Welcome to AFFECT!

This section will introduce you to several topics that will provide helpful background information and context as you explore Modules 1-5.

Scroll down to read:

1) What is Family Engagement?
2) Family Engagement Frameworks
3) Benefits of Family Engagement in Schools
4) The Need to Learn About Family Engagement
5) Family Engagement in Hawai’i

*Note: This content draws from Victoria Timmerman’s dissertation research (in progress)

What is Family Engagement?

Currently, there is no singular definition of family engagement or a description of how to do it well; the term often means different things to different people (CSDE, 2018). However, several education researchers have aimed to conceptualize family engagement. For example, Epstein (1987; 1995) and Epstein and Sanders (2000) identified six specific ways that families are often involved in their children’s school: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the local community (these are discussed further in the frameworks section). Dearing, Sibley, and Nguyen (2015) took a more social and relational approach to describing family engagement by placing families at the center of their model, showing how schools, families, and communities invest in student learning (described further in the frameworks section). Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995; 1997) model conceptualizes family engagement through a more psychological approach by examining why parents become involved in their children’s education (described further in the frameworks section).

However, Dr. Karen Mapp, the primary author of the Dual Capacity-Building Framework (discussed in the frameworks section), promotes the Connecticut State Department of Education’s (CSDE) definition of family engagement (personal communication, October 16, 2020). The CSDE and their partners co-created the following definition of family engagement:

“Family engagement is a full, equal, and equitable partnership among families, educators, and community partners to promote children’s learning and development from birth through college and career” (CSDE, 2018). 

This definition, in conjunction with the Dual Capacity-Building Framework, encompasses several of the social, relational and psychological aspects of the other well-known family engagement models and frameworks. In the following section we discuss these and other frameworks more in depth and provide resources for them. 

 

References and Resources

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2020, October). Full, Equal and Equitable Partnerships with Families. https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Publications/Full-Equal-and-Equitable-Partnerships-with-Families/Introduction

Dearing, E., Sibley, E., & Nguyen, H. (2015). Achievement mediators of family engagement in children’s education: A family–school–community systems model. In Processes and Pathways of Family-School Partnerships Across Development (pp. 17–39). Springer International Publishing. 

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family–school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann, & F. L Lösel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints. Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence (pp. 121–136). Oxford, UK: Walter De Gruyter.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-702. 

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social research. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of education (pp. 285-306). New York, NY: Plenum. 

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Teachers College Record, 95, 310–331.

Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. SEDL. https://sedl.org/pubs/framework/ 

Family Engagement Frameworks

As Dr. Ratliffe and Dr. Ponte discussed in their (2018) article, the ways in which family engagement has been conceptualized has changed over time. Family engagement frameworks have aimed to show how families engage with schools, how family engagement impacts relationships and interactions between families and schools, what the goals of family engagement are, and how family engagement supports positive student outcomes. Family engagement frameworks can be used as a guide for creating family engagement initiatives in schools and for developing effective relationships with families. They are also used in educational research to structure research projects and to help explain and interpret research results. For example, family-school interactions can be examined using Epstein’s overlapping spheres model to show how the school, family, and community support children’s achievement in different ways. This section briefly introduces several family engagement frameworks and suggests where educators can go to learn more about them. Additionally, discussion of contributions and limitations of these theories and others can be found in Yamauchi et al.’s (2018) article examining the most commonly used family engagement frameworks in educational research. 

 

References

Ratliffe, K. T. & Ponte, E. (2018). Parent perspectives on developing effective family-school partnerships in Hawai‘i. School Community Journal, 28(1), 217-247. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184927.pdf 

Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1165647.pdf 

 

Epstein’s Overlapping Spheres of Influence

One of the earliest developed family engagement frameworks is Joyce Epstein’s (1987; 1992) Overlapping Spheres of Influence model. Epstein, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University was inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1986) ecological model and created the overlapping spheres model that consists of two structures – one external and one internal. 

The external structure is made up of three spheres that can either overlap or not overlap. These spheres represent the three contexts in which Epstein argued the majority of children’s development takes place – the family, the school, and the community. The extent to which the spheres overlap is determined by three forces: time, experience in families, and experience in schools. These three forces can push the spheres together or pull them apart. The spheres reach maximum overlap when educators and families view each other as partners and when there is clear communication between home and school (Epstein, 1986). 

