are found within the community. First, programs housed at centers on congregational grounds are strongly linked to the faith initiative of the parent congregation or church, with intentions to indoctrinate the participants in basic ideological principles associated with the sponsoring church (Carlos, 2002). Second, programs housed in neutral locations (i.e., community center or school building), with ties to interfaith and/or interdenominational agencies, are not linked to particular ideological factors, but are strongly grounded in character development and mentoring activities such as the use of guided exploration of behavioral choices and understanding of personal development (Blank & Davie, 2004). A popular example of such a program would be found in the common practice of peer mentoring and conflict resolution programs which are very promi-

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 57

nent in the interdenominational agency setting. In either case, the faithbased opportunities establish venues for youth development that focus on the improvement and advancement of child-centered growth (Borden et al., 2005). Regardless of the distinguishing types of church-related OST programs, the function of community perception appears to be the same. Community members typically believe church-affiliated afterschool programs to provide more self-reflective and character-focused experiences for young people than do their non-faith-based peer programs elsewhere in the community (Bauldry & Hartmann, 2004; Carlos, 2002). Based on this general belief, it may be logically concluded that families make deliberate choices to enroll their children into faith-based OST program models, due to the expected gains stated above. Although a primary goal of the quality OST program is to increase child development by providing additional time for learning and structured socialization (Afterschool Alliance, 2009), faith-based programs are believed by families within the community to add a unique approach to social skills, character building, and service-oriented thinking skills that may not necessarily be afforded in a nonreligious affiliation of after school programs. Overall, family choice of faith-based OST programs may be influenced by the combination of variables discussed above.

TRENDS THAT IMPACT CHURCH-AFFILIATED OST PROGRAMS When considering family choice in OST opportunities, it is pertinent to review the trends that set faith-based OST sites apart from other types of programs within the community setting. There are many trends and issues that may impact the viability and sustainability of faith-based OST programs differently than might impact that of more secular opportunities. Within the structure and development of the faith-based program, inherent characteristics pose circumstances that are believed to affect child development outcomes differently than would be expected in other types of OST settings.

Funding Sources Various types of OST programs across the nation commonly have been faced with funding source issues that compromise their longevity, due to the overabundant reliance on grant-based and federal-program initiatives (Padgette, 2003). Many OST sites find that this funding issue makes it difficult for them to sustain long-term goals for their programmatic endeav-

58 S. RUSSELL VADEN

ors. Faith-based programs, however, report a much more varied and flexible funding routine, as they are less dependent upon federal support and governance for programmatic functioning. Based on the different advisory, governance, and support structure for funding that faith-based OST programs enjoy, these sites are able to focus more closely on the social and situational needs of congregational constituents without being heavily dependent upon fiscal concerns that stem from governmental action (Economic Development Center, 1994). Faith-based OST venues often are supported—at least in part—by direct family contribution. Not solidly funded by family sources as a fiscal measure, but more as a generosity contribution such as a tithe, families impact the funding of faithbased OST programs more so than they influence the fiscal direction of any other OST source within the community. Family giving via faith organizations has been a widely used method of program sustainability in afterschool programs.

Staff Development Following Guskey’s (2002) model review of teacher change and training, staff development in OST programs should be focused on increasing the quality of teacher interaction and staff connectedness with student participants. However, according to the California School Age Consortium (2010), quality training and staff support for OST programs is diminishing. One of the most significant challenges in OST program development is tailoring a training and support system for staff that meets the needs of the setting as being different from typical child-care or educational facilities and programs (Costley, 1998). Although credentialing and training requirements for OST programs generally are not compatible with those of professional educators or traditional childcare providers, OST staff members do rely upon structured staff development opportunities in order to make use of theoretical and practical issues for program effectiveness. Particularly in faith-based programs, the use of volunteers and congregational members (including parents and other family members) may overshadow the more professionally-driven nature of other types of OST staffing patterns. Families view quality care giving and high-impact teaching with great respect, and their participation in these OST venues appears to mirror that value. Support and retention may be of interest in this area, as the level of training and education may be vastly different in church-related programs when compared to more traditional institutions of education and child-care focus. Typically, faith-based centers are staffed primarily by congregation members and/or persons with interfaith connections to the

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 59

foundational ministry that supports a particular OST site (Economic Development Center, 1994).

Race and Socioeconomic Issues Youth in racial minority groups participate significantly less frequently in OST activities and programs than do their Caucasian peers (PasaventoRamond & Kelly, 1991; Wimer et al., 2005). Similarly, perceived quality of gain from leisure and afterschool activities is reported to be positively correlated with socioeconomic status (Stamps & Stamps, 1985). Because church-affiliated OST programs often are tied directly to the congregations where the services are housed and sustained, the demographic variables within the congregation are of important consideration to the functioning of the OST program itself. For instance, churches that include primarily minority constituencies generally serve their populations with a different ethic of care than do congregations that include majority culture. These congregations extend more of a structured focus on social and economic development within the immediate community than do other church bodies (Jones, 1988). Therefore, OST programs at faith-based sites structure their outreach and care activities differently than do other program types based on the social, economic, and political needs of their constituents. Frequently, this is based in the situated context of the racial and socioeconomic backdrop of the church itself. Workers in faith-based OST programs typically follow the ethic of care that is established and sustained by the sponsoring congregation, with outlooks and beliefs about participation being similar regarding the social and economic characteristics of the population served by the OST program (Nevarez-LaTorre, 1997). For instance, faith-based OST venues typically follow the protocol for stewardship and community advocacy as set forth by congregational or denominational beliefs and value systems.

Family Congregation Issues Although program evaluation research has not demonstrated that youth’s personal identification with faith-based initiatives for OST programs impact the perceived outcome of the OST service (Blank & Davie, 2004), family church attendance and parental monitoring and involvement surrounding faith-based issues are significant variables when predicting youth benefits from leisure and afterschool activities in religious programs (Huebner & Mancini, 2003). Family identification with the primary faith principles identified within a faith-based OST program is of

60 S. RUSSELL VADEN

central interest in a family’s affiliation with a particular faith-based service. Generally, families who utilize particular OST services at faith-based sites are demographically and ideologically similar—if not the same— compared to the population of the congregation itself (Nevarez-LaTorre, 1997).

FAMILY CHOICE OF CHURCH-AFFILIATED OST PROGRAMS In the quest for understanding why families might select faith-based OST programs for their children, rather than other secularly-driven programs, it is wise to consider both the barriers that youth and their families perceive to quality OST opportunities as well as the benefits that families perceive to church-related activities. This combination of factors may assist in explaining the general attraction to faith-based OST venues. Regarding perceived barriers, the following have been cited in literature, as demonstrated in the metareview of OST opportunity factors conducted by the Afterschool Alliance in 2010: 1. Limited focus on preferred activities. An estimated 25% of youth have been reported to exit OST programs within two months of initial participation due to lack of interest in activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Faith-based OST programs may be in the position to increase retention in OST activities, thereby diminishing this drop-out statistic, due to child and family interest in the faith-based ideology and activity that naturally mirror the family’s congregational experience within the church. When making afterschool time compatible with both the educational and the faith experiences of the family, interest in OST activities may naturally increase within that environment, appealing to both parents and youth. A general implication of this finding is that the OST field, in a general sense, may strengthen its impact on family choice by facilitating needs assessment research across venues in order to tap into the rich sources of data that families and youths might offer with regard to what they prefer to experiences within their OST participation. 2. Diminished stimulation of natural curiosity in community-based activities. Approximately 65% of nonattendees of OST programs report that they do not utilize OST programs because of the lack of interest in extending the school-day into structured activities (Lauver, Little, & Weiss, 2004). Although many OST programs that are sponsored and endorsed by school-system entities and community center agencies favor literacy instruction and structured mentoring tasks, faith-based OST programs may grant young people opportunities

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 61

to extend afterschool learning via service learning and community service venues that do not mirror curriculum tasks. Wallace (2002) supports the use of faith-based initiatives for building interest in this type of structured learning and development opportunities that stimulate natural curiosity in human engagement opportunities. Youth and their families are likely to find this an attractive feature of church-affiliated OST programs. 3. Lack of reliable transportation. Nearly 49% of surveyed parents report that transportation barriers constitute the primary decision not to participate in OST programs (Lauver, Little, & Weiss, 2004). Although many community-centered OST programs are decentralized from neighborhoods and community hubs, faith-based OST opportunities are likely located in neighborhood church facilities that mirror travel distances from home to school. Travel to churchrelated centers may be less of a difficulty for families to manage due to physical location being more neighborhood-based, particularly in urban areas. Also, church-related OST programs are more likely than others to involve safe and reliable transportation modalities that are provided by the OST program itself. 4. Weaknesses in financial resources. The majority of surveyed families indicate that financial constraints make OST program participation less of a reality for their children (Afterschool Alliance, 2009). Due to funding sources and continuity of church-related OST programs being sustained largely by congregational giving and constituency-based support, financial hardship becomes less of a barrier in church-related OST programs. As identified in a review of funding and staffing resources above, the strength of family support is unique to the faith-based OST venue. With parents and other congregational members providing monetary and staffing support for the OST programs, church-driven venues often are more likely to sustain long-term benefits than are their community peer agencies. Also, due to the philanthropic nature of community care that churches endeavor to their congregations, the meeting of families’ concrete needs is more likely to be a reality via faith-based programs than in other venues within the community. Aside from those perceived barrier factors, there are numerous benefits that families perceive in their choice of church-related activities. For instance, families typically align themselves with faith-based initiatives so that they can garner support in the following areas: 1. Character education and support for young people (Blank & Davie, 2004). Families may be more likely to be attracted to faith-based

62 S. RUSSELL VADEN

OST programs because of the tendency toward centralized ideologies consistent with family faith backgrounds. 2. Family cohesion through congregational support (Nevarez-LaTorre, 1997). As stated previously, families attach themselves to centralized opportunities for developing support systems through congregational activities that extend into the OST activities for young people. 3. Family identity support through faith exploration (Jones, 1988). When exploring OST programs in faith-based venues, families are able to extend their faith training to their children via the support of faith based activities that mirror church community expectations and teachings. Beyond the perceived barriers and benefits cited here, there are sources of evidence in the literature that predict family likelihood of engaging in particular types of OST experiences. For instance, when exploring predictors of youth participation in OST venues within the community, variables of ethnicity, family structure, friend endorsement, and gender significantly predicted afterschool involvement in faith-based activities and programs (Huebner & Mancini, 2003). Regardless of a family’s perception of barriers or benefits, the stronger predictors appear to be ecological and familial variables when considering what draws families toward choosing faith-based OST opportunities for their youngsters.

OVERALL IMPACTS OBSERVED IN CHURCH-AFFILIATED OST PROGRAMS Although research concerning the selection and endorsement of the church-related OST venue is rich in valid sources, the prevalence of outcome-based evidence is limited at best. There are few effectiveness and outcome-measure studies that focus primarily upon church-related OST programs with regard to benefits for families and youth. The small number of those studies is mostly bound within the framework of cross-sectional snapshot research, indicating self-report correlations at single points in time. Because effectiveness research with regard to participation in leisure and structured socialization is best offered in longitudinal format (Larson, 2000), the existing explorations of faith-based OST may not be the most reliable menu of evidence for participation. Despite that disclaimer, a few studies have proposed some seemingly compelling arguments (not causal longitudinal evidence) for involvement in OST venues in religious contexts.

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 63

Trusty and Watts (1999) found that young people who found themselves surrounded by and supported within faith-based activity venues demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes and behaviors toward academic and vocational pursuits than did their non-attending peers. Similarly, those young people who identified more strongly with churchaffiliated activities demonstrated a positive correlation between their attendance and their frequency of volunteer work, successful academic achievement (i.e., grades), and general school-related cooperation and collaboration. Related to those themes, that population also demonstrated a negative correlation between attendance and drug use or experimentation during adolescence. Maluk and colleagues (2008) reported that partnerships between churches, schools, and families have overwhelming positive effects on youth outcomes with regard to connecting families to the surrounding community, increasing young people’s positive feelings toward educational endeavors, and improving youths’ behaviors and social exchanges via character building and mentoring. This partnership is believed to have significant effects on family functioning as well as youth growth and development. With both the family and the educational experience being supported by the church-affiliated program, young people experience more positive social outcomes. Other sources (Halpern, 2002; Miller, 2003) have substantiated that OST opportunities that combine focus areas to include both academic development and personal/character development appear to bear more significant influence on positive outcomes in youth than those programs that cater primarily to instructional and/or curricular advantage. Faithbased OST programs are more likely than other community-based ventures to expose young people to this combination of factors. Beyond those cross-sectional studies which offer broad support for faith-based OST participation, there are a few longitudinally-driven causal studies that appear to generalize the notion that involvement in church-related settings (whether for faith or for leisure) is a significant developmental marker for later social engagement and mental health that appear to be made more positive due to the church-related involvement. For instance, O’Connor, Hoge, and Alexander (2002) reported that adolescents who were acclimated to faith-based settings outside of school and direct worship times before the age of 16 were statistically significantly more likely to demonstrate positive states of social adjustment and solid states of faith identification than their non-church-acclimated peers after the age of 32. Generalizing to a developmental trend, this implies that faith-based OST venues have at least moderate power to impact adulthood life skills and themes, but only if introduced at early ages.

64 S. RUSSELL VADEN

A word of caution is due, however, when considering the way that some studies have proposed the links between OST venues and outcomes. Particularly when discerning outcomes for youth who engage in faith-based and community-driven OST venues, most of the significant findings appear to rest upon differences between people who participated in the studies, rather than upon the differences between the programs/venues examined (Fauth, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). This may suggest that there are inherent differences between the people who chose faith-based OST venues and those who do not. Differences viewed among the venues in evidence-based studies may be just as likely due to the characteristics of the people in the studies as to the features of the venues under exploration.

CONCLUSION Because young people in the contemporary American culture spend approximately half of their waking hours in nonschool ventures (Larson & Verma, 1999), the careful crafting of the OST opportunity is of critical interest in child development and education. Capitalizing on the variables that contribute to OST success will prove important for shaping the future of young people’s well being and general life success. Faith-based OST programs can influence this outcome by partnering with families and schools to produce positive experiences as outlined above. It is wise for families and educators to be aware and mindful of the potential for perceived social barriers to participation in these OST venue opportunities. However, it is prudent that participants are knowledgeable about the potential for positive impact and potential for growth as seen in the literature. Families and their advocates should focus upon the youth’s participation with the end in mind. From an educational perspective, faith-based OST programs have much to offer the community at large. Social outcomes, academic benefits, and even mental health correlates can be readily seen within the evidence for support of these programs. With these ideas in perspective, church-affiliated OST venues are sure to be perceived through positive lenses. Choice and support for these programs are strong.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE From the review of themes and concepts from the scholarly literature about OST venues, the following recommendations can be offered to faith-based programs that shape OST opportunities for young people in our communities:

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 65

1. Needs assessment research should be conducted at each faithbased OST site. The purpose of this population-specific research would be to determine the perceived barriers that families may interpret as threats to their participation, the preferences that families have for activities and approaches toward participation, and the inherent value of support and sustainability that families may be able to offer to sites with regard to successful administration and implementation of programs. With at least annual research in this vein, OST programs can adjust services and opportunities to meet the expressed needs of their target clientele. 2. Potential barriers should be decreased through effective marketing and education. Once the needs assessment data indicators identify such barriers, the OST site should set about defining and advocating for support mechanisms within the OST program that may serve to lower the perceptions of the barriers by encouraging family choice and participation. Clever social marketing and targeted educational opportunities can be helpful in decreasing family anxiety and confusion about OST participation. 3. Placing key value upon family support can create a natural strengthening of the faith-based OST program. As stated within this review, families tend to support faith-based programs more diligently and generously than other community agencies. Faithbased programs can purposefully shape the success of their programs by incorporating ways in which family monetary contributions, parent and caregiver volunteerism, and family alignment with organizational missions can assist the OST program with shaping positive impacts upon their young participants. 4. Research in longitudinal format should occur at each OST site in order for more evidence-based outcome evaluation to occur. Evidence should be demonstrated as a function of participationover-time with attention to outcomes and benefits of OST engagement.

REFERENCES Afterschool Alliance (2009). Leveraging out-of-school learning to boost high school success: A Proposed federal investment. Washington, DC: Author. Bauldry, S., & Hartmann, T. A. (2004). The promise and challenge of mentoring highrisk youth: findings from the national faith-based initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/ assets/21_publication.pdf

66 S. RUSSELL VADEN Blank, S. & Davie, F. (2004). Faith in their futures: The youth and congregations in partnership program of the King’s County District Attorney’s Office. Retrieved from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/170_publication.pdf Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F., Villarreal, F. A., & Stoner, M. R. (2005). To participate or not to participate: that is the question. New Directions for Youth Development, 105(spring), 33−49. Carlos, S. H. (2002). A comparative study of an African American faith-based educational after-school program partnership and an independent educational after-school program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. California School Age Consortium. (2010). Organizational mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.calsac.org Costley, J. (1998). Building a professional development system that works for the field of out-of-school time. Wellesley, MA: NIOST. Economic Development Center. (1994). A child at the door: A guidebook for starting a child care program in your church. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center. Fauth, R. C., Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Does the neighborhood context alter the link between youth’s after-school time activities and developmental outcomes? A multilevel analysis. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 760− 777. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381−391. Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after school programs for low income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 178−211. Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2003). Shaping structured out-of-school time use among youth: the effects of self, family, and friend systems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(6), 453−463. Jones, A. (1988). Black churches: Can they strengthen the black family? Carnegie Quarterly, 33(1), 1-10. Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family school relationships: the importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(April), 73−85. Larson, R.W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170−183. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701−736. Lauver, S., Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (July 2004). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Harvard Family Research Project, 6. Retrieved from www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/ projects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief6.html Maluk, H., Hartmann, T., Getz, S., Mitchell, C., Hugh, R., & Parnes, L. (2008). Faith-based Partnerships from the Perspective of the Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action. Miller, B. (2003). Critical hours: After School programs and educational success. Brookline, MA: Nellie Mae Educational Foundation.

Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Opportunities 67 National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2010). Organizational mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.niost.org Nevarez-LaTorre, A. A. (1997). Influencing Latino education: faith-based community programs. Education and Urban Society, 30(1), 58−74. O’Connor, T. P., Hoge, D. R., & Alexander, E. (2000). The relative influence of youth and adult experiences on personal spirituality and church involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 723−732. Padgette, H. C. (2003). Financing the out of school time sector: lessons learned and innovative strategies. Providence, RI: Kids Count. Retrieved from http:// www.mypasa.org/failid/Financing_OST_Sector.pdf Pasavento-Raymond, L. C., & Kelly, J. R. (1991). Leisure and life satisfaction of unemployed North American urban minority youth. Society and Leisure, 14, 497−511. Stamps, S. M., & Stamps, M. B. (1985). Race, class, and leisure activities of urban residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 40−56. Trusty, J., & Watts, R. (1999). Relationship of high school seniors’ religious perceptions and behavior to educational, career, and leisure variables. Counseling Values, 44, 30-39. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Structuring out-of-school time to improve academic achievement. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf /practiceguides/ost_pg_072109.pdf Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high quality after-school programs: longitudinal findings from the study of promising after-school programs. Irvine, CA: University of California and Washington, DC, Policy Studies Associates. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/ docs/PASP%20Final%20Report.pdf Wallace, J. M. (2002). The Skillman Foundation: A Call to service faith-based initiative —Year one evaluation report. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan School of Social Work. Wimer, C., Bouffard, S. M., Caronongan, P., Dearing, E., Simpkins, S. D., Little, P. M. D., et al. (2005). What are kids getting into these days? Demographic difference in youth out-of-school time participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

CHAPTER 6

EMPOWERING FAMILIES TO GUIDE AND ADVOCATE FOR THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION Lessons From the Higher Achievement Program Richard A. Tagle

Miss Harriett Ackman1 waited patiently outside the principal’s office at Benjamin Banneker High school, one of the top high schools in Washington, DC. In her hands were index cards with questions about the high school’s application process, academic standards, extracurricular electives, and teacher qualifications. She wanted to make sure that the high school would offer the educational opportunities that her daughter Tameka would need in order to get into a good premedical program in college so that she could fulfill her dream of becoming a pediatrician. Tameka’s success would be exceptional compared to her peers in Washington, DC. More than 90% of DC public school students drop out of high Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 69–80 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

69

70 R. A. TAGLE

school, never enter college, or fail to get a college degree (Kernan-Schloss & Potapchuk, 2006) and, on average, only 14% of eighth graders in DC perform on grade level in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading tests (Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Miss Ackman knew that for Tameka to beat these odds, she would need to play a prominent role in guiding and advocating for Tameka’s education. Like all parents, Miss Ackman wants the best for her child. But prior to enrolling Tameka in the Higher Achievement Program, a college-preparatory afterschool and summer school program for middle school students, she did not know which high schools would maximize the likelihood that Tameka would be successfully on the road to college. Nor did she know what questions to ask to figure this out. Out-of-school time (OST) programs are crucial partners in supporting families’ engagement in their children’s education, and can help parents, like Miss Ackman, develop the skills and understanding to make sure their children get an excellent education. This chapter describes emerging promising practices that OST programs can use to build families’ capacity to be guides and advocates for their children’s education, drawing on lessons learned from how the Higher Achievement Program (hereon referred to as Higher Achievement) has empowered families to be strong partners in their children’s education.

OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS AS INTERMEDIARIES FOR FAMILY ENGAGEMENT Afterschool and summer programs for students often reach out to families as part of their programming. A study of family engagement in 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which are federally funded afterschool programs, found that 56% of programs have activities that engage families in support of student learning (Weiss & Brigham, 2003). OST programs are well-positioned to engage families in their children’s education for a number of reasons. First, these programs are more flexible than schools in their delivery and staffing contracts, enabling program staff to reach parents during and after work hours, and on the evenings and weekends. Partially due to this flexibility, OST programs can provide training and skills-building opportunities for parents and families that schools may not have time, resources, or staffing to support. OST programs also lack many of the constraints that schools and districts have due to state and federal reporting requirements, so can present data to families in a more comprehensible fashion and format. Last, OST programs are often hubs of the community or, as one researcher noted (DelgadoGaitain, 2001), “cultural brokers” that can connect parents to other ave-

Empowering Families 71

nues for involvement within the community and to other community members themselves. For these reasons, OST programs can be seen as intermediaries—community-based organizations that act as mediators between families, schools, and students’ educations. A study of intermediary organizations found four crucial goals that drive their work to build the individual capacity of families to be engaged: (1) enhance their confidence and efficacy as parents, (2) build their knowledge and skills to support and guide their children’s education, (3) facilitate the development of parent social networks, and (4) develop leadership skills to promote school reform (Lopez, Kreider, & Coffman, 2005). Together, these goals can help OST programs leverage their relationships with families so that they take an active role in their children’s learning. The strategies that OST programs can use to achieve these goals —with a specific focus on helping families better guide and advocate for their children—are delineated below and discussed in relationship to how the Higher Achievement Program has implemented them in its program.

HIGHER ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM Higher Achievement is a year-round rigorous academic support program for middle school students from fifth through eighth grades in underserved areas of Washington, DC, Alexandria, Richmond, VA, and Baltimore, MD. Our research-based program challenges middle school students to meet their full potential in three key areas: academics, social skills, and leadership. Founded in 1975, Higher Achievement helps develop students’ skills, attitudes and behaviors in order to improve grades, increase test scores, improve school attendance, and increase the likelihood that program graduates will be placed in a high school that gets them on track to college. Program evaluation findings show that participating students’ grades and test scores improve and 100% of program participants get into college preparatory high schools. In addition, 96% of students who have completed Higher Achievement have gone on to college. Results from a five-year, randomized control study on the impact of Higher Achievement will be available in 2012. Higher Achievement students devote 650 hours in rigorous academic work each year in school-based program sites that provide afterschool and summer programming. Our programs are staffed by trained mentors and teachers that provide homework help and lead small group instruction in core content areas, such as math, science, literature, and technology, that are aligned to local learning standards. The daily afterschool schedule also includes enrichment classes and activities to build the socioemotional and leadership development of our students. Higher Achieve-

72 R. A. TAGLE

ment students also participate in a 6-week summer program that offers a day full of academic and elective classes, recreation and enrichment events, and field trips. For over 35 years, Higher Achievement has worked collaboratively with families to help expand and extend academic opportunities for middle school students. The success of Higher Achievement is due not only to high-quality programming for students, but also to a purposeful effort to build the capacity of families to be successful guides and advocates in their children’s education. Stemming from a belief that families are crucial to creating supportive learning environments, Higher Achievement parents are partners in building a solid, cohesive network of supports for students to keep on track to academic and social success. Along with program staff, teachers, volunteer mentors, and peers, families become an extension of Higher Achievement’s culture of high expectations and excellence. Over our many years working with middle school students and their families, a number of strategies have emerged as crucial ingredients in empowering families to be skillful guides and strong advocates for their children’s education.

STRATEGIES TO HELP FAMILIES GUIDE AND ADVOCATE FOR THEIR CHILD A scan on family engagement programs and parents’ needs and interests in Washington, D.C. found “universal agreement among parents of all backgrounds that they want to feel like they are “out in front” of their child” (Symphonic Strategies, 2009, p. 11). Although families play many roles in OST, and in their children’s education, this chapter hones-in on the roles that help families be “out in front” of their child by being strong guides and advocates. This includes tracking their children’s performance and progress in school, making good decisions about their children’s educational options (see also Somerfield and Vaden’s chapters in this volume for more on how parents choose OST contexts), monitoring and steering their children’s path to college, navigating the educational system, and negotiating and advocating for programs and schools that will help their children succeed. These strategies are particularly important in middle school, which can represent a challenging transition time in which adolescents are developing their independence and autonomy, going through intense developmental changes, and navigating different educational contexts and structures. Family engagement during this time is critically important, as parents play roles in preparing their child for successful high school and college transitions. A review of family engagement in middle and high

Empowering Families 73

school found that the ways in which parents take responsibility for their children’s learning outcomes during this time, including managing their homework completion, communicating high educational expectations, and encouraging their children to go on to college can reap important benefits for students (Kreider, Caspe, Kennedy, & Weiss, 2007). In a metaanalysis of family engagement in adolescence, Hill and Tyson (2009) found that across three constructs of parent involvement—home-based, schoolbased, and academic socialization, that academic socialization was the most important form of family engagement in predicting student achievement. This includes how families reinforce the value of education in their children, communicate their expectations and aspirations, hold their children accountable for doing well, and connect their child’s learning to the real world. Higher Achievement helps families develop the confidence, knowledge, and skills to be guides and advocates for their children’s education. We have found six core strategies that help our families navigate, monitori, and steer their children’s education so that they can get in to great high schools and, eventually, great colleges. These strategies are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Set the tone for families’ involvement Share and demystify data and information Help families identify and ask questions Provide coaching and advocacy support Create avenues for parents to interact with other adults Connect parents to leadership opportunities

This section describes the rationale for these strategies, as well as how they have been used by Higher Achievement to help families guide and advocate for their children’s successful high school placement.

Set the Tone for Families’ Involvement Families’ decisions about if and how they guide and advocate for their children are largely driven by how they understand their roles in relationship to their children’s education and how confident they feel in executing these roles (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). For family members who have successfully completed school, and whose parents, themselves, played active roles in guiding and advocating for their children, this confidence and role construction may come naturally. Yet families who have had negative experience with education or who are unfamiliar with the often unstated roles they are expected to play may feel alone in figuring

74 R. A. TAGLE

out what they should do to support their child. Setting clear and high expectations for families’ involvement—and then providing support to meet these expectations—is a key first step in building families’ efficacy and role construction. Higher Achievement has developed systems to help families’ understand why their involvement is important, and what they should do to support their children’s success in our program. During the application process for the program, families are required to be present during an interview so that they, too, understand the rigors and requirements of their children’s participation. Families also sign a learning community contract, which outlines the roles and responsibilities they will have as part of a network of academic support their children. This includes attending an orientation meeting to meet other families and set goals with their children, submitting student grades and test scores so that Higher Achievement can monitor student progress and work with families to understand whether their child is on track to meet his or her goals, and also supporting their children’s full participation in the program. This contract contributes to families reinforcing Higher Achievement’s culture of high expectations by holding their children accountable, providing space and support for him or her to study and do homework, and emphasizing the importance of hard work, rather than luck or innate ability, for their children to excel.

Share and Demystify Data and Information To turn concerned parents into engaged parents, information is critical. OST programs can help families find, comprehend, and use information related to how their children are doing academically in relationship to standards, as well as how schools are performing related to other educational options for their children. Harvard Family Research Project posits that three elements are needed to effectively share school and student data with families: access, understanding, and action. Access includes making data that families want and need available to them in easily navigable, systematized ways. The element of understanding is premised on ensuring that families can comprehend the data, which includes presenting it in a format and fashion so that important trends and information is easily interpretable by families. Action refers to sharing information so that it is clear what families are supposed to do with it—making it forwardlooking and specific rather than passive and generic (Weiss & Lopez, 2010). Higher Achievement offers high school placement workshops and seminars to help families get, understand, and make use of school quality

Empowering Families 75

data as their middle school students are making plans for high school transition. These workshops provide the opportunity for staff to sit with individual parents and family members and provide an orientation to the high school landscape of the school district. Families learn about the traditional public schools, charter schools and parochial and private high schools in the area, their performance and offerings relative to one another, admission requirements, and how successful they are in their graduation and college acceptance rates. With this information, families begin identifying the schools that they would like to target for their children, and then unpack their requirements for admission. We then hold one-on-one meetings with every parent or caregiver so that they can look at their individual child’s data to sketch out a plan for the middle school years. This includes setting benchmarks for which classes their child needs to take, what grades they need to get, and what academic standards they need to master to be competitive and prepared for college-preparatory high schools.

Help Families Identify and Ask Questions To best guide and advocate for their children, families need to understand key decision points related to their child’s education, and seek information to help them navigate these transitions or concerns. Formulating questions is a key skill that parents need to do so. A qualitative evaluation of the Right Question Project, an educational program that helps families, schools, and communities formulate and reflect on questions to address their concerns, found that participating parents experienced a number of benefits, including thinking more critically about their children’s education and their role in it, feeling more confident in their ability to support their children’s education, taking action to be more involved, and applying questioning skills to other aspects of their life (Mauceri, Rothstein, & Santana, 2000). Clearly, asking questions is an important skill that parents use to solicit information, communicate with school staff, and make decisions for their child’s education. During the high school transition process, parents are encouraged to ask questions of principals, teachers and other school staff of the high schools of their choice. During informal conversations with our staff, as well as in parent seminars, family members brainstorm the important questions they will need in order to figure out which schools are going to best help their child achieve. What is the learning environment like? How are teachers recruited in the school? What training and professional development do teachers and staff receive to make sure they are not only knowledgeable about the subject matter they are teaching, but also teaching it

76 R. A. TAGLE

well? How often can I contact my child’s teachers? How often is data on my child’s performance provided? Who can I go to if I have any questions about the data provided? These questions help students and their family members, like Ms. Ackman, gauge the quality of fit between their child and these schools.

Provide Coaching and Advocacy Support OST programs can provide coaching and support to families so that they are able to take on advocacy roles for their children. Increasingly, parent leadership programs, such as the Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership, are using a combination of formal training and guided assistance to empower families to demand the best options for their child, or multiple children (Henderson, Jacob, Kernan-Schloss, & Raimondo, 2004). With some adaptation, OST programs can adopt these lessons from proven parent leadership models to help their students’ families become informed and empowered to steer their children’s education. Higher Achievement’s approach to coaching families to be advocates is highly individualized and personalized, relying on the fact that program staff have strong relationships with families and students, so are well-positioned to encourage them to advocate and arm them with the information to do so. For example, when Bernice Hawks found out that her son, Bryon, was waitlisted at McKinley Tech High School—a promising science and technology magnet school—she reached out to Higher Achievement staff for help. What can she do? Who does she meet with, and who can she speak with and convince them how smart and dynamic her son was? Program staff guided and coached her with information she can put together that will show that Bryon is a hardworking and talented student, how she can meet with the principal and get a clearer understanding of what the school’s requirements are and the type of student they are looking for. Almost every day for a week, Miss Hawks contacted the principal, ultimately convincing him to interview Bryon again. As a result of this advocacy, Byron was accepted to McKinley after his second interview. This advocacy support was tailored to the unique situation of Byron and his mother, yet is a strategy that OST program staff can use to further their impact on student outcomes.

Create Avenues for Parents to Interact With Other Adults Parents want to know if other parents face similar issues and challenges as they do, and what other families are experiencing related to preparing

Empowering Families 77

their child for college and beyond. Theories of social capital posit that the networks parents develop with one another can reap benefits for their child’s educational success (Coleman, 1988) by helping parents access information about how to support their children’s education, challenge educators and administrators to be accountable for their child, and negotiate for special considerations for their children (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003). Higher Achievement facilitates these connections among parents by holding fun events for families throughout the year. At these events, families reduce their sense of isolation, identify collective interests, and ultimately find additional support from other parents. Much of the learning about how to navigate DC’s educational system and which schools are the best comes from family-to-family conversations. In addition to fostering connections to other families, OST programs can help connect families with adults who act as positive role models or mentors to their children. Making connections across the people that support a child can help strengthen the whole system that supports them (see Nakagawa’s chapter in this volume). No matter how busy parents are with their jobs (or multiple jobs), they welcome the opportunity to come meet and network with those who have their children’s best interest at heart. As part of Higher Achievement’s goal to get participating students accepted into college preparatory high schools, we work to empower families and bring them along as partners in this process. One of the strategies we use is to facilitate introductions and meetings between Higher Achievement families and high school representative staff members. This includes holding small group meetings where families can get to know those working in high schools their children may attend, and ask questions of them about their schools’ performance, criteria for admission and application process, and approach to education. By facilitating these relationships among school staff and families, OST programs then create an additional source of support and information that families can use to guide and advocate for their children’s education.

Connect Parents to Leadership Opportunities A family member that effectively advocates for his or her own child can also effectively navigate for changes that affect all children in a school system. A scan of parent leadership programs across the country concluded that one of the key strategies of successful programs is connecting parents to government and other avenues where they can voice their concerns and advocate for solutions to common problems their child or community faces (Henderson, 2010). Families can be connected to leadership opportunities beyond back-to-school nights or one-on-one meetings with teach-

78 R. A. TAGLE

ers and other educators. There are community engagement activities and public forums that have been designed to gather public input such as school board meetings, superintendent forums, neighborhood commission meetings, city council meetings, and a host of others. Training parents and families to be comfortable and confident in presenting their views in these public settings is an important element of building their capacity to be guides and advocates for their children’s education. Higher Achievement has a long history of coaching families to take on new and challenging roles as leaders. This happens through one-on-one leadership development, as well as seminars, and builds off of the skills that Higher Achievement has helped parents develop to advocate for their own children. One example is Mr. Al Saunders, who has spoken passionately before the city council about how his two daughters, Tameka and Moira, have improved their academic performance since they started attending Higher Achievement. He spoke of the need for high quality OST programs that have an academic focus and create a supportive yet rigorous structure. He highlighted the need for families to have more community-based partners beyond their children’s teachers to create a strong network of supports for all students. He advocated for more city funding for programs like these that show good results and get schools and parents working together. This testimonial shows how OST programs can help families be advocates not only for their children’s education, but also for a whole group of children. By working with families to develop their potential as leaders, OST programs can also home-grow ambassadors and advocates for their own programs.

