Successful Home-School Partnerships

Review of Evidence

The review of evidence component of this project begins by briefly summarising the main findings of the research literature on parental involvement in education, identifying factors that enable successful home–school partnerships. It then identifies recent international examples of home–school partnerships that have been evaluated for their effect on student achievement, and looks at the extent to which they align with the following six key elements of successful home school partnerships identified by the Ministry of Education in the Request for Proposals for this project:

• partnerships with “learning” as the focus have the biggest impact on student learning outcomes;
• partnerships that align school and home practices and enable parents to support their children in school work best;
  
• building strong home–school partnerships takes time and commitment from both partners;
• the relationship needs to be built on the circumstances of each individual school and its community;
• the relationship needs to drive off a strengths–based rather than a deficit based model; and
• the relationship needs to be one of equals. Programmes where the school is the dominant partner will not work as well as those where there is a genuine partnership. A facilitator or mediator (particularly where there are cultural or language differences) can be useful in establishing this.
  

The review of evidence then looks at some evaluations of recent New Zealand home–school partnerships, in terms of the above six elements. It builds on the literature highlighted in the 2003 BES report Best Evidence Synthesis: The complexity of community and family influences on children’s achievement in New Zealand.

Finally, the review of evidence summarises the factors that seem to be important in enabling successful home–school partnerships, and begins a discussion of the barriers to successful home–school partnerships.

Parental involvement

The research literature is unequivocal in showing that parental involvement makes a significant difference to educational achievement. Research consistently shows that:

• parental involvement takes many forms;
• involvement in the form of “at home good parenting” has a significant impact on student achievement;
• other forms of parental involvement do not appear to contribute to the same degree as “at-home parenting”;
• involvement diminishes as students get older;
• parents are likely to be more involved if their child is doing well at school; and
• differences in parents’ level of involvement are associated with social class, poverty and parental perception of their role in their child’s education.
  

In short, parenting affects students’ achievement by shaping the child’s identity as a learner and through setting higher expectations for the child (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003).

Given this it is not surprising that during the last decade or so there has been a high level of interest in interventions aimed at involving “hard to reach” parents more fully in the education of their children, as a means to raising educational achievement of children who are currently not performing to expectations in the education system. In Britain for example the Children’s Act 2004 explicitly focuses on this (Carpentier & Lall, 2005). Similar policy initiatives are seen in the USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Enhancing parental involvement

Research on interventions designed to promote parental involvement identifies a perceived need and increased demand; high levels of creativity and commitment by providers; a range of approaches; and appreciation by clients. Many of the evaluations of these interventions, however, are technically weak and/or do not describe the impact on student learning (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003).

Harris and Goodall (2007) in their review of the literature, reiterate that parent involvement in education can foster positive learning outcomes for students, but that, as yet, there is little evidence as to what kinds of involvement make a difference. They do, however, identify certain key characteristics shared by schools that succeed in engaging diverse groups of parents. Firstly, such schools focus on building collaborative relationships among teachers, families and other members of the community and, secondly, they recognise, respect, and address differing family needs.

Epstein’s (1995) theory of over-lapping spheres of influence is a useful tool for understanding how building collaborative relationships between schools, families and communities can benefit students’ learning. Schools, families and the wider community each make a unique contribution to the development of the child and these contributions are strengthened when all parties are aware of their own and each others’ roles and practices, and work together to create a “learning” community with the child at the centre. Accompanying this theory of how social frameworks connect, Epstein has created an “organising framework” that outlines six areas of shared responsibility:

1.    parenting;
2.    communicating;
3.    volunteering;
4.    learning at home;
5.    decision-making; and
6.    collaborating with community.

According to Epstein and Sheldon (2006) home–school partnerships should be seen as multi-dimensional, covering all of the above areas. Each area of shared responsibility has its own particular challenges that must be solved to reach all families and produce positive results. Thus successful home–school partnerships need to be comprehensive and responsive to different needs.

Current evidence suggests that if home–school partnerships are to make a sustainable difference for all children, certain conditions need to be in place (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Harris & Goodall, 2007). These include:

• strategic planning that embeds home–school partnerships within whole school development plans and a commitment to review;
• ongoing support, resourcing and training; and
• community involvement at all levels and multi-level leadership.
  

