Beyond Involvement and Engagement: The

Role of the Family in School–Community

Partnerships
Amanda Stefanski, Linda Valli, and Reuben Jacobson

Abstract

Research indicates that partnerships between schools and neighborhood

communities support student learning, improve schools, and strengthen fami-
lies and neighborhoods. These partnerships expand the traditional educational
mission of the school to include health and social services for children and their
families and to involve the broader community. School–community partner-
ships typically arise out of a specific need in the community and, as such, differ
across a range of processes, structures, purposes, and types of family involve-
ment. In previous work, we developed a typology to more closely examine
various school–community partnerships (Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2013).
From that review of the literature, we identified four increasingly complex and
comprehensive partnership models. In this article, we reexamine the literature,
focusing on the role of the family in those partnership models, and discuss
implications for productive family–school–community relations. Our analysis
of the literature indicates that the role of parents and families differed con-
siderably across the four models. In contrast to the simple family involvement
versus family engagement dichotomy found in much of the current literature,
we found eight distinct ways in which family roles were envisioned and enact-
ed. This article provides a detailed picture of those roles to guide policies and
practices that strengthen the family’s role in school–community partnerships.

School Community oJ urnal , 2016, Vol. 26, oN . 2 135

Available at http.s:/w choolcommunitynetwokr .org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: involvement, engagement, family role, school–community part-

nerships, models, parents, full service community schools, wraparound ser-
vices, development, interagency collaboration, families, linked

Introduction

School–community partnerships have long been viewed as a promising way

to help struggling students, families, and neighborhoods. In the Progressive
Era, the local school was commonly viewed as the community’s central insti-
tution (Dewey, 1902). Schools served as places where community members
could hear lectures, debate about civic issues, and use the facility for recreation
at night, on weekends, and during school breaks. Social reformers from out-
side the school system—including muckrakers, activists, public health doctors,
women’s clubs, and settlement-house workers—sought to improve the lives
of children and families in the school setting. These reformers advocated for a
larger role of government in helping poor families and for more services at the
school site, both during and outside the regular school day (Tyack, 1992). A
few of the many new services were vocational guidance, lunches, playgrounds,
sex education, health programs, and vacation schools (Cohen, 2005; Sedlak &
Schlossman, 1985; Tyack, 1992). A variety of community associations worked
with and within these community schools. Sometimes these working relation-
ships took the form of mutual partnerships; at other times, the relationship
resembled a patronage system, with a foundation or influential organization
bestowing aid on a needy community.
Influenced in large part by the seminal work of Joy Dryfoos, the early 1990s
witnessed a resurgence of the community school movement. Working in the
public health sector, Dryfoos (1994) argued that schools cannot meet the needs
of students on their own, but must coordinate with social service systems and
become “full-service schools.” A year later, the president of the American Ed-
ucational Research Association advanced this agenda, advocating for a new
paradigm of schooling, a paradigm that linked “health, social welfare, juvenile
justice, extended day educational opportunities, [and] community partici-
pation” (Stallings, 1995, p. 8). More recently, neighborhood transformation
efforts such as the Harlem Children’s Zone as well as grant competitions such
as the Choice Neighborhoods, Full-Service Community Schools, and Promise
Neighborhood programs have renewed interest in this paradigm. The Promise
Neighborhood grant competition, for example, required school–community
partners to develop an integrated system of educational programs and family/
community supports “with great schools at the center” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012).

136
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

As Harris and Hoover (2003) have written, Dryfoos’s work “became a ral-
lying point” for those striving to advance partnership agendas (p. 206). Today,
community schools and similar collaborative initiatives rely on numerous types
of partners to support their efforts. In some cases, organizations such as the
Children’s Aid Society (Communities in Schools [CIS], 2010) take the lead
in establishing the focus of the partnership. In other cases, school districts ini-
tiate partnerships with one or more organizations. In the city of Boston, for
instance, the public school system has had a long-standing partnership with
the Full-Service Schools Roundtable, a coalition of over 150 members (Weiss
& Siddall, 2012). A driving assumption behind each of these partnerships is
that the expansion of the academic mission of the school to include health and
social services for children and families and to involve the broader community
will benefit both individuals and society. Indeed, such partnerships have been
found to support student learning, improve schools, and assist families (Hen-
derson & Mapp, 2002; Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2014; Walsh et al., 2014).
But in the struggle to define the movement, exactly how are partnership
roles conceptualized and enacted? The general theory of action underlying
partnerships provides the beginning of the answer: Positing that schools serve
students’ academic needs better if they can quickly and efficiently attend to
the overall health and well-being of children and their families (Epstein, 1995;
Krenichyn, Clark, & Benitez, 2008), partnership advocates push for a closer
working relationship with parents and family members. In this article, we re-
view the literature on the ways in which school–community partnerships have
included families. Our goal is to provide a more detailed understanding of
“closer working relationships” that, as the theory of action suggests, should
result in an array of social and academic benefits. We begin with the develop-
mental and sociological perspectives that underlie this theory of action. We
then review the previous literature on parent involvement, explain the typology
of partnerships we developed, and analyze findings on family roles within the
four partnership models.
Perspectives and Frameworks: Family Roles
Developmental theorists emphasize the multiple and interrelated dimen-
sions of human development: physical, psychological, social, cognitive, ethical,
and linguistic. They also argue for an ecological perspective on human devel-
opment, that is, examining the environmental contexts (peer, family, school,
neighborhood, etc.) that support or impede healthy development and learn-
ing, as well as the interactions among them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Comer,
Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996). In their ecological orientation, develop-
mentalists intersect with sociological perspectives that point to the persistent

137
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

impact of social capital on student achievement. Defining social capital as net-

works of supportive relationships and resources that make goal achievement
possible (Bourdieu, 1986), sociologists argue that good health, family and
community support, and employment prospects are key factors in students’ ac-
ademic success (Jencks, 1992; Rothstein, 2004; Wilson, 1999). Bringing those
two traditions together, Epstein’s (1995) theory of overlapping spheres empha-
sizes the importance of schools, families, and communities working together to
meet the needs of children. More specifically, a central principle of the theory is
that certain goals (e.g., academic achievement) are of mutual interest to people
in each of the three spheres and, therefore, are best achieved through coopera-
tive action and support.
Combined, these perspectives provide a powerful rationale for schools not
operating as entities separate from family and community contexts, which is
the current norm of U.S. public schools, especially in high-poverty neighbor-
hoods. In addition, family involvement is supported by a substantial body of
research that links it to children’s academic, social, and emotional development
(Banerjee, Harrell, & Johnson, 2011; Farkas & Grolnick, 2010; Henderson,
Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Jeynes, 2012; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013; Weiss
& Stephen, 2009). There are different frameworks, however, for describing
this involvement. Gordon (1977), for example, identified six types of parent
involvement: parents as bystanders, decision-makers (e.g., PTA participation),
classroom volunteers, paid paraprofessionals, learners, and teachers at home.
One of the most commonly used frameworks, developed from Epstein’s (1995)
theory of overlapping spheres, outlines six types of involvement: parenting,
communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and col-
laborating with the community. McNeal (2001) provided a framework that
focused on four elements: parent–child discussion, monitoring, involvement
in school and classroom activities, and participation in school organizations.
More recently, there has been a shift away from what some call mere parental
involvement toward the broader, more inclusive notion of parental engagement
(see, e.g., Harvard Family Research Project, 2014). Ferlazzo (2011) explained
that a school striving for involvement “leads with its mouth—identifying proj-
ects, needs, and goals and then telling parents how they can contribute” while a
school aiming for engagement “lead[s] with its ears—listening to what parents
think, dream, and worry about....not to serve clients but to gain partners” (p.
12). Ishimaru (2014) similarly criticized the involvement approach for being
based in deficit assumptions about parents and called for it to be replaced with
an approach that views parents as resources and collaborators.
This shift has also been recognized in the language used by federal programs.
For example, Head Start (2014) defined parental involvement as participation

