This article was downloaded by: [98.193.166.136]On: 03 November 2014, At: 03:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Leadership inEducation: Theory and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Communities of parental engagement:new foundations for school leaders’workDaniela Torre & Joseph MurphyPublished online: 21 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Daniela Torre & Joseph Murphy (2014): Communities of parental engagement:new foundations for school leaders’ work, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theoryand Practice, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2014.958200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.958200

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Communities of parental engagement: new

foundations for school leaders’ work

DANIELA TORRE and JOSEPH MURPHY

The importance of parents to the success of students in schools and to school improve-ment has long been established and acknowledged by researchers and educators. In thisarticle, we present a fourth–generation model of school–family linkages, one anchored inunderstandings of schools as communities as opposed to schools as institutions. Ourmodel is based on an analysis and synthesis of the relevant recent empirical evidence. Weextend the narrative of school–parent relationships by highlighting ‘norms of community’school leaders can cultivate to promote membership, partnership and ownership.

Introduction

In this article, we present a fourth–generation model of school–familylinkages anchored in understandings of community. Parents have alwaysbeen involved in the education of their children even before the spread ofthe common school (Jeynes, 2014). The earliest connections betweenfamilies and modern schools unfolded in an environment of strong localcontrol, during the agricultural era of schooling when parents and com-munities exercised direct control of education (Reese, 1995; Tyack,1974). In this era, parent involvement was seen as a vital method forensuring religious and moral development (Jeynes, 2014). For the pastcentury, the scaffolding for school–parent connections has been con-structed from an institutional ideology based on the principles of hierar-chy, bureaucracy and institutionalism as opposed to strong family andcommunity relationships (Murphy, 2005).

During the era of family–school linkages, which unfolded from around1920 to 1960, ‘publicity’ was the centre of gravity in school relations withfamilies (Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher, 1976). Based on the theories ofscientific management that swept across organizations in this period,

Daniela Torre is a doctoral student in the department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations at

Vanderbilt University. Email: daniela.torre@vanderbilt.edu. Her research interests include school

improvement, English learners and immigrant students, and teacher quality. Prior to beginning her

doctoral studies she was an elementary school teacher for five years in Washington, DC and Brooklyn,

New York. She earned her BA from Washington University in St. Louis and her MA from American

University in Washington, DC. Joseph Murphy is the Frank W. Mayborn Chair and an associate dean

at Vanderbilt’s Peabody College of Education. Email: joseph.f.murphy@vanderbilt.edu. His work is in

the area of school improvement, with special emphasis on leadership and policy. He has authored or

co-authored 22 books in this area and edited another 12. His most recent authored volumes include

The Educator’s Handbook for Understanding and Closing Achievement Gaps (2010), Homelessness Comes to

School (2011), Leadership Lessons for School Leaders (2011), Homeschooling in America (2012) and The

Architecture of School Improvement (2013).

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.958200

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

connections between schools and homes were defined almost exclusivelyas an administrative function of school management, similar to otheradministrative areas of work such as budgeting (Lipham & Hoeh, 1974;Lipham, Rankin, & Hoeh, 1985). School–community relations were aboutschools communicating to parents and creating publicity for themselves.At the same time, the rise of industrialization and the professionalizationof teachers shifted authority for developing educated and moral childrenfrom parents to teachers (Dewey, 1964; Jeynes, 2014).

The third era of family–school linkages began to take root in the1950s and has dominated the educational landscape ever since. While stillgrounded in institutional ideology and the principles of bureaucracy (e.g.professional elites at the helm) the focus shifted in the latter half of thetwentieth century to establishing school-community relations (Kindred,Bagin, & Gallagher, 1984) and getting parents involved in schools.During this era, women began participating in the paid work force ingreater numbers and the number of single parent homes was increasing,factors likely to reduce the amount of time and attention parents had tosupport the education of their children (Jeynes, 2014). Concomitantly,‘participation and involvement of parents’ moved onto centre stage(Crowson, 1992). This focus has been buttressed heavily over the last fewdecades by research on effective schools that features parental involve-ment as a core element of schools that promote student success (Murphy,1985).

Our central argument is that the architectural designs that were createdand employed in the second and third eras of family–school relations(publicity and parent involvement) are inadequate for meeting twenty-firstcentury aims for schools (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Institutionaland hierarchical views of education privilege a collection of fundamentalprinciples (e.g. reliance on experts, appeal to legal authority and imperson-ality) that lead to inevitable and truncated perspectives about school–familyconnections that cast school–family connections in terms of ‘parentalparticipation’ (Crowson, 1992) and alienate families (Baquedano-Lopez,Hernandez, & Alexander, 2014).

This contrasts with the incipient model that we label ‘communities ofparental engagement’. Unlike the framework of family–school associationsthat has been cobbled together from understandings of schools as institu-tions, this fourth-generation framework is being crafted from conceptionsof schools as communities (Auerbach, 2009; Crowson, 2003; Driscoll,1995) that has emerged from research on minority students and familyand community involvement in urban settings (Baquedano-Lopez et al.,2014; Boutte & Johnson, 2014; Jeynes, 2014). Community privileges aset of foundational ideas (e.g. membershipand personalization) differentfrom those that typically anchor institutions (Murphy, 2006; Sergiovanni,1994). These core ideas, in turn, lead to quite different perspectives onfamily–school connections (Crowson, 1992), away from ‘categories ofinvolvement’ (Kindred et al., 1976) and towards ‘norms of community’that promote membership, partnership and ownership (Ancess, 2003;Beck & Foster, 1999).

2 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Methodology

The model we explain in this paper emerged from a methodical review ofthe extant literature concerning the relationship between school improve-ment and parent and community involvement in schools. To conduct thisreview we began by using educational databases to search for terms suchas ‘leadership for parent engagement’ and ‘community in schools’. Theresults of our initial search included policy reports created by state educa-tion agencies, advocacy pieces, books and book chapters, and both pub-lished and unpublished empirical pieces. We expanded our search byincluding cited publications and ended up with a collection of pieces thatcovered a broad swath of the current literature concerning parent engage-ment in schools. Given our interest in developing a robust conceptualframework for communities of engagement we extended our reach intothe literature as broadly as possible, including both quantitative andqualitative analysis, as well as conceptual and theoretical work.