The internal structure is made up of interpersonal interactions of people within and among the spheres (Epstein 1987; 2011). For example, when schools and families overlap, there are two primary interactions with the child placed at the center. One interaction is between schools and parents that consists of general school-wide information such as open houses, workshops, and events. The second interaction is between families and teachers that is focused on communication regarding the child, such as social, academic, and personal progress. The child is at the center of all interaction patterns because the child is highly influenced by both the school and the family. As a whole, Epstein (1987, 2011) maintained that the model accounts for (a) changes in families and schools, (b) increased knowledge and experiences of parents, teachers, and students over time, and (c) how those factors influence the student. 

Images of the external and internal spheres can be found in Epstein’s work listed below. 

 

References and Suggested Resources

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22 (6), 723–742.

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277-294. 

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family–school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. X. Kaufmann, & F. L Lösel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints. Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence (pp. 121–136). Oxford, UK: Walter De Gruyter.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1139–1151). New York, NY: MacMillan. 

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools [ProQuest Ebook Central version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhm/reader.action?docID=625094

Ratliffe, K. T. & Ponte, E. (2018). Parent perspectives on developing effective family-school partnerships in Hawai‘i. School Community Journal, 28(1), 217-247. 

Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34. 

 

Epstein’s Six Types of Family Involvement 

In their literature review, Yamauchi et al. (2018) found that the most common framework used to conceptualize family-school partnerships was Epstein (1987; 1995) and Epstein and Sanders’ (2000) six types of family involvement. While this framework came out of their research on the overlapping spheres of influence, the six types of family involvement are considered to be a separate framework. 

The six types of parent involvement  are:

  1. Parenting. Parenting is concerned with helping families create conditions at home that support their children’s learning and development. This could include family support programs that help educate parents on health and nutrition issues, as well as support in housing and safety issues.
  2. Communication. Communication focuses on two-way communication between home and schools regarding children’s education and progress. Methods could include phone calls, meetings, notes, newsletters, and report cards.
  3. Volunteering. Volunteering involves recruiting parent help and support in schools. Parents can be recruited through a variety of methods, such as in-person communication, phone calls, emails, and flyers. Volunteer opportunities include assisting in classrooms, community projects, field trips, or events. 
  4. Learning at Home. This consists of providing information to families regarding how they can support their children’s learning at home, as well as curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning for each grade level. 
  5. Decision Making. This type of involvement includes having all parents be involved in school decision making processes and developing parent leaders in school organizations (e.g., PTA/PTO, safety committees, advisory councils, etc.). 
  6. Collaborating with the Community. Collaborating with the community involves connecting families with community resources and integrating those resources into the schools to optimally support students and their families. 

This model is widely used because it is easy to categorize parent involvement into these six themes. However, strong criticism leveled against it includes that it is school centric and does not take into consideration the perspectives of families. As Yamauchi et al. (2018) pointed out, this framework positions the school to be the one that sets the agenda of how parents can be involved. 

 

References and Suggested Resources

Auerbach, S. (2011). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice. Routledge. 

Epstein, J. (2010). School, family, and community partnerships preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.

A PDF version of Epstein et al.’s (2002) edition of “School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action” can be found at the following link. The first chapter describes both of Epstein’s overlapping spheres of influence and the six types of parent involvement. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERIC-ED467082/pdf/ERIC-ED467082.pdf 

Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34. 

 

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995) Model

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995; 1997) model encompasses the psychological aspects of family engagement, particularly focusing on why parents become involved in their children’s education and how student achievement is impacted by their involvement. The model consists of 5 primary levels.