In addition, the work of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) in the US, and more recently the SHARE  initiative in the UK, suggests that networked systems that promote the sharing of experiences between schools are useful.

If the aim of home–school partnerships is to improve outcomes for students, then the focus needs to be on learning. Parental involvement in schools is not sufficient to impact positively on student achievement: what is needed is parental engagement in learning. Sheldon and Epstein (2005) found that goal–oriented, subject specific initiatives that encouraged parents to participate with children in home–based activities impacted positively on student learning. Furthermore, a series of Ofsted reports (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003) highlight that, in Britain, schools that have been successful in promoting achievement for ethnic minority group students have, among other things, close links with parents.

These schools listen to parents’ concerns, are open with them and work with them at resolving differences. Parents’ understanding of their children’s progress is founded on rigorous discussion, honest reporting and swift contact when important information needs to be shared. (Ofsted, 2002, report No. 448, p4 cited in Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003, p62).

Two-way, timely communication is thus another key element of successful home–school partnerships. Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph (2003), in their review of research on community and family influences on children’s achievement in New Zealand identify providing ongoing opportunities for informal, non-threatening contacts between parents and teachers, and encouraging parent to parent communication within communities, as two principles for successful partnerships.

Katyal and Evers (2007) also support the need for enhancing regular communication between school and home. They maintain that gathering information about students in an organised and systematic way, and promoting two-way communication between school and home has become increasingly important, in an era where more learning happens outside the school via the internet and other technologies. They argue that communication is the most relevant aspect of home–school partnerships.

Katyal and Evers challenge the currently predominant view in education that assumes that families and schools need to see themselves as team players that contribute equally to decision–making processes. In their study of home school interaction and communication in three Hong Kong schools which all had strong, active Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), they found that teacher participants did not see themselves as equal partners with parents, nor did they want to be.

They saw themselves as instructional leaders, and the parents’ role as being one  of supporting the academic education of their children. Parents and students agreed with this.  Parent and teacher roles overlap in terms of their responsibility for the socialisation of children (by being role models and imparting values and life skills). Thus teachers have parent–like roles (where there is shared responsibility and a more equal partnership with parents).

In addition however, they have a professional role (where they are the “experts” and the relationship is perhaps closer to one of professional and client). This however does not negate the need for mutually respectful relationships and good communication between home and school, it just emphasises that “equal” does not necessarily imply “the same”, and that it is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each party, and the purpose of the relationship.

International home–school partnership projects

This section looks at some international home–school partnership projects and evaluates the extent to which they exemplify the six key elements identified by the Ministry of Education in the Request for Proposals for this project. (We have organised our summary of the findings of these projects under these six headings). An extensive review of the international literature on home–school partnerships found very few examples of projects that had generated data linking the partnerships to improved achievement for students.

This was the primary criteria used in selecting the projects described below. Priority was also given to research and evaluations from the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and Australia published since 2000, and recent evaluations of New Zealand Ministry of Education initiatives were also included. As much of the current research literature on home–school partnerships focuses on literacy, we were particularly interested in programmes that focused on other curriculum areas. Also of interest were programmes that focused on homework and reporting to parents as although these appear on one level to be useful contexts for involving family in student learning, research  indicates that these are areas where there can also be negative impacts on building partnerships.

1.    Successful partnerships focus on learning.

We selected from the research literature seven evaluations of home–school partnerships where there were links to achievement data. Learning was a clear focus in all of these international successful home–school partnership initiatives. The main features of these seven initiatives are outlined below:

Focus on Results in Math (USA)

This project is part of an on-going American study of the measurable effects of home–school partnerships on students in schools (primary and secondary) that are members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS).

The connection between eight family involvement activities and student achievement in mathematics was explored in 18 diverse schools in 1997–1998. The activities were: workshops for parents; families being given information on how to contact the math teacher at school; parent-teacher conferences to discuss student progress in mathematics; report cards giving information on mathematics progress; parent volunteers tutoring students in school; mathematics homework that requires students to show and discuss mathematics skills with a family member; and a lending library or other provision of maths activities to use at home.

The analysis indicated that only the activities that related to learning at home (interactive homework and provision of resources) were consistently linked with improvements in student achievement. Specific examples of these types of activities included: students and parents being asked to compile a list of ten ways in which they used math in everyday life; weekly homework folders that required parents and children to complete a 15 minute activity together each night; students being required to demonstrate new skills to parents and discuss the use of the skill in every day life; and the provision of games and other materials to encourage parent–child interactions.