In the second step of the research process we created a framework forunderstanding the concepts and themes emerging from the literature. Aswe read each piece we added and deleted components from our frame-work, and used evidence to deepen our understanding of each componentof the framework. Finally, we analysed evidence relating to each compo-nent to draw conclusions regarding how school leaders can work withother stakeholders to build a culture of engagement for parents.

Components

In this section, we present our model of community of engagement forparents. As discussed above, the centre of gravity here is a shared com-munity of values, not the categories of parental involvement that havedefined school–parent relationships for the past half-century (e.g. Epstein,1996). Our focus is primarily on the fundamental building blocks thatsupport communities of engagement, instead of on the strategies, pro-grammes and initiatives schools employ to promote involvement. Weunpack our model of communities of parental engagement by describingits essential norms (see Figure 1): care and respect, trust, authentic

Figure 1. Community of engagement for parents

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

membership, collective workand shared vision. In the outcomes section,we explain how the elements of our model ultimately impact studentachievement and engagement by first changing parent and teacherattitudes, beliefs and behaviours.

Care and respect

Care and respect form the bedrock for cultivating the hallmark element ofcommunity: a meaningful relationship between the home and school. It isdemonstrated when teachers and leaders practice asset-based thinking,have welcoming attitudes, provide individualization, make a commitmentto prioritize families and take responsibility for reaching out to parents(Connors & Epstein, 1994; Henderson & Berla, 1996).

Asset-based thinking about parents is present in the manner in whichschool staff perceive and approach parents. Researchers have definedsome of the assets existing within families as ‘rituals, traditional values,family dreams and aspirations, cultural norms for student behaviour,racial identity development, practices that involve families in theirchildren’s education and schools, and formal and informal communityorganizations that support families’ (Epstein, 1996, pp. 231–232). Com-mon goals and expectations parents and school staff share for children areother assets that can form a foundation for a respectful relationship(Goldenberg, 2004). Principals who practise asset-based thinking not onlyrecognize assets, but are also able to use them to support efforts at fulfill-ing the school’s vision (Auerbach, 2009; Goldenberg, 1996; Leithwood &Montgomery, 1982).

Positive, loving relationships between parents and children are impor-tant assets that are frequently ignored by educators and researchers, butthat might be the most important for student success (Jeynes, 2014).These sorts of relationships are grounded in healthy communicationbetween parents and children, structured home environments and highexpectations from parents for children. By recognizing and validating thesubtler, but equally impactful, ways parents support their children in thehome in addition to the more over involvement activities typicallydiscussed, educators show respect and asset-based thinking (Boutte &Johnson, 2014).

When school staff members see parents as assets, they work to wel-come parents into the school community as partners (Boutte & Johnson,2014). Schools create a welcoming environment by inviting parents toobserve, designating spaces for parents (Leithwood, 2012; Leithwood,Patten, & Jantzi, 2010), and/or utilizing a parent coordinator to maintainregular contact (Epstein, 1996). More fundamentally, the school staffdemonstrates respect through their interactions with parents—treatingparents as citizens of the school community, not mere tourists (Auerbach,2007; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Johnson & Asera, 1999).

School staff show caring and respect by finding ways to learn about,understand and meet parent needs (Auerbach, 2007; Boutte & Johnson,2014; Scheurich, 1998). Schools serving families placed at risk may need

4 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to think expansively about how to best engage parents in a caring andrespectful way (Dinham, 2005; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Murphy, 1996).This can mean providing educational programming for parents to buildtheir capacity, scheduling meetings to accommodate work schedules andoffering parents’ ways to participate in the community that utilize parents’‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll, 2001; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez,1992). Individualization can also include providing programming atdiverse sites in the community that are more accessible to parents thanprogramming offered only at the school (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach,1999).

Leaders demonstrating care and respect do not leave the formation ofculture to the parents. They know that the onus of initiating and nurtur-ing community, especially in schools serving low income and minorityparents, lies with the school (Auerbach, 2009; Johnson & Asera, 1999).The purpose of reaching out is primarily to build trusting relationshipswith parents, especially in schools where strong relationships betweenfamilies and the school have eroded over time or have never existed(Auerbach, 2009; Bryk, Sebring, & Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton,2010). In these schools, principals act as boundary spanners, working tobridge the divide between the home and the school, instead of as a bufferagainst parental involvement (Auerbach, 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 1998;Murphy, 1996).

Similarly, in communities of engagement, care and respect is shownby having teachers consistently reach out to parents (Bryk et al., 2010) byconducting home visits, talking with parents in school and over the phone(Johnson & Asera, 1999), or inviting parents to ‘meet and greet’ typeactivities in the community. Caring and respectful teachers and principalsare inclusive, make a point of reaching out and welcoming all parents andmake concerted attempts at partnering with parents who have not beenengaged or who understand engagement in a different way (Cotton,2000; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Zill, 1996).

Leaders of communities of parental engagement work to craft a vari-ety of avenues to reach out to families, including providing specific waysparents can support their children in the home and opportunities forauthentic work within the school (Beirman, 1996). They also seek tobuild family ownership by including parents in making or implementingdecisions concerning both the child and the school as a whole (Cotton,2000; Johnson & Asera, 1999).

Schools that cultivate the norms of care and respect for parentsexpress genuine concern for the well-being of students and families (Bryk& Driscoll, 1998). Educators in communities of engagement are moti-vated not only by student achievement, but also by a sense of what ismoral and just (Auerbach, 2009; Murphy, 1996). Bryk and colleagues(2010) conclude that care in schools that are truly disadvantaged mustmove beyond an exclusive or near-exclusive focus on the instructionalprogramme. Considerable attention needs to be directed to the culturalside of the school, including opportunities for parents to be empoweredas advocates for themselves, their children and their communities(Auerbach, 2009; Haynes & Ben-Avie, 1996).