138
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

in a variety of activities developed or implemented by family services staff and

often measured by such outputs as the number of parents who attend a meet-
ing. In contrast, family engagement is defined as goal-directed relationships
between staff and families that are ongoing and culturally responsive; family
and staff members share responsibility and mutually support what is best for
children and families (Head Start, 2014). Evaluation focuses on evidence of
family progress in a number of broad areas (e.g., well-being, advocacy, learn-
ing, connections). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education recently
released a framework designed not only to help schools and districts engage
parents as part of the process to increase student achievement, but also to pro-
vide a model for how to build effective community engagement (Mapp &
Kuttner, 2013). The authors of the framework depicted how, in effective part-
nerships, families negotiate multiple roles including supporters, encouragers,
monitors, advocates, decision-makers, and collaborators.
As Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005) described it, engagement encourages
“parents to take their place alongside educators in the schooling of their chil-
dren, fitting together their knowledge of children, teaching, and learning with
teachers’ knowledge” (p. 13); parent engagement rather than involvement, they
argue, allows schools to move away from the “typical hierarchical structure of
power” (p. 15). But language and practice, or conceptualization and enact-
ment, do not necessarily change at the same time. As noted by Price-Mitchell
(2009), “the shift in language [from involvement to engagement] has yet to
change the fragmented focus of the research, and many schools continue to
emphasize participation and volunteerism over partnership and engagement”
(p. 13). Further, to complicate the issue, researchers do not use these terms
consistently, so there may be times when authors use the term “involvement”
but in actuality are discussing what Ferlazzo (2011), Pushor and Ruitenberg
(2005), and others would call engagement—or vice versa.
Despite the fact that families are widely viewed as an essential component
of school–community partnerships, our review of the partnership literature in-
dicates that neither the current “involvement vs. engagement” distinction nor
the different frameworks of involvement (e.g., Epstein, 1995; Gordon, 1977;
McNeal, 2001) fully capture the range of family roles. In this article, we argue
that carefully delineating the various types of school–community partnerships
is a helpful first step in obtaining a comprehensive picture of the roles families
actually can fill. We first present the typology of school–community partner-
ships we previously developed to examine factors that facilitated and impeded
partnership success (Valli et al., 2013). We then analyze family roles within
each type and discuss the implications for fostering productive family relations
in these types of partnerships.

139
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Research Methodology
Even though school–community partnerships are generally inspired by a
common vision, a host of terms such as full-service schools, wraparound ser-
vices, and community schools are often used interchangeably to describe quite
different types of partnerships, complicating efforts to comparatively analyze
them. Therefore, when the three of us began our initial review of the litera-
ture, we identified studies related to school–community partnerships through
an electronic search of ERIC and EBSCO by using this range of terms as well
as broader terms such as school–community partnerships and community–school
linked services.
We then conducted ancestral searches using the articles initially identified
for inclusion. Additionally, when articles appeared in themed journal issues
or particular journals became regular sources, we searched through those in
order to identify other sources of information. Finally, we contacted several
community school and partnership agencies whose work had consistently ap-
peared in our searches to identify relevant studies and documents that had
been published for the organization and did not appear in peer-reviewed jour-
nals. Throughout this process we used inclusionary and exclusionary criteria
(e.g., rigor and relevance) for final selections (Boote & Beile, 2005); classified
sources as descriptive, empirical, or research syntheses; and created a compre-
hensive table tracking research questions, methods, and findings (see Valli et
al., 2013 for a detailed account).
In several instances, we found multiple articles written about a single partner-
ship. We sorted these articles into “sets” of sources (e.g., three different studies
about the implementation of the Comer School Development Program are col-
lectively referred to as one “set”). A total of 39 sets of sources were identified
through these processes. For this analysis, we draw on only those sources that
explicitly discuss the role of family (i.e., functions family members are expected
to perform in relation to the school) in order to ensure that the findings were
drawn from specific examples rather than our own conjecture. We also includ-
ed the broader school–family relationship literature discussed above to provide
context for our more focused examination of the family’s role in the various
types of school–community collaborations. This broader literature examines
how and why schools, in general, have worked to establish ties with families.
Using an inductive, grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998),
we tracked similarities and differences on key dimensions as they emerged across
those sources. We noted two broad partnership dimensions that were particu-
larly helpful in characterizing the various models: (a) overall purpose or scope,
and (b) organizational change requirements. As recommended for compara-
tively analyzing and interpreting sources for a literature review (Onwuegbuzie,
140
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Leech, & Collins, 2012), we sorted the articles along those two dimensions,
examining similarities and differences. During this sorting process, we found
that each initiative we reviewed fit into one of four categories, distinguished by
the two criteria mentioned above—purpose and change requirements. Moving
from least to most comprehensive, and requiring increased degrees of com-
mitment and change, the categories are: Family and Interagency Collaboration,
Full-Service Schools, Full-Service Community Schools, and the Community Devel-
opment model (see Table 1).
The most basic form of partnership, Family and Interagency Collaboration,
coordinates education, social, and health service delivery for students and fami-
lies and requires organizational commitment. Going beyond collaboration, the
Full-Service School model aims to coordinate a comprehensive array of services
while, as much as possible, offering them at the school site. This expansion of
purpose requires organizational change; the school actually becomes a differ-
ent type of institution. Full-Service Community Schools continue this model
but add a democratic component in which families and community members
provide input as full partners, rather than simply being recipients of services.
As such, these schools require both organizational and cultural change. Finally,
the most comprehensive of the four models, Community Development, aims
not only to assist students and families, but also to transform whole neighbor-
hoods. This model goes well beyond the other three in its goals and vision and
requires both interorganizational and cultural commitment and change.