The Ocean Math Project: Tower Hamlets, London (UK)

This project aims to improve pupils’ attainment in mathematics through parental involvement. The project, which was supported by the Ocean New Deals for Communities (NDC), took place in two London secondary schools with high numbers of Bangladeshi students and provided workshop activities in mathematics for parents and students and also developed homework activities in collaboration with the school teaching staff. The effect of these activities was then evaluated. The success of this project in building links between parents and the schools seems to be mainly due to the “outreach workers”, all of whom were Bangladeshi. The parents reportedly appreciated the programme so much that they asked for workshops to be provided in subjects other than maths. In terms of outcomes for students, homework completion rates improved and one school had a 10 percent increase in Key Stage 3 mathematics results while the other school had a 12 percent increase (both schools’ results were higher than the London Borough of Tower Hamlets average in KS 3 following the project, and both schools are in one of the poorest areas in London).

Interactive homework (USA)

Using findings from various studies of homework and family involvement, Epstein et al designed an interactive homework programme known as TIPS (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork). The TIPS homework assignments typically involve objectives for learning, instructions for completion, and explicit instructions to the student about involving their family. The assignments are assigned once a week or fortnightly and students are given several days to complete them to allow for other family commitments. Certain sections require family interaction and the family provides feedback as to how helpful the assignment was for them and the children.

In one study examining the effects of interactive homework on science achievement, attitudes towards science and family involvement in homework Van Voorhis (2003) found the six classes of sixth and eighth grade students who participated in the 18 week study scored higher than the control group on all measures. A five year, multi-cohort longitudinal study of the National Network of Partnership Schools has “interactive homework” as a special focus. Initial results indicate that interactive homework has a positive effect on parental involvement and student attitude in math and language arts. (Science data are not yet available, nor is achievement data for language arts; however the maths achievement data demonstrates positive outcomes for students). (Epstein, Sanders, & Sheldon, 2007).

Bailey (2006) describes an evaluation of a project in the USA where the TIPS model of interactive homework (from NNPS) was used to help parents support their children with reading homework, and, in particular, to make inferences from what they were reading. At one school parents were taught how to interact with students during interactive homework activities, while at a second school students were given interactive homework assignments but there was no parent training. At the third school, students completed traditional homework activities. Results showed that students who were involved with interactive homework and whose parents participated in training scored significantly higher on a test of inference than the other students. The parents of these students also reported that they felt better able to help their children. They also said the project had helped them understand how their involvement could impact on their children’s learning.

Mothertongue GCSE (Islington and Hackney, London, UK)

This project aims to improve parental involvement and the development of family literacy through the study of home languages and the preparation of both parents and students for the GCSE examination. Bilingual students are given the opportunity to learn and use their mother tongue for official examinations with the help of their parents. The project is run by an education consulting agency that focuses on recruiting, training and finding long term placements for overseas trained teachers living in the UK. A pilot was run in 2002 and 2003 at one school. Five students (and five of their parents) studied for a GCSE in Turkish. The project involved a one–hour lesson once a week after school, attended by parents and children together. The lessons were taken by a mother–tongue trained teacher living in the UK. Of the ten participants in this pilot, nine achieved A or A* results in the GCSE exam.

Following the success of this pilot, the project was extended to eight primary schools and three secondary schools with programmes running in Turkish, French (for the Congolese community) and Bengali with 120 exam entries. Seventy three percent of the participants (both students and parents) in these projects gained GCSE passes (even though some of the parents did not actually sit the exam). Anecdotally it appears that parents became much more involved with the schools themselves during the project.

The School–Family–Partnership programme in Acre, Israel

This project’s overall goal was to help parents support their children in school and to help teachers appreciate the families’ culture, language and their educational aspirations for their children. The programme consisted of:

parents and teachers participating in bi-weekly activities within schools, and between schools in the area. These activities included workshops for parents and their children, group guidance for parents, sessions of shared learning, open days for parents, parent-child reading and writing, regular and constant communication with parents, exchanging of information, feedback and evaluation forms, home visits, parent volunteering and community-wide celebrations related to literacy and culture (Hertz-Lazarowitz and Horowitz, 2002)

The perceptions, of the 236 parents, of their roles in promoting literacy were compared with the views of 274 parents in a control group of schools. Student achievement data were also compared. Results showed that the School–Family–Partnership programme had a positive impact for parents, teachers and students, and that academic achievement in reading and writing was higher for children in classrooms that implemented the School–Family–Partnership.