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Care is often displayed when schools work to address the full array offamily needs, recognizing parents and children as individuals (Murphy &Tobin, 2011). Providing health care, social supports, educational pro-gramming and job training are examples of this norm (Johnson & Asera,1999). Schools characterized by care recognize the needs of families andwork proactively to meet those needs.

Trust

A second pillar supporting effective communities of parental engagementis trusting relationships predicated on frequent interactions (Bryk et al.,2010). Trust between families and schools can increase the social capitalavailable to students and their families (Bryk et al., 2010; Spillane,Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Social capital includes assets such as ‘recipro-cal obligations, access to information, and norms that enforce functionalbehaviour’ and is created through relationships with other people(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 48). Trust mayalso engender increased collective and individual efficacy on the part ofeducators and parents (Baker & Stevenson, 1986; Goddard, Salloum, &Berebitsky, 2009; Palmer, Dakof, & Liddle, 1993).

On the other hand, mistrust between educators and parents is fre-quently a major obstacle to developing a participatory culture (Crowson,2003; Steinberg, 1996). Principals who effectively engage with parentsovercome mistrust and misperceptions by both actively reaching out toparents to co-construct school vision and expectations. When relation-ships break down it is difficult for teachers and parents to create a mutualunderstanding of how students should and are being supported both athome and in school (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Moles, 1996; Murphy, Beck,Crawford, & Hodges, 2001).

Communication is an important aspect of trusting relationships.Effective principals communicate a clear purpose: they build and developsupport for the school’s vision, goals and expectations (Murphy & Torre,in press). Several studies have shown that teacher-initiated communica-tion is rare and usually the result of academic or behavioural problems atschool, especially for adolescents (Connors & Epstein, 1994; Dornbusch& Glasgow, 1996; Eccles & Harold, 1996), a reality that runs counter tothe norm of asset-based thinking and work. This pattern can result in thedevelopment of negative feelings for both parents and teachers who wouldprefer to avoid conflict. Teachers should reach out to parents early in theschool year and then regularly across the year so that a foundation basedon accomplishment rather than punishment is forged. Schools need to setup systems to facilitate communication in order for it to become a catalystfor forging trusting relationships. Examples include using online portals,designating specific times when teachers and other school actors are avail-able for face-to-face or phone conferences (Lloyd, 1996) and/or utilizingparent liaisons.

Interaction is the physical manifestation of communication (Lloyd,1996). While many educators communicate with parents via the telephone

6 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

or email, meeting parents face-to-face can create more grounded bondsand deeper relationships between parents and school staff (Auerbach,2009; Russell, Mazzarella, White, & Maurer, 1985). Contact can come inthe form of parents coming to the school—for special events, formal orinformal parent conferences (Johnson & Asera, 1999), parent educationcoursesor to observe in classrooms (Auerbach, 2009; Lloyd, 1996). It canalso come from teachers and principals visiting student’s homes and par-ticipating in the life of the neighbourhood in order to understand the livedexperiences of both parents and students (Lee, 2008). Such interactionshelp school staff better understand the circumstances and family educa-tional culture of students and their families (Haynes & Ben-Avie, 1996;Murphy, 1996), and families better understand the goals and expectationsof the school (Lloyd, 1996).

Contact and communication should occur on an ongoing basis so thatdialogue within the community of engagement becomes natural and trust-ing relationships develop among parents and school staff. Bryk and col-leagues (2010, p. 149) write that the development of ‘social capital ispredicated on dense, sustained social interactions across a school commu-nity’. Relationships between and among educators, students and familiescan be facilitated by fostering personalization through small schools orthrough a cohort system within a larger school (Bryk et al., 2010). Teach-ers in small schools may be better able to know and interact with parents,thus creating a stronger network of support (i.e. more social capital) forstudents who are struggling (Auerbach, 2007, 2009; Eccles & Harold,1996; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010).

The positive relationship between parents and school staff provides important support for

school aims. The social capital expands the human resources of the school by increasing the

information and support available to students. This in turn encourages student engagement in

school life and higher levels of academic achievement. (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988, p. 13)

Authentic membership

Another facet of a community of engagement is the authentic and mean-ingful inclusion of parents in the operation of schools (Driscoll, 1995;Roderick et al., 1998). Authentic membership is apparent when parentsare involved in meaningful work, when partnerships between parents andthe school are strategic, and when parents have voice and influence inmaking decisions (Connors & Epstein, 1994). This norm is not easy tocultivate due to the power disparity between parents and school actorsthat commonly exists in schools scaffolded on institutionalism and hierar-chy (Author, 1991). Parent participation in school functioning is usuallydictated by the will of educators— teachers and principals have power tolimit how, when, where, and why parents become engaged (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). In order to cultivate the norm of authenticmembership, principals and teachers must reset their understanding ofinfluence in schools (Murphy & Beck, 1995).

In some cases, teachers and school leaders are unaware of the powerthey hold over parents (Lareau, 1996). However, other times parent

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

marginalization is the result of a concerted effort on the part of educatorsto maintain power (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Murphy & Beck,1995), of deficit thinking about parents or of other misunderstandings(Baquedano-Lopez, et al., 2014; Bowers & Griffin, 2011; Eccles &Harold, 1996). Power is manifest in the allocation of resources, especiallyin how schools share information with parents, invite parents to partici-pate within the school, and think through the rights and responsibilities ofparent partners (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). Dornbusch and Glasgow(1996) explain that school actors ‘gain from the ignorance of studentsand their parents’, and that by keeping parents at a distance, they ensureprofessional autonomy (p. 40). Steinberg (1996, p. 127) writes:

Although schools pay lip service to the benefits of parental involvement their actual behaviour

reflects mixed feelings about how much and in what ways they actually want parents to be

engaged. That is, although schools insist they want parental participation—and complain

loudly about the lack of involvement of parents—in actuality, schools only want parents to be

involved on the school’s own terms.