CONCLUSION Family engagement helps produce the conditions necessary for learning and achievement. Out of school time programs help schools develop and foster this level of engagement among parents and caregivers in partnership with educators and other individuals concerned about the quality of education in schools. Higher Achievement, as an example of a rigorous academic OST program, helps develop the confidence, skills, and knowledge that empowers parents and families to become strong guides and advocates for their children’s education. This process requires not just ensuring that parents and families are part of a strong network of other individuals who share the same concerns, but also the provision of data and the skill-building for how to ask questions based on what the data shows and what matters to families. It also requires providing coaching and advocacy support to families, and connecting them to leadership

Empowering Families 79

opportunities, so that their voice is heard in decisions about their children—or the educational system. Across these strategies is a common denominator of creating a systemic set of family engagement opportunities that takes a purposeful and strategic approach to helping families be guides and advocates for their children’s education. Furthermore, Higher Achievement builds relationships with families to leverage their involvement. Because families are invested in the goals of Higher Achievement, as well as trusting of the staff that work there, they are open to receiving guidance and information to help them support their children’s learning. Last, much of the guidance and information that families receive is personalized—though workshops are key way Higher Achievement builds parents’ capacity to be guides and advocates, the majority of this work happens in a one-on-one or small group basis.

NOTE 1.

Names have been changed to protect the confidentiality of parents discussed in this chapter.

REFERENCES Center for Education Statistics. (2009). NAEP. Reading results. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2009/state_g8.asp Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95−S120. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2001). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling. Denver, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Henderson, A. (2010). Building local leadership for change: A national scan of parent leadership training programs. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Henderson, A., Jacob, B., Kernan-Schloss, A., & Raimondo, B. (2004). The case for parent leadership. Arlington, VA: KSA Consulting and the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Hill, N., & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 730−763. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3− 42. Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relation between school and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319−351.

80 R. A. TAGLE Kernan-Schloss, A., & Potapchuk, B. (2006). Double the numbers for college success: A call to action for the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: College Access Program. Kreider, H., Caspe, M., Kennedy, S., & Weiss, H. (2007). Family involvement in middle school and high school students’ education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Lopez, M. E., Kreider, H., & Coffman, J. (2005). Intermediary organizations as capacity builders in family educational involvement. Urban Education, 40, 78− 105. Mauceri, K., Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2000). The impact of the right question: Project educational strategy on parents, schools, education reform organizations, communities, and children. Cambridge, MA: Author. Symphonic Strategies. (2009). Parental leadership programs in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Fight for Children. Weiss, A., & Brigham, R. (2003). The family participation in afterschool study. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Responsive Education. Weiss, H., & Lopez, E. (2010). Breaking new ground: Data systems to transform family engagement in education. Family Involvement Network of Educations Newsletter, October 2010. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

SECTION III USING OST TO HELP FAMILIES SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LEARNING PROCESS

CHAPTER 7

ENGAGING FAMILIES IN STUDENT HOMEWORK Action Steps for Educators Frances L. Van Voorhis

Emery sits down to complete her writing homework. She must recall a time when she needed help from someone. Emery remembers when her mother helped her learn to ride a bike. She writes a paragraph about it and how proud she felt once she was able to ride a bike without training wheels. Then, as part of the assignment, Emery must ask an adult about a time when s/he needed help. Emery’s father tells her about starting a lawn business in high school with his stepfather’s help. He earned enough money to pay for several years of college expenses. This was something new that Emery learned about her father, and both father and daughter enjoyed the chance to talk about people who offered them a helping hand. In contrast to the many boring or tedious assignments students find themselves doing throughout their years of schooling, this interaction allowed for a meaningful exchange between daughter and father. Because of its regularity and variability, the range of homework reactions run from highly negative to positive depending on factors such as amount of time spent, demands, real-world applicability, rewards for completing it and/or consequences for not, and so forth (Cooper, 1989; Epstein, 1988). Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 83–96 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

83

84 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

Numerous popular press books debate homework’s importance and question its relation to academic achievement (Bennett & Kalish, 2006; Kohn, 2006; Kralovec & Buell, 2000), and a search of “homework help” on Google produces millions of hits. These complaints about the homework process often arise because students and their family partners spend time on it during their out-of-school time. Certainly, homework has the potential to serve as a meaningful link between home and school. Because the process often involves students, teachers, parents or other family partners (i.e., afterschool providers), homework deserves more attention from educators so that the time spent by all may be best utilized. In addition, when homework and other out-of-school learning reinforce or overlap with the work of school, complementary learning occurs and best supports a child’s development (Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Salinas, Jansorm, & Van Voorhis, 2009; Weiss, Little, Bouffard, Deschenes, & Malone, 2009). Teachers, for their part, report that the homework process needs to improve, and that they would like time to (1) ensure that assignments are relevant to the course and topic of study; (2) build in time for feedback on assignments daily, and (3) establish effective policies at the curriculum, grade and school levels (Markow, Kim, & Liebman, 2007, p. 136). This same study also indicated that elementary and secondary teachers spend an average of 13 to 19 hours per week on homework-related activities for their students. Because teachers spend significant time and carry the responsibility for assigning and designing homework, it remains critical for them to understand how homework impacts both student achievement as well as student and family attitudes about homework (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2003, 2004, 2009). Homework research to date yields four key findings that should inform and guide homework professional development and interventions for educators: (1) completing homework is often related to stronger achievement; (2) there are several different purposes for assigning homework; (3) families often need teacher guidance to support student learning at home; and (4) teachers whose homework assignments provide opportunities for student and family involvement often see more positive attitudes toward homework and achievement results. By understanding and using these research principles, teachers may more effectively engage students and families in homework that promotes student learning and development. HOMEWORK AND ACHIEVEMENT “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Accordingly a genius is often merely a talented person who has done all of his or her homework” (Riera, 2004, p. 115). This quote from Thomas Edison supports the findings of meta-analytic research on the positive relationship of

Engaging Families in Student Homework 85

homework and academic achievement (effect sizes ranging from small (d = .21) to large (d = .97), e.g., Cohen, 1989; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006; Marzano & Pickering, 2007). Studies of time spent on homework also reveal positive associations with academic achievement, especially for secondary students (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006). Therefore, teachers often expect students to do more homework as they move from the elementary through secondary grades. For example, analysis of data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study indicated that while only 7% of first graders had teachers who expected students to spend at least 30 minutes per night both reading and math homework, 18% of third grade and 43% of fifth-grade students had teachers with these expectations (Warkentien, Fenster, Hampden-Thompson, & Walston, 2008).

PURPOSES OF HOMEWORK In homework improvement workshops I lead, the full answer to this question often stumps educators. Though educators readily name practice and preparation for the next day’s learning as important purposes, many other reasons exist for assigning homework. Chaos ensues when the purpose of homework remains ambiguous; therefore teachers must clearly identify why they assign particular activities and communicate these purposes to both students and families. Homework purposes serve three main functions: instructional; communicative; and political (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2004). Both elementary and secondary students most frequently report completing homework designed for practice or preparation for the next day’s learning (Cooper & Valentine, 2001; Polloway, Epstein, Bursuck, Madhavi, & Cumblad,, 1994; Markow et al., 2007). While teachers and parents share similar views on the purposes of homework, developmental differences exist in children’s understanding of these purposes. For example, while young elementary children reported that they completed homework as a way to get approval from parents or teachers, parents and teachers saw homework as a strategy to synthesize learning and develop personal responsibility (Warton, 1997, 2001; Xu & Corno, 1998). Homework also serves communicative functions and may require parent-teacher communication, parent-child or peer interactions. Placing homework in a social context often elicits more positive responses from students. For example, Leone and Richards (1989) found that homework completed with a parent or family members, in the classroom, or with peers was rated more positively than when homework was completed alone.

86 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

Finally, homework plays a political role when it is assigned because of a policy mandate or to satisfy public expectations. For example, individual teachers, principals, the whole school staff, educator-parent teams, and/or superintendents may decide that students should receive a certain amount of homework each day or each week. Some districts and many schools have policies that include homework frequency, duration per night, and roles of parents in the homework process (Cooper, 2007; Roderique, Polloway, Cumblad, Epstein, & Bursuck, 1994). Additionally, homework may be assigned to demonstrate to parents and to the public that a school has high standards for student work. In considering the varied purposes of homework, teachers can maximize homework’s impact by integrating multiple purposes in one homework assignment. For example, the interactive homework activity described at the beginning of the paper helps students practice paragraph writing skills, requires individual participation in student learning, encourages parent-child interactions, and fulfills requirements of the school homework policy. When homework incorporates multiple purposes, teachers must take care in communicating the roles of both students and families regarding independent and interactive work.

HOMEWORK GUIDANCE FROM TEACHERS TO FAMILIES “For everyone of us that succeeds, it’s because there’s somebody there to show you the way out. The light doesn’t always necessarily have to be in your family; for me it was teachers and school” (Lowe, 1998, p. 20). This quote from Oprah Winfrey addresses the fact that life experiences often involve help from family, mentors, teachers, and so forth. Homework is no exception. Whether guided by teachers to do so or not, one survey revealed that two-thirds of parents speak with their children at least twice a week about homework, and 40% discuss homework daily (Markow et al., 2007). The tasks that engage family partners in the homework process range from actions that almost all partners can take with little guidance from school (i.e., sign completed tasks or enforce family rules and guidelines for homework behavior) to those that may require school support of parents’ skills (i.e., tutor the student or break complex problems into manageable parts) (Hoover-Dempsey, Battiato, Walker, Reed, DeJong, & Jones, 2001). The importance of guidance for families in homework-support skills speak to research findings that parents report often feeling unprepared to help with certain subjects and concerned about providing inappropriate help (Cooper, Lindsay, & Nye, 2000; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Burow, 1995; Markow et al., 2007; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). For exam-

Engaging Families in Student Homework 87

ple, while 87% of parents report that helping children with homework is an opportunity to talk and spend time together, 43% of elementary and 57% of secondary school parents reported feeling less than well prepared to help their children with homework (Markow et al., 2007). In fact, some meta-analytic studies have found that families’ help with homework is associated with decreased student achievement (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Fan & Chen, 2001). These correlational relationships can emerge because families often help students who are having difficulties, families do not always know the best ways to assist their children in homework tasks, and educators do not always provide the information and tools families need in order to best help with homework. In order to maximize homework’s impact for more students, educators can help by providing tips, tools and guidance to families so that they can best support their child’s learning at home. Schools that provide families with information on how to support their children during school work at home are more likely to engage families in offering appropriate help as well as regular discussions with their children about what they’re learning in school (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

TIPS INTERACTIVE HOMEWORK STUDIES “We enjoyed them [TIPS Math activities]. They were easy to understand, but you were still learning new things. There were interesting games and ideas. I think you should continue them because I am not a math person and I enjoyed them” (Van Voorhis, 2011). While some homework may be designed for students’ independent work and study, other assignments may be designed to require interactions between students and family partners to discuss or explore topics students are learning in the classroom. One type of interactive homework is the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) Interactive Homework process (Epstein et al., 2009; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Van Voorhis & Epstein, 2002). TIPS assignments differ from traditional homework in that they are assigned once a week or twice a month; students are given several days to complete the activity; certain sections of the activity guide students on how to involve family partners (i.e., parents, older siblings, neighbors, afterschool providers, etc.) in conversations and activities; and partners provide feedback as to how effective and enjoyable the activity was for them and the student. As with conventional homework, TIPS activities are integrated with the curriculum, graded, and designed to extend student learning. TIPS Interactive Homework helps schools correct many of the shortcomings in current homework practices. Use of TIPS’ research-driven approach helps teachers identify curriculum topics that require interac-

88 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

tion for better comprehension. Through the assignments, teachers provide a “script” for students to know exactly what to ask or demonstrate in order to inform family partners about what they are learning, and how to engage parents in real-world applications of topics and skills. To protect family partners from embarrassment for not knowing specific concepts, teachers design interactive questions that partners can discuss without having a formal education or detailed knowledge of the subject. The TIPS assignments include a section for home-to-school communications. If students find the assignments to be too challenging or too easy, family partners and students may provide feedback to the teacher to alter the assignment for future use.

TIPS Research Results Three 2-year longitudinal studies of the TIPS process in elementary math and middle school language arts and science provide insight into the beneficial effects of interactive homework (Van Voorhis, 2009, 2010). For each study, because TIPS use was assigned by teacher each year, three homework “treatment” groups emerged: students and families who were given no TIPS assignments over the course of 2 years (Control); TIPS 1 Year (students and families who were given TIPS for 1 of the 2 study years); and TIPS 2 Years (TIPS for 2 consecutive study years). Thus, TIPS teachers assigned TIPS weekly to their classes over the course of the school year (along with other independent work) while Control teachers assigned their regular independent homework and no TIPS activities. Both TIPS and Control students received similar amounts of nightly homework, but only TIPS students received a regular interactive activity each week. The results presented here include 575 students and their families in nine schools. Across these schools, 57% of participating students received free-reduced price meals and 51% were male. Thirty percent of the full sample were Control group students, 35% were TIPS 1 Year students, and 35% were TIPS 2 Years students. Overall, students across the three studies returned between 72 and 91% of assigned TIPS. In addition, family partners signed between 55 and 88% of those activities. Student and family reports on the time students spent on subject-specific homework did not differ between the TIPS and the Control groups. Specifically, 68% of students in both TIPS and Control groups reported 15-20 minutes in the specific TIPS subject (Van Voorhis, 2010). Also important to understanding the impact of the intervention is how both students and families assessed TIPS and homework. TIPS students

Engaging Families in Student Homework 89

and families rated their emotions significantly more positively during homework interactions than did Control students and families. For example, in Year 2, 66% of TIPS-2 Year students indicated a “happy” homework experience while only 51% of Control students did so. Even more striking was the report that 51% of TIPS families had a “happy” homework experience, while only 32% of Control families did so. Regression analyses assessed the impact of the TIPS intervention on standardized achievement test scores, controlling for differences in gender, race, class ability grouping, meal status, study type and previous standardized test score. Over and above these background characteristics, students in the TIPS 1 and 2 Year groups tended to earn significantly higher standardized test scores than did Control students. This full regression model accounted for 49% of the variance in standardized test scores at the end of the 2 years. A useful exercise is to compare the established effect sizes between homework and academic achievement to those of the TIPS studies reported above. As mentioned previously, researchers have reported homework and academic achievement effect sizes between d = .21 and d = .97 (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006; Marzano & Pickering, 2007; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Results of TIPS’ evaluations (above) have revealed effect sizes for TIPS homework and achievement (report card grades or standardized test scores) ranging from .23 and .49, small to medium effects (Van Voorhis, 2010). Given that the higher reported effect sizes in the literature often represent comparisons of students completing homework to those not completing homework, it is logical that the TIPS weekly homework impact is lower. Remember that Control students in the TIPS studies completed similar amounts of time on homework as the TIPS students, but one of the TIPS homework assignments each week represented an interactive discussion of class learning. Therefore, the results suggest that successfully implementing programs such as TIPS homework on a weekly basis may result in percentile gains for student achievement between 10 and 20% over those not completing such interactive homework assignments. TIPS is one aspect of a complete homework program, but it has the potential to engage more students and families in learning discussions than when only independent homework is assigned. For many schools and districts, such activities may be well worth the investment of time and resources. Teacher Steps for Implementing a TIPS Interactive Homework Program Given the benefits for both students and families, educators interested in TIPS should work through three main steps if they desire implement-

90 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

ing a successful TIPS Interactive Homework Program. The steps commence in the summer prior to the start of the TIPS implementation year and run through the following school year (see Table 7.1). Develop TIPS for the School Year. In the summer months, the faculty should discuss the subjects and grade levels for which TIPS will be used. It is advised that students should complete no more than one interactive assignment per week in all subjects. Then, a team of teachers (between 2 and 5 with several experienced teachers) should be identified for each Table 7.1. Action Steps to Effectively Engage Families in Student Homework Throughout the School Year TIPS Interactive Homework

FALL/ WINTER/ SPRING

SUMMER

Develop TIPS for the School Year.

General Family-Friendly Homework Assess the Homework Plan for the Year.

• Choose subject and grade level for • Review school/classroom homework TIPS. policies including frequency and time • Identify a TIPS teacher writing team. expectations, grading information, • Adapt/develop TIPS for the entire and student and family roles in the school year process. • Discuss the TIPS family-friendly sched- • Conduct a homework inventory and ule, grading, and orientation plan. identify various purposes of homework assignments. • Edit or toss out any unsuccessful homework used in the past. • Consider different and reasonable ways you may involve families in homework. • Coordinate project deadlines with fellow teachers. Implement and Communicate Regularly About TIPS.

Encourage Two-Way Communication About Homework.

• Implement and Communicate Regularly about TIPS. • Orient students and families to the TIPS process. • Implement, grade/check, and follow up TIPS assignments on a regular basis but no more than once per week. • Review feedback in the Home-toSchool Communication Section and respond where appropriate. • Talk with students and families early on if TIPS are completed without a family partner. Encourage interaction, and if the student cannot identify a family partner, work with them or help them find one. • Share homework lessons learned with fellow teachers.

• Encourage Two-Way Communication about Homework. • Regularly communicate about student and family homework expectations. • Implement, grade/ check, and follow up homework assignments. • Respond to student and family concerns or comments about homework in a timely manner. • Discuss homework progress and challenges in student conferences and with colleagues.

Engaging Families in Student Homework 91

SPRING

Evaluate and Revise TIPS Based on Feedback.

Evaluate and Improve Homework and Share Lessons Learned With Colleagues.

• Evaluate and Revise TIPS based on • Evaluate and Improve Homework and Feedback. Share Lessons Learned with Col• Evaluate the TIPS program formally or leagues. informally through surveys, phone • Evaluate the homework assignments calls, TIPS grades, etc. from the school year through discus• Revise and improve TIPS assignments sion with students and families, surbased on feedback. veys, phone calls, and homework grades. • Revise and improve homework based on student and family reception.