Book Checkout programme (USA)

The Book Checkout Programme (BCP) was developed in Florida as a way of helping parents support the reading development of their children.

BCP centres on a weekly book checkout activity at Title 1  elementary school family resource centres. Each centre is staffed by a parent involvement paraprofessional and a family social worker. The atmosphere of the parent centre is designed to be parent friendly and conducive to conversation between parents and staff and between parents and children. The centre is stocked with a large variety of leveled and chapter books, including books in Spanish for schools with Hispanic families. Parents check out books to read to and with their children. Staff members give parents guidance for reading with their children, reinforcing the children’s use of reading strategies (Clay, 1991), and locating resources for specific family issues….The BCP staff also assists parents in choosing the appropriate level of book for their child, who selects a free book on every visit to the programme. The BCP, therefore, can result in the eventual accumulation of a sufficient number of books to create a home library.’ (Janiak, 2003. p4.)

For the eight primary schools and one early childhood centre using the BCP, participation rates increased from 184 students in 1996 to 1,876 in 2002. An evaluation sample of 792 students was selected. Approximately half these students were classified as ‘frequently participating families’ (attending at least ten times in the current year) and the rest as ‘minimally participating families’ (attending three times or less). Families with frequent participation reported reading to and with their children more often, the children appeared more positive about reading both in school and for recreation and these students also had higher reading achievement than their peers. In all these areas the differences between ‘frequently participating families’ and minimally participating families’ were statistically significant. However the design of the evaluation did not allow any causal connections to be made.

Solid Foundation: A comprehensive programme for parental engagement (USA)

Redding, Langdon, Meyer & Sheley (2004) reported on the evaluation of a programme of comprehensive parent engagement strategies in 129 high poverty primary schools in Illinois. These 129 schools were part of programme, called Solid Foundation, that aims to engage parents in the school community through shared leadership, training and activities for parents and teachers, and home visits as a way of lifting student achievement in reading. The strategies implemented by the schools included:

• parent participation in decision making at school;
• alignment of the schools’ policies and procedures regarding homework and parent teacher conferences with rubrics of research-based practices;
• reading school–home links aligned with state standards and in–class instruction
• parent education focused on home reading and study habits; and
• outreach through home visits, family nights, and a family resource library. (p3)
  

All the strategies were successfully implemented in project schools. The project schools also demonstrated increases in state reading assessment tests that were significantly above schools not in the project and which had identical beginning scores. 

As well as having a focus on learning the seven initiatives described above also illustrated many of the other six key elements of successful home–school partnerships identified by the Ministry of Education in the Request for Proposals for this project.

2.     Successful home–school partnerships align home and school practices

The initiatives described above all had a focus on aligning home and school practices, with most including an aspect of educating parents about school practice and making suggestions for activities families could do at home to support students’ learning.

The activities in the Focus on Maths project that were shown to make a difference were those that related to learning at home. Similarly the interactive homework initiatives, with their explicit emphasis on supporting parents to interact with students’ learning at home were shown to be linked to gains in student achievement. Where parental training on ways to help their children, was added to interactive homework, gains in achievement were even higher. The Book Checkout programme also included an aspect of parent education, with staff giving parents guidance as to how to support their children’s emerging reading strategies when reading at home. The Ocean Maths, Mothertongue GCSE, and the School–Family–Partnership in Acre projects all involved parents and students learning together at workshops.

3.     Building successful home–school partnerships takes time and commitment from both partners

In their report on a longitudinal study of more than 300 mainly primary schools in over 20 states that were part of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) for between two and four years, Sheldon & Van Voorhis (2004) estimated that most schools needed at least three years to implement high quality, comprehensive partnerships. They suggested that successful programmes also required the support of not only an Action Team for Partnership, but the entire school community. Redding, Langdon et al. (2004) in their evaluation of the Solid Foundation programme agreed that a comprehensive intervention was the key to success. They concluded though that a critical mass of constructive home–school activity could be generated in a relatively short period, if there was support from across the school community. The evaluations of the other projects in this review did not explicitly address this aspect of successful home–school partnerships.