Many structures, policies and practices to engage parents do not pro-mote ownership or meaningful work (Haynes & Ben-Avie, 1996; Murphy& Beck, 1995). Powell (1991) notes that typically, programmes to involveparents are disconnected from the primary work of teaching and learninghappening within classrooms and are relegated to the margins of schooloperations: ‘many parents criticize home–school contacts as being empty(characterizing them, for example, as contrived, insubstantial, or awk-ward, mainly offering opportunities for teachers to talk and parents to lis-ten’ (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997, p. 30). By allowing parents tobe linked only along the periphery of the school’s mission, staff membersare asserting their dominance and creating barriers to the norm of authen-tic membership. In order for authentic membership to flourish, policiesaimed at creating a community of engagement for parents must be at thecore of the school’s values and vision. Where communities of engagementfor parents exist, parents are central to the work of educating theirchildren (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). They are present in class-rooms, have contact with students and are an integral part of teachingand learning (Haynes & Ben-Avie, 1996; Olivier & Hipp, 2006).

Where parents are authentic partners in a community of engagement,their voice is important in shaping school and classroom decisions(Connors & Epstein, 1994). Parent voice has been described as environ-mental or cultural push, or a ‘strong press from the parents and communityto change school policy and influence the functioning of the school’ (Hoy,Hannum, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998, p. 342). It includes opportunities tospeak and the commitment of school staff to listen and hear (Murphy &Torre, in press). If parents are not welcomed to voice their ideas and opin-ions, they might only exert this type of press when dissatisfied with how theschool is functioning (Griffith, 2001) and when conflict is imminent. Whenparents are not given an opportunity to be authentic members of the schoolcommunity and are instead regarded as outsiders, conflict between homeand school may become inevitable (Auerbach, 2007).

8 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

School leaders interested in nurturing the norm of membership aremore successful when they direct environmental press towards creatingpositive relationships in the service of school improvement and studentlearning (Murphy et al., 2001; Roderick et al., 1998; Scanlan & Lopez,2012). They can proactively solicit input from parents and work with par-ents to co-construct the schools expectations and hopes for children(Auerbach, 2009). Leaders ensure that parents have ownership of schooldirection and operations (Leithwood et al., 1999; Murphy, 1996).Ultimately, to encourage authentic membership, school actors must allowdecision-making power to be shared (Leithwood, Jantzi, & McElheron-Hopkins, 2006; Murphy & Beck, 1995).

Part of fostering ownership is recognizing that parents have somethingto offer and that they are partners (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).In many efforts to promote parent engagement, even when well inten-tioned, information, resources and support flow only from the school tofamilies. In order to cultivate a community of engagement, parents mustbe invited and encouraged to share their assets with the school, andschool actors must be open to learning from parents. Reciprocity definespartnerships (Murphy et al., 2001).

School leaders must ultimately manage the decision-making of theschool, but principals who cultivate a community of engagement for par-ents frequently seek out and heed the advice and desires of parents(Epstein, 1992; Hayes, Christie, Mills, & Lingard, 2004). One principalinterviewed by Auerbach (2007, p. 8) summarized the conflict inherent inceding power to parents, saying:

I see parent involvement as that parents have a voice in everything, that they bring something

to the table that I need to learn about, and that its about sharing and co-constructing the

school together. And I think that’s very, very hard to do, because once they know they have a

voice, they have a voice, and you have to listen to it. And it might not be something that you

agree with. And that’s the struggle.

Collective work

Collective work is possible when parents have multiple opportunities tobe meaningfully engaged, ensuring that most or all parents are able tocontribute according to their strengths and capacities (Cotton, 2000;Goldenberg, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). These opportuni-ties need to be created not only at the school level, but also allow parentsto be strategically involved in collaborative work in the home. Principalsinterested in cultivating a community of engagement do not give man-dates or dictate tasks, but work collaboratively with teachers and parentsto co-construct multiple paths to engagement (Miller, 1995).

Principals must also keep in mind that while parents are student’s pri-mary teachers, they are also individuals with limited time and capacity tobe involved in the workings of the school. In order to maximize collectivework, it is important that partnerships with parents are strategic, meaningthat involvement should be planned and parents should be able to partici-pate in ways that align with their ‘histories, strengths, and needs’ (Lee &

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bowen, 2006). Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas (2006,p. 241) explain that ‘strong partnerships are not accidental; neither dothey arise through good will nor ad hoc projects. They require new struc-tures, activities, and rethinking’ about how each partner can best contrib-ute. Evidence indicates that parents want to be involved in schools(Connors & Epstein, 1994; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Williams, Pemberton,& Dyce, 2012); the challenge for leaders is to channel school and parentcapital towards community-anchored relationships in the service of stu-dent academic and social learning (Goldenberg, 2004; Murphy et al.,2001).

Collective work, or ‘co-managing’ (Fehrmann, Keith, & Reimers,1987), is premised on explicit understandings and shared responsibility.In much of the literature on parent involvement, parents are expected byteachers and leaders to fulfil a role in their child’s education that is ill-defined or unexplained (Clark, 1988; Murphy et al., 2001). In addition,parents do not always understand their role in their child’s education inthe way expected by the school (Delgado Gaitan, 1992).

We also know that context is important in any discussion of the normof collective work. For example, the way that parents conceive of their rolewithin the school varies by socio-economic status (Baker & Stevenson,1986; Lareau, 2011). Middle-class parents typically see themselves as beingactive participants in their child’s education, while lower income parentstend to regard school staff as experts and thus defer the responsibility forthe education of their children to the school (Alexander & Entwisle, 1996;Bierman, 1996; Lareau, 1996). This difference in role construction isimportant because it explains differences in the accumulation of social capi-tal by socio-economic status. We also know that lower-SES parents aremore likely to disengage from school partnership if they perceive that theschool is not fulfilling its role in supporting their child’s academic achieve-ment (Weis, 1990) and/or are confronted with school staff that does notrecognize or value their contributions.