TIPS subject and grade level. Each teacher team then reviews the scope and sequence of skills for each unit of the school year. Teachers should pinpoint one skill or learning objective per week (30 total activities) or every other week (15 activities) that lends itself to enjoyable and purposeful student-family interactions. These will serve as the topics for TIPS activities. Teachers then examine existing TIPS manuals and prototype activities. They may use and/or adapt existing TIPS prototypes that match identified topics and develop new ones for unaddressed skills. It is best to use those that match from existing TIPS resources as each activity takes between 4 and 6 hours to create. The TIPS CD includes over 500 sample activities in elementary and middle school math as well as middle school language arts and science (Van Voorhis & Epstein, 2002). In summer workshops, many teacher teams have also found it useful to insert point values for questions to add up to 10 or 100 points; develop answer keys for more challenging subjects; and develop a list of TIPS activities that identifies district standards addressed by each assignment. The final summer TIPS steps require discussion with other teachers about the TIPS family-friendly schedule, grading, and orientation plans. Implement and Communicate Regularly about TIPS. The next five steps occur once school begins and continue throughout the school year. Teachers must orient and explain the TIPS process and purposes to students and their family partners. This may be done in letters to the home, discussions with students in class, presentations at parent meetings, and other ways. Guidance is needed for students so they will involve family partners effectively, regardless of culture or educational background. Next begins TIPS implementation either weekly or every other week on a regular, family-friendly schedule. Teachers give students a week or at least several days or a weekend to complete each assignment. This allows all families time for students to interact together. Students follow TIPS directions to share their skills and activities with their parents or another family partner. As a general rule, family partners should only write in the home-

92 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

to-school communication of the assignment that asks for their feedback and signature. Students should be responsible for writing in all other sections of the assignment. Once implemented, teachers regularly grade/ check and follow up TIPS assignments as well as review the feedback and comments in the Home-to-School Communication Section of the assignments. Such review will provide TIPS teachers with valuable information and homework lessons to share with fellow teachers. Evaluate and Revise TIPS based on Feedback. In the spring and early summer, educators evaluate the TIPS program formally or informally through surveys, phone calls, discussions with students, and TIPS grades, and so forth. Based on this feedback, teachers may edit and improve existing TIPS.

CONCLUSIONS: ACTION STEPS FOR TEACHERS TO PRODUCTIVELY ENGAGE FAMILIES IN HOMEWORK This chapter summarized key research points related to the time, purposes, need for family involvement, and results of TIPS homework programs. Taken together, we see that students often benefit from completing homework; teachers may incorporate multiple purposes in one homework activity; families with teacher guidance may have more productive homework interactions; and teachers who utilize homework requiring family involvement often reap attitudinal and achievement results for students. Summer is the ideal time for teachers to reflect on their existing homework practice and consider areas for improvement. The following are three general action steps that all teachers may use independent of or in conjunction with a TIPS program to productively engage families in homework through the school year.

Assess the Current Homework Plan A good starting point for all teachers is to review their school and classroom homework policies and consider their strengths and weaknesses. Then, it is time to look at the frequency and types of assignments given. Teachers should edit or toss out any assignments that failed to encourage learning or confused students and families in previous years. One might identify the various purposes included in the assignments and decide whether there was an appropriate amount of independent versus interactive homework. Teachers should also consider the roles they ask families to play in homework, and be respectful of their time. Another practice is to balance encouraging families to share in student-led learning, but avoiding

Engaging Families in Student Homework 93

asking them to teach school skills. Teachers should also provide for a variety of student-family interactions such as discussions, games, interviews, simple science experiments, and so forth, so that families enjoy the experiences of learning together. Finally, if appropriate, teachers will want to talk with fellow teachers about larger projects and coordinate when these are due so as not to overburden students and their families.

Encourage Two-Way Communication About Homework With Students, Families, and Fellow Teachers Once teachers have completed an inventory of their homework and decided on the types and frequency of assignments, they should think carefully about how to communicate expectations about student and family homework involvement. Reflecting on their expectations to ensure that they are appropriate and reasonable for students and families is an important step, as well as communicating early in the school year and in multiple forms through face-to face meetings or in writing. Teachers should also discuss their expectations with individual or groups of students and families, as well as in Open Houses, in addition to conveying expectations in writing with letters home to parents and students at the beginning of the year and through syllabi, agenda books, webpages, class newsletters, and in student conferences. Making sure to provide some form of homework feedback, whether using a check system, grades, comments, or combination of these responses, is also crucial to ensure successful family interaction in homework. Teachers should also acknowledge any and all efforts students and their families make to improve learning or homework patterns. If families or students take time to write or communicate a legitimate homework comment or concern, they must take the time to respond, respectfully and helpfully. In doing so, teachers provide an environment that encourages two-way exchanges and open lines of communication that can help students succeed. Finally, teachers should share their learning about successful homework practices in periodic meetings with other faculty members.

Evaluate and Improve Homework From the School Year As with the TIPS program, it is critical to evaluate the overall impact of a homework program on students, families, and teachers themselves. In this way, teachers can expand their homework repertoire in quality (and quantity, when appropriate) from year to year.

94 F. L. VAN VOORHIS

Will we ever see the day when students, teachers, and families are consistently excited about the prospect of homework? No, we will not. However, if we can encourage more meaningful dialogue and exchanges that might not otherwise happen between families, students, and teachers, we will be on a purpose-driven homework path that will lead to more beneficial experiences and stronger chances of effective learning from homework.

REFERENCES Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Crown. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman. Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). How student, family, and parenting style differences related to the homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 64−87. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987−2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1−62. Cooper, H., & Valentine, J. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 143−154. Epstein, J. L. (1988). Homework practices, achievement, and behaviors of elementary school students (Report 26). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorm, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (3), 289-305. Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001) More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181−193. Fan, X. T., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A metaanalytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740-764. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parents’ reported involvement in students’ homework: Strategies and practices. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 435−450.

Engaging Families in Student Homework 95 Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195−209. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3− 42. Kohn, A. (2006). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 531− 548. Lowe, J. (1998). Oprah Winfrey speaks: Insights from the world's most influential voice. New York, NY: Wiley. Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2007). Special topic: The case for and against homework. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 74−79. Markow, D., Kim, A., & Liebman, M. (2007). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: The homework experience. New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H. & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1039−1104. Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Bursuck, W. D., Madhavi, J., & Cumblad, C. (1994). Homework practices of general education teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 500−509. Riera, M. (2004). Uncommon sense for parents with teenagers. New York, NY: Celestial Arts. Roderique, T. W., Polloway, E. A., Cumblad, C., Epstein, M. H., & Bursuck, W. D. (1994). Homework: A survey of policies in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 481−487. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 323−338. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Reflecting on the homework ritual: Assignments and designs. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 205−211. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2009). Does family involvement in homework make a difference? Investigating the longitudinal effects of math and language arts interventions. In R. Deslandes (Ed.), International perspectives on student outcomes and homework: Family-school-community partnerships (pp. 141−156). London: Taylor & Francis. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2010, Sept. 13). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study of mathematics achievement. Education and Urban Society. DOI: 10.1177/0013124510380236. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Lessons learned from students and families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220-250.

96 F. L. VAN VOORHIS Van Voorhis, F. L., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Teachers involve parents in schoolwork Interactive homework CD. Baltimore, MD: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University. Wakenstein, S., Fenster, M., Hampden-Thompson, G., & Walston, J. (2008). Expectations and reports of homework for public school students in the first, third and fifth grades. NCES-2009-033, National Center for Education Statistics. Warton, P. M. (1997). Learning about responsibility: Lessons from homework. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 213−221. Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155−165. Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., Bouffard, S. M., Deschenes, S. N., & Malone, H. J. (2009). The federal role in out-of-school learning: After-School, summer learning, and family involvement as critical learning supports. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Xu, J., & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 402−436.

CHAPTER 8

PROMOTING LANGUAGE AND LITERACY OUTCOMES THROUGH SHARED READING AT HOME Holly Kreider, Georganne Morin, Gabrielle E. Miller, and Angie Bush

While rifling through a stack of books in the back seat of our car, my nineyear old daughter recently declared “I love the smell of books! And the way the pages ruffle when you turn them. And how bumpy the paper feels. The Kindle can’t do that!” Despite the rise of electronic book-reading devices and web-delivered online books, the printed book is here to stay, evoking positive emotions among even the youngest readers, and even among those like my daughter, who are considered struggling readers. Early and positive opportunities to engage in literacy activities are predictive of later reading and in turn, long-term school success. Research suggests that failure to achieve reading fluency by the end of third grade predicts long-term negative academic outcomes for children. Yet a shocking number of children do not achieve this critical benchmark (Feister, 2010). Below we review the research on the importance of home as an out-of-school (OST) context for family engagement in general, and family Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 97–107 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

97

98 H. KREIDER ET AL.

literacy practices, including shared parent-child reading, in particular. We review the evidence for how such practices promote language and literacy outcomes, especially among at-risk children. We also discuss interventions designed to promote such engagement at home and present evidence from one such program as a case study illustrating who such interventions can reach, how, and to what end.

THE HOME AS AN EARLY AND CRITICAL CONTEXT FOR CHILDREN’S OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME LEARNING Much of what parents do that matters for their children’s achievement and literacy outcomes occurs not in school settings, but at home. Home is by definition a nonschool context and a primary context in which children and families spend time together. In a recent literature review, Shumow (2010) notes that family engagement at home is important, yet less visible to educators than other forms of engagement. In some cases, this may be due to cultural variations in family engagement practices at home that are often not as valued by educators as traditional methods. For example, Native Americans have a rich oral narrative tradition of sharing stories between parents and children. Similarly, Black American children have often been labeled as language deficient because the verbal and interpretive habits learned by many children in the home do not fit the formal reading and writing school focus (Heath, 1989). We also know from research that early family engagement at home matters for children’s positive academic and socioemotional outcomes (Weiss, Caspe, & Lopez, 2006). Finally, we know that impactful family engagement at home is multifaceted, and includes homework support, management of children’s time use, socialization practices, access to educational resources, and reading support (Shumow, 2010). A regular shared reading routine, and other family literacy practices, such as the provision of a language-rich and literacy-rich environment (including numerous books in the home), are among those key family home engagement activities predictive of positive child outcomes. For example, in his landmark report on school factors contributing to achievement disparities, James Coleman (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, & McPartland, 1966) concluded that family factors, including the number of books in the home, explained more variation in students’ reading achievement than did school factors. More recently, Barton (2003; Barton & Coley, 2009) identified reading to young children as one of several “correlates of achievement,” that mirror the race and income gaps seen in children’s achievement, and that must be changed in order to reduce achievement

Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes

99

gaps. Even among infants, shared reading has been shown to predict gains in expressive language (Karrass & Braungart-Rieker, 2005).

THE BENEFITS OF SHARED READING INTERVENTIONS One way to promote both young children’s oral language and emerging literacy skills is through interactive shared book reading interventions. Interactive shared book reading interventions aim to support adults (e.g., parents and teachers) in reading aloud with children, and refers to a style in which adults ask children open-ended questions about a book, ask children to recall parts of the story, expand upon children’s answers, and otherwise engage in meaningful conversations with children about the books they are reading together (Dickinson, 2001; Institute of Education Sciences, 2007). Dialogic reading is an approach to interactive reading that enables the adult, using a series of prompts, to gradually relinquish the storytelling role to the child. This approach has been shown to be effective in increasing the expressive vocabulary of low-income preschool-age children (Whitehurst et al., 1994). A plethora of evaluation evidence points to the positive outcomes of shared reading interventions for children. A recent meta-analytic review by Senechal and Young (2008) examined 16 interventions aimed at promoting parent-child reading activities and noted clear positive effects of parent involvement on children’s reading acquisition. In its meta-analysis, the National Early Literacy Panel recently concurred that “shared reading interventions can have a significant, substantial, and positive impact both on young children’s oral language skills and on young children’s print knowledge” (National Institute for Literacy, 2008, p. 155). The benefits of shared reading may be especially pronounced for atrisk children and families, namely because children whose families have been underserved by virtue of their socioeconomic status, race, and/or home language tend to be exposed to fewer books at home, less language-rich environments, and less frequent shared book reading. For example, seminal research uncovers that by age 3, children from higher income families have heard 30 million more words than children from economically underprivileged families (Hart & Risley, 1995). Many families living at or below the poverty level also have no books in their homes (Feitelson & Goldstein, 1986). In general, low-income and minority children are less likely to be read to every day compared to their non-minority and higher income peers (Russ et al., 2007). In short, read aloud may be especially powerful with low-income children because it provides them with the rich language experiences normally experienced by higher income children (Raikes et al., 2006).

100 H. KREIDER ET AL.

PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES THAT PROMOTE SHARED READING AND A LOVE OF BOOKS Shared reading at home depends on several key ingredients, including access to books or other reading material; parents and other caregivers with knowledge and skills to carry out reading behaviors, and engaged children.

The Landscape Book distribution programs and book lending programs, both paired with read aloud training for parents and caregivers, are primary mechanisms through which young children and families can increase their access to books and build motivation and skills for interactive shared reading. Among book distribution programs, Reading Is Fundamental (RIF; www.rif.org) is perhaps the most far-reaching; its Books for Ownership initiative distributes upwards of 15 million free new books to underserved children each year. Through this service, children receive two to five books over the course of the year, attend book events with motivational reading activities led by local volunteers, and benefit from program coordinators trained by RIF’s national office. Other book distribution programs leverage families’ relationships with key professionals for book distribution. The Reach Out and Read (www.reachoutandread.org) program relies on pediatricians and other health care professionals to deliver new books to young children during well visits, as well as advice to parents on the importance of reading aloud (See Chapter 8 for more details). Evaluations of Reach Out and Read demonstrate its significant impact on a child’s home literacy environment, home reading activities, and children’s receptive vocabulary (Sharif, Reiber, Ozuah, & Reiber, 2002; Weitzman, Roy, Walls, & Tomlin, 2004). Still other programs mail children’s books directly to families’ homes, making more frequent distribution feasible. Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library (www.imaginationlibrary.com) mails one new book each month to young children in their homes right up until their fifth birthday. Book lending, on the other hand, provides children and families with an almost infinite supply of books. Beyond the public library, other book lending programs seek to loan books through school and community settings. The Bring Me A Book Foundation (www.bringmeabook.org) places children’s bookcase libraries in preschools, elementary schools, and community centers and offers read-aloud workshops for teachers, parents and caregivers. At Room to Read (www.roomtoread.org), the Reading Room program establishes classroom and community libraries in developing nations, collaborating with local partners to identify books and resources,

Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes

101

train teachers and librarians, and otherwise create a child-friendly, printrich environment. Raising A Reader (www.raisingareader.org), detailed in the next section, uses a book rotation system to circulate upwards of 100 books into a child’s home through a weekly book bag rotation, coupled with parent education and library connections, and delivered through virtually any setting frequented by young children and families.

Common Features These programs differ across several dimensions, including the primary settings and mechanisms through which book access and training occur. But these programs also share many common features that highlight consistent research findings and inform how practitioners can support family literacy behaviors shown to be important for children’s language, literacy, and school success. First, most of these programs target young children roughly from infancy to early elementary school age, acknowledging early childhood as a critical period for establishing a solid foundation for later literacy. Second, they often intentionally target lowincome, underserved children and families. Although shared reading benefits all children, compelling reasons exist for placing added emphasis on at-risk populations, as noted earlier. Finally, they often combine book access with training for parents and educators, recognizing that the provision of resources must be coupled with information and skills to carry out behavioral change.

CASE STUDY OF RAISING A READER Raising A Reader (RAR) is a shared reading intervention that rotates bright red bags filled with award-winning books into children’s homes on a weekly basis. In the typical program, a child is exposed to approximately 100 books per year. Local implementers are trained in interactive “read-aloud” techniques that stimulate early brain development and language acquisition. They, in turn, train parents and caregivers. The training helps parents and caregivers—even those with limited English proficiency or low literacy skills—learn how to engage their child by sharing a book. Through the program, families are also connected to their local public library, with introductions to librarians and libraries, and a blue library bag that children receive midway through the program to keep and continue the practice of borrowing books and “book cuddling.” By “book cuddling” we mean the practice of a parent or caregiver sharing a book with a child—the organization intentionally chose this term over “book reading” to be inclusive

102 H. KREIDER ET AL.

of parents with lower literacy levels and to emphasize the parent-child closeness that books can promote. The program also honors the linguistic diversity of the families it serves via book collections in English and Spanish and a parent DVD dubbed in 14 different languages. Below we share findings from a comprehensive demographic survey of Raising A Reader affiliates across the United States and from a collection of independent evaluations conducted with local Raising A Reader programs. The first set of findings illustrate the potential reach of such interventions, the diversity of audiences for which they are suited, and the myriad of educational settings and programs through which such interventions can be delivered. The second set of common findings emerging from outcome evaluations of Raising A Reader illustrate the key outcomes of such interventions. Program Reach We conducted a comprehensive descriptive survey in October 2009 to obtain an accurate census of Raising A Reader across the county. All 105 local program affiliates who had been running the program for at least one year were required—as outlined in their affiliate agreement—to complete the survey, administered via electronic survey software (Survey Gizmo). Note that another 25 new affiliates who had been implementing the program for less than 1 year were not required to complete the survey. The survey was comprised of 52 questions and asked affiliates to provide information about demographics of children served, quality of program implementation, funding and plans for expansion. Through repeated email and phone requests, incentives and the threat of losing their ordering privileges, 98 affiliates completed the 2009 survey, representing a response rate of 93%. As detailed in Table 8.1, Raising A Reader serves a large and diverse group of children. Over 100,000 children are reached each year, with substantial representation of different ethnic, language, and income groups. The program is especially successful in reaching children at risk by virtue of their language, racial and economic status, with the vast majority (74%) of children living at or below the poverty line and representing ethnic/racial minorities (69%), and about half (45%) of the children speaking a language other than English at home. Table 8.2 also shows the program to be geographically and programmatically broad, with 98 veteran affiliates across 26 states, and program settings ranging from Head Start (28%) and early childhood centers (40%), to home visiting (11%) and family day care homes (11%), and to adult education (1%) and other settings (including public libraries, a children’s museum, and even a hotel where many parents of young children work). Likewise, many affiliates partially implement Raising A Reader through

Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes

Table 8.1. Textbox I: Demographic Snapshot Number of Children Served in 2009: 107, 200 Ages

Primary Language

0−2 years

16%

English

54%

3−4 years

64%

Spanish

37%

5−6 years

18%

Chinese

2%

6+ years

2%

Other

6%

39%

At or below poverty line

74%

Above poverty line

26%

Ethnicity Latino/Hispanic

Income

Caucasian/White

31%

African American

17%

Asian American

8%

Other

5%

Table 8.2.