Table 1. Typology of School–Community Partnerships

Scope and Purpose Requirements
Family and Interagency Organizational
Coordinate service delivery
Collaboration commitment
Deliver school-based, Organizational com-
Full-Service Schools
coordinated services mitment and change
Deliver school-based,
Organizational and
Full-Service coordinated services and
cultural commitment
Community Schools democratize the school with
and change
community input
Interorganizational
Community
Transform the community and cultural commit-
Development Model
ment and change

We are not the first to develop such a framework. Like us, others who have
studied school–community partnerships have found typologizing to be a use-
ful analytic tool for examining how various types of partnerships have been

141
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

implemented. Melaville (1998), for example, identified four approaches to

school–community initiatives: services reform, youth development, commu-
nity development, and school reform. More recently, Warren (2005) used the
terms Service, Development, and Organizing to describe three distinct part-
nership models. While these and other frameworks are compelling, we decided
not to simply adopt one of them for our purposes for two reasons. First, authors
do not always provide the basis for their typologies (e.g., how they focused on
particular dimensions to construct their categories). Second, authors develop
typologies at different times and for different reasons, making their use in other
contexts problematic. Melaville’s purpose, for example, was to provide specific
answers to policy questions such as “Who began the initiatives?” and “What
activities are provided at the site level?” Warren’s purpose was to identify the
mechanisms by which the different types of partnerships built social capital.
So instead of adopted an existing framework, we chose an inductive, grounded
theory approach, described above, to develop our own.
After describing the sources we found within each of the four models, we
analyzed the roles of the family within each. While the names we gave each
model suggest that families are an essential component, our review made clear
that the nature of the partnership constructs the role of the family in vastly
different ways. And, as with the language issue described above (i.e., lack of
consistency in terminology by researchers and practitioners), both our catego-
ries and the delineation of family roles within them must be considered fluid
and dynamic in that various organizations (e.g., CIS) are apt to have partner-
ships that fit in different ways than our analysis suggests—thus, others may
interchange the terms and meanings we have ascribed to them. Our goal in
this article is to create a comprehensive picture of the various ways in which
family roles are envisioned and enacted in order to guide successful policy and
practice. Our findings indicate that as the purpose behind each of the models
evolved from the coordination of service delivery to transforming—or empow-
ering—the community, so too did the role of parents and families evolve.
Serving Parents: The Family and Interagency Collaboration Model
As described above, the Family and Interagency Collaboration model of
partnership involves the coordination of education, social, and health service
delivery for students and families. But unlike the Full-Service model that fol-
lows, these partnerships stop short of attempts to offer a comprehensive range
of services for both family and student, focusing instead on one or two services
each organization believes are most important and for which they have the re-
sources. Also, and in contrast to Full-Service Schools, less attention is given to
offering services directly at the school site.

142
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Eight of our 12 total sources on the Family and Interagency Collaboration

model addressed the role of parents and other family members (see Table 2).
One source was descriptive, providing information about the Iowa School-
Based Youth Services Program (Walker & Hackmann, 1999). Four were
empirical studies that utilized a broad range of methodologies: a single school
case study that examined the characteristics of successful partnerships (Sand-
ers & Harvey, 2002); a three-year, quasi-experimental evaluation of afterschool
programs at six Children’s Aid Society community middle schools (Krenichyn
et al., 2008); a statistical analysis of schools and school districts to determine
the impact of leadership on family and community involvement (Epstein,
Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011); and a survey study that identified student support
services and established a baseline for partnership work in the Boston Public
Schools (Weiss & Siddall, 2012).

Table 2. Number of Sources/Sets of Sources (Total and Family-Related) in the

Four Partnership Models
Descriptive/ Empirical Research Totals
Model Conceptual Studies Syntheses
Total Family Total Family Total Family Total Family
Family &
Interagency 1 1 7 4 4 3 12 8
Collaboration

Full-Service
Schools 4 0 9 4 0 0 13 4

Full-Service
Community 3 2 4 4 0 0 7 6
Schools
Community
Development 3 2 4 4 0 0 7 6
Model

Total 11 5 24 16 4 3 39 24

The three remaining sources were research syntheses commissioned by

sponsoring organizations. Two of these evaluated the sponsoring organization’s
partnership program: Communities in Schools (CIS, 2010), and Coalition for
Community Schools (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). The Communities in
Schools series of studies across 5 years were conducted by an external evalu-
ator and included a quasi-experimental design, a natural variation study, and

143
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

randomized controlled trials that examined a broad range of outcomes, while

the Coalition studies were based on participant self-reports (i.e., surveys, focus
groups, individual interviews) from selected partnerships. The third research
synthesis, sponsored by the National Education Association (NEA), examined
NEA partnership strategies to advance student learning (Henderson, 2011).
In our review of these eight total sources, we noted that the collaborating
agencies emphasized two features of parent involvement over others: increased
access to resources and service provision, and two-way, open communication.
As we considered implications for families, we were struck by the fact that, in
each case, the focus was more on serving than on involving (see Figure 1). For
example, authors used language such as “provide access” (Blank et al., 2003, p.
32), “referral of families” (Weiss & Siddall, 2012, p. 2), and “[parents]…were
kept aware of school activities” (Sanders & Harvey, 2002, p. 1359).
We would argue that increased access to resources is the foundation of all
school–community partnerships; in other words, connecting students and
families to various resources and providing additional services occurs at every
level in our typology. For schools within the Family and Interagency Collab-
oration category, this involves developing partnerships with the community
in order to connect students and families with needed services. For example,
parents whose children participated in the Communities in Schools program
reported receiving direct benefits through referral to individual, case-managed
social services, many of which they would not have known existed without the
referral from Communities in Schools (CIS, 2010).
Blank and colleagues (2003) have asserted that these schools “typically arise
as unique responses to the specific needs of their communities, [so] no two are
exactly alike” (p. 2). The organizations described in this section reflect that as-
sertion, varying largely from one to another, with one major commonality: they
exist primarily to provide services to parents, rather than to work at involving
parents in the school or in partnership activities. There are a few exceptions,
such as the incorporation of parents on advisory councils that monitor the inte-
gration and collaboration of agencies in the Iowa School-Based Youth Services
Program (Walker & Hackmann, 1999), but by and large, parents and families
are passive recipients of services under Family and Interagency Collaboration.
Although each organization provides services specific to the community
in which it is situated, in general, these services focus on parental support
or development, literacy, recreation, counseling, and health care. In reviewing
evaluations of 20 partnerships across the country, Blank et al. (2003) reported,
for example, that typical activities included adult education and career devel-
opment, child care, mental health and nutrition counseling, crisis intervention,
dental and health services, and family support centers. Reports on initiatives in