When building a foundation for collective work, ideally principals,teachers and parents would collaboratively establish appropriate roles foreach set of actors. However, as noted above, the onus for developing thefoundation falls to school leaders, and as such they should have an ideafor what role they expect parents and teachers to play and then negotiatespecifics or seek buy in (Murphy et al., 2001).

Parents are likely to make their greatest contribution to the academicsuccess of students through their efforts in the home; it behoves leadersto focus on how to assist parents in cultivating a positive family educa-tional culture (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Miller, 1995). Other essential aspectsof the parent role are ensuring student attendance and working withteachers to manage behavioural concerns that interfere with learning(Bryk et al., 2010).

Parents can participate in the work of the school be serving as media-tors between the school and the community (Bryk et al., 2010). Ofteneducators do not live in the communities in which they teach, especiallythose working in schools in areas characterized by violence and poverty.

10 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Parents are a critical link to building relationships between the school andcommunity members.

Schools are in the position to help build parent’s cultural capital inways that will help parents work collectively with the school to supporttheir child’s education (Hattie, 2009). It is also important for schools towork together with parents to assist them in making important decisionsfor their child’s future. Parents might not be aware of the opportunitiesavailable for their children or how to meet requirements for promotion,graduationor college admission. As both experts on schooling as well asthe adult that best knows a child outside of a family, educators are in thebest position to advise parents (Connors & Epstein, 1994; Eccles &Harold, 1996). On the other hand, parents might know about opportuni-ties within their communities or through their social networks that areunknown to teachers and school leaders. School staff should solicit thisinformation as a way to validate parent assets and involve parents incrafting the school community.

Schools also have a role co-creating high expectations with parents fortheir children and then creating a trajectory for students to reach thoseexpectations (Hattie, 2009; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). The needfor collective work is related to the socio-economic status of parents. Lowerincome parents typically require a more active partnership in this area, i.e.about how they can effectively use their existing assets to support theirstudents at home and in school (Barker & Stevenson, 1986; Henderson &Berla, 1996).

Inside this collective endeavour and norm of collaboration, the goalsshould be strategic and explicit. For parents who do not have strong edu-cational backgrounds themselves, giving vague guidelines for how to helpstudents at home may not be useful. Rather, schools should cultivaterecommendations for parents that are grade, content and even student-specific (Auerbach, 2007).

Scholars across disciplines have shown that schools, families andcommunities comprise overlapping spheres that can influence studentwell-being, for better or worse (Murphy, 2010; Murphy & Tobin, 2011).Each is essential to school and student success. The norm of collectivework makes explicit that schools depend on parents to support childrenand parents depend on schools to carry a heavy share of the load in thestruggle for student success. Multiple studies highlight how parent andcommunity engagement can catalyze and sustain school reform (Haynes& Ben-Avie, 1996), how schools can serve as a pillar of the communitywhere social networks can grow (Bryk et al., 2010) and how collectivework provides a seedbed to grow student success (Astone & McLanahan,1991; Connors & Epstein, 1994; Henderson & Berla, 1996; Rodericket al., 1998).

Shared vision

A community of engagement for parents will not come naturally, but willbe the result of a carefully crafted vision that has strong buy-in from

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

parents and is context-specific. Visioning for a community of engagementrequires a strong will on the part of leaders as ‘overcoming traditionallyheld beliefs toward family involvement is a formidable undertaking’(Murphy et al., 2001, p. 214) and competing priorities defined by district,state or federal mandates can easily overwhelm anaemic efforts (Auerbach,2009; Dornbusch & Ritter, 1988; Steinberg, 1996).

The vision for a community of engagement is driven by the leader’sdedication to making parents an integral part of the school community(Russell et al., 1985). This means that the principal must be deeplyinvolved in planning and implementing the vision for parent engagement(Murphy & Torre, 2014). Leaders must guide parents through a processof socialization. They need to engage with parents to build buy-in andhelp them see that their engagement is a prerequisite not only for theachievement of their own child but for the success of the school (Haynes& Ben-Avie, 1996).

Principals with the will to nourish authentic parental engagement knowthat they need to develop a comprehensive programme for parent involve-ment that addresses the specific requirements of the parents and childrenin their school (Connors & Epstein, 1994). These programmes should bemultifaceted, involve parents at all levels of the school’s operation,acknowledge the multiple ways that parents can be involved in their child’seducation and underscore programme elements described in the researchin this area (Boutte & Johnson, 2014; Crowson, 2003; Goldenberg, 2004).The vision requires that a principal think of not only what parents canbring to the school community, but also what the school community canbring to parents and the broader community. This vision fosters interde-pendency between the home and the school and co-management ofstudent success (Bryk et al., 2010).

Principals show their commitment to the norm of shared vision byoffering a diverse array of programmes and policies to attract all parentsand overcome practical constraints (Auerbach, 2007; Johnson & Asera,1999; Steinberg, 1996). While any individual policy or programme mightnot be sufficient to reshape parent involvement, a comprehensive visionwill feature multiple avenues for parents to become more deeply involved.Just as teachers should incorporate student interests when differentiatingtheir lessons, principals should incorporate parent interests in differentiat-ing school programmes for parental involvement. A powerful vision willunderscore multiple opportunities for parents to be involved both at theschool site and in the home (Cotton, 2000; Goldenberg, 2004).

Principals show a commitment to the norm of collective goals whenthey are actively and personally involved with parents on a regular basis(Auerbach, 2009). Principals of effective schools spend considerably moretime than average principals in building relationships with the parents andthe community (Cotton, 1996). The involvement of the principal alsoreinforces the symbolic aspects of the vision, signalling to school staff andparents that they are committed to meaningful parent engagement andownership (Auerbach, 2007).