4.     Successful home–school partnerships are built on the circumstances of individual schools and their communities

Both the Ocean Maths and Mothertongue GCSE projects specifically addressed the needs of their particular communities by providing learning opportunities in families’ first languages. According to Carpentier & Lall (2005) in the Ocean Maths project, the role of the outreach workers (all of whom were Bangladeshi) was critical for ensuring a high rate of attendance and involvement by parents. A key feature of TIPS interactive homework programmes is that the assignments are assigned once a week or fortnightly and students are given several days to complete them to allow for other family commitments. In this way these programmes also cater for families’ differing circumstances.

Although this was not obvious in the projects in this review, in their report on the comprehensive school reform model, Sheldon and Van Voorhis (2004) found differences in the types of parental involvement at primary and secondary schools. Primary schools reported greater levels of parent volunteering, more extensive distribution of newsletters home, and greater use of learning activities to encourage student–parent interactions. Secondary schools on the other hand reported more school–community partnerships and more parents involved in school decision making. They suggested that effective partnerships may involve different activities at different levels of the school system.

5 & 6 Successful home–school partnerships are strengths based and the relationship is one of equals

In a successful home–school partnership both partners do not necessarily contribute equally to all aspects of education. It is important not to think of “equal” as synonymous with “the same”. In some aspects of education one partner can be expected to have more influence than in others. Equality involves mutually respectful relationships that acknowledge the different areas of expertise and the contributions of all involved, share information, and have clearly defined and jointly agreed roles and responsibilities. Redding, Langdon et al. (2004) in their evaluation of the Solid Foundation programme maintain that the on–going discussions between parents and teachers about their respective roles in students’ learning were critical in building relationships and understanding that enhanced learning.

The Ocean Maths, and Mothertongue GCSE projects were run by community organisations, drawing on the skills of facilitators in the community, rather than by the schools themselves. Similarly the Book Checkout programme was staffed by a parent involvement paraprofessional and a family social worker rather than by teachers. It can be argued that this way of working especially when it involves outreach workers from the parents’ own communities, has the potential to increase the confidence and skills of minority group parents to participate in more equal relationships with teachers. According to Carpentier and Lall (2005), the involvement of outreach workers, and the clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of people involved were two of the key elements in the success of the Ocean Maths Project.

The School–Family–Partnership programme in Acre is another example of how a project can encourage strength–based partnerships where the relationship is one of equals. The explicit aim of this project was to both help parents support their children in school and also to help teachers appreciate the families’ culture, language and educational aspirations for their children. In this way it recognised that both parties had important contributions to make to enhance the students’ learning.

Janes and Kermani (2001) describe a Family Literacy Tutorial Project in southern California which was funded by the Literacy Corps and run by the Graduate school of Education at a local university. Although this case study does not have student achievement data to support it, it is a useful illustration of how partnerships with parents can be designed in ways that capitalize on what is important to, and valued by, parents. The project experienced an initial lack of success and very high drop out rate but this was transformed into 100 percent retention rate and high community support following a change in emphasis that moved this project from a deficit–based model to a strengths–based model.

Initially the project was based on traditional school literacy practices and designed specifically to encourage parents to ask children increasingly complex questions about selected texts. Although parents diligently attempted to follow tutors’ questioning models, only about 30 percent managed to “walk the talk” when reading with children. They continued to see the primary function of reading as extracting information and showed little enjoyment in reading with their children. An evaluation of the project suggested that procedures taken for granted by tutors such as pre– and post–testing, and the selection of certain texts served to remind the participants that their own versions of literacy did not “measure up” and hence the lack of enthusiasm for the project. In the second year of the project (in response to the high drop out rate of parents and comments made in “exit interviews”) two series of parent workshops designed to foster the sorts of literacy valued by both home and school were implemented.

During these workshops the participants created their own story books. It was hypothesized that using their own texts would give parents more time, energy and motivation to scaffold their children’s understanding of the text. These books were preferred over commercially produced texts by both parents and children for repeated re-readings. Both parents and children displayed pleasure from working together on these literacy-based activities. From these shared book-making activities, parental attendance at workshops increased, and further collaborative activities grew, culminating in a literacy fair organised by parents.