144
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Iowa (Walker & Hackmann, 1999) and Boston (Weiss & Siddall, 2012) also
noted a range of social services available to families (e.g., mental health and
substance abuse counseling, violence and suicide prevention, legal advice, pri-
mary and dental health care, job training).
Although some articles briefly mentioned parent involvement, such as
feeling welcome at the school (CIS, 2010) or participating in school events
(Henderson, 2011), only one (Sanders & Harvey, 2002) elaborated on a parent
role that went beyond being served: a four-hour per month volunteer require-
ment in an afterschool program that could be fulfilled by parents or their
representatives (e.g., older siblings, grandparents). In the same vein, Blank et
al. (2003) were the only authors to report on specific impacts on families, in-
cluding greater attendance at school meetings, increased knowledge of child
development, and increased confidence in their role as the child’s teacher,
among others.
In addition to increasing access to resources and providing services to
parents, another way that partnerships under the Family and Interagency
Collaboration model serve parents and families is through the use of open, two-
way communication, a theme that reoccurs throughout the broader literature
on school–family relations. In the NEA’s review of family–school–commu-
nity partnerships, the authors identified 10 strategies as essential for success
(Henderson, 2011). Of those, two referenced involving parents in key con-
versations, while two others had to do with building relationships between
educators and families.
Other studies similarly discussed the importance of a climate of mutual
respect and two-way, open communication among all partners (Blank et al.,
2003; Krenichyn et al., 2008; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). In some cases, this
communication was facilitated by a family outreach or parent coordinator
(Blank et al., 2003; Krenichyn et al., 2008; Weiss & Siddall, 2012); other ini-
tiatives made sure parents were on teams that focused on open communication
among partners (Krenichyn et al., 2008; Walker & Hackmann, 1999). More
specific ways to increase open communication included reaching out in various
languages (Epstein et al., 2011), parent groups based on cultural backgrounds
(Henderson, 2011), home visits (Blank et al., 2003; CIS, 2010; Henderson,
2011), and parent conferences (Blank et al., 2003; Henderson, 2011; Weiss &
Siddall, 2012).

145
 Community

146
Development
FAMILY
SCHOL COMMUNITY

IMPLICATIONS:
Full-Service Empower Parents
Community Schools
FAMILY
Full-Service IMPLICATIONS:
Schools Engage Parents
(In addition to practices 1-6)
JOURNAL

Family / FAMILY 7. Develop leadership

Interagency IMPLICATIONS:
skills that are specific to
Collaborations Include Parents
In addition to practices 1-4) education (development,
FAMILY policy, etc.) and identify
5. Recognize parents as opportunities for
IMPLICATIONS: key players whose ideas
Serve Parents students and parents to
are important and use those skills
(In addition to practices 1-2)
necessary while
3. Encourage and cultivating their 8. Bridge cultural and
increase participation leadership skills power gap between
1. Increase access to in a variety of parents and educators
resources and service capacities (classrooms, 6. Ensure shared decision
provision media center, making
playground,
2. Build relationships with volunteering, etc.)
families by ensuring
two-way, open 4. Include parents as part
communication among of decision-making
all partners teams
Figure 1. Implications for families in the four partnership models.
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Including Parents: The Full-Service School Model

While the organizations described in the previous section connected parents
to a range of academic, health, or social services, the Full-Service School goes
beyond that basic connection in an attempt to literally “wrap” services around
and into the school itself, expanding the use of the school’s physical space for
services beyond the academic and expanding the school schedule beyond a
typical school day or week. Pointing to the necessity for organizational change
within this model, Dryfoos (1995) used the word “seamless” to describe the
new type of institution she envisioned that would provide a comprehensive set
of services to children and families. Of the 13 sources we identified in our ini-
tial review (Valli et al., 2014), only four addressed specific ways that parents
and families are included in this model.
These four sources (three sets and one single) incorporated various method-
ologies in order to determine how well the Full-Service model was implemented
and its impact on students, parents, and the organization of the school. The
Comer studies, which collectively compared 45 Comer schools to no-treatment
control schools, were based on implementation of the School Development Pro-
gram in three school districts: Prince George’s County, MD (Cook et al., 1999),
Chicago, IL (Cook, Murphy, & Hunt, 2000), and Detroit, MI (Millsap et al.,
2000). The authors who studied Linkages to Learning, a school district’s col-
laboration with community-based service providers, employed a longitudinal,
quasi-experimental design, with a control school, four years of data, psycho-
metrically validated instruments, and a high rate of participant response (Fox et
al., 1999; Leone & Bartolotta, 2010). The Eisenhower Grant studies (LaFrance
Associates [LFA], 2005a, 2005b, 2006) were process and outcome evaluations
of single school sites wherein researchers gathered a wide range of data, such as
school records, beginning- and end-of-year surveys, site visits, and participant
interviews. Finally, evaluators of the Kent School Services Network (KSSN)
of eight public schools used a mixed methods approach of surveys, interviews,
discussions with parent groups, and administrative data to examine program
implementation, impact, and costs (Public Policy Associates [PPA], 2009).
An analysis of these sources indicates that Full-Service School partnerships
continued to serve parents and families in the two ways identified in the Fam-
ily and Interagency Collaboration model. But these partnerships also engaged in
practices that would promote deeper levels of involvement. First, they encour-
aged parents to increase their participation in schools in a variety of capacities.
Second, they explicitly sought to include parents on the decision-making teams
within the school.
Of the four sources we identified, the Comer School Development Program
(SDP) best exemplifies what these two practices look like. The SDP’s Parent

147
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Program operates at three levels of involvement. Its two lower levels attend to
the first practice of increasing parent participation in a variety of capacities. At
the most basic level, parents attend school social activities and meetings of the
school’s parent group. One tier above this, parents work in the school as volun-
teers or as paid assistants, directly collaborating and interacting with teachers
and students in classrooms, hallways, libraries, and cafeterias, in addition to
serving as Parent Center hosts and guides to new parents, staff, or other guests
(Haynes & Comer, 1996).
The authors of the Comer articles made clear that while the level of im-
plementation may vary from one school site to another, the goal to involve
parents in a variety of ways was the same at each site. This notion occurred
across the other Full-Service School evaluations as well, with the intention of
having parents play different roles often outweighing the actualization. For ex-
ample, General Smallwood Middle School, one of the schools evaluated for the
Eisenhower Grant program, identified three opportunities for parent involve-
ment: volunteering, participating in programs and activities, and awareness of
available opportunities (LFA, 2005a). Each of these fall under the same um-
brella as the two lower tiers of the Comer SDP—increased participation in a
variety of capacities. Despite the fact that parental involvement was highlight-
ed as “an important component of the [Full-Service] vision” (LFA, 2005a, p.
65), with examples of attempts to encourage participation such as the Family
Literacy Center and the Parent Café (LFA, 2005b), all of the Eisenhower eval-
uations reported only minimal parental participation. Similarly, principals and
Community School Coordinators for the KSSN stated that increased “parent
involvement” was not a main priority during the first three years but that the
Initiative planned to focus more attention on fostering more participation in
coming years (PPA, 2009).
In terms of the second type of inclusion—that is, parents as a part of school
decision-making teams—the third tier of the Comer Parent Program dem-
onstrated what this could look like. At this level, parents were members of
the School Planning and Management Team alongside school administrators,
teachers, other staff, and sometimes students. Through their membership on
this team, parents were not only involved in the planning and monitoring of
school activities, but also were given the responsibility to take information
back to the parent organization (Cook et al., 1999; Cook et al., 2000). Mill-
sap and colleagues (2000) described the inclusive, consensus decision-making
model of Comer’s SDP as an important element that “validates parents’ input
into critical school decisions so that parents become more invested in the peda-
gogical aspects of schooling” and involves them in “shaping policy” (pp. 1–2).