Level 1: Parents’ Basic Involvement Decisions

  • Influenced by three primary factors
    • How parents perceive their role
    • Parent self-efficacy for helping their children succeed in school
    • Family and life context variables (e.g., availability, parents’ perceptions of their time, energy, skills, and knowledge)

Level 2: Parents’ Choice of Involvement Forms

  • Examples include attending school events, chaperoning field trips, and supporting learning at home by helping with homework and reading together 

Level 3: Mechanisms Through Which Parent Involvement Influences Student Outcomes

  • Encouragement
  • Modeling
  • Reinforcement
  • Instruction

Level 4: Mediating Variables for Student Success 

  • Parent knowledge of developmentally appropriate strategies 
  • Alignment between parent involvement and schools’ expectations

Level 5: Student Outcomes

  • Students’ knowledge and skills 
  • Self-efficacy regarding school success

A visual representation of Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model can be found in their (1997) article on page 4: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/8/41057/files/2017/10/Hoover-Dempsey-and-Sandler-1997-1rggst8.pdf 

 

References and Suggested Resources 

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Teachers College Record, 95, 310–331.

Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85–104.

Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in research on family-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9-34. 

“Why is Parent Involvement Important?” from The Parent Institute at https://www.parent-institute.com/pdf-samples/h-d-and-s-model.pdf 

 

“Family-School-Community Systems Model” – Dearing, Sibley, and Nguyen (2015)

Encompassing more of the social aspects of family engagement, Dearing et al. (2015) developed the “Family-School-Community Systems Model of Family Engagement.” The model conceptualizes family engagement through the lens of social capital, which acts as a mediator for family engagement and children’s learning. Dearing et al. aimed to pay particular attention to the growing diversity of U.S. families. They pointed out that culture, language, and socio-historical background knowledge about families is necessary for school personnel to understand how to best work with families to support student achievement. The primary goals of the model are to:

  1. Emphasize evidence-based family engagement efforts
  2. Clarify how family, school, and community partnerships can positively impact student achievement

Three primary mediators connect family engagement with student achievement and learning:

  1. Social capital systems (families, schools, communities)
  2. Child attributions and motivations
  3. Child learning skills and strategies 

These mediators are interconnected and can multi-directionally influence other elements of the model. 

The main emphasis of the model is on the social capital of families, schools, and communities with particular focus on the importance of building the social capital of marginalized and immigrant families. However, families are at the center of the model because they have the primary responsibility of children’s overall well-being. 

A visual representation of the model can be found on page 169 of this open access resource: https://www.nap.edu/read/21868/chapter/6#169 

 

References and Suggested Resources

Dearing, E., Sibley, E., & Nguyen, H. N. (2015). Achievement mediators of family engagement in children’s education: A family–school–community systems model. In S. M. Sheridan & E. Moorman Kim (Eds.), Processes and pathways of family–school partnerships across development (Vol. 2, pp. 17–39). New York, NY: Springer. 

Ratliffe, K. T., & Ponte, E. (2018). Parent perspectives on developing effective family-school partnerships in Hawai‘i. School Community Journal, 28(1), 217-247. 

 

“The Dual Capacity-Building Framework” – Mapp and Kuttner (2013)

Mapp and Kuttner’s (2013) Dual Capacity-Building Framework is one of the most recent family engagement frameworks and is based on research examining “effective family engagement and home-school partnership strategies and practices, adult learning and motivation, and leadership development” (p. 7). The authors described how, while there has been recent promising improvement in promoting family engagement across the U.S., the policies often assume that parents and educators already have the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to create and sustain effective engagement in schools. However, teachers, particularly those newer to the field, consistently report feeling unprepared to work with families (Evans, 2013; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). The Dual Capacity-Building Framework is intended to be a “compass” (Mapp & Kuttner, p. 6) that describes the goals and conditions necessary for establishing effective family engagement. 

Visit https://www.dualcapacity.org/ to learn more about the model, as well as to view two videos in which Dr. Karen Mapp describes the framework and provides an in depth description of each component. 

In their (2013) publication (reference is below), Mapp and Kuttner offered three cases studies highlighting how the principles of the Dual Capacity-Building Framework have been used in different contexts: https://sedl.org/pubs/framework/FE-Cap-Building.pdf 

 

References and Suggested Resources

Evans, M. P. (2013). Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24(2), 123-133. 

Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships. SEDL. 

Benefits of Family Engagement in Schools

Over 50 years’ worth of research in education links families’ roles in their children’s education with student outcomes (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). This section briefly describes the ways in which families, students, and educators benefit from effective family-school partnerships.