Textbox II: Programmatic Snapshot

Program Numbers Number of States represented

2,426

Number of Active Affiliates

2,130

Number of Implementing Sites

2,408

Settings Centers

40%

Head Start

28%

Home Visiting

11%

Family Day Care

11%

Kindergarten

2%

Adult education

,1%

Other

7%

Percent of Affiliates Serving Children Partly Through Programs for Children with special needs

35%

Migrant families

32%

Teen parents

28%

Homeless families

14%

Child abuse prevention

11%

*Note that affiliates often serve children through multiple types of settings

103

104 H. KREIDER ET AL.

programs for special populations, including programs for children with special needs (35%), migrant education (32%) and teen parents (28%). Raising A Reader data suggest that shared reading interventions can be both far-reaching and easily integrated into a variety of settings and programs that serve children and families. Program Outcomes We also examined the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of Raising A Reader, by reviewing reports from 19 independent outcome evaluations of local Raising A Reader programs. Most evaluations employed a pre-post survey design, with the exception of three quasi-experimental and two experimental studies. Significant positive outcomes emerged across the studies in three broad categories: (1) access to books (e.g., number of books in home, access and exposure to books); (2) family engagement, including parent knowledge (e.g, the importance of sharing books to increase reading readiness), family literacy behaviors (e.g., frequency of parent-child reading at home, regular reading routines at home) and community connections (e.g., visits to the library); and (3) child outcomes, including child motivation (e.g., child enjoyment and valuing of reading), oral language skills (e.g., vocabulary), and emergent literacy skills (e.g., book knowledge, comprehension, print knowledge, letter naming fluency, rhyming, and initial sound fluency). In general, positive program outcomes were found within and across various income, ethnic/racial, and language subgroups. However, certain outcomes appeared to vary by child and family characteristics, with stronger effects for subgroups of children at educational risk. For example, several studies found that the program appeared to increase the number of books in the home, the frequency of parent-child reading, and the frequency of library visits more for low-income, African American, Native American, and Spanish-speaking families, compared to other families. Note that these results reflect findings from studies with rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation designs. For example, in an quasi-experimental community in Oklahoma, Bentham and Associates (2007) found more pronounced effects for lower income households ($20,000/year or less) in frequency of library visits, the number of children’s books in homes, the number of times children and parents spend reading together per week, and designation of a regular time for reading. There may be several reasons that the program tends to have a greater effect on children from low-income African American, Native American and Spanish-speaking families. These subgroups tend to have fewer books in the home and so the increase of over a 100 books rotating through the home over the course of the year represents a much greater

Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes

105

change than for children from higher-income households. Also, parents in these subgroups tend to have lower overall academic attainment and lower literacy levels. By directly introducing parents to “book cuddling,” which makes sharing books accessible to all families regardless of parental literacy level, the program enables parents who may not themselves engage in many literacy activities to develop book sharing routines with their children. Overall, the RAR studies suggest that the effectiveness of these types of interventions is multifaceted, potentially improving access to books, family knowledge and behavior, and child attitudes and skills. And although such interventions may offer benefits for all children, they may be especially potent for at-risk children. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The research on family engagement at home, and the case study of Raising A Reader, points to a number of implications for practitioners interested in supporting literacy activities in this critical OST context. First, attend to engagement at home. No matter how invisible it may seem to teachers, afterschool providers, and other professionals, what happens at home matters a great deal for children’s school success, and practices and interventions emanating from schools, afterschool programs, and other formal settings serving children can affect families’ behaviors at home. Second, consider ways to support family literacy activities at home, including shared reading, especially if language and literacy outcomes are of interest to your work. Third, when possible, begin to engage families when children are young, support engagement over time, and invest extra in traditionally underserved children and families. Fourth, when selecting interventions to support shared reading at home, consider the triple crown of book access, skill building for parents and educators, and sustained practice. Fifth, know that effective interventions exist that can reach many children and through virtually any setting serving children and families. A book rotation program, for example, can be based in a preschool, a home daycare, a parent resource center or a library. Finally, aim your sights high to change children’s home environment, family behaviors, and child outlook, and literacy outcomes are sure to follow. REFERENCES Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress classroom (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.

106 H. KREIDER ET AL. Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap, II: Policy information report. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service. Bentham & Associates. (2007). Measuring the impact of Raising A Reader in a Native American community. Unpublished evaluation report prepared for the Oklahoma Child Care Resource & Referral Association. Tecumseh, OK: Author. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., & McPartland, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education. Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Book reading in preschool classrooms: Is recommended practice common? In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 175–204). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Feister, L. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters: A Kids Count special report. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986, May). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and non-school-oriented families. The Reading Teacher, 924. Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Heath, S. B. (1989). Oral and literate traditions among Black Americans living in poverty. American Psychologist, 44(2), 367−373. Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). Interactive shared reading. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, Early Childhood Education. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf /WWC_ISBR_011807.pdf Karrass, J., & Braungart-Rieker, J. (2005). Effects of shared parent-infant book reading on early language acquisition. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 133−148. National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington DC: Author. Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Raikes, H., Pan, B., Tamis-LeMonda, C., Constantine, J., et al. (2006). Mother-child book reading in low-income families: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Development, 77(4), 924−953. Russ, S., Perez, V., Garro, N., Klass, P., Kuo, A. A., Gershun, M., et al. (2007). Reading Across the Nation: A chartbook. Boston, MA: Reach Out and Read National Center. Sharif, I., Rieber, S., Ozuah, P. O., & Reiber, S. (2002). Exposure to Reach Out and Read and vocabulary outcomes in inner city preschoolers. Journal of National Medical Association, 94(3), 171−177. Senechal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effects of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading from Kindergarden to Grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880−907. Shumow, L. (2010). Parent involvement at home. In D. B. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practices to support family involvement in schools (pp. 57−74). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Promoting Language and Literacy Outcomes

107

Weiss, H. B., Caspe, M., & Lopez, M.E. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications /family-involvement-in-early-childhood-education Weitzman C.C., Roy L., Walls, T., & Tomlin, R. (2004). More evidence for Reach Out And Read: a home-based study. Pediatrics, 113(5), 1248−1253. Whitehurst, G., Arnold, D., Epstein, J., Angell, A., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679−689.

SECTION IV REACHING FAMILIES THROUGH NONTRADITIONAL OST SETTINGS AND PARTNERSHIPS

CHAPTER 9

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT THROUGH HEALTH CLINICS Kathryn Nakagawa, Martha Cocchiarella, Emily Earl, Stacy Moreno, and Rebecca Birr

Health care providers, such as hospitals and health care clinics, play many roles in the community, with doctors and other medical personnel serving as respected sources of information and advice for many families. Health care providers may also offer new ways of engaging with those families who are less connected to more formal educational systems, such as migrant families or families of young children. The opportunity to utilize health care providers as sites for promoting better outcomes for families has led to a wide range of health care provider outreach programs covering a variety of issues, including safety, nutrition and parenting. Increasingly, health care providers are also viewed as potential sources for academic-related outreach. For example, the national Reach Out and Read program uses pediatric clinics and pediatrician offices to promote early literacy (Needlman, Glass, & Zuckerman, 2002; see also Chapter 18). Let’s Talk is an educational outreach program that partners with Cambridge, Massachusetts hospitals also to improve early literacy. And a program in Miami-Dade County, Florida, called Teach More/Love More, supports parents in learning how to better prepare their children for Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 111–120 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

111

112 K. NAKAGAWA ET AL.

school. All of these programs expand the existing role that health care promote better school-related outcomes for families. In recognizing this expanded role, health care providers are making a commitment to support parents and other family members in learning how to help children acquire academic skills. In communities where there are many potential risks to healthy outcomes, health care clinics and centers are especially important. Many health centers provide services to those who have limited resources, such as a lack of health insurance. The National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) reported that 71% of those using community health centers live at or below poverty levels and that many centers are specifically established in “high-need” areas (NACHC, 2010). In such communities, effective engagement between health care providers and families will sometimes be challenged by outside factors such as poverty and unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, health problems, single parent households, teenage pregnancy, and parental incarceration (Osofsky & Thompson, 2000). Because of these factors, it is not unusual to find health care centers taking on the structure of “wraparound,” full-service environments (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Health care sites that do so provide a full range of services designed to meet the individual needs of children and families and focus on promoting resiliency in these populations. As health care centers expand their services, engagement of families through clinics provides a new opportunity for out-of-school learning, especially for families with young children. In particular, engaging families through health clinics gains greater importance in communities where other resources for out-of-school time, such as parks, libraries and community centers, may be lacking.

THE MESOSYSTEM CONNECTION Theoretically, the bioecological model of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) provides a framework for how and why health care providers should expand the role they play in the community and their partnerships with families. The bioecological model explores how interactions between different contexts (e.g., family, school, community) may support better developmental outcomes for individuals. In this model, the contexts closest to the individual are identified as “microsystems.” The overlap between the microsystems is called the “mesosystem.” The more numerous the links between the microsystems, the stronger the mesosystem, which results in better outcomes for individuals in those systems. For example, parent involvement practices are part of the school-family mesosystem. The better the relationship between family and school, the more

Family Engagement Through Health Clinics 113

benefits there are for children. When the connections between family and school are “dense” they create “network closure” so that the connections themselves serve as a source of social capital (Burt, 2001; Coleman, 1990). Parents who are well-connected to a school may be able to get extra help for their child or receive insider information about the school from other parents (such as in determining teacher preference). The concept of social capital, as well as the bioecological model, suggests that strengthening mesosystem links between family and health care providers would result in improved outcomes for children. For example, when a family develops better relationships with a health care provider, the family may learn about special health fairs or events, and be more likely to visit for regular checkups for the children as well as other family members. In particular, the partnership between health care centers and families in lower-resource communities may lead to more social capital for the families to draw on, which will result in greater capacity in the families to promote more optimal physical, cognitive and social development in children. As with family-school relationships, family-health center relationships require regular communication, caring interactions, and opportunities for families to provide input and be involved beyond status as a patient (Silverstein, Lamberto, DePeau, & Grossman, 2008). Lower-income, ethnic minority families may have special communication needs and health centers may need to overcome a family’s previously poor interactions with institutional services (Silverstein et al., 2008).

HEALTH CARE PROVIDER-FAMILY ENGAGEMENT MODELS Some models of family engagement through health care providers focus on specific developmental areas. Reach Out and Read (ROR) is the best known example of providing educational outreach and family engagement through health care providers. Developed in the 1990s as a way of providing books and other literacy support to parents, ROR is available through pediatric clinics and pediatricians’ offices throughout the country. Volunteers read aloud to children in waiting rooms, and pediatricians hand out free books. Research on ROR indicates that children’s language and literacy development was positively influenced through access to the additional literacy materials; in addition, those parents who took part in the program were more engaged in reading with their children and other activities to support literacy development than parents who were not part of ROR (Needlman & Silverstein, 2004). A similar finding was reported in a study involving Spanish-speaking immigrant families (Sanders, Gershon, Huffman, & Mendoza, 2000).

114 K. NAKAGAWA ET AL.

Another educational outreach program centered on literacy is the Let’s Talk program offered through the Cambridge, Massachusetts Health Alliance Clinics in partnership with the “Agenda for Children” literacy initiatives promoted through the City of Cambridge Department of Human Health Services (Institute for Community Health, 2010). This program focuses on increasing the vocabulary of young children and helping them to be better prepared to read and learn once they enter school. Let’s Talk was developed after families in the surrounding communities were identified as needing additional academic and educational supports. Let’s Talk provides support to parents through community workshops, reading parties, and role modeling by professionals. Supporting parents to better prepare their children for school is a key theme running through many of these programs. As with Let’s Talk, the Teach More/Love More campaign, sponsored by The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation and United Way Success by 6, focuses on helping parents recognize the importance of early childhood education and developmental support. As part of the campaign, partnerships were developed with 13 birthing hospitals, 19 birthing centers and 39 community libraries in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Early Childhood Initiative Foundation, 2009). Every new mother from the community received a free issue of a parenting newsletter and information about how to connect the child to health insurance, as well as a baby book that reinforced the importance of early reading and included home activities to support early literacy, a temporary library card (that could be traded in for a permanent card) and a round-trip bus pass to the nearest library. The focus in Teach More/Love More was on reaching parents early and encouraging longterm changes in parenting practices. These examples of family engagement through health care providers suggest how the role of the health care provider is expanding to address academic as well as health needs of the families and children in their communities. By supporting families in these ways, the mesosystem links between family and health care provider are strengthened, helping to promote better outcomes for children.

BUILDING THE MESOSYSTEM LINK THROUGH FAMILY LEARNING CENTERS In response to the needs of parents and children in different communities, there is a growing movement of having integrated educational centers within health clinics. Developing trusting relationships may be difficult to cultivate at some health care sites, but the creation of Family Learning Centers (FLCs) offers a specific mechanism for engaging fami-

Family Engagement Through Health Clinics 115

lies in health care. These FLCs are designed to address the varied needs and barriers that families encounter in obtaining health information, referrals and education in the health care system (Maricopa Integrated Health System, 2010). FLCs are similar to school-based Family Resource Centers (FRCs), which provide information on parenting and education and offer classes and other services to support families (Little, 1998). FLCs are usually freely available to the community, designed to be user friendly and easily accessible for patients, consumers, community, and staff. The FLCs serve as a clearinghouse for information, as a means of contributing to informed choice in health care decision making and as a site for additional educational opportunities, ranging from early literacy classes to computer classes to parenting classes. FLCs are often staffed full-time by social workers or librarians, who are experienced in providing early childhood developmental services, health information, community referrals, group education, and literacy activities to meet the changing needs of the consumers. The FLC coordinators work with the community to determine specific needs and any projects, services, and materials are provided in a culturally sensitive and language appropriate manner. For example, FLCs located in the southwest have staff members who are bilingual in Spanish in order to assist FLC visitors in their quest for health information and community referrals.  Many FLCs have a children’s area with space for storytime and children's books on health and behavior topics. There are public computers where users can view health education DVDs or connect to the internet.  A group education area provides a space for health education and parenting classes. Throughout the center there are books, pamphlets, anatomical models, and other resources for visitors. An FLC may also serve as a site for providing free materials to families, handing out books, activity packs and other educational materials. Given the many resources available through FLCs, they serve as ideal sites for engaging families in ways that will support academic and cognitive outcomes in children.

BUILDING A PROGRAM IN A HEALTH CLINIC: JUMP! (JOIN UP FOR MATH PLAY) In partnership with a family learning center in a large, southwestern city, the authors of this chapter developed an early numeracy program called “Join Up for Math Play!” (JUMP). Math scores in the school districts surrounding the Family Learning Center lagged behind state averages at third grade (between 39−48% of the third graders in these districts are

116 K. NAKAGAWA ET AL.

falling below math standards). Such scores indicated a need for supporting mathematical literacy development at an early age. Although the development of literacy skills has received a great deal of attention over the last decade, the development of early mathematical literacy has not. However, recent studies identify both early math skills and early literacy skills as important for later academic achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). JUMP built on ROR research, but focused primarily on early math literacy. Books and activities incorporated math themes and offered opportunities for instruction and modeling of a variety of forms of engagement (e.g., games, art, songs). A typical JUMP session consists of a storytime, simple math game, song and art activity. The primary focus of these sessions is to introduce a particular math concept and reinforce it through the other activities. For example, in one session, we use the book It’s About Time by Stuart Murphy. Murphy’s books are specifically written to introduce mathematical concepts. In this book, the concept introduced is telling time. After reading the book, the children play a game requiring that they tell the time on an analog clock and sing a song incorporating time. Following these activities, children make their own clocks, from paper plates, construction paper, stickers and prong paper fasteners. Parents and children take part in the activities together, with older siblings helping the younger children. The goal of JUMP was to help parents better understand the mathematical knowledge that children currently possess and suggest ways to build on this knowledge through simple games and everyday activities. Research on early math understanding indicates that “everyday math” should be reinforced with children, but that parents are sometimes unaware of how to provide the proper support or do not believe that mathematical understanding is as important as reading for young children (e.g., Cannon & Ginsburg, 2008; Musun-Miller & Blevins-Knabe, 1998). As with environmental and early literacy, children are exposed to informal math very early. The intent was also to draw on families’ funds of knowledge around math (Gonzalez, Andrade, Civil, & Moll, 2001). In creating JUMP we also built on current research in early mathematical literacy development, which emphasizes storytelling (Casey, Kersh, & Young, 2004; Moyer, 2000), games (Cutler, Gilkerson, Parrott, & Bowne, 2003) and active engagement (Ginsburg & Amit, 2008; NAEYC, 2002). By providing a comfortable, active, fun setting for parents to engage in mathematical activities, we hoped to promote better mathematical literacy in children, and help parents learn different ways of better supporting their children’s mathematical knowledge. The context for implementing JUMP was through an FLC located within a county health clinic, which provides services primarily to lower income, immigrant, and English language learning populations. The

Family Engagement Through Health Clinics 117

FLC, which opened in 2007, serves as a waiting area for families visiting other parts of the clinic. It has a small children’s library with bilingual books on health-related topics, health education materials for adults, and a set of Internet-connected computers. The FLC also offers classes on a variety of topics, including English language classes, nutrition, computer use, and health literacy. The FLC programming like JUMP helped families to see the FLC as a source for a variety of information and classes, not just as a waiting area for the clinic. During school breaks, the FLC would be especially busy, not only with those waiting to see someone in another part of the clinic, but also those who valued the materials and resources the FLC had to offer. This shift allowed the FLC to be seen more as a community center rather than just a health care site, with JUMP contributing to helping families become more involved with the FLC. As with other storytime opportunities, JUMP also modeled for parents the possible activities that parents could do with their children—our observations from these sessions included notes on how parents enjoyed the art activities in particular and encouraged their children in the math games. By promoting a view of the health care site as a resource for more than health care, we hoped that JUMP and the FLC were developing the mesosytem links and building social capital in ways that would ultimately benefit families.