Commitment is also evident in the ways principals resource work.Building a community of engagement requires time on the part of the

12 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

principal and teachers, space, and physical resources. Principals in com-munity-anchored schools do not simply rely on existing capital, but seekout additional resources from the district and the community. These canbe in the form of additional human resources, physical resources or time(Desimone, 2002). A principal in Auerbach’s (2007, p. 719) studycaptured this type of commitment as follows:

At the school level, I think only the principal can set the stage for parent engagement to occur

because the principal’s got to include it on the calendar…the principal has got to deploy

resources to make it happen when they’re planning the budget, when they’re making assign-

ments of staff, when they make their own time available to work with parents .

Change takes time and setbacks can be frustrating to school staff andparents alike (Liontos, 1991; Smylie, 2009). However, in schools that aresuccessful at creating community for parents, there is a norm of continu-ous improvement. Setbacks in implementation are met with differentstrategies or with patience and the commitment to see the effort through.Policies and practices implemented in an effort to increase parent engage-ment must be norm-based. They must become an integral part of theschool programme, so that in times of financial strain or other externalshocks they remain central to the vision (Powell, 1991).

Outcomes

Research suggests several important intermediate outcomes from cultivat-ing communities of engagement for parents based on the norms describedabove. The most important intermediate outcome is increased parent andteacher capacity and efficacy. Capacity refers to the ability for parents andteachers to work and learn with each other as well as help children learnand grow. Parent efficacy refers to a parent’s belief that ‘they can effectchange’ (Murphy et al., 2001, p. 218) and ‘parents’ belief and knowledgethat they can teach their children (content, processes, attitudes and val-ues) and that children can learn what they teach’ (Hoover-Dempsey,Bassler, & Brissie, 1992, p. 288). Similarly, teacher efficacy refers tobeliefs that they can reach their students and carry them to success(Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987, p. 425, in Hoover-Dempsey,Bassler, & Brissie, 1992).

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997, p. 27) explain that efficacy isimportant because:

Parents with a strong positive sense of efficacy for helping children succeed in school are also

likely to believe both that effort is preeminent in explaining success … and that intelligence is

malleable …parents holding this belief set will, further, tend to develop and implement proac-

tive strategies designed to help children succeed in school. Conversely, parents with a weak

sense of efficacy for helping children succeed in school are likely to believe both that intelli-

gence or ability is fixed… and that ability and luck are the preeminent sources of school suc-

cess; parents holding this belief set will tend to be relatively passive, rather than planful or

proactive, in responding to children’s school problems.

In a school with a strong culture of engagement, principals and teach-ers work collaboratively with parents to help them increase their capacity

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

with the intention of strengthening the educational environment in thehome. Policies and practices that may influence change in the home envi-ronment, which include parenting classes, are aimed at helping parentshelp their children academically in the home. These classes might coveracademic topics such as how to support children in specific content areas(Auerbach, 2007). They may also be aimed at building the skills of theparents themselves by providing GED1, computer literacy, job search orliteracy classes (Auerbach, 2007; Bryk et al., 2010). Classes may also beused to provide information on non-academic topics such as health,community issues, laws and political issues (Auerbach, 2009).

In several studies, parents report an increased sense of efficacy relatedto helping their children as a result of being engaged with the school andtheir child’s academic life (Auerbach, 2009; Eccles & Harold, 1996;Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Some schools direct programmes towards help-ing parents change their sense of efficacy with regard to helping their chil-dren. Other programmes help parents understand how to engage in theschool (Griffith, 2001). Programmes and polices meant to educate parentsor change the home learning environment, should focus on making surethat parents hold high expectations for their students and then give par-ents the information and training they need to turn those expectationsinto reality (Hattie, 2009).

As teachers increase their contact with families, they may also betterunderstand the communities of the children they teach and thus increasetheir capacity to support those children (Haynes & Ben-Avie, 1996). Par-ents can also provide invaluable information to teachers about studentinterests, strengths and weaknesses that will enable teachers to better differ-entiate instruction (Jeynes, 2014). By working in tandem as partners teach-ers and parents can create a stronger system of support for studentdevelopment. Teacher efficacy is likely to increase along with teacher capac-ity. As teachers better understand the students they teach, and receive moresupport from parents helping those students succeed, they will perceivetheir own efforts as being more impactful (Murphy et al., 2001).

As parents and teachers build their capacity and sense of efficacy, theybecome more engaged with the education of the student. Research hasshown that when parents are involved with their children’s educationwithin the home, children tend to do better academically (Feldman &Matjasko, 2005; Goldenberg, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2010). In fact, sev-eral researchers claim that improving the home educational environment,also called the ‘curriculum of the home’, may yield the most leverage forincreasing student achievement (Goldenberg, 2004; Miller, 1995;Mulford & Silins, 2003), and for older students can increase graduationrates (Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992). Authentic parent engagement withschools has consistently been shown to increase the academic achievementof students at all grade levels (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Jeynes, 2005;Jeynes, 2007; Palmer et al., 1993) and subjects (Bryk et al., 2010;Epstein, 1996) and to help close achievement gaps (Becker & Luthar,2002). Parent involvement in the school and the community is alsorelated to higher rates of high school graduation and college enrolment(Goddard, 2003).

14 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

An increased proportion of involved parents in a school is related notonly to individual student achievement, but also to the effectiveness of theschool as a whole (Auerbach, 2007). For example, parent and communityinvolvement is also associated with improved culture in the school (Bryket al., 2010; Murphy, 2010). More specifically, research shows that parentinvolvement supports the essential norms of engagement (Sanders &Harvey, 2002), which in turn creates a stronger parent membership andownership.

Discussion

In this article, we have attempted to revision school–parent connections.Our model of a community of parental engagement replaces the institu-tional and hierarchical foundations usually in place when conceptualizingfamily–school relationships with the pillars of community. First, ourmodel is premised on a foundation of care, respect and trust. Withoutthese norms in place, a community of authentic engagement is not feasi-ble. These pillars are strengthened primarily when leaders and teacherstake an asset-based view of families. There should be a continual flow ofwork, information and resources from the home to the school andvice-versa that is collaboratively managed according to context and goals.