Student Benefits  

Evidenced-based research indicates that there are multiple student benefits when families are engaged in their children’s schools, including: (a) higher attendance rates (b) increased high school graduation rates, (c) fewer grade retentions, (d) increased levels of satisfaction with school, (e) more accurate diagnosis of students’ educational placement in classes, (f) reduced numbers of negative behavior reports, (g) higher achievement scores on reading and math tests and (h) enrollment in more challenging courses (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Students also benefit when families know and utilize strategies for supporting their children’s learning at home. For example, Sheldon and Epstein (2005) found that students whose parents supported their mathematics learning at home had higher scores on standardized mathematics tests. Additional benefits of family engagement for students include motivation, academic self-efficacy, and engagement in the classroom (Fan & Williams, 2010; Gonzales-DeHass et al., 2005). 

Family Benefits

Families also benefit when they are engaged with their children’s schools. As Ratliffe and Ponte (2018) discussed, there are practical considerations, such as meeting their children’s friends, families, and teachers, and collaborating with other school personnel. Family members can also learn leadership and interpersonal skills (Price-Mitchell, 2009). Additionally, parents who are engaged in their children’s education know their children’s emotional and academic needs and can reinforce learning at home that aligns with school and classroom learning objectives for academic and social/emotional development goals (Cross et al., 2018; DeSpain et al., 2018). 

Another benefit is higher parent self-efficacy regarding their ability to support their children’s learning at home. For example, O’Sullivan et al. (2017) found that parents reported higher levels of confidence in their ability to support their children when they provided more frequent homework support through either establishing a time and a place for their children to complete their homework or providing direct assistance with homework completion. Parents believed their involvement was beneficial to their children’s learning when they saw how it supported positive learning outcomes. “When parents see their efforts are related to positive outcomes for their children, feelings of efficacy rise” (O’Sullivan et al., 2017, p. 181). 

Educator Benefits

Family engagement also has positive implications for teachers. For example, strong, positive relationships with parents play a key role in retaining teachers, reducing teacher burnout, and improving levels of job satisfaction (Allensworth et al., 2009; Daniel et al., 2019). As they get to know their students’ families, teachers can have increased levels of empathy and reduced negative perceptions and biases regarding families. When families perceive they are viewed positively by their children’s teachers, their confidence in interacting and engaging with the school increases (McKnight et al., 2017). As Bartels and Eskow (2010) found, teachers’ positive attitudes toward collaborating with families leads to stronger relationships and increased participation of families in schools, thereby contributing to direct benefits of family engagement for educators. 

 

References

Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The Schools Teachers Leave Teacher Mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505882.pdf 

Bartels, S. M. & Eskow, K. G. (2010). Training school professionals to engage families: A pilot university/state department of education partnership. The School Community Journal, 20(2), 45-71.

Cross, D., Lester, L., Pearce, N., Barnes, A., & Beatty, S. (2018). A group randomized controlled trial evaluating parent involvement in whole-school actions to reduce bullying. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(3), 255-267. 

Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43, 453-480. 

DeSpain, S. N., Conderman, G., & Gerzel-Short, L. (2018). Fostering family engagement in middle and secondary schools. The Clearing House, 91(6), 236-242. 

Fan, W., & Williams. C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 53-74.

Gonzales-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: Impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. SEDL.

Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. SEDL. https://sedl.org/pubs/framework/

McKnight, K., Venkateswaran, N., Laird, J., Robles, J., & Shalev, T. (2016). Mindset shifts and parent teacher home visits. Berkeley, CA: RTI International. 

O’Sullivan, R. H., Chen, Y. C., & Fish, M. C. (2014). Parental mathematics homework involvement of low-income families with middle school students. School Community Journal, 24(2), 165-188. 

Price-Mitchell, M. (2009). Boundary dynamics: Implications for building parent-school partnerships. The School Community Journal, 9(2), 9-26. 

Ratliffe, K. T. (2010). Family obligations in Micronesian cultures: Implications for educators. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 6, 671-690. 

Sheldon, S. J. & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196-206. 