This case study illustrates the importance of a strengths-based model in engaging parents in their children’s learning. Given the opportunity of working with texts that were familiar and culturally appropriate, parents were able to effectively support their children’s literacy development. Attempting to replicate in the home the sorts of literacy practices that children participate in school, rather than culturally valued practices, may serve to alienate some families. For children where the home and school contexts are very different it would seem especially important that there is good two-way communication between school and home, and mutually respectful relationships so that the expertise of both parties can be used to strengthen learning opportunities for children. The importance of effective two-way communication is discussed further below in the section on barriers to developing successful home–school partnerships.

Recent New Zealand evaluations of home–school partnerships

In the Best Evidence Synthesis on community and family influences on children’s achievement Biddulph et al., (2003) describe a range of NZ projects aimed at developing home–school partnerships. (These projects are not covered in this overview as we have assumed the readers of this report will be familiar with this work). Since this Best Evidence Synthesis was published a range of other home–school partnership initiatives have been developed. These include the Manurewa Enhancement Initiative , the Flaxmere Project, and several Ministry of Education home–school partnership initiatives. These projects are described briefly below.

The Flaxmere project

The Flaxmere project was a partnership involving five Flaxmere schools, their school communities and the Ministry of Education. It began in 2001 and aimed among other things, to build relationships between schools, caregivers and community. The project consisted of several different initiatives including: Home School Liaison Persons, Computers in Homes, homework support, and other initiatives that were specific to individual schools. The key findings of the evaluation of this project were:

• the Computers in Homes programme was considered highly effective with high levels of computer use reported;
• the computers gave the Home School Liaison Persons a starting point for talking about school and related issues;
• the homework centres supported parents by taking away the pressure of having to help with homework, and by teaching those who attended how to help their children;
• the students perceived major improvements in their learning and behaviour; and
• parents were able to better support their children.
  

However, the three year evaluation period was not considered long enough to be able to show significant and sustained increases in achievement. Students involved in the Flaxmere Project made higher gains in their enjoyment of both reading and maths than students not in the project, but achievement gains were seen only in reading, not maths. The principals involved believed there was considerable evidence of short-term success, but that longer term outcomes could be compromised by such issues as lack of funding/ lack of sustainability (Clinton, Hattie, & Dixon, 2007).

Home–school Partnership: Literacy

The Ministry Home–School Partnership: Literacy programme began in 2001 and had been implemented in about 100 schools when it was evaluated in 2006/7. The programme targeted Pasifika families initially, and was designed around culturally appropriate protocols involving meetings of parent groups to discuss key literacy messages with lead parents in the parents’ first languages. Lead teachers and lead parents were trained by School Support Literacy and ESOL advisors in facilitation skills and content material. A key aspect of this programme was its emphasis on a two-way partnership. Parents learnt about school literacy practices: however in addition, teachers were expected to also learn from parents about Pasifika home literacy practices so that they could reconsider the appropriateness of their own teaching programmes and practices for Pasifika students. This programme has since been extended to involve other (non-Pasifika) parent groups.

The results of the evaluation of this project showed that the programme was successful for Pasifika parents. Good relationships with schools were established, parents were educated about literacy and there were positive changes in the ways they supported their children at home. The programme was less successful for other parent groups where it was delivered in its original form, but schools that adapted the material to suit the needs of their different parent groups found it had similar successful outcomes. Eighty percent of schools reported parental involvement had a positive impact on children’s opportunity to learn, and 75 percent reported it had a minor positive impact on student’s engagement, attitudes, confidence and literacy achievement. However, the data analysis showed that the ‘partnership’ was in fact predominantly a one-way process of parents learning about school literacy practices, and that further development is necessary for teachers to see their role as participating in a two-way partnership.

Home–school Partnership: Numeracy

This programme was developed from the Home–School Partnership: Literacy programme described above. It is part of an initiative designed to raise achievement for Pasifika and other bi-lingual students by enhancing family and community engagement in their children’s learning. In 2006 a pilot was developed by the Ministry of Education to explore the issues around implementing and sustaining a home–school partnership programme in numeracy as an ongoing initiative. The 2006 pilot involved approximately 40 primary schools in six regions co-ordinated by 15 facilitators. Approximately 40 further schools have been added to the programme in 2007.