Second, parents, teachers and leaders are presumed to have powerthrough their meaningful work in their respective roles. Each set of actorsmay yield more or less influence depending on the realm of activity. Forexample, parents have the most power in shaping the child’s educationalculture at home, teachers have the most power in informing parents oftheir child’s academic progress and leaders have the strongest control incrafting the vision of the school. The important difference is that in ourconceptualization, the power dynamic is acknowledged and explicit rolesare designated around mutual engagement and partnership.

Finally, our model moves home–school connections away from theperiphery and parents from the margins into the core of school function-ing, alongside the instructional programme. In too many schools, engag-ing with families has been seen as an extra task, or as a last resort tosolving individual problems with students. Only by elevating the statureand the meaning of the goal of engaging with families will leaders andteachers begin to think about families as primary in the work of studentsuccess.

In order to buy-in to the idea that creating a culture of engagement isworth time, effort and resources, many will need to be reassured that thecore components described in our model will lead to increased parent andteacher efficacy and capacity, and that eventually this has a positive effecton students. More work using the norms in our model is clearly in order.New efforts also need to be made in understanding how the culturedescribed in this paper can be developed not only within individualschools but at a larger scale, i.e. can districts and even states encourageschools to cultivate a sense of caring? How do school actors begin totransform their thinking from a focus on constraints to possibilities? How

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

do leaders assess the assets of families and utilize them to the advantageof the entire community? What resources are necessary for cultivating acommunity of engagement, and how do schools acquire these resources?

A community of parent engagement cannot be created by applying‘proven strategies’ or ‘best practices’, or by adopting a one-size-fits-allapproach. The very crux of the model is that communities of engagementmust be based on relationships between educators, students, parents andcommunity members, and so must necessarily be context-specific. A firststep towards creating a community of parent engagement is for schoolleaders and teachers to take time to learn from parents and family mem-bers about how they engage with their children, what problems they seein within the school community and what assets they can bring to thetable (Boutte & Johnson, 2014). Only after a mutually respectful andcaring relationship is established can all stakeholders become authenticcontributors and members to a community of parent engagement.

Conclusion

Our model builds from the larger understanding of the receding exclusiv-ity of institutionalism and hierarchy in twenty-first century schools, a real-ity that has been unfolding over the last quarter century (Murphy, 1991,2013). Division and separation, unthinking specialization, appeals toexperts, impersonality, and reliance on legal authority that dominatededucation for nearly a century are being replaced by foundations of com-munity (see Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Sergiovanni, 1994). To date, the over-whelming majority of work employing community foundations hasoccurred in and around teachers and teaching, the quite large body ofresearch on professional learning communities (see Ancess, 2003;Goldenberg, 2004; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995; Louis, Marks, & Kruse,1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2011, Stoll et al., 2006; Supovitz, 2002 foranalyses). To a much lesser extent, community ideology has beenemployed to reverse the place of students in schools (see Murphy &Torre, in press for a review). To date, however, the norms of community(e.g. care trust) have had only a very small influence on the domain ofparent–school relations. And nowhere in this critical domain of schoolingare they becoming the centre of gravity in either research or practice. Weadd to the literature a focus on the components that are essential tobuilding a community of engagement for parents. We also offer an expla-nation of how a community of engagement will lead first to increased effi-cacy and capacity for teachers, leaders and parents, and then to positiveacademic and socio-emotional benefits outcomes for students.

We hope that this model helps practitioners and researchers shiftsome of their priorities and see schools in a new light. For practitioners,our model suggests that building a culture of engagement for parentsmust become a primary component of the school vision. For bothresearchers and practitioners, we hope that our model helps put thenotion of community on centre stage in efforts to understand school com-munity landscapes.

16 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Note

1. The GED, or general educational development tests certify that a student has high school level

academic skills. Students who did not graduate from high school or meet traditional benchmarks

for receiving a high school diploma can receive a high school equivalency credential by passing

the GED tests.

References

Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1996). Schools and children at risk. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.),

Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 67–88). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school

completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320.

Auerbach, S. (2007). Visioning parent engagement in urban schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17,

699–734.

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban

schools. School Community Journal, 19, 9–32.

Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement:

Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156–166.

Baquedano-Lopez, P., Hernandez, S. J., & Alexander, R. A. (2014). Thinking through the decolonial

turn in research and praxis. In P. R. Portes, S. Salas, P. Basquedano-Lopez, & P. J. Mellom

(Eds.), US Latinos and education policy: Research-based directions for change (pp. 16–37). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Beck, L. G., & Foster, W. (1999). Administration and community: Considering challenges, exploring

possibilities. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administra-

tion (pp. 337–358). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes

among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist, 37,

197–214.

Bierman, K. L. (1996). Family-school links: An overview. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.),

Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 276–287). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boutte, G. S., & Johnson Jr, G. L. (2014). Community and family involvement in urban schools. In

H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 167–187). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Bower, H. A., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein model of parental involvement work in a

high-minority, high-poverty elementary school? A case study. Professional School Counseling, 15,

77–87.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. (1998). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences

for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and conse-

quences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for

improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, R. M. (1988). Parents as providers of linguistic and social capital. Educational Horizons, 66,

93–95.

Connors, L. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1994). Taking stock: Views of teachers, parents, and students on school,

family, and community partnerships in high schools. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families,

Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning.

Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance. Portland, OR: Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Crowson, R. L. (1992). School–community relations, under reform. Berkely, CA: McCutchan.

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Crowson, R. L. (2003). The turbulent policy environment in education: implications for school

administration and accountability. Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 29–43.

Delgado Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to

education. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 495–513.

Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?

Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–479.

Dewey, J. (1964). My pedagogic creed. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 427–439).

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational

Administration, 43, 338–356.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The structural context of family–school relations. In A.

Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 35–44).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource.

Educational Horizons, 66, 75–77.

Driscoll, M. E. (1995). Thinking like a fish: The implications of the image of school community for

connections between parents and schools. In P. W. J. Cookson & B. Schneider (Eds.),

Transforming schools (pp. 209–236). New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In

A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?

(pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ensminger, M., & Slusarcick, A. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal

study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95–113.

Epstein, J. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and

community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect

educational outcomes? (pp. 209–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Aiken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational

research (pp. 1139–1151). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school learning: Direct

and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. The Journal of Educational

Research, 330–337.

Feldman, A., & Matjasko, J. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent

development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75,

159–210.

Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on

students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 59–74.

Goddard, R. D., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2009). Trust as a mediator of the relationships

between poverty, racial composition, and academic achievement: Evidence from Michigan’s

public elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 292–311.

Goldenberg, C. N. (1996). Schools, children at risk, and successful interventions. In A. Booth & J.

Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 115–124).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldenberg, C. N. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and learning.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Griffith, J. (2001). Principal leadership of parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration,

39, 162–186.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:

1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157–191.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Hayes, D., Christie, P., Mills, M., & Lingard, B. (2004). Productive leaders and productive leader-

ship: Schools as learning organisations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 520–538.

Haynes, N. M., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Parents as full partners in education. In A. Booth & J. Dunn

(Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 45–55). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1996). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student

achievement. Center for Law and Education. Washington, DC: National Committee for

Citizens in Education.

18 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of

teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American

Educational Research Journal, 24, 417–435.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent–school

relations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287–294.

Hoy, W., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student

achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 336–359.

Jeynes, W. (2014). Parent involvement for urban students and youth of color. In H. R. Milner IV &

K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 149–166). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary

school student academic achievement. Urban education, 40, 237–269.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school

student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban education, 42, 82–110.

Johnson Jr, J. F., & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-

poverty, urban elementary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning

and Evaluation Services.

Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. R. (1976). The school and community relations. Englewood

Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.

Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. R. (1984). The school and community relations. Englewood

Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.

Kruse, S., Louis, K. S., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based

professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community:

Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 32–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in education. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.),

Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 57–63). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How

an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational

researcher, 37, 267–279.

Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap

among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193–218.

Leithwood, K. (2012). School leadership, evidence-based decision making, and large-scale student

assessment. In C. F. Webber & J. L. Lupar (Eds.), Leading student assessment (pp. 17–39).

London: Springer, Netherlands.

Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How

leadership influences student learning. Toronto: University of Minnesota.

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program

improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309–339.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (2006). The development and testing of a

school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 441–464.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.

Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership

influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 671–706.

Liontos, L. B. (1991). Involving at-risk families in their children’s education. Eugene, OR: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Lipham, J. M., & Hoeh, J. A. (1974). The principalship: Foundations and functions (pp. 68–89). New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

Lipham, J. M., Rankin, R., & Hoeh, J. A. (1985). The principalship: Concepts, competencies, and cases.

New York, NY: Longman.

Lloyd, G. (1996). Research and practical application for school, family, and community partnerships.

In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?

(pp. 276–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring

schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–798.

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school

teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Miller, L. S. (1995). An American imperative: Accelerating minority educational advancement. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Moles, O. (1996). New directions in research and policy. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–

school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 247–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Moll, L. C. (2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In M. Reyes & J. Halcon

(Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 29–47). New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

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.

Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student out-

comes—What do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 175–195.

Murphy, J. (1985). School community relations: More than a bag of tricks. The AASA Professor, 8, 9–12.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Murphy, J. (1996). The privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin

Press.

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Murphy, J. (2006). The evolving nature of the American high school: A punctuated equilibrium

model of institutional change. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 285–324.

Murphy, J. (2010). The educator’s handbook for understanding and closing achievement gaps. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement: Lessons learned. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Newbury

Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J., Beck, L. G., Crawford, M., & Hodges, A. (2001). The productive high school: Creating

personalized academic communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J., & Tobin, K. (2011). Homelessness comes to school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures in schools: Communities for students,

teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (in press). Vision: essential scaffolding. Educational management, administra-

tion & leadership.

Olivier, D., & Hipp, K. K. (2006). Leadership capacity and collective efficacy: Interacting to sustain

student learning in a professional learning community. Journal of School Leadership, 16,

505–519.

Palmer, R. B., Dakof, G. A., & Liddle, H. A. (1993). Family processes, family interventions, and

adolescent school problems: A critical review and analysis. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on

Education in the Inner Cities.

Powell, Douglas R. (1991). How schools support families: critical policy tensions. The Elementary

School Journal, 91, 307–319.

Reese, W. J. (1995). The origins of the American high school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Roderick, M. R., Stone, S., Arney, M., Chiong, J., DaCosta, K., & Waxman, E. (1998). Changing

standards, changing relationships: Building family–school relationships to promote achievement in high

schools. Chicago, IL: Student Life in High Schools Project, School of Social Service

Administration, University of Chicago.

Russell, J., Mazzarella, J., White, T., & Maurer, S. (1985, June). Linking the behaviors and activities

of secondary school principals to school effectiveness: A focus on effective and ineffective

behaviors. Eugene: University of Oregon, Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership

for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345–1368.

Scanlan, M., & Lopez, F. (2012). Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and excellence for

bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 583–625.

Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by

low-ses children of color: core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education, 33, 451–491.

20 D. TORRE AND J. MURPHY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 214–226.

Smylie, M. A. (2009). Continuous school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leader-

ship: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76, 1–17.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do.

New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning

communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.

Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. The Teachers College Record,

104, 1591–1626.

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and

learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 31–56.

Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of America urban education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work: High school students in a de-industrializing economy. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, T. M., Pemberton, K., & Dyce, C. M. (2012). Engagement without judgment: Building

effective school, family, and community partnerships for African American learners. A primer

for teachers and administrators. African American Learners, 1. Retrieved from https://isaac.

wayne.edu/research/journal/article.php?newsletter=133&article=1899

Zill, N. (1996). Family change and student achievement: What we have learned, what it means for

schools. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational

outcomes? (pp. 139–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

COMMUNITIES OF PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

98.1

93.1

66.1

36]

at 0

3:09

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14