Training School Professionals to Engage Families: A Pilot University

e School Community Journal, 2010, Vol. 20, No. 2

Training School Professionals to Engage

Families: A Pilot University/State Department of

Education Partnership

Susan M. Bartels and Karen G. Eskow

Abstract

Federal and professional mandates call for increased family involvement in

education, yet most teacher preparation programs do not teach skills necessary

to engage families in a thorough or systematic manner. e current project ad-

dressed this training deﬁcit by oﬀering a program that included a sequence of

three graduate courses to a cohort of school professionals in a high-need school

district. Courses were taught at a school within that district and included proj-

ects designed to address the needs of the community in which the participants

were employed. Qualitative analysis suggests that following completion of

the courses, school professionals enhanced their ability to engage families and

experienced positive changes in attitude toward family–professional collabora-

tion. Importantly, participants were able to articulate speciﬁc ways in which

they planned to utilize new skills in the school setting. A unique aspect of this

study was investigation of continued use of new knowledge and skills and im-

plementation of action plans six months post-training.

Key words: family, collaboration, professionals, development, involvement,

schools, engagement, families, university, partnerships, education, courses

Introduction

Survey data collected from the 1980s through the present suggest that, in

spite of federal and professional organization mandates calling for increased

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

family involvement in education, teacher preparation programs have not been

able to incorporate more than minimal attention to this critical area into an al-

ready ambitious curricula (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Hiatt-Michael, 2006). In

a comprehensive overview of current practices related to teacher preparation,

Hiatt-Michael (2006) states that “(t)he major emphasis in teacher preparation

programs is on the technical aspects of professional performance, not the deep-

ly interpersonal aspects of their work” (p. 12). Yet knowledge about families

and how to work eﬀectively with them is not inherent; one does not become

an expert in facilitating family–professional collaboration merely because one

has been part of a family. Professionals who work with families need to be fa-

miliar with the empirical knowledge underlying the collaborative process and,

with guidance, directly apply this knowledge base in authentic situations. is

paper describes a pilot university/state department of education partnership

designed to improve school-based professionals’ skills in and attitudes toward

collaboration with families. e project relied on both direct instruction and

ﬁeld experiences that explored and addressed the needs of participants’ school

communities.

e most recent exploration of the extent to which teacher preparation

programs address family involvement was conducted by Epstein and Sanders

(2006) who collected survey data from administrators in 161 teacher educa-

tion programs. While the purpose of the survey was broad, most relevant to the

current project was data obtained on the nature and extent of coursework that

addressed family involvement. Results were encouraging. Approximately 60%

of institutions responding to the survey reported oﬀering an entire course relat-

ed to family involvement, with about two-thirds of those institutions reporting

that the course was required, not optional. Over 90% reported that family in-

volvement was covered as a topic in at least one course. Individuals enrolled in

programs emphasizing early childhood and special education were most likely

to report the availability of coursework related to family engagement.

In spite of this positive trend, Epstein and Sanders (2006) report that “most

[school, college, and department of education] leaders reported that their re-

cent graduates were not well prepared to conduct programs and practices of

school, family, and community partnerships” (p. 95). is is consistent with

survey data collected as part of Harvard’s Education Schools Project (Levine,

2006). Levine evaluated perceptions of principals, college deans and faculty,

and teacher education program alumni regarding the degree to which they felt

teachers were adequately trained in 11 “key” areas. In regard to “the capac-

ity to work with parents,” only 21% of principals reported that teachers are

“very well” or “moderately well” prepared, and only 43% of alumni felt at least

“moderately well prepared.”

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

Given that family involvement has been credited with enhancing school

success (Barnard, 2004; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005) and that school-based

administrators recognize the minimal preparation of their teachers in this

fundamental area, one might expect school systems to provide training not

obtained at a preservice level. Unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest that

“on-the-job” training in family–professional collaboration is not occurring to

any great extent. Using survey data from 5,253 public school educators from

across the United States, Parsad, Lewis, and Farris (2000) explored the content

of formal professional development available for teachers. Results indicated

that approximately 75% of teachers had participated in professional develop-

ment focused on implementing state or district curricula, using technology

and other new methodologies, and studying their content areas in depth. In

contrast, less than half of the teachers surveyed indicated that they had received

professional development training in the area of fostering family involvement.