The evaluation of the pilot found most of the lead teachers in the case study schools and most of the facilitators considered the programme to be a success in their schools. Similarly, all the parents and lead parents who were interviewed rated the programme as a success. Almost all parents finished the sessions with increased confidence in doing maths with their children. Key factors were identified in the 2006 evaluation as being important for successful implementation of the initiative. These were as follows:

• careful consultation and selection of the lead parent;
• sharing the leadership with the lead parent and supporting the lead team into the role;
• school-wide support from school leadership;
• social and enjoyable community sessions that engage parents;
• maths that is accessible and relates to life; and
• flexibility of the programme to enable each school and community to adapt it to be their own. (Fisher & Neill, 2006)
  

Home–school Partnership: Secondary

In 2007 NZCER evaluated the Ministry’s Home–School Partnership: Secondary programme, piloted in four schools in 2005, and since then running in a small number of schools. This programme was designed to help secondary schools improve family and community engagement in children’s secondary education and to contribute to the Ministry’s goal of “raising achievement and reducing disparity”. Following the HSP:Literacy model, a team of lead teachers and lead parents work with targeted groups of parents chosen by the school. In five case study schools this work was evaluated. Two of these targeted Assyrian parents who are recent refugee migrants to New Zealand, and three targeted Pacific parent groups. The programme is designed around five modules which form the basis of five parent sessions. The topics are:

• Preparing my child for secondary school (transition to Year 9);
• Supporting children’s learning at secondary school (an introduction to secondary school);
• Roadmap to success (NCEA and learning pathways);
• Finding out about careers (career planning); and
• Choosing a career (understanding the steps to successful career planning).
  

Findings point to the importance of schools establishing positive relationships with parent groups in the implementation process of this programme.

All of the above recent Ministry of Education partnership initiatives have a focus on learning, and attempt to align home and school practices, and give suggestions for parents on how to support their students’ learning at home. All make use of “lead” parents or “home–school liaison persons” who can communicate with parents in their first language and present ideas in culturally appropriate ways. The partnerships thus have the potential to be strengths-based, and to recognise the unique contributions made by each different “partner”.

However, the evaluation of the Home–School Partnership: Literacy points out that teachers are currently not seeing these relationships as being two-way. This is perhaps a signal that the programmes alone are unlikely to result in more equal, collaborative partnerships if they are not accompanied by support for teachers to think differently about the purpose of home–school partnerships. The evaluations of these projects also point to the importance of flexibility in meeting the needs of different groups and the length of time needed to see changes in achievement as a result of the programmes.

What does all this tell us about enhancing parental involvement?

The projects reviewed here all have some or all of the elements identified in the literature as being important in building successful home–school partnerships. In summary these are as follows:

• Relationships in successful home–school partnerships are collaborative and mutually respectful.
• Successful partnerships are multi-dimensional, and responsive to community needs.
• Successful home–school partnerships are planned for, embedded within whole school development plans, well resourced and regularly reviewed.
• Successful partnerships are goal oriented and focused on learning.
• Effective parental engagement happens largely at home.
• There is timely two-way communication between school and parents.
  

However, perhaps one of the most interesting findings of this review of evidence, is that very few home–school partnership projects have been evaluated for their impact on student learning. This of course does not mean that the partnerships have not made a difference to student achievement; however we do not as yet have any evidence of the exact nature of the relationship between enhanced parental involvement and student achievement. Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler & Hoover-Dempsey (2005) suggest that parents’ motivational beliefs, their perceptions of invitations for involvement from others and how busy they feel they are all influence the ways they become involved in their children’s education and that these in turn eventually impact on student learning. Initiatives that are focused on the early stages of parental involvement, such as making parents feel welcome at school, may well be having substantial long term impact in engaging parents without as yet providing data that can be measured in terms of the impact on achievement.

What do we know about the barriers to developing successful home–school partnerships?

According to the research literature, barriers to parental engagement include:

• parental experience of education;
• parental lack of skills;
• practical issues such as work commitments;
• perceived teacher attitude;
• attitude of the child;
• parents not being interested; and
• the school itself.

A British research project (EPRA)  found no clear agreement between teachers, parents and students as to the main barriers to parental engagement. Teachers were likely to cite parents’ previous experience of the education system; students mentioned practical considerations such as parents’ work commitments and childcare; and parents saw the schools themselves as the main barrier (Harris & Goodall, 2007). This is interesting in that it points to the need for better two-way communication between the groups.

Anderson and Minke (2007) found that the most important factor influencing whether or not parents became involved in their children’s learning was specific teacher invitations. This is important because, although this is potentially a barrier to parental involvement, it is also a factor that schools can control. A number of studies suggest teachers often do not actively promote two–way communication with parents. Jensen (2007) for instance, describes a study that illustrates the difficulties teachers in a university graduate programme in literacy education had in facilitating two-way communication between themselves and families. As part of the course requirements these teachers were required to send out two monthly newsletters to the parents of children in their classes.

The newsletters were to: (1) include a description of the literacy events taking place in the classroom and (2) invite parents to share the literacy events that were taking place in their homes. Analysis of the newsletters showed that teachers focused on the classroom programme and made little attempt to find out about the literacy practices taking place in the homes (even though this was a specific objective of the assignment).

An initial analysis of case studies in the “ireporting” strand of the Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement (EPRA) project in Britain also suggested that many schools were still seeing their role of giving information to parents rather than a two-way process (Harris & Goodall, 2007).

In another study (in four Sydney schools) of how schools, parents and local communities might work together to support students’ learning Hayes and Chodkiewicz (2006) found that whilst all participating schools had made significant efforts to attempt to improve communication with parents, they generally focused on how they could develop the family to support the school, rather than vice versa. They found no initiatives that were based on more equal sharing of agendas, open dialogue between parents and teachers and/or efforts to value and encourage genuine collaboration and partnership.

School parent–teacher evenings are another example of how interaction between school and family are often one way communications. Maclure and Walker (2000) report on a study of “parent–teacher evenings” in five diverse UK secondary schools. Analysis of the parent–teacher interviews showed that the structure of these consultations was very similar across all schools and seemed to confirm a view of teachers as holding the power in the interactions. Parents and teachers appeared to interact with each other from relatively entrenched positions that meant they were unable to “see” the complexity of each others’ positions. (Maclure and Walker 2000) argue that parent–teacher interviews are:

… boundary phenomena. They take place at the intersection of two institutions, home and school. It can be argued that the main effect, and possibly purpose, of this conjuncture is to recruit homes to do outreach work for schools, or even to smuggle school culture into the home (Baker and Keogh, 1995). However in requiring homes to render themselves ‘visible’, schools also, briefly, expose themselves to the critical scrutiny of those on the ‘outside’. Parents’ evenings are therefore sites where changes to the customary arrangements between schools and homes might be effected. However, precisely because of this, they are also sites where the prospect of change is likely to be quite heavily resisted on both ‘sides’. (p.22)

These studies suggest then that opportunity alone is not enough to ensure two-way communication. There needs to be a commitment to this and an understanding of why it is important.

Similarly, Hanafin and Lynch (2002) found that parents at a primary school in a socio-economically disadvantaged area in Ireland felt excluded from participation in decision-making about issues that affected them and their children’s education even though they were interested (and described as such by the teachers) and informed about their children’s education. According to the authors the parents in this study knew a great deal more about education than middle-class educators give them credit for. Conversely, middle-class educators have insufficient understanding of the working-class families to whom they provide a service. Hanafin & Lynch say that an examination of interventions, policies, and practices aimed at reducing educational disadvantage reveals an almost total lack of input from the point of view of those who are the focus of the intervention. If they are correct that teachers have insufficient knowledge of some groups within the school, and that these same groups do not have a voice within the school, it seems unlikely the interventions aimed at reducing disparity will meet the needs of the target groups.

To sum up, the most striking finding from this review of evidence of home–school partnerships was the dearth of initiatives that have been evaluated in terms of improved student achievement and how little we still know about exactly how parental involvement in their children’s education enhances student achievement.

In the next section of this report we describe the seven New Zealand case studies that make up the empirical research component of this project. These case studies illustrate some different ways schools are trying to engage parents in the education of their children in an effort to lift achievement. We knew from the literature that it was unlikely that we would find many case studies with data about improved achievement resulting from home–school partnerships. We therefore decided to try and find out more about how home–school partnerships were viewed by those involved, what the context-specific features were that determined the sorts of partnerships that developed, and whether these partnerships reflected the key features of successful partnerships described in the literature.