The Need to Learn About Family Engagement

In teacher preparation programs (TPPs), preservice teachers learn how to teach various subject areas, use pedagogical strategies, and apply assessment methods. In education administration programs, students learn management and leadership skills, organizational skills, and policy and governance issues. However, as several education researchers have pointed out, most preservice teachers and administrators are unprepared for working and partnering with families (Epstein, 2011; Evans, 2013; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). More recently, in a nationally distributed survey by the National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) examining family engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic, 43% of the participating educators reported that they felt inadequately prepared to engage families (NAFSCE, 2020). While family engagement has gained national momentum for the benefits described above, as well as recent additions to accreditation requirements for TPPs, there is still a gap in educators’ knowledge regarding how to cultivate effective family-school partnerships (Evans, 2013). Mapp and Kuttner (2013) argued that in general, even though teachers strongly desire to work with diverse families, they often do not know strategies for doing so. Reasons for this include school, college and DOE leadership being unaware of external guidelines for preparing educators to partner with families, as well as pressures to include other content areas in TPP curricula (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). 

While it is important to avoid holding a deficit perspective of family engagement in schools, it is important to be aware of the gaps that currently exist in order to examine how they can be addressed. There are several reasons why creating and sustaining effective family engagement in schools has been challenging. As Mapp and Kuttner (2013) explained, recent policies that promote family engagement often assume that “the educators and families charged with developing effective partnerships between home and school already possess the requisite skills, knowledge, confidences, and belief systems…to implement and sustain these important home-school relationships” (p. 5). There is often little inservice training on family engagement. Additionally, Sanders-Smith et al. (2019) described how most TPP graduates are in their early twenties and still forming ideas about their own identities while simultaneously being expected to build relationships with parents who are usually older than the teachers. 

Families also experience barriers to building partnerships with their children’s schools, particularly those from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds and those who are multilingual and who are learning English (Bolivar & Crispeels, 2010). Kim (2009) identified several barriers that prevent marginalized parents from being involved in their children’s schools, including (a) teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy and capacity of marginalized parents, (b) teachers’ beliefs in the effectiveness of parental involvement, and (c) the diversity of parental involvement programs. Ratliffe and Ponte’s (2018) findings corroborated this, Their sample of primarily immigrant parents living on the island of O‘ahu expressed that engaging with their children’s schools was important to them, but they often felt negatively judged by their childrens’ teachers and this prevented them from participating in the school. When families, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, do not engage in the ways that schools often expect, they are typically viewed negatively and are assumed to not care about their children’s education. However, research shows that virtually all parents care deeply about their children’s education and that all families have the capacity to support their children’s learning (Ratliffe, 2010). 

 

References

Bolivar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2010). Enhancing parent leadership through building social and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 4-38. 

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, Family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81-120. 

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools [ProQuest Ebook Central version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhm/reader.action?docID=625094

Evans, M. P. (2013). Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24(2), 123-133. 

Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parent involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 80-102. 

Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. SEDL. https://sedl.org/pubs/framework/

National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement. (2020, July 23). https://cdn.ymaws.com/nafsce.org/resource/resmgr/COVID_19_Survey_Summary_of_K.pdf 

Ratliffe, K. T. (2010). Family obligations in Micronesian cultures: Implications for educators. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 6, 671-690. 

Ratliffe, K. T. & Ponte, E. (2018). Parent perspectives on developing effective family-school partnerships in Hawai‘i. School Community Journal, 28(1), 217-247. 

Sanders-Smith, S. C., Smith-Bonahue, T. M., Cordoba, T. E., & Soutullo, O. R. (2019). Shifting perspectives: Preservice teacher preparation in family engagement. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 40(3), 221-237.

Family Engagement in Hawai’i

This section identifies three areas in which family engagement efforts in Hawai‘i can be seen: assessments, training and resource efforts, and district policy. 

Assessments

Currently, the primary indicator of family engagement in Hawai‘i public schools is the family engagement section of the School Quality Survey (Hawai‘i State Department of Education, 2016). However, for several reasons, there can be low parent response rates, and so the existing data may not be representative of what parents perceive about family engagement in their children’s schools.

To view past School Quality Survey data, visit: http://arch.k12.hi.us/reports/sqs 

Training and Resource Efforts

Training and resource efforts are currently underway to increase preservice and in-service teachers’ knowledge of family engagement strategies. Two in particular have included partnerships with the Hawai‘i DOE.