148
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

In the same manner, in addition to including representatives from partner

agencies, local businesses, civic organizations, and faith groups, the Linkages
to Learning organization had parents on its Advisory Group (Fox et al., 1999;
Leone & Bartolotta, 2010). The Advisory Group was responsible for several as-
pects of strategic planning, such as site selection and policy development. Only
one set of studies in this model category reported on parent outcomes. Linkages
to Learning researchers reported a greater sense of family cohesion, more con-
sistency in parenting practices, increased consensus within couples about those
practices, decreased rates of depression, and less use of physical punishment
than parents in the control school (Fox et al., 1999). Parents also mentioned
the impact of specific services—namely, parenting and English language classes
and greater access to other social service agencies—as being the most helpful to
their own development and well being (Leone & Bartolotta, 2010).
Engaging Parents: The Full-Service Community Schools Model
Full-Service Community Schools differ from Full-Service Schools by striving
for cultural as well as organizational change. In this model, parents and family
members, as well as community organization members, become valued part-
ners rather than simply recipients of services and are encouraged to take part in
greater decision-making. Implications for changed policies and practices in this
model are clear: democratize schools by opening them up to the community
and by fully engaging parents in decision-making processes.
From our review of the literature on Full-Service Community Schools, we
identified six out of the original seven sets of articles that specifically discussed
the roles of parents and families. Two were conceptual and four empirical.
Both conceptual articles described the process of building and the benefits of
these schools. In a comprehensive handbook, Melaville (2004) laid out the
ways in which the Bridges to Success partnership developed and scaled up Full-
Service Community Schools in Indianapolis (IN) public schools, starting with
six and expanding to 44 between 1993 and 2002. In a report for the Center for
American Progress, Williams (2010) detailed the ways that community schools
can transform the educational landscape of rural schooling.
In the first of the four empirical studies, Abrams and Gibbs (2000) conduct-
ed a qualitative case study of the Washington School Collaborative—a board of
community members, school staff, and parents charged with governing school-
linked service grants and programs. Whalen (2002) presented findings from a
three-year matched comparison study of Chicago public elementary schools.
Interested in the impact of the Full-Service Community School model on stu-
dent achievement and behavior, the evaluation examined both qualitative and
quantitative data: attendance, standardized test scores, surveys of parents and

149
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

teachers, and individual and focus group interviews. Using a cross-sectional, ex

post facto design and correlational analyses, Adams (2010) compared data from
18 schools in the Tulsa (OK) Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) to
18 non-community schools to examine whether there was an achievement dif-
ference, whether diffusion made a difference to achievement, and what social
conditions might contribute to differences in achievement. Lastly, Castrechini
(2011) and Castrechini and London (2012) drew on a range of quantitative
measures to investigate the types of students and families accessing programs
and the relationship between services and student outcomes in five Full-Service
Community Schools in Redwood City, CA, a community south of San Francisco.
In our review of these six articles, we noticed a shift in language that signals
implications for Full-Service Community Schools as they move from serving or
including parents to engaging them. Rather than simply being members of
decision-making teams, parents are seen as key players whose ideas are valued
and who should be equal participants in a shared decision-making process. For
example, in her description of three successful rural Full-Service Community
Schools, Williams (2010) referred to parents being part of the team who “invest
in the school” and used words such as “co-creating” and “owning” for parent
relationships with the school (p. 10). She cautioned against schools reducing
involvement to superficial levels, instead encouraging partnerships to provide
a variety of ways for parents to engage in decision-making. Similarly, Whalen
(2002) suggested recruiting and supporting parents for leadership roles within
school programs.
In terms of recognizing parents as key participants with important and valid
ideas, multiple authors underscored the importance of building relationships,
collective trust, and mutual respect for and with families (Abrams & Gibbs,
2000; Adams, 2010; Castrechini & London, 2012; Melaville, 2004; Williams,
2010). While some authors made these assertions in connection with parents’
roles on decision-making teams (e.g., Melaville, 2004), others connected it to
building social capital (Adams, 2010; Williams, 2010), enhancing student per-
formance (Adams, 2010), or improving school and parent perceptions (Abrams
& Gibbs, 2000). In the study of 18 TACSI schools, for instance, Adams (2010)
found that collective trust of students toward teachers and of teachers toward
students and parents was the most important school condition for student
learning. These trusting relationships were, in fact, stronger predictors of math
and reading achievement than the schools’ SES. To create such trust, schools
needed strong leadership, commitment to shared responsibility, open commu-
nication, and time to build capacity.
These sources also provided concrete examples of how Full-Service Commu-
nity Schools actively engaged parents and families in shared decision-making

150
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

processes. In the Bridges to Success (BTS) model, school site teams were made
up of school staff, families, and community representatives to “set priorities
and take action consistent with the BTS vision and based on the specific needs
of their students, school, and neighborhood” (Melaville, 2004, p. 14). In Tulsa,
TACSI included cross-boundary leadership as a core component, involving “the
civic and business community, the local neighborhood, and different school
role groups (i.e., teachers, support staff, parents, students, administrators)” as
key participants (Adams, 2010, p. 12). In their case study, Abrams and Gibbs
(2000) described how parents participated in electing an official “Washington
School Collaborative”: a board consisting of three community members, three
school staff, and six parents. This board had numerous responsibilities, such
as oversight of service grants, extracurricular and recreation programs, adult
education and parent advocacy, and health referrals. In addition to engaging
parents through education and volunteer opportunities, the Redwood City
community schools (Castrechini, 2011; Castrechini & London, 2012) also in-
cluded parents as leaders on school site councils. Through such engagement,
Full-Service Community Schools sought to cultivate mutual respect and trust,
develop parents’ leadership skills, and expand school and partnership capacity.
Empowering Parents: The Community Development Model
In the Community Development model, schools become not only places of
continuous intellectual growth for both children and adults, not only sites for
extended agencies and social services, but also the places in which parents and
community members gather to discuss and deal with civic matters of mutu-
al interest. Participating in a Community Development initiative can result in
parents and neighbors working together to strengthen social networks, the
physical infrastructure, and the community’s economic viability (Samberg &
Sheeran, 2000).
In our literature search, we found seven sets of sources—three descriptive,
four empirical—on the Community Development model, each of which dis-
cussed the role of the family. One of the descriptive articles, a report from the
Center for Cities and Schools, distilled interviews with civic and educational
leaders and policymakers around the country in order to help them identify
“the mechanisms to tangibly link their work to educational improvement ef-
forts to create cross-sector ‘win-wins,’ increase productivity, and foster social
equity” (McKoy, Vincent, & Bierbaum, 2011, p. 1). Another descriptive article
(Proscio, 2004) provided detailed portraits of successful cases from which the
author derived principles and lessons to guide the development of this model.
Both Dryfoos’s (2005) descriptive article and Warren, Hong, Rubin, and
Uy’s (2009) empirical case study had examples from the same partnership