Howland, Anderson, Smiley, and Abbott (2006) attempted to address the

lack of concerted eﬀorts by school systems to engage families by creating a

school liaison program in the Indianapolis (Indiana) Public Schools System.

e program utilized two family liaisons trained to support family members

so that they might become more engaged in their children’s education. School

personnel were asked to refer families to regional special education supervisors,

who in turn made referrals to the appropriate school liaison. Liaisons then

made personal contact with families to explain and oﬀer direct and indirect

services. Preliminary outcome data was collected one year after project initia-

tion via focus groups conducted with 19 participants from the 150 families

who received support through the School Liaison project. Data indicated that

parents reported an increased sense of self-eﬃcacy and acknowledgment of the

need for involvement in their child’s education and shared their appreciation

of the support provided by liaisons. e authors suggested that the success of

the two family liaisons lay in their “previous life experiences and backgrounds

similar to the families they served in terms of SES and urban community

engagement” (p. 63). While this is consistent with literature describing the

formation of eﬀective working relationships, it is not always possible to ensure

that school-based personnel will share characteristics with the families of their

students (e.g., having a child of their own receiving special education services

or sharing cultural identiﬁcation). In fact, it is incumbent upon school systems

to train personnel to collaborate eﬀectively in spite of diﬀerences.

e lack of training in collaboration is signiﬁcant given the powerful role

of educators in creating climates that foster family involvement (Dauber &

Epstein, 1993). Among a sample of over 2,000 families of elementary and

middle school students living in economically disadvantaged areas, Dauber

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

and Epstein found that “the strongest and most consistent predictor of par-

ent involvement at school and at home are the speciﬁc school programs and

teacher practices that encourage and guide parent involvement” (p. 61). In

their investigation of school system policies and programs related to family in-

volvement, Kessler-Sklar and Baker (2000) conceptualized involvement across

six dimensions, including the degree to which teachers were trained to work

with families. Based on survey data from 196 superintendents across the Unit-

ed States, Kessler-Sklar and Baker found that, of the six dimensions of family

involvement activities, superintendents were least likely to report that their sys-

tems oﬀered speciﬁc programs to train teachers to work with parents (38.7%).

While the authors acknowledge that their questionnaire provided “little infor-

mation…on the nature of the training programs for teachers” (p. 115), of those

who did oﬀer training, the vast majority (67.9%) oﬀered in-service training by

school staﬀ. Oﬀ-site training and in-service provided by specialists were oﬀered

by only 3.6% and 7.1%, respectively.

While one might be encouraged that close to 40% of superintendents report-

ed providing in-service activities that address working with parents, traditional

in-service training may have minimal impact on changing skills, attitudes, and

behaviors of participants. In fact, surveys of teachers regarding traditional in-

service workshops suggest that such workshops are ineﬀective (Barnett, 2004)

and that teachers “tend to forget 90% of what they learn” (Miller, 1998, as cit-

ed in Sandholtz, 2002, p. 815). Traditional in-service workshops are typically

oﬀered within a single session or day, consist of didactic lecture, and demand

little more from the participants than passive attention. In contrast, profession-

al development that leads to improved practices is more likely to be based on

theories of adult learning (Lawler, 2003). Characteristics of training provided

to adults generally posited as eﬀective include opportunities to collaborate with

colleagues, meaningful practice, recognition of participants’ expertise, and self-

reﬂection (Sandholtz, 2002).