  1. The AFFECT Project, which consists of the modules on this website (Traynor, 2016)
  2. The Hawaii Statewide Family Engagement Center (HFEC) is providing a virtual series of training sessions for inservice educators that focus on family engagement. To learn more about their work, visit https://cds.coe.hawaii.edu/hfec/ 

Policy

Two policies have been developed by the Hawai‘i Board of Education (the “Board”) that are important to highlight. 

The “Family and Community Engagement/Partnership” Policy

This policy was developed and adopted in 2016. In it, the Board acknowledged the importance of their role, as well as the role of school administrative leadership, in cultivating an environment that supports the establishment of effective family engagement and partnerships. Several “organizational culture” aspects have been identified, such as (a) building staff and family capacity to engage partnerships, (b) embracing and welcoming all families, and (c) including families in school decision-making processes. 

To read the policy, which also includes six standards for supporting “the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of family and community engagement/partnerships” (Hawai‘i Board of Education, 2016b), visit https://boe.hawaii.gov/policies/Board%20Policies/Family%20and%20Community%20Engagement-Partnership.pdf 

The “Multilingualism for Equitable Education” Policy 

This policy was also developed and adopted by the Board in 2016. It outlines goals for providing a wide range of language programs for multilingual students, providing teachers with several resources for teaching these students, as well as providing multilingual families with the supports they need to engage in their children’s schools and education. The main reason for the development of this policy was the Board’s recognition of research that showed, “when students identities’, histories, cultures, and languages are included in a meaningful and equitable education, they are better able to learn the academic content and the official language medium of education, be it English or Hawaiian.” 

To read the policy, visit https://boe.hawaii.gov/policies/Board%20Policies/Multilingualism%20for%20Equitable%20Education.pdf 

Nā Hopena A‘o

A third policy important to understand is Nā Hopena A‘o, or HĀ (HĀ means “breath” in the Hawaiian language). HĀ, developed by the HIDOE and supported by the Board, consists of six student outcomes that are focused on holistic wellbeing of Hawaiian culture: (a) a sense of Belonging, (b) Responsibility, (c) Excellence, (d), Aloha, (e) Total Wellbeing, and (f) Hawai‘i. Taken together, “these outcomes become the core BREATH (or HĀ) that can be drawn on for strength and stability throughout school and beyond.”

While the policy is not explicitly a family engagement policy, there are aspects of the six outcomes that relate to family engagement concepts. For example, Total Wellbeing emphasizes the importance of positive, supportive relationships. Noelani Goodyear-Kā‘ōpua (2013) explained that the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) idea of kuleana (responsibility, privilege, and authority as tied to genealogy and land) is connected to the wellbeing of an ‘ohana (family) or a learning community. Being a contributing member of an ‘ohana or a learning community is a critical part of the learning process, therefore, “learning and knowledge are forms of privilege that come with attendant responsibilities to a larger collective” (Goodyear-Kā‘ōpua, 2013, p. 64). In this sense, students, families, and educators share equal responsibility in establishing and maintaining trusting, respectful, and collaborative relationships and to promote wellness in others. 

To read the policy, visit https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/NaHopenaAoE3.pdf 

 

References and Resources 

Goodyear-Ka‘ōpua, N. (2013). The seeds we planted: Portraits of a Native Hawaiian charter school. University of Minnesota Press. 

Hawai‘i Board of Education. (2016a). Multilingualism for equitable education [Policy brief]. Hawai‘i Board of Education. https://boe.hawaii.gov/policies/Board%20Policies/Multilingualism%20for%20Equitable%20Education.pdf

Hawai‘i Board of Education. (2016b). Family and community engagement/partnership [Policy brief]. Hawai‘i Board of Education. https://boe.hawaii.gov/policies/Board%20Policies/Family%20and%20Community%20Engagement-Partnership.pdf

Hawai‘i State Department of Education. (2015). Nā Hopena A‘o Statements – HĀ: BREATH  [Policy brief]. Hawai‘i State Department of Education. https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/NaHopenaAoE3.pdf