151
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

initiative (Quitman Street) to illustrate parent involvement efforts. The Warren

et al. article examined two additional cases in order to see how community-
based organizations fostered “parent engagement in schools” (p. 2209). Two
other empirical articles (Gold, Simon, & Brown, 2002; Oppenheim, 1999) are
similarly case-based studies that examined the relationship between commu-
nity and school development and provided details about case selection criteria,
data sources, and data collection and analysis methods. The one quantitative
study, a causal design, compared students who attended Harlem Children’s
Zone’s Promise Academy charter schools in New York City with a matched set
of lottery losers (Dobbie & Fryer, 2009). Collectively, these sources provide
rich detail from over a dozen cases and a broad base of expert judgment about
the challenges and possibilities of a Community Development model.
Findings from these seven sets of sources signal that, in the Community De-
velopment model, parent roles are expanded beyond being served, involved,
and engaged. In addition, Community Development collaboratives seek to em-
power parents and family members. This empowerment primarily occurs by
(1) helping parents, as well as adolescents, develop their leadership skills, and
(2) working to bridge the culture and power gap that typically exists between
family and local community members, on the one hand, and the professional
educators employed in the neighborhood schools on the other.
Leadership development was a theme in all the sources. Authors discussed
the importance of developing leadership within the community (Gold et al.,
2002; McKoy et al., 2011; Warren et al., 2009) and helping communities be-
come more self-reliant through this leadership development (Oppenheim,
1999). In their theory of change, Gold and colleagues (2002) viewed lead-
ership development as one of three essential components of a community’s
capacity to effect school reform. Warren and colleagues (2009) also found that
leadership development was a core practice through which community-based
organizations (CBOs) successfully engaged parents in school reform and com-
munity development efforts.
Although the articles do not provide a blueprint for leadership development,
they do offer descriptive cases as guides. In their study of the Harlem Children’s
Zone (HCZ), Dobbie and Fryer (2009) described the Harlem Gems, an in-
tensive preschool program that strongly encourages parents to volunteer and
become more involved in their child’s education. HCZ regularly prepares and
hires members of the community to be part of its leadership team (see, as an
example, Betts, 2013).
Other authors similarly provided examples of parent leader programs, vol-
unteer and paid positions within classrooms and the community that develop
leadership skills, and opportunities that enable parents to develop a sense of

152
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

efficacy (Gold et al., 2002; Warren et al., 2009). Describing the leadership role
of parents as advocates in one project, Proscio (2004) wrote,
It’s not uncommon for advocates to provide referrals for job training,
debt management, addiction counseling, or other social services, to
make parents aware of community events or local issues, and to follow
up afterward to see whether needs are being addressed….[T]he advo-
cates come from the neighborhood and see themselves in the families
[they work with]. (p. 15)
Participation in setting a shared vision for the collaborative is another
means by which parent leadership is developed and acknowledged. McKoy
et al. (2011) argued the necessity of establishing a shared vision and perfor-
mance metrics through a robust, collaborative process that would “inspire all
stakeholders—elected leaders to district and city staff members, parents, and
students—to hold, carry, and advocate for the articulated vision” (p. 25). In the
Community Development model, parents and family members are not outsiders
but rather key members of the committees that set the vision and participate
in the “collective ownership” of the organization (Oppenheim, 1999, p. 153).
The second, and closely related, parent role theme in this set of articles is
the emphasis on overcoming the power gap between family/community mem-
bers and school-based educators/service providers. Stressing the importance of
relationship building, Warren and colleagues (2009) presented three cases in
which a focus on parent collective bonding helped the groups become power-
ful actors within the school. At the Quitman Street Community School, for
example, parents confer and work with teachers and school and agency support
workers “to ensure that every child can function well within the school system”
(Dryfoos, 2005, p. 10).
Warren et al. (2009) found in their study of this same case (Quitman) that
parent leaders helped bridge the culture and power gap between school educa-
tors and the broader population of parents:
As teachers get to know parent leaders, they can develop a better under-
standing of family culture and a concrete sense of how parents can be as-
sets to, not problems for, the school. Meanwhile, parents can use parent
leaders, with whom they feel comfortable in their common identity as
lay people, as go-betweens to facilitate relationships with professionally
oriented teachers. (p. 2240)
In their theory of change, Gold and colleagues (2002) similarly highlight com-
munity power as an essential component of a community’s capacity to reform
schools.

153
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Commenting on the common inequitable distribution of power between

family and community organizations and the bureaucracy of large school sys-
tems, several authors provided compelling cases of successful collaborations in
which partners worked through power struggles, built trust, and arrived at a
common agenda. In his analysis of the Community Development model in the
Vaughn Family Center and Pacoima Urban Village, for example, Oppenheim
(1999) credited family and community members as being “the primary agents
in a process of transformation” (p. 137). Empowered as co-equal leaders, these
family and community members increasingly became more self-reliant. As
Gold et al. (2002) explained in their theory of change, leadership develop-
ment is inherently empowering. The new roles that parents and community
members take on enable them to hone their leadership skills, represent the
community at public functions, and negotiate with those in power.

Discussion

This paper furthers theoretical and practical understandings of types and

dimensions of school–community partnerships, especially providing implica-
tions for school–family relationships. Too often, work in this genre is grouped
together under generic headings of “partnerships” or “full-service schools.”
Our more carefully delineated analysis allowed us to determine how and why
school–family relationships might differ across varying models. Key to part-
nership building is clarifying power-sharing boundaries and responsibilities as
well as recognizing that more comprehensive forms of partnership require a
radical transformation of traditional school structures and norms. Although
the research on these four models does not prescribe the role of the family in
these partnerships, it does provide guidelines, successful cases, and problems
to avoid. One problem is the limitation placed on families, whose role is often
conceived or enacted in superficial and condescending ways.
Through this review, we found that the roles of parents and families in
school–community partnerships evolved along a continuum from being served
to being empowered, with involvement and engagement falling in the middle—
rather than acting as either/or endpoints. Generally speaking, this evolution
occurred alongside an increasing complexity in terms of each model’s purpose
and requirements. As noted above, however, we would argue that this con-
tinuum only documents examples of what currently exists, not prescriptions
for how to incorporate families or recommendations for what organizations at
each level are expected to do. In fact, the limited number of examples across all
four categories suggests the need and potential for partnerships to focus more
explicitly on the inclusion of parents and families.

154
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

There was some evidence of that realization within the various models. For
example, as part of the Iowa School-Based Youth Services Program—a pro-
gram we categorized as a Family and Interagency Collaboration based on its
scope and requirements for change—there is an advisory council that “must
include…parents of children in the youth service program or school district”
(Walker & Hackmann, 1999, p. 33). Similarly, the School Planning and Man-
agement and Parent Teams in Comer’s School Development Program seem to
not only include parents, as described for the Full-Service School model, but
also to underscore the importance of parents as key contributors, in a way that
is more consistent with the practices of organizations in the Full-Service Com-
munity School model. In these two programs, the role of parents and families
moved toward engagement, highlighting the fluid continuum of family in-
volvement in the partnership models.
But as these and other examples demonstrate, the shift from families as
“clients” to full “partners” is challenging. As Keith (1999) found, “Building
alternative mediating institutions that are truly democratic” means “intensive
personal interaction, including one-on-one meetings; a strategy of social action
that understands the importance of conflict properly addressed; and a long-
term commitment to broad-based community empowerment” (p. 232). To
meet these challenges, those interested in fostering lasting partnerships should
focus on relationship building, bridging culture and power gaps, and cultivat-
ing leadership among parents. These occur by partnering with groups that have
community roots, credibility, and the capacity to bring in a large, diverse part of
the community. It generally means working with and cultivating a core group
of family members who represent and advocate for their broader constituency.
While we have descriptions and nascent theories on which to draw, we do
not yet have a comprehensive picture of how family roles play out in school–
community partnerships. Our review of the partnership literature indicates that
the two terms used in most of the literature—parental involvement and engage-
ment—do not adequately depict the full range of roles. More often than not,
whether by intent or organizational inertia, the role remains one of passive cli-
ent. Although efforts to transform schools into more inclusive, democratic,
community spaces might seem too difficult for the benefits derived, the research
suggests otherwise. A significant consequence of efforts to cultivate strong, trust-
ing relationships with families is the positive impact on student outcomes (e.g.,
Adams, 2010; Castrechini, 2011). This finding is consistent with the underly-
ing theory of action for school–community partnerships: that schools should
not operate as entities separate from the family and community contexts and
that certain goals (e.g., academic achievement) are best achieved through col-
laborative action and support (Epstein, 1995; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013).

155
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Conclusion

Through this comparative analysis of the four partnership models, we sought

not only to provide a clearer picture of the possibility of expanded family roles,
but also to offer examples for schools and organizations searching for ways
to create more inclusive and collaborative family–school–community partner-
ships. As depicted in Figure 1, the implications for partnership policies and
practices differ across the four types. At the first level, partnerships must strive
to increase family access to resources and build trusting relationships through
open communication. More complex and comprehensive forms of partner-
ships must build on this foundation by first increasing ways in which family
members can meaningfully participate in school–community partnerships and
have a voice in decision-making, then by supporting leadership development
and bridging the traditional power gap that too often exists between public
institutions and families, especially those who live in high-poverty neighbor-
hoods. Although establishing more meaningful roles for families requires time
and resources, the literature we reviewed indicates that the rewards for stu-
dents, families, and schools are well worth the investment.

References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2000). Planning for school change: School–community collabo-
ration in a full-service elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79–103.
Adams, C. (2010). The community school effect: Evidence from an evaluation of the Tulsa Area
Community School Initiative. Oklahoma City, OK: University of Oklahoma, The Okla-
homa Center for Educational Policy.
Banerjee, M., Harrell, Z. A. T., & Johnson, D. J. (2011). Racial ⁄ethnic socialization and paren-
tal involvement in education as predictors of cognitive ability and achievement in African
American children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 595–605.
Betts, S. (2013). From teen participant to program director: “This is more than a job.” Building
the Future: For our kids, our community, and our country. 2012–2013 Biennial Report. New
York, NY: Harlem Children’s Zone.
Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in
community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the disserta-
tion literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and de-
sign. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Castrechini, S. (2011). Service synergy: Examining the cumulative effects of community school
services. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their
Communities.

156
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Castrechini, S., & London, R. A. (2012). Positive student outcomes in community schools. Re-
trieved from the Center for American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/education/report/2012/02/22/11098/positive-student-outcomes-in-community-
schools/
Cohen, M. (2005). Reconsidering schools and the American welfare state. History of Education
Quarterly, 45, 511–537.
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds.). (1996). Rallying the whole
village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Communities in Schools (CIS). (2010). CIS national evaluation: Five year summary report.
Retrieved from https://www.communitiesinschools.org/about/publications/publication/
five-year-national-evaluation-summary-report
Cook, T. D., Habib, F. N., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S.
M. (1999). Comer’s school development program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A
theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543–597.
Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s School Development Program
in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2),
535–597.
Dewey, J. (1902, October). The school as social centre. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2),
73–86.
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2009). Are high quality schools enough to close the achievement
gap? Evidence from a social experiment in Harlem (Working Paper No. 15473). Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children,
youth, and families (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dryfoos, J. (2005). Full-service community schools: A strategy—not a problem. New Direc-
tions for Youth Development, 107, 7–14.
Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership effects of district
and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involve-
ment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495.
Farkas, M. S., & Grolnick, W. S. (2010). Examining the components and concomitants of
parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 266–279.
Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or engagement? Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10–14.
Fox, N., Leone, P., Rubin, K., Oppenheim, J., Miller, M., & Friedman, K. (1999). Final report
on the Linkages to Learning Program and evaluation at Broad Acres Elementary School. Col-
lege Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Special Education.
Gold, E., Simon, E., & Brown, C. (2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools: The indica-
tors project on education organizing. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School
Reform.
Gordon, I. J. (1977). Parent education and parent involvement: Retrospect and prospect.
Childhood Education, 54, 71–79.
Harris, M. M., & Hoover, J. H. (2003). Overcoming adversity through community schools.
Reclaiming Children & Youth, 11, 206–210.
Harvard Family Research Project. (2014, May). Redefining family engagement for student suc-
cess. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/rede-
fining-family-engagement-for-student-success

157
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Haynes, N. M., & Comer, J. P. (1996). Integrating schools, families, and communities
through successful school reform: The school development program. School Psychology Re-
view, 25(4), 501–506.
Head Start. (2014). Family engagement as parent involvement 2.0. Retrieved from http://eclkc.
ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/family/center/familyengparin.htm
Henderson, A. T. (2011). Family–school–community partnerships 2.0: Collaborative strategies
to advance student learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved
from http://www.adlit.org/researchbytopic/47300/
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family–school partnerships. New York, NY: The New Press.
Ishimaru, A. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district–com-
munity collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216.
Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty, and the underclass. Boston, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
Keith, N. Z. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory Into
Practice, 38(4), 225–234.
Krenichyn, K., Clark, H., & Benitez, L. (2008). Children’s Aid Society 21st Century Community
Learning Centers after-school programs at six middle schools: Final report of a three-year evalu-
ation, 2004–2007. New York, NY: ActKnowledge.
LaFrance Associates (LFA). (2005a). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community
schools model in Maryland: General Smallwood Middle School. San Francisco, CA: The Mil-
ton S. Eisenhower Foundation.
LaFrance Associates (LFA). (2005b). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community
schools model in Washington: Showalter Middle School. San Francisco, CA: The Milton S.
Eisenhower Foundation.
LaFrance Associates (LFA). (2006). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community
schools model in Iowa: Harding Middle School and Moulton Extended Learning Center. San
Francisco, CA: The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation.
Leone, P. E., & Bartolotta, R. (2010). Community and interagency partnerships. In R. Algoz-
zine, A. P. Daunic, & S. W. Smith (Eds.), Preventing problem behaviors: Schoolwide programs
and classroom practices (2nd ed., pp. 167–180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework
for family–school partnerships. Austin, TX: SEDL & U.S. Department of Education. Re-
trieved from http://www2.ed.gov/documents/family-community/partners-education.pdf
McKoy, D., Vincent, J. M., & Bierbaum, A. H. (2011). Opportunity-rich schools and sustain-
able communities: Seven steps to align high-quality education with innovations in city and
metropolitan planning and development. Berkeley, CA: Center for Cities & Schools.
McNeal, R. B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behav-
ioural outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 171–179.
Melaville, A. (1998). Learning together: The developing field of school–community initiatives.
Flint, MI: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.communi-
tyschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/melaville_learning_together.pdf
Melaville, A. (2004). Doing what matters. Bridges to Success strategy for building community
schools. Indianapolis, IN: Bridges to Success, United Way of Central Indiana.

158
 SCHOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Millsap, M., Chase, A., Obeidallah, D., Perez-Smith, A., Brigham, N., Johnston, K.,…Hunt,
D. (2000). Evaluation of Detroit’s Comer schools and families initiative. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for
the review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 17(Art. 56), 1–28. Retrieved from http://
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/onwuegbuzie.pdf
Oppenheim, M. (1999). The critical place of community development in school transforma-
tion: The story of the Vaughn Family Center and Pacoima Urban Village. Teacher Educa-
tion Quarterly, 25(4), 135–157.
Price-Mitchell, M. (2009). Boundary dynamics: Implications for building parent–school part-
nerships. School Community Journal, 19(2), 9–26. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcom-
munitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Proscio, T. (2004). Schools, community, and development: Erasing the boundaries. Columbia,
MD: The Enterprise Foundation.
Public Policy Associates (PPA). (2009). Evaluation of the Kent School Services Network Initia-
tive: Final report. Lansing, MI: Author.
Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C., with co-researchers from Princess Alexandra Community
School.  (2005, November). Parent engagement and leadership (Research report, project
#134). Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into
Teaching.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the
Black–White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Samberg, L., & Sheeran, M. (2000). Community school models. Washington, DC: Coalition
for Community Schools.
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal lead-
ership for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368.
Sedlak, M. W., & Schlossman, S. (1985). The public school and social services: Reassessing the
progressive legacy. Educational Theory, 35, 371–83.
Stallings, J. (1995). Ensuring teaching and learning in the 21st century. Educational Researcher,
24(6), 4–8.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyack, D. (1992). Health and social services in public schools: Historical perspectives. The
Future of Children: School-Linked Services, 2(1), 19–31.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012, April 20). Applications for new awards; Promise Neigh-
borhoods program—planning grant competition. Federal Register, 77(77), 23690–23704.
Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2013, April). School–community partnerships: Typolo-
gizing the research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2014). Typologizing school–community partnerships:
A framework for analysis and action. Urban Education, 2, 19–31.
Walker, J. D., & Hackmann, D. G. (1999). Full-service schools: Forming alliances to meet the
needs of students and families. NASSP Bulletin, 83(611), 28–37.
Walsh, M. E., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Foley, C., An, C.,…Beaton, A.
(2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: Ef-
fects on elementary and middle school academic outcomes. American Educational Research
Journal, 51(4), 704–737.
Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.

159
SCHOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based
relational approach to parent engagement in schools. The Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2209–2254.
Weiss, A. R., & Siddall, A. J. (2012). Schools at the hub: Community partnerships in the Boston
Public Schools. Brookline, MA: Mendelsohn, Gittleman, & Associates
Weiss, H. B., & Stephen, N. (2009). From periphery to center: A new vision for family,
school, and community partnerships. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Hand-
book of school–family partnerships (pp. 448–472). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved
from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/from-periphery-to-
center-a-new-vision-for-family-school-and-community-partnerships
Whalen, S. P. (2002, April). Report of the evaluation of the Polk Bros. Foundation’s Full Service
Schools Initiative: Executive summary. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall
Center for Children.
Wilson, W. J. (1999). The bridge over the racial divide: Rising inequality and coalition politics.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Williams, D. T. (2010). The rural solution: How community schools can reinvigorate rural educa-
tion. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Amanda Stefanski is an assistant professor of special education at Columbia

College in Columbia, South Carolina. Drawing on her schooling and Nation-
al Board Certification in special education as well as 10 years teaching and
working in special education across a variety of settings, her research inter-
ests include the preparation of general education teachers for students with
disabilities, inclusive education, and school–community partnerships. Cor-
respondence concerning this article may be addressed to Amanda Stefanski,
1301 Columbia College Drive, AP 109A, Columbia, SC 29203, or email
astefanski@columbiasc.edu
Linda Valli is professor emerita in the Department of Teaching and Learn-
ing, Policy, and Leadership at the University of Maryland. Her research
interests include learning to teach, culturally responsive teaching, and school–
community partnerships. She has had extensive experience with research and
development grants, most recently as an evaluator for Promise Neighborhood,
21st Century, and i3 grants.
Reuben Jacobson is the deputy director for the Institute for Educational
Leadership’s Coalition for Community Schools. Prior to joining IEL, Dr. Ja-
cobson worked at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, DC
as a research analyst in education. In addition, he spent two tremendously
challenging and wonderful years teaching fifth and sixth grade students in
DC Public Schools as a DC Teaching Fellow.  His research interests include
school–community partnerships, comprehensive school reform, and the social
contexts of education.

160