LESSONS: BUILDING CAPACITY FOR THE FUTURE Health care providers hold great promise as future sites for family engagement during out of school time. However, because many health care centers are located in areas with fewer resources, this promise is balanced by a number of challenges. Although we have not conducted a formal evaluation of JUMP yet, our notes documenting the implementation process have helped us identify some areas of special attention in partnering with health care centers. In addition, we found that creating a program located within a health care site required additional levels of coordination, training and screening for those working with JUMP. In terms of the population served, the drop-in nature of the families visiting the clinic in which we offered JUMP led to very few repeat visitors. Although some of the classes offered through the FLC required signing up and regular attendance, we did not require this for JUMP. We would sometimes have children who would visit with us over a number of sessions, if they were waiting while another family member had an appointment (they might be accompanied by different family members, not always their parent). In addition, there were participants who would start

118 K. NAKAGAWA ET AL.

a session of JUMP, leave, and return to complete whatever activities we were working on. Similarly, parents sometimes had their own appointments or were watching another child, and could not participate in all parts of JUMP. We found that parents and children enjoyed the arts and crafts portion of the session the most and if possible would return after appointments to work on the art activity. In order to accommodate this, we would sometimes extend a session beyond the one hour timeframe. We would also try to leave additional materials at the FLC so parents and children could take their time with the activities even after the JUMP session ended. The drop-in nature of the class also required that we be prepared to adapt materials for a wider age range. Our activities were geared toward children in the 3-5 age range, but we often had children up to ages 11− 12. Our adaptations usually consisted of having more difficult versions of games and involving older children as teachers, helpers and leaders in the activities—this also helped younger children feel more comfortable if parents were not able to be part of the session. One way of addressing some of the challenges due to the drop-in population was to target a specific group of parents who were available to attend during a certain time each week. For example, at a second FLC center, we invited families from a nearby Head Start center who attended JUMP right after the morning Head Start class ended. Although we also accepted drop-in participants, the regular attendees allowed us to build longer-term relationships with the families and to introduce and revisit concepts and ideas through JUMP. Another challenge specific to the health center environment was the kind of screening required for JUMP volunteers/instructors to participate. When we initially began our partnership with the FLC, we had a cadre of undergraduate students volunteering to help with storytime sessions. All of these students went through the same screening and training that volunteers in any other part of the medical system went through, including having blood drawn for tuberculosis screening. This meant that a start date was sometimes delayed, depending on how long the screening took and when training could be scheduled. In addition, some volunteers were deterred by the requirement to have blood taken. Other challenges were ones many programs working with an immigrant population might face in terms of language and citizenship status issues. For example, proposed changes in legislation affecting immigrants meant that attendance would fluctuate depending on perceived implementation and understanding of laws.

Family Engagement Through Health Clinics 119

CONCLUSION Nationally, health care providers are becoming partners with families and schools by expanding their outreach to include the development of academic skills in children. By engaging families through health care sites we envision new opportunities to build community capacity and to provide out-of-school learning opportunities in different ways. In particular, as libraries, parks and community centers have been forced to cut back on hours or close altogether, shifting the menu of programming in health care centers becomes more critical. Health care clinics may be able to fill the gap in out-of-school learning opportunities for families. Beyond the specific educational benefits, as parents and children interact more with health care providers in new ways, we believe that the relationship that families have with health care providers will change. Overtime they will become more comfortable and empowered in such an environment, hopefully willing to raise more questions and become more knowledgeable about their own health and to advocate on their own behalf for their health and educational needs.

REFERENCES Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R.S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31−56). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Cannon, J., & Ginsburg, H. (2008). “Doing the math”: Maternal beliefs about early mathematics versus language learning. Early Education and Development, 19, 238−260. Casey, B., Kersh, J. E., & Young, J. M. (2004).Storytelling sagas: an effective medium for teaching early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19, 167–172. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cutler, K. M., Gilkerson, D., Parrott, S., & Bowne, M. T. (2003). Developing math games based on children’s literature. Young Children, 1−5. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428−1446. Early Childhood Initiative Foundation. (2009). Teach more/Love more. Retrieved from http://www.teachmorelovemore.org/AboutUs.asp Ginsburg, H. P. & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29, 274−285.

120 K. NAKAGAWA ET AL. Gonzalez, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education For Students Places at Risk, 6, 115−132. Institute for Community Health. (2010). Projects and research. Retrieved from http:/ /www.icommunityhealth.org/projects.shtml Little, P. (1998). Family resource centers: Where school readiness happens. Early Childhood Digests. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/ publications-series/early-childhood-digests/family-resource-centers -where-school-readiness-happens Maricopa Integrated Health System. (2010). Family learning center. Retrieved from: http://www.mihs.org/services-and-programs/family-learning-center Mendelsohn, A. L., Mogiler, L. N., Dreyer, B. P., Forman, J. A., Weinstein, S. C., Broderick, M., Cheng, K. J., Magloire, T., Moore, T., & Napier, C. (2001). The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children. Pediatrics 107,130−134. Moyer, P. (2000). Communicating mathematically: Children’s literature as a natural connection. The Reading Teacher, 54, 246–58. Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adult’s beliefs about children and mathematics: How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development and Parenting, 7, 191−202. National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC). (2010). Overview of health centers and health center growth. Retrieved from http://www.nachc.com/ research-reports.cfm? NAEYC & NCTM (2002). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. A joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Needlman, R., Glass, P., & Zuckerman, B. (2002, January). Reach out and get your patients to read. Contemporary Pediatrics, 51−69. Needlman R., & Silverstein M. (2004). Pediatric interventions to support reading aloud: How good is the evidence? Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 25, 352−363. Osofsky, J. D., & Thompson, M. D. (2000).  Adaptive and maladaptive parenting: Perspectives on risk and protective factors.  In J.P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds). Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 54−75). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sanders, L. M., Gershon T. D., Huffman L. C., & Mendoza F. S. (2000). Prescribing books for immigrant children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 154, 771−777. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Silverstein, M., Lamberto, J., DePeau, K., & Grossman, D.C. (2008). “You get what you get”: Unexpected findings about low-income parents’ negative experiences with community resources. Pediatrics. 122, 1141−1148.

CHAPTER 10

IT TAKES A VILLAGE Community Schools and Family Engagement Michael P. Evans and Darlene Kamine

It is 5 o’clock in the evening at Pleasant Ridge Montessori School in Cincinnati, OH, but the building is still bustling with activity. On the first floor a group of students are gathered in the media center working on science projects with Whiz Kids tutors and mentors from neighboring Xavier University. Today the Cincy After School (CAS) program, a partnership between the YMCA and other local agencies, has also organized a series of math games linked to both the Ohio Academic Standards and developmental assets identified through a needs and strengths survey administered by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Upstairs classrooms are being prepared for the evening’s activities which include a Parent Education Session (tonight’s topic is Reading Comprehension and Development), a meeting of the Local School Decision Making Committee (LSDMC), and a Kids in the Kitchen program run by volunteers from the local Junior League. Of course, child-care is provided to ensure that all families and older siblings are able to participate. Pleasant Ridge Montessori won’t turn out the lights until the local men’s basketball league wraps up their final game at eleven. Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 121–134 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

121

122 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE

That level of activity is not uncommon in Cincinnati where, “school buildings are designed to serve as community hubs with co-located community partnerships that promote academic excellence and provide recreational, educational, social, health, civic and cultural opportunities for students, their families and the community” (Cincinnati Public Schools, 2008). A part of a 1 billion dollar district initiative, the end goal is to transform all new and renovated Cincinnati schools into Community Learning Centers (CLCs). The CLCs are a variation of the community school model, also referred to as full-service schools, an education reform with deep historical roots in American society, and perhaps one of the earliest examples of a systematic approach to out-of-school time (OST). This chapter provides an introduction to the community school concept, its relationship to OST, and an overview of current initiatives. Through a review of the literature we will examine the impact and characteristics of effective community schools and the role of family engagement. Policy implications derived from the current research will be explored and finally, utilizing the city of Cincinnati as a case study, we will argue for the value of authentic engagement strategies to maximize the benefits of the community school model.

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CONCEPT The Coalition for Community Schools (an organization representing national, state, and local interests in K−16 education related to community schooling) describes community schools as “hubs” that serve as “both a set of partnerships and a place where services, supports and opportunities lead to improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities” (Coalition for Community Schools, 2010a, p. 1). The popularity of community school initiatives has ebbed and flowed over the past century, with public interest levels closely tied to changes in social, economic, and political forces. Interest tends to peak at particular times such as public frustration with the capacity of social institutions to address local concerns, the perceived inadequacy of traditional knowledge sources for addressing social problems, and growing divisions between service professionals and members of the community (Rogers, 1998). This has resulted in variations of community schooling and the emergence of three dominant models. These include: (1) the transformation of the public school from a singularly academic institution to a community social center, (2) schools that are committed to integrating local funds of knowledge into the curriculum, and (3) schools that utilize collaborative civic and school based leadership as an alternative form of governance (Rogers, 1998). Today’s community schools continue to be as diverse as the communities

It Takes a Village 123

they serve, but the dominant trend is toward models that emphasize partnerships that extend the scope of the school’s responsibilities to included both academic and social outcomes. Proponents of community schools contend that children and families are better served when there is the opportunity for interprofessional collaboration (Forbes, 2009; McMahon, Ward, Pruett, Davidson, & Griffith, 2000), that site-based services help to eliminate barriers to access and are a more efficient use of limited resources (Dryfoos, 1994; Kronick, 2003), and that community schools can provide the foundation for the creation of social capital within a community (Warren, 2005). Furthermore, supporters argue that full-service schools allow educators to focus on teaching, while community partners ensure that students are socially, emotionally, and physically prepared to learn (Blank, Jacobson, & Pearson, 2009). The emphasis on collaboration is appreciated by many teachers (and policymakers) who believe student achievement is not just a product of the classroom, but a shared social responsibility (Rothstein, 2004). This holistic approach to education is consistent with the objectives of advocates for OST activities and offers an additional model as researchers examine variations in program impact (Granger, 2008) and the creation of complementary learning systems that align in and out of school activities (Weiss, Coffman, Post, Bouffard, & Little, 2005, Weiss, Bouffard, Bridglall, & Gordon, 2009). Although many institutions self-identify as “community schools”, there remain some important organizational and philosophical variations within the movement. For example, in some community schools there is still a sharp division between the traditional academically oriented school and all other out-of-school activities. This dichotomy does not necessarily indicate overt animosity between stakeholders, but rather is a by-product of the balkanization of social service professionals. Interprofessional collaboration is difficult to achieve and requires trust building, mechanisms for conflict resolution, the potential evolution and transformation of professional norms, and openness to the creation of a new community without insider/outsider status (Edelman, 2001; McMahon et al., 2000). Unfortunately, this type of culture shift is further complicated by current policies that emphasize accountability via standardized student outcomes, thus limiting the potential for interprofessional collaboration (Lawson, 2004). Some schools do manage to successfully achieve interprofessional collaboration, but the participation of community members as authentic stakeholders remains an afterthought. Several scholars have expressed concern that the failure to include the voice of the community creates situations in which community schools are framed by deficit models of thinking (Keith, 1996; Smrekar & Mawhinney, 1999; Warren, 2005). These scholars worry that community schools that focus exclusively on

124 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE

service delivery can become overly clinical in their approach and further marginalize families (Keith, 1999). Perhaps as a result of these philosophical orientations, the creation of community schools is often presented as a strategy for struggling urban districts serving historically marginalized populations. Furthermore, the procurement of resources to support community schooling through funding sources like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants are limited to programs that specifically target high poverty and low quality schools. Although community schools do improve student outcomes in these communities, the model should not be narrowly defined as a strategy for “at-risk” youth. All children can benefit from the community school approach and cities like Cincinnati are hoping that district wide initiatives will both increase student achievement and contribute to the racial and class based desegregation of public education. Finally, there are a number of community schools that are actively working to create a seamless integration of professional services coupled with the full inclusion of community voices. In these schools the community plays a central role in the planning, development, implementation, and achievement of school goals. These schools also require a significant culture shift that allows stakeholders to overcome the many trials outlined above. Despite these challenges the community school movement continues to grow. It is an intuitively appealing idea and critics of the concept are rare. As a result, in recent years community schools have benefitted from legislative opportunities (e.g., The Keeping PACE Act, DIPLOMA Act, and Full-Service Community Schools Act) and the support of major foundations (e.g., The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation).1 There are several large national models including the Children’s Aid Society, Beacon Schools, Communities in Schools, and University Assisted Community Schools at the Netter Center for Community Partnerships). Each of these organizations plays a significant role in the creation of new community schools in their region and mentor the development of community schools across the country. At the local level, districts in Indianapolis, Tulsa, Nashville, and over 20 other major cities have expressed interest in or commitment to the creation of community schools. With such widespread support and growth potential it is worth examining community schools as an important part of the OST literature. FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Considering the long history of community schools in the United States the empirical research on the concept is relatively sparse. There are occa-

It Takes a Village 125

sional studies that have appeared in professional peer-reviewed journals, but the majority of the research comes from program evaluations. The information these evaluations provide is important and contributes to the broader picture of community schools, but details regarding methodology and validity are sometimes limited and occasionally the data comes from an internal review process with no third party researcher. Within these studies some programs have expressed their desire for more in-depth and comprehensive information, but evaluations can be quite costly for schools, districts, or nonprofits already operating with limited resources (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). Thus, although a growing number of studies and ample anecdotal evidence exists regarding community schools, there is still a critical need for additional research. Most of the studies that are available focus on either characteristics of effective community schools or community school outcomes. In both of these categories some dominant themes have emerged. The focus of this chapter is on the findings related to family involvement, but we have also included the topics of school leadership, the role of resource coordinators, and community engagement and development because of their contributions to a foundation that supports sustainable family engagement policies. CREATING A FOUNDATION FOR FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Cross-Boundary Leadership Leadership is a critical component for the success of any school and it is particularly important for a community school. Several authors have argued that in order to sustain the community school model, leaders must possess the capacity for “boundary spanning” (Blank, Berg, & Melaville, 2006; Bradshaw, 1999), the art of working collaboratively and effectively with diverse stakeholders. These findings are consistent with research in the field of educational leadership detailing the value of distributed leadership models, but until recently the focus was generally on leadership within schools (Sanders, 2007; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). However, a recent Wallace Foundation study examining links between leadership and student achievement found, “that higher-performing schools generally solicit more input and engagement from a wider variety of stakeholders and provide for greater influence from teacher teams, parents, and students” (Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010, p. 31).

126 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE

The inclusion of actors from outside the traditional school organization is critical for the success of community schools. In a Coalition for Community Schools report that included data from eleven cities, the definition of leadership was expanded to include community leaders (inclusive of parents, elected officials, nonprofits, and local businesses), leaders within the schools (principals and administrators), and leaders in the middle (described as individuals with the ability to build infrastructure across organizations) (Blank, Berg, & Melaville, 2006). Among the recommendations from this study was a call to, “nurture and expand networks of community responsibility,” “build multi-level leadership,” and “engage the community” (Blank et al., 2006, p. 4). The challenge for community schools is that the capacity for boundary crossing leadership must be learned and there are few opportunities to develop these skills beyond “on the job” training. Although 88% of teachers and 89% of principals believe that strengthening connections between schools and parents is very important for student achievement (MetLife, 2010), many educators feel ill-prepared to successfully work with families and communities (Epstein, Sanders, & Clark, 1999). This gap speaks to a need for targeted professional development in the area of community engagement and reexamination of teacher and principal preparation programs, regardless of whether or not individuals are working in community schools.

Resource or Community Outreach Coordinators Another consistent finding in the community school literature is the importance of having a staff member dedicated to managing a community school’s partnerships (Blank et al., 2003). Commonly referred to as resource coordinators, these individuals help schools and partners to navigate bureaucratic matters and help to maintain a connection to the community. Although their responsibilities differ in significant ways, the coordinator positions have similarities with parent liaisons or family outreach coordinators. Research on these positions can also inform the practice of resource coordinators. In a mixed methods case study involving four districts, Sanders (2008) identified four essential roles of parent liaisons including: the provision of direct support to families, supporting and scaffolding teacher’s outreach efforts, working with partnership teams, and collecting data to help contextualize the lives of families. Although both educators and families value the efforts of liaisons, their role as cultural brokers is often complicated by the need to serve as both institutional agents and advocates for parents who are battling potentially oppressive systems. Successful liaisons manage this tension by addressing

It Takes a Village 127

conflicts as learning opportunities for both families and educators (Martinez-Cosio & Iannacone, 2007). Sanders (2008) concludes that the future success of liaison positions requires both a financial commitment and appropriate training for qualified individuals who are both familiar with education and capable of building relationships across a wide variety of stakeholders. A similar commitment is needed for resource coordinators in community schools, a position that is further complicated by the necessity to forge relationships with individuals and organizations in the community-at-large.

Community Engagement and Support Since the inception of the community school concept planners have advocated for a development process that includes an assessment to insure that the needs of families and the community are being met (Dryfoos, 1995). The underlying belief is that a school will only be utilized if it fulfills the desires of the community that it serves. However, the extent to which the community is involved in the planning process and whose input is solicited varies greatly from site to site. As previously mentioned, some schools still adhere to a strict service model whereas others commit to a more organic and grassroots approach. For example, in Chicago’s Community School Initiative there was a philosophical commitment to deepening stakeholder engagement in the planning process. Yet, out of 71 sites, “about two-thirds of schools either list no official parent representative (28 schools) or one parent representative (20 schools). At the other end of the spectrum, 19 schools included 3 or more representatives” (Whalen, 2007, p. 4). This disparity can in part be attributed to the difficulties that many educators have reconceptualizing school and community relationships. Traditionally school administrators have sought to balance responsiveness to the community with a desire to protect the professional autonomy of their faculty, a phenomenon referred to by Crowson and Boyd (2001) as “bridging and buffering.” Although abundant research supports the value of community and school partnerships for success (Henderson & Mapp, 2002), it is difficult to overcome institutionalized attitudes (Crowson & Boyd, 2001). Despite these struggles the literature indicates that having the buy-in of the community is critical for the success of a community school (Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006). In another study conducted by the Coalition for Community Schools, that involved a broad cross section of community school principals, the authors identified six keys to community engagement paraphrased below:

128 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE

• • • •

Developing a shared mission Sharing leadership, resources, and accountability Actively reaching out to the community Immediately addressing conflict and creating opportunities for honest conversation • Sharing your school’s story to build support • Focusing on long-term sustainability (Berg et al., 2006) Implementation of authentic engagement begins with the establishment of strong relationships. Programs like the Parent Teacher Home Visit (PTHV) project in California are an example of how schools and families can begin to reach out to one another. In the PTHV teachers and administrators visit the homes of their students prior to the academic year to create goals in a setting where the balance of power is more equitable. The project is based on the assumption that families and teachers are coeducators of children and each has an “expert” perspective that will be of value to the other. Strategies like these contribute to mutually beneficial family and school relationships as described in the broader literature. They include the development of capacity (Lopez, Kreider, & Coffman, 2005), communication (Henderson & Mapp, 2002), respect (Hargreaves, 2001; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003), and trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Collectively strong leadership, the role of intermediary individuals, and a commitment to community engagement contribute to the creation of a foundation for both effective community schools and the potential for increased family involvement.

FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Many community school models explicitly state the important role that families and communities must play in a child’s development. Thus, it is not surprising that one of the primary findings in the community school literature is the positive impact that this model has on parental involvement (Blank et al., 2003). In part this is because the structure of a community school has the potential to be more inclusive and responsive to families’ needs. For example, working class parents with inflexible or overburdened work schedules are often unable to attend school activities during traditional school hours (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Lareau, 2000). Unfortunately, this often results in teachers perceiving absence as a lack of interest. The extended hours of the community school model allows families to know that their children are safe and well-

It Takes a Village 129

cared for, while simultaneously creating additional opportunities for involvement. Other parents may feel uncomfortable in schools because of linguistic or cultural barriers. The inclusion of intermediary organizations can create alternative channels for engagement within the school community (Lopez et al., 2005). Neighborhood centers or local nonprofits with roots in the community and responsibilities at the school can serve as cultural translators between families and educators. They provide knowledge and confidence to families and may assist school with more effective programmatic implementation (Lopez et al., 2005). Evaluation data in community schools is generally focused on measures related to Epstein’s (1995) typology of parent involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community) and less focused on the big picture of family engagement. Some typical examples of findings include: • Arlington, VA where 95% of parents taking ESL classes offered at Carlin Springs Elementary School also attended parent-teacher conferences (Coalition for Community Schools, 2010b) • Chicago, IL where in 2005−2006, 178 Community School Initiative programs targeted adults, including over 30% focused on parenting skills and helping parents support student learning at home (Whalen, 2007) • Kings Mountain, NC where East Elementary School boosted previously low rates of attendance at parent-teacher conferences to over 96% (Blank et al., 2003) • Long Beach, CA where 83% of parents who participated in adult and family programming believed that their child’s grades had improved as a result of their involvement (Blank et al., 2006) • Arkansas, where the 21st Century Network reported 14% more participation in informal parent-teacher discussions when comparing established to “newer” sites (The School of the 21st Century Program at Yale, 2009). Community schools can clearly make an impact on traditional measures of family involvement. However, the majority of the existing research is focused on “head count” data and most studies fail to explore measures regarding more authentic forms of engagement. To improve family engagement practices and community or student outcomes, further research is needed that explores the impact of community schools on families’ experiences and how schools and communities are being transformed in the process (Caspe, Traub, & Little, 2002).

130 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE

MOVING TOWARD FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Considering the premium being placed on quantifiable metrics to increase accountability and determine success it is not surprising that the research on family involvement in community schools has largely focused on traditional school-centric interpretations of family, school, and community relationships. However, the community school model has the potential to go beyond “head count” practices that equate attendance and participation with involvement and create real change that can impact the lives of students, families, and the community-at-large. Shirley (1997) draws a distinction between the terms involvement and engagement in his research on the Texas Alliance Schools, Parental involvement—as practiced in most schools and reflected in the research literature—avoids issues of power and assigns parents a passive role in the maintenance of school culture. Parental engagement designates parents as citizens in the fullest sense-change agents who can transform urban schools and neighborhoods. (p. 73)

If family engagement is the goal, then it is imperative for community schools to distance themselves from deficit models of thinking and focus on achieving more authentic community participation. Authentic participation entails, “equality between school and community participants,” breadth of participation, either through collections of individuals or recognized local leaders,” and “opportunities for valuing and making use of local community beliefs, practices, and aims” (Schutz, 2006, p. 694). In summary, authentic community participation engages members of the community as partners in the development, implementation, and daily practices of the school community. It creates the opportunity for schools and communities to work collaboratively toward social change and address the broader issues that face our neighborhoods (Olivos, 2007).

CONCLUSION What is the potential impact of authentic community participation in community schools? For an example we return to Cincinnati, this time to the neighborhood of Lower Price Hill. Well known in Cincinnati for its large urban Appalachian population, Lower Price Hill had developed a reputation among educators as a close-knit community with limited interest in education. As recently as 2004, 84% of Oyler Elementary (the local neighborhood K−8 school) graduates would finish their education in the eighth grade and not move on to high school (Axelroth, 2009). When the

It Takes a Village 131

planning process to transform Oyler into a CLC began some city officials wondered if any community members would even show up. The people of the community did come and over a span of several months a new picture of the Lower Price Hill community began to emerge. It was discovered that the community did want their children to earn their high school diplomas, but they were reluctant to bus their children to different parts of the city to attend high school. Parents working in concert with local business leaders, social service agencies, churches, and neighbors, successfully lobbied for the addition of a high school on the top two floors of Oyler. Starting in 2010 the school anticipates that between 40 to 50 students will graduate each year, a number that is believed to be greater that the total number of high school graduates from the community over the past 85 years (Axelroth, 2009)! There are neighborhoods like Lower Price Hill across the country and it is this type of authentic family engagement that can transform public education. The community school model can create opportunities for increased engagement by reducing traditional barriers related to class, race, and culture and providing a new mutually constructed space for educational endeavors. Families not only receive the services they need, but they become invested in the success of the school since they play a role in its creation. Although additional research is needed on the impact of community schools, it remains a promising model for OST in part because of its strong commitment to families and communities.

NOTES 1.

The support of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation dates back to the 1930s and has helped sustain the community school concept over the years.

REFERENCES Axelroth, R. (2009). The Community schools approach: Raising graduation and college goingrates—Community high school case studies. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational Leadership. Berg, A. C., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community and family engagement: Principalsshare what works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Blank, M. J., Berg, A. C., & Melaville, A. (2006). Growing community schools: The role ofcross-boundary leadership. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/ Growing_COMM_Schools.pdf

132 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Pearson, S. S. (2009, Summer). A coordinated effort: Well conducted partnerships meet students’ academic, health, and social service needs. AmericaEducator, 30−36. Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page /CCSFullReport.pdf Bradshaw, L. K. (1999). Principals as boundary spanners: Working collaboratively to solve problems. NASSP Bulletin, 83(611), 38−47. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: SAGE Caspe, M., Traub F., & Little, P. M. D., (2002). Beyond the head count: Evaluating familyinvolvement in out-of-school time (Issues and Opportunities in Out-ofSchool Time Evaluation No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org /publicationsresources/publications-series/issues-and-opportunitiesin -out-of-school-time-evaluation/ Cincinnati Public Schools. (2008). Community Learning Centers Summary 2008. Retrieved from http://www.cps-k12.org/Community /CLC/CLCSummary2008.pdf Coalition for Community Schools. (2010a). Community schools: Partnerships for excellence.Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools and Institute for EducationalLeadership. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/ assets/1/Page/partnershipsforexcellence.pdf Coalition for Community Schools. (2010b). Community schools: Results that turn around failing schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools and Institute for Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/Turning_Around_Schools_C_Results2.pdf Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (2001). The new role of community development in educationalreform. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 9−29. Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children,youth, and families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dryfoos, J. (1995). Full-service schools: Revolution or fad? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(2), 147−172. Edelman, I. (2001). Participation and service integration in community-based initiatives.Journal of Community Practice, 9, 57−75. Epstein, J. (1995). Family, school and community partnerships: Preparing educators andimproving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., & Clark, L. A. (1999). Preparing educators for schoolfamily community partnerships. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education ofStudents Placed at Risk. Forbes, J. (2009). Redesigning children’s services: Mapping interprofessional social capital. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(2), 122−132. Granger, R. (2008). After-school programs and academics: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development KnowledgeAway, 23(2), 3−11. Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/documents/ publications/spr/spr22-2.pdf

It Takes a Village 133 Hargreaves, A. (2001). Beyond anxiety and nostalgia: Building a social movement foreducational change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 373−377 Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M., (1997). Why do parents become involved in theirchildren’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3− 42. Keith, N. Z. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined? Thepotential of community schools. Education and Urban Society, 28, 237−268. Keith, N.Z. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory Into Practice, 38, 225–234. Kronick, R.F. (2003). Predicting the weather and building the boats: Full-service schools as oneavenue to school success for all of America’s children. Journal of OffenderRehabilitation, 38(1), 65−73. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation. New York, NY: Random House. Lawson, H. A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225−237. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lopez, M. E., Kreider, H., & Coffman, J. (2005). Intermediary organizations as capacity buildersin family educational involvement. Urban Education, 40, 78− 105. Martinez-Cosio, M., & Iannacone, R. M. (2007). The tenuous role of institutional agents: Parentliaisons as cultural brokers. Education and Urban Society, 39(3), 349−369. MetLife, INC. (2010). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Collaborating for studentsuccess. New York, NY: Author. McMahon, T. J., Ward, N. L., Pruett, M. K., Davidson, L., & Griffith, E. H. H. (2000). Buildingfull-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaboratives. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 65−92. Olivos, E.M. (2007). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parentinvolvement in schools. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Rogers, J. S. (1998) Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. A Report to the Charles S. Mott Foundation. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and school: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black White achievement gap. New York, NY: Economic Policy Institute Teachers College. Sanders, M. G. (2007). Transcending boundaries. Principal Leadership, 38−42. Sanders, M. G. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home-school gap. Journal ofEducational Research, 101(5), 287−298. School of the 21st Century at Yale. (2009). Arkansas school of the 21st century network: Agrassroots effort that is making a difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Retrieved from http://www.yale.edu/21c/pdf/2009_IssueBrief_Grassroots.pdf

134 M. P. EVANS and D. KAMINE Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of schoolbasedcommunity engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691−743. Shirley, D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Smrekar, C. E., & Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Integrated services: Challenges in linking schools,families and communities. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research oneducational administration (pp. 443–461). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practices: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23− 28. Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learningfrom leadership project: Investigating the links to improved student learning. The New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ carei/Leadership/Learning-from-Leadership_Executive-Summary_July2010.pdf Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform.Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133−173. Weiss, H. B., Coffman, J., Post, M., Bouffard, S., & Little, P. (2005). Beyond the classroom:Complementary learning to improve achievement outcomes. The Evaluation Exchange, 11(1), 2−6, 17. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/var/ hfrp/storage/original/application/9aa95169b0118cf82e26167fa5769d.pdf Weiss, H. B., Bouffard, S. M., Bridglall, B. L., & Gordon, E. W. (2009). Reframing familyinvolvement in education: Supporting families to support educational equity. TeachersCollege, Columbia University: A Research Initiative of the Campaign for EducationalEquity. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org /complementary-learning/publicationsresources/reframing-family -involvement-in-education-supporting-families-to-supporteducational-equity Whalen, S. P. (2007). Three years into Chicago’s community school initiative (CSI): Progress, challenges, and lessons learned. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.aypf.org/documents /CSI_ThreeYearStudy.pdf

CHAPTER 11

DEVELOPING UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS THAT SUPPORT FAMILY ENGAGEMENT IN OUT-OFSCHOOL TIME SETTINGS Barbara C. Jentleson

University and community partnerships that support improved family engagement practices in out-of-school time (OST) settings have excellent potential for supporting the positive youth development of low-income, minority students. As demonstrated in numerous research studies, the working families of minority children have greater need for supportive OST settings than their middle class counterparts, but often have diminished access to quality OST settings (Bouffard, Wimer, Caranongan, Little, Dearing, & Simpkins, 2006; Mahoney, Eccles, & Larson, 2004). Community-based OST settings serve as an intermediary space where low-income students and their families gain access to academic and social services directly in their neighborhoods. The OST settings perform an Promising Practices for Family Engagement in Out-of-School Time, pp. 135–147 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

135

136 B. C. JENTLESON

intermediary role between the school and community youth. As stated by Hirsch (2005), “Community-based after-school programs can serve as a setting in which youth connect with broader social institutions and the wider adult community” (p. 54). This chapter will discuss successful strategies, challenges and benefits of university-community partnerships for engaging families in OST, using Project Hope at Duke University as a case study. Universities are a rich source of resources to community-based OST programs. They have current research on successful family engagement practices and access to faculty, staff and student personnel who can work with community partners to successfully implement quality family engagement programs. Universities also have the resources to work with community partners to gain access to multiple funding sources through government and foundation grants as well as private donors. Finally, universities have evaluation and fiscal management administrative infrastructure that can assist OST programs in documenting their program development and improvement processes. However, universities often carry the cultural baggage of being socially isolated and insulated institutions with minimal sustained connections to their host communities (Harkavy, 1998; Maurasse, 2001). Duke University, for example, was often labeled “the plantation” within the predominantly African American Durham community. Establishing working partnerships with community organizations required sensitivity to this negative history and attention to direct service delivery that was effective and responsive to stated community concerns. In the second half of the twentieth century, Duke University was part of a significant trend that involved universities turning their attention to the critical social problems of their host communities. Poverty, distressed neighborhoods, and the growing achievement gap of minority youth were pressing social issues demanding engagement from their local universities. Benson, Harkavy, and Puckett (2007) noted that it was a major challenge for universities, with their fragmented, conflicted organizational structure, to develop responsive partnerships with community organizations. Rodin (2007) offered specific details of the University of Pennsylvania’s remarkable community engagement efforts during her presidential tenure. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Duke University’s administrative leaders examined its relationship with the Durham community and, with the establishment of the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership (DDNP) in 1996, began to seek ways to strengthen its partnerships. In response to community alarm over the growing achievement gap and high school dropout rate of its minority youth, the DDNP launched a university and community partnership effort named Project HOPE. Project HOPE’s goal was to build a network of afterschool and summer pro-

Developing University and Community Partnerships 137 Table 11.1.

Changes From 2002−2009 in DDNP Afterschool Programs Year 1

Number of sites Number of students

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

3

3

.6

.6

102

155

157

.161

Year 5 6 164

Year 6

Year 7

6

6

181

204

Student return rate

N/A

51%

54%

53%

43%

44%

64%

Avg. program attendance

62%

74%

81%

80%

81%

91%

92%

Report card collection

44%

60%

84%

96%

98%

93%

98%

C Avg. or Higher

72%

80%

74%

70%

82%

88%

91%

B Avg. or Higher

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

59%

76%

Number of tutors

138

176

164

.136

145

159

.169

Tutor return rate

N/A

19%

27%

36%

18%

58%

36%

Staff return rate

67%

69%

77%

43%

73%

69%

85%

grams in the low-income, minority neighborhoods adjacent to the Duke campus. Neighborhood nonprofit organizations either had existing afterschool programs or wanted to start afterschool programs, but needed funding resources and tutors to improve the academic achievement of their students. Duke faculty and staff worked directly with community partners to develop afterschool and summer programs that would improve report card grades, End of Grade test scores and graduation rates. Project HOPE staff and community partners designed and implemented the programs with Duke undergraduate students providing oneon-one and small group tutoring throughout the OST programming year to program participants. The OST students were predominantly AfricanAmerican and Hispanic with over 80% eligible for free and reduced meals. A formative evaluation framework was developed with community members, project staff and external evaluators. The evaluation process promoted stable documentation practices that led to improved program quality and more secure funding sources. The number of quality programs and improved academic achievement of HOPE participants is demonstrated in Table 11.1.

UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT Communicating and Building Relationships Building trust between university and community partners is a necessary first step to working with community partners and families in the

138 B. C. JENTLESON

OST setting (Noam & Tillinger, 2004). Furthermore, research on school reform suggests that relational trust—as defined by respectful relationships, competence in fulfilling roles, personal regard for others, and integrity to do right by one another—is a core component of successful school improvement. This theory of how adults come to know and work productively with one another in schools can also be applied to universitycommunity partnerships, where adults from different perspectives and identities collaborate to help students and their families thrive in OST settings. A key strategy to fostering relational trust is communication. Honoring regular community patterns undergird every aspect of communicating to develop successful family engagement programming. Communication can be formal through a regular meeting structure or informal through site visits, e-mail, and phone calls. Listening and responding to stated parent and community needs is essential to establishing a thriving family engagement program. Although this can be done through a needs survey, actually talking with community partners and families directly helps build relational trust among partners more meaningfully. Direct communication is strongly valued in minority communities as it indicates genuine caring and a willingness to put in the time to listen and respond to stated concerns (Obidah & Teel, 2001). Also, community members have the opportunity to meet university staff and to discuss common problems with them, which begins to build the level of trust necessary for successful programs. For university staff, it’s often important to recognize that community members may come to the process with a less than positive image of the university and its personnel from prior experiences or insensitive interactions with prior research projects. OST settings can also function as cultural brokers in their respective communities. In community-based afterschool programs, cultural dominance issues shift with community youth and their families as the representative culture, while outside resources and agencies are guests of this host community. Working together on shared tasks becomes the bridge to building productive relationships. The Project HOPE afterschool program coordinators were established as positive role models who were available to teach negotiating skills to youth and their families (Hirsch, 2005; Tucker & Herman, 2002).

Tailoring Best Practice Models Developing successful family engagement practices also requires marrying the basic components of best practice models with the needs and capacities of the individual OST setting. When this process works well, the

Developing University and Community Partnerships 139

strengths of both organizations are utilized, while minimizing the weaknesses of each institution. University staff will have access to current best practice models, but will need to calibrate what works in the literature to the daily practice of an OST setting. For example, families may prioritize their student’s academic achievement, but may be unsure or limited in what strategies work best for their student. OST coordinators can communicate specific strategies such as the importance of regular afterschool program attendance. This gives their afterschool tutors ample opportunities to work with students in completing their homework and improving their academic skills. If parents are having difficulties with managing this factor, OST coordinators and university project staff will aid parents by working on possible solutions to this crucial problem that so significantly impacts school performance (Neild, Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007)

Valuing Parent Contributions Another important function of the OST staff is to encourage parent participation by learning what parents may contribute to the program. They can offer opportunities in their OST programs that values positive parent contributions. For example, all of the sites engaged parents in food preparation activities. However, the activities widely varied according to site needs. Some sites had parents teaching nutrition and cooking classes. Another site engaged parents in organizing food preparation for the program’s daily operations or celebrating events. Yet another program organized a food bank that served program families and the larger community. Although it varied, family engagement in food preparation emphasized the nurturing and healthful aspects of nutrition and its connection to supportive families, communities, and academic growth. Thus two basic program components, attendance and nutrition, were addressed in a flexible manner that supported students and their families to develop positive practices that supported growing academic achievement.

Building Cultural Bridges OST programs have an important function as cultural bridges between neighborhood families and the larger social institutions of the community. With their more flexible scheduling that can take place in the afternoons, evenings or weekends, OST programs have multiple opportunities for enrichment programming that includes family participation. Including families in the enrichment activities strengthens families’ learning experiences and provides resources and services to families and their chil-

140 B. C. JENTLESON

dren. Enrichment activities that engage family members include informal activities where families can spend time together in relaxed settings such as cookouts, park or museum visits, and recreation facilities such as swimming, bowling or skating rinks. Formal programming may include attending local cultural programs or working with university faculty and staff on community history or documentary programs. OST staff may also offer their services to families by attending school visits, school conferences or conducting parent information or workshop settings at the OST site. OST coordinators are often vital referral links to needed agencies such as local food banks, health clinics, social or legal services (Kakli, Kreider, Little, Buck, & Coffey, 2006).

Networking Across OST Programs OST programs that are working in a collaborative framework may strengthen their family engagement practices by sharing ideas with one another through valuable networking opportunities. The university functions in this center as a convener of OST programs that are working toward similar aims and can work together to form advocacy networks, and to share resources and ideas about successful family engagement practices. To the maximum degree possible, university staff should remain a background partner in these efforts, recognizing that community partners have a better knowledge of their respective community needs and capacities. Within Project HOPE, OST coordinators offered program mentoring services for each other. During monthly coordinator meetings, valuable information was routinely shared about successful programming practices and resources in their respective community organizations. This programmatic peer mentoring was very valuable as it was practical advice about family engagement programming that worked in OST real time settings.

Highlighting Best Practice, Securing Funding, and Documenting After trying for several years to increase family engagement in the OST settings through professional information sessions and programming efforts, Project HOPE staff admitted its minimal success in this area and backed off from direct leadership on family programming issues. Instead, the project staff continued to highlight successful family engagement programs that was happening at individual sites and, eventually, to provide direct funding support for family programming. In response to requests

Developing University and Community Partnerships 141

from external funders, project staff also required the documentation of family engagement activities as part of the already established monthly reporting by the afterschool sites. This combination of informal and formal collaborative infrastructure finally worked to support an increase in the quantity and quality of family engagement programming. By letting go of direct university efforts, but reinforcing site programming efforts, family engagement gradually improved at each of the OST sites. The individual OST programs organically grew their family engagement programs. The quantity and quality of family engagement increased in the afterschool programs because the practices were a good fit to the capacities of the community-based organizations and the needs of the families they were serving.

CHALLENGES IN SUPPORTING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT THROUGH UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS Mismatch Between Best Practice Models and Real-World Needs Best practice models of family engagement practice are only as useful as their successful implementation. Models need to be flexible enough to allow for responsiveness to the vagaries of local conditions and implementation difficulties. Implementation of best practice models is often attached to research requirements that have a rigid design framework and/or timelines that may or may not work effectively in community settings. Also, research-based funding may have a shorter funding timeframe than is necessary for successful program implementation (Bouffard, 2003). Formative evaluation practices that focus on continuous program improvement are often more effective than rigorous experimental design evaluations in the less formal, fluid OST setting. Large scale evaluations such as those successfully conducted by TASC, Citizen Schools, and LA Best (Fabiano, Pearson, Reisner, & Williams, 2006; Huang, Coordt, LaTorre, Leon, Miyoshi, & Perez, 2007; Reisner, White, Birmingham, & Welsh, 2001) have demonstrated the positive gains made by afterschool participants. For smaller programs with less sustained funding, formative evaluation procedures provide useful documentation and further evidence of positive youth development (York, 2003). An example of the importance of flexible research design occurred early in Project HOPE’s development. The external evaluation team designed an extensive community survey that was to be conducted at the afterschool programs with participating families. Although the evaluators provided direct payment for survey completion, parent participation was

142 B. C. JENTLESON

minimal. The evaluators experienced the feedback from families that the neighborhoods had extensive and mostly negative experience with prior university research and community surveying. The families had no interest in taking the time to complete yet another survey, even though it involved educational programming for their children. The evaluators regrouped and at a later date conducted more successful focus groups that discussed parent needs and suggestions for OST program improvement. The evaluators discovered that it was important to use research strategies that would be effective in the host community setting. The focus groups were also conducted after the program was operational and parents had developed trust in the basic operational structure of the OST setting and the university’s proven involvement. Parents knew the evaluator conducting the focus group and were comfortable with his questioning. Focus group results demonstrated that parents were unanimous in their agreement that the afterschool programs and Duke tutors were helping their students. They praised the enrichment and social skills activities, noting particular help from the Department of Social Services staff who conducted a teen pregnancy prevention group at one OST site. Finally, they appreciated the work of the OST coordinators who communicated regularly with them about their students’ progress. They made specific suggestions for program improvements that included increased services and programming hours (Upton & Whittington, 2007). They had informed how the programs, and their involvement in them, would look, and were invested in their continued improvement.

Recruitment and Staffing Issues Another goodness of fit issue that can be a hard-earned lesson concerns the type of personnel conducting family engagement programming. The best advice available is useless if the families receiving it do not respect or value the person giving the advice. OST coordinators perform a valued role in their communities and can communicate best practice advice into language and programming activities that resonate with the values and cultural norms of their neighborhoods. Communities with a history of educational support for their children will have community members willing and able to volunteer their services through tutoring, career speakers or leading activities. Other programs without such history or community support will need to recruit volunteers or fund community members to work with family engagement programs. OST programs that organize speaker programs or workshops that offer what may be significant professional information or advice may run into criticism that such programs too often resemble what is presented in

Developing University and Community Partnerships 143

school programming. Parents burdened with job and childcare commitments do not need an extra set of meeting obligations added to their “to do” list. Matching information or workshop sessions with what families want, as well as celebrations, dinner and childcare will ease such scheduling difficulties.

Securing Relevant and Sustainable Funds Finding sustained funding resources is a critical element in the development of successful family engagement programming. Matching grant funding guidelines with the actual programming needs of the OST programming also presents a challenge to OST coordinators. Universities typically have greater research and grant administration resources for investigating and preparing appropriate grants for family engagement programming. However, they need to be cognizant of community needs and the danger of intermittent approaches that may do more harm than good (Fleishman, 2007). An example of a successful approach was an OST coordinator who worked with a university funding source to hire personnel that provided computer technical support and educational programming for the OST program. The improved technical support provided by the funding also increased the overall function of the computer lab. The computer lab was open to the broader community when the OST programming was using it, so computer access was generally improved for OST families and the overall community. This small grant was an example of how short-term funding improved programming infrastructure that had longer term benefit for afterschool students, their families and the broader community.

BENEFITS OF UNIVERSITY/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS On a recent afternoon visit to a Project HOPE program, an alumnus of the program stopped by for a chat. He arrived in medical scrubs and let the coordinator know that he was completing a Job Corps program that trained him as a medic. The medical training led him to becoming an army recruit as a medic. The coordinator congratulated him on his successful program completion and reminded him of how pleased his mother was of his success. The young man beamed with pride, knowing he was added to her list of proud program graduates now attending colleges, graduate and law school programs. Each graduation and program completion benefits not only students, but their families and community, as well.

144 B. C. JENTLESON

Student Benefits Community-based OST programs have the capacity to be transitional zones where formal and informal information can be successfully shared with student participants and their families. Low-income, minority students attending community-based OST settings gain significant academic and social benefits (Hirsch, 2005; Tucker & Herman, 2002; Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007). As demonstrated with Project HOPE, university and community partnerships provide the necessary infrastructure needed to organize resources that benefit OST students and their families. Afterschool students gain access to direct tutoring and mentoring that build the competencies necessary for academic success. Enrichment resources such as computer literacy, arts and recreation activities further expand these benefits.

Family Benefits Parents and families of OST participants experience similar gains from engagement with the community-based organizations. Through the OST site coordinators, they receive information and direct advice regarding the academic and social progress of their students. When problems arise, OST and university project staff are available to assist with supportive services. Social service agencies, medical services, and local nonprofit organizations also use the OST setting to gain valuable access to low-income, minority parents. Examples from Project HOPE have included medical and dental care, law clinic advocacy for students with special needs, substance abuse counseling, computer literacy, college application and financial aid workshops. The OST setting successfully works with families to negotiate the wider social institutions of the community (Halpern, 2003; Hirsch, 2005; Noam & Tillinger, 2004). Another critical benefit to the families of OST participants is improved access to the enrichment opportunities of the university and community. Through the liaison efforts of the OST coordinators and university project staff, Project HOPE families have regularly attended Duke Performances, American Dance Festival and Durham Performing Arts Center programs. The always popular athletic tickets to Duke and North Carolina Central University football and basketball games are fun family events, particularly when their favorite tutors are performing as college athletes. Finally, OST families accompany their students on multiple educational outings organized by OST site coordinators, including museum trips, AMTRAK train rides, and travel to historic sites.

Developing University and Community Partnerships 145

These student and family benefits extend into the community, as well. University and community partnerships offer multiple opportunities that are valuable to the Durham community and the university it supports. Improved educational programming, social and health services improve the quality of life for all community members.

University Benefits Benefits to families of afterschool students are a primary goal of university involvement. However, the reciprocal benefit to universities is a strong secondary gain of university-community partnerships. University faculty who have increased engagement with low-income, minority students and their families offer direct service benefits to their community. Faculty who conduct community-based research gain from the opportunity to test theories and best practice models in applied settings. Research that has practical application has the potential to improve broader discussions of public policy. Improved community partnerships lay strong foundations for future collaboration of research and practice (Bok, 1990; Maurasse, 2001; Rodin, 2007). Another benefit to universities is the potential for undergraduate and graduate student involvement in community-based programming. University students who have service-learning and research opportunities to work with afterschool students and their families gain valuable direct experience negotiating a variety of cultural contexts. This experience of problem solving in differing cultural contexts improves their awareness of social problems and the complexity of developing successful programming strategies. They develop skills from practical application experiences that they will carry into future job and community leadership positions (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Ramalay, 2007). University undergraduates who participated in OST programs as tutors, mentors or club activity leaders have continuously contributed by developing their own separate educational initiatives, conducting educational research, becoming program donors, and participating in advisory boards to OST programs.

Program Benefits Recent monthly reporting revealed the richness of the university-community partnership as one OST program noted with pride that the majority of its students were on the A/B honor roll. This same site reported sponsoring a Father’s Day activity that involved the father’s taking their children to a university football game. Another site was sponsoring a

146 B. C. JENTLESON

Peace Toys Exchange for the holidays. This involved sponsoring a community meal with children turning in their toy weapons for brand new peaceful toys and was an invitation to all children and their families in the community. At the same time, the university faculty and staff were managing multiple requests for Duke tutors and mentors in new OST settings. The collaborative impact of university and community personnel working together has long term benefits for positive youth development and strengthening families. Truly, they can become better together.

REFERENCES Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press. Bouffard, S. (2003, Spring). Doing what works: Scientifically based research in education. The Evaluation Exchange. Harvard Family Research Project, IX(1). Bouffard, Wimer, C., Caranongan, P., Little, P., Dearing, E., & Simpkins, S. D. (2006, May). Demographic differences in patterns of youth out-of-school time activity participation. Journal of Youth Development, 1(1). Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1999, Summer). Reflection in service-learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 170−185. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M., Reisner, E. R., & Williams, I. J. (2006). Preparing students in the middle grades to succeed in high schools: Findings from Phase IV of the Citizen Schools Evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Association. Fleishman, J. (2007). The foundation: A great American secret: How private wealth is changing the world. New York, NY: Public Affairs. Halpern, R. (2003)). Making play work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harkavy, I. (1998). School-Community-University Partnerships: Effectively Integrating Community Building and Education Reform. Paper presented to conference on Connecting Community Building and Education Reform: Effective school, community, university parnterships. U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC. Hirsch, B. (2005). A place to call home. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Huang, D., Coordt, A., LaTorre, D., Leon, S., Miyoshi, J., & Perez, P. (2007). The afterschool hours: Examining the relationship between afterschool staff-based social capital and student engagement in LA’s BEST. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA/CRESST. Kakli, A., Kreider, H., Little, P., Buck, T., & Coffey, M. (2006). Focus on Families! How to build and support family-centered practices in after-school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project and Build the Out-of-school Time Network (BOSTnet).

Developing University and Community Partnerships 147 Mahoney, J. L., Eccles, J. S., & Larson, R. W. (2004, Spring). Processes of adjustment in organized out-of-school activities: Opportunities and risk. In G. Noam (Ed.), New directions for youth development, 101, 115−144. Maurasse, D. (2001). Beyond the campus. New York, NY and London: Routledge. Neild, R. C., Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2007, October). An early warning system. Educational Leadership, 28−33. Noam, G. G., & Tillinger, J. R. (2004, Spring). After-school as intermediary space: Theory and typology of partnerships. In G. G. Noam (Ed), New Directions for Youth Development, 101, 75−113. Obidah, J., & Teel, K. M. (2001). Because of the kids: Facing racial and cultural difference in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ramalay, J. A. (2007). Reflections on the public purposes of higher education. Beyond the Ivory Tower, Wingspread Journal. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation. Reisner, E.R., White, R.N., Birmingham, J. & Welsh, M. (2001). Building quality and supporting expansion of After-School Projects: Evaluation results from the TASC After-School Program’s second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Rodin, J. (2007). The university and urban revival. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press. Tucker, C. M., & Herman, K.C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet academic needs of low-income African-American children. American Psychologist, 57(10), 762−773. Upton, J., & Whittington, D. (2007). Duke University Project HOPE, Annual External Evaluation Report: Program Impacts & Recommendations, Institutional Research Consultants, Powell, OH. Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising practices. Irvine, CA: University of California and Washington, DC: Policy Studies Association. York, P. (2003, June). Learning as we go: Making evaluation work for everyone. The Conservation Company Briefing Paper, 1−11.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Rebecca Birr, Library Director, Health Sciences Library, Maricopa Integrated Health System Suzanne M. Bouffard, Research Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University Angie Bush, Manager of Institutional Relations, Raising A Reader National Office Martha A. Cocchiarella, Clinical Assistant Professor, Arizona State University Shayna Cunningham, Senior Research Associate, Sociometrics Corporation Emily Earl, Graduate Student, Arizona State University Michael P. Evans, Assistant Professor, Miami University Diana B. Hiatt-Michael, Professor Emeritus, Pepperdine University Barbara C. Jentleson, Assistant Professor of the Practice, Program in Education, Duke University Darlene Kamine, Executive Director, Community Learning Center Institute 149

150 LIST of CONTRIBUTORS

Holly Kreider, Director of Programs, Raising A Reader National Office Priscilla M. Little, Independent Education Researcher Gabrielle E. Miller, Executive Director, Raising A Reader National Office Stacy Moreno, Social Worker, Children in Need East, Children's Services & Learning Southampton (United Kingdom) City Council Georganne Morin, Manager of Affiliate Relations and Evaluation, Raising A Reader National Office Kathryn Nakagawa, Associate Professor, Arizona State University Kelly L. O’Carroll, Advanced Doctoral Student, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University Andrew Schneider-Muñoz, Visiting Associate Professor of Child and Youth Care, University of Pittsburgh Amanda K. Sommerfeld, Clinical Assistant Professor, Counseling Psychology Program, School of Education, Boston University Richard A. Tagle, CEO, The Higher Achievement Program Russell Vaden, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Coastal Carolina University Frances Van Voorhis, Consultant, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University Helen Westmoreland, Director of Program Quality, The Flamboyan Foundation