e Current Pilot Project

Overview

In an eﬀort to enhance school-based professionals’ attitudes toward and

skills in family–professional collaboration, a sequence of three graduate cours-

es were oﬀered in a high-need school system. For the purpose of this study,

the term “high-need school system” meant schools that, based on data for the

time period during which the study was conducted, had more than 25% of

students who met eligibility for the federal free or reduced price school lunch

program. In those schools in which our participants were employed, the mean

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch was 33%. However,

this was skewed as one of the 11 schools had a very low rate of 12%, while the

mean percentage for the remaining 10 schools was 54%. School-based profes-

sionals included classroom teachers, special educators, school administrators,

and related service providers (e.g., physical therapists, school counselors,

school nurses). e intention was to oﬀer eﬀective training consistent with best

practices in adult education. Four speciﬁc project goals were to: (1) improve

participants’ attitude toward family–professional collaboration, (2) foster par-

ticipants’ acquisition of new knowledge and skills, (3) enhance participants’

intention to apply new knowledge or skills in the work setting, and (4) transfer

learning from the training room to the work setting.

us, the pilot project consisted of a sequence of three graduate courses

oﬀered over one academic year to a cohort of school-based professionals who

worked at six schools in a high-need school district in suburban Maryland. All

three courses were taught at a school within that system and included projects

and activities designed to address the needs of the community in which the par-

ticipants were employed. Courses were taught by university faculty and, when

feasible, were co-taught with school-based professionals. An additional value

of the project was the interdisciplinary backgrounds of project participants, al-

lowing them to enhance interprofessional collaboration skills concurrent with

the development of family–professional collaboration skills.

e graduate coursework that constituted the project had at its founda-

tion the concept that professionals must listen to and understand families as

a prerequisite to engaging them in their children’s education. Engagement

was deﬁned broadly, as a narrow deﬁnition might actually interfere with rec-

ognizing engagement when it occurs (Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006). For

example, traditional family involvement activities that require attendance at

school functions might be unavailable to family members who lack transporta-

tion, childcare, or the ability to take time oﬀ from a job. ese parents might

be considered no less “involved” if the deﬁnition of involvement included

talking about school at home and having high expectations for educational

attainment. An equally important premise of the pilot project was that skills

attained via professional development were more likely to be transferred to

the work setting if the training extended beyond the classroom and into the

actual environments in which the skills were to be used. Finally, the use of a

three-course sequence of graduate courses is consistent with results from Garet,

Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon’s (2001) exploration of factors that en-

hance professional development training. Based on their large-scale study, one

signiﬁcant factor that emerged was that “sustained and intensive professional

development is more likely to have an impact, as reported by teachers, than is

shorter professional development” (p. 937).

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

Description of Professional Development Coursework

e three graduate courses that comprised the professional development

training were oﬀered across one academic year and are described brieﬂy in Ta-

ble 1. Courses were developmental in nature. Content that was introduced in

the ﬁrst course was revisited in the next two courses at deeper levels and with

more opportunities for authentic application. Within each course, there was

attention given to both theory and skill development consistent with empirical

evidence that grounding skill development in theory fosters more eﬀective ap-

plication in real-life situations than teaching skills alone (Brazil, Ozer, Cloutier,

Levine, & Stryer, 2005). Implementing interventions without understanding

theory may allow school-based professionals to apply solutions to problems

that resemble those in the training session, but not to modify solutions in novel

situations or when confronting varying contextual variables. It was the proj-

ect developers’ intention to increase the ability of school-based practitioners to

apply skills with sensitivity to the particular situation in which they were at-

tempting to improve relationships with and engage families.

Table 1. Description of Courses Comprising the Professional Development

Coursework

Course Description

Applied Family

Relationships

(3 credits)

Applied Family Relationships introduces the student to theories

of family development and function. Students explore diver-

sity and relationship dynamics through analysis of their family

stories. ey utilize foundational communication skills and

empirical-based tools and techniques to understand eﬀective

family processes.

Family–

Professional

Collaboration

(3 credits)

Family-Professional Collaboration moves the student beyond

understanding and applying family-based theories to a focus on

the development of collaborative relationships with school-

aﬃliated families and other school personnel. Students learn

and practice advanced communication including conﬂict resolu-

tion, problem solving, and reframing techniques in the class-

room and in the ﬁeld. ey work with colleagues to interview

families about their life experiences and worldviews.

Project in

Family-Focused

Program

Development

(3 credits)

Project in Family-Focused Program Development takes the stu-

dent to the next level of involvement: the community. Students

use action research and focus group methods to understand the

perspectives of families and professionals in a particular school

or community setting. is information is used to develop in-

terventions to enhance family

–professional relationships.

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

eoretical topics addressed in the graduate coursework included: under-

standing family systems and complex family relationships, exploring family

strengths and resiliency, and developing understanding of and sensitivity to

issues of diversity. ese topics were addressed initially in the ﬁrst course, Ap-

plied Family Relationships. is course emphasized understanding family

diversity and culture, as well as context, as a foundation for understanding a

family’s story. When families feel that their values, culture, and eﬀorts in re-

gard to parenting are respected, collaboration is more likely to occur (Minke,

2000). Barriers to eﬀective collaboration are created when families perceive

that school-based professionals have an overly negative view of their family’s

functioning or fail to identify the child’s strengths when addressing problems

(Lake & Billingsley, 2000).

Participants were also taught to identify their own potential biases toward

collaboration as a prerequisite for eﬀective relationship-building. School-based

professionals may be prone to adopt their school’s norms for collaboration; if

individuals within schools view collaboration as a burden, teachers may in-

advertently act toward parents in a manner that leads parents to avoid future

interactions. Teachers may then be reinforced in their belief that collaboration

is diﬃcult and unrewarding. However, this cycle may be broken when educa-

tors become aware of how their own attitudes and behaviors may enhance or

serve as barriers to collaboration (Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Souto-Manning

& Swick, 2006).

Speciﬁc skills addressed in the coursework included communicating at ba-

sic and advanced levels, conducting ethnographic interviews and focus groups,

and planning action research. Development of these competencies was facil-

itated through didactic instruction, in-class practice using videotaping and

corrective feedback, ﬁeld experiences, and action research.

While strong communication skills do not ensure collaboration, their ab-

sence will likely be an impediment. Eﬀective communication requires one to

be both an eﬀective listener and speaker. us, coursework addressed basic

skills such as reﬂecting feelings, summarizing content, paraphrasing, devel-

oping appropriate questions, active listening, and integrating nonverbal and

verbal messages. ese constitute the underpinnings of successful collaborative

relationships as described by most authors (Blue-Banning, Summers, Frank-

land, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2006). In many instances, even

excellent communication skills are insuﬃcient to navigate the complex path to

successful collaboration. Consequently, more advanced skills were introduced.

ese included: conﬂict management, reframing, systematic problem solving,

and ethnographic interviewing.

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

Consistent with literature describing best practices in pedagogy (Joyce &

Showers, 1980), participants practiced skills in both simulated and authentic

situations and were provided with guidance and corrective feedback. Project

participants learned and practiced basic interviewing through a carefully de-

signed training sequence that occurred over the course of the project. ey

ﬁrst interviewed one another to explore personal family stories and then inter-

viewed a panel consisting of family members from their schools. Participants

subsequently interviewed individual families and conducted focus groups com-

posed of professionals and families from their school communities.

e family member panel was noteworthy as it provided a model for in-

corporating authentic family engagement into project participants’ skill

development. Project participants developed questions to facilitate discussion

regarding families’ perspectives on their experiences advocating for their chil-

dren with special needs while coping with complex school system policies and

procedures. Questions were prepared, critiqued, and revised in class based on

principles of ethnographic interviewing (Westby, Burda, & Mehta, 2003).

ree parents from the project participants’ school community were then in-

vited to attend a class meeting where project participants asked questions and

practiced listening skills while panel members responded. Sample questions

are listed in Table 2. e panel interview was videotaped so that project par-

ticipants could later critique their own communication skills, as well as listen

for and identify themes regarding parents’ views of collaborating with school-

based professionals. e expectation was that these in-class experiences would

prepare participants for ﬁeldwork that occurred at the end of the second course

and that constituted the major component of the third course.

Table 2. Family Member Panel: Sample Questions

Questions Developed by Project Participants

Describe a typical day with (child’s name).

Please give an example of the most regarding and most challenging aspects of

raising (child’s name).

Describe your initial experiences working with a school team.

What suggestions do you have for school teams in terms of improving interactions

with family members?

If you had to advise a parent who is in the initial stages of the special education

process, what would you tell the parent?

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

During the second course, Family–Professional Collaboration, participants

worked in pairs or groups of three to conduct an ethnographic interview with a

family from their own school community. e purpose was to practice framing

questions to foster understanding of a family’s story and to facilitate fami-

ly engagement. e complete process included identifying a family from the

community to interview, formulating appropriate questions, conducting the

interview, analyzing interview data, and presenting what they learned through

ethnographic interviewing to the class. e rubric used to grade the ethno-

graphic interview is presented in Table 3 and provides detailed expectations for

project participants.

Table 3. Grading Rubric for Ethnographic Interview

Requirement Criteria

Description of family

e description should include why this family was

selected for interview and family demographics, but

should not compromise the family’s privacy.

Description of the speciﬁc

steps from initial prepara-

tion through conducting

the interview

is should include planning questions for the

interview, contacting the family, determining your

roles, and detailed description of procedures used to

collect interview information.

Copy of release form

is release form must have signatures of interview

participant(s).

List of questions is includes both initial and follow-up questions.

Description of observa-

tions made during the

interview process

is includes observations of both the interviewee

and interviewer(s). A strong response includes at-

tention to why a particular behavior may have been

noted.

Summary and analysis of

information

is includes your analysis of information obtained

from the interviews, during both formal and infor-

mal interactions, including the major themes and

support for the themes. A strong response integrates

data from observations and responses to interview

questions.

Observations about the

process of arranging for,

conducting, and analyzing

the interview

is includes your perceptions, as a group, about

what worked, what didn’t work, and what you might

do diﬀerently next time.

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

During the third course, Project in Community Program Development,

participants worked in pairs to conduct focus groups exploring perceptions

of school faculty, related service providers, and families within their particular

school in regard to building family–professional relationships. ey analyzed

focus group data to arrive at an understanding of factors that enhanced or im-

peded family involvement within that school. Participants shared this analysis

with all stakeholders, including the school administration, and proposed ac-

tion plans to address concerns that emerged during the focus groups. Examples

of action plans are discussed below and summarized in Table 5. Following

completion of the Professional Development Coursework, project participants

were given the opportunity to implement action plans as an independent study

under one of the project developers.

Method

Researchers and Participants

e ﬁrst listed author (Note: authors are equal partners in this work, thus

they are referred to in the order listed rather than as ﬁrst and second author)

previously worked as a school psychologist in a public school system for 17

years before becoming a university professor. It was through her work on

school teams that she initially became interested in the eﬀect that school pro-

fessionals have on family members’ willingness and ability to be involved in

their children’s education. e second listed author is a licensed counselor and

professor. Her background includes direct service working with and under-

standing families. rough her work as an occupational therapist and certiﬁed

professional counselor she became interested in family quality of life and the

importance of family–professional relationships. e authors’ professional and

personal experiences and interests brought them together and became a focus

of their collaborative relationship. ey developed a university program that

prepares graduate students and professionals from various ﬁelds to collaborate

with families and with one other. e co-authors received a state department of

education grant to oﬀer the graduate program in selected counties in the state.

is article presents outcomes from the ﬁrst year of the state-funded project.

e ﬁrst listed author taught one of the three courses and prepared program

evaluation materials. e second listed author taught two of the courses. Both

authors participated in data analysis. ey met regularly to discuss themes and

the overall process. ey shared the belief that strong family-professional re-

lationships are essential for a child’s progress in school and overall well-being.

ey both also believed that the courses taught as part of the graduate program

they developed would change attitudes and practices of professionals as they

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

attempted to engage families. To counter any potential positive biases they

worked closely with two diﬀerent qualitative research consultants when design-

ing the program evaluation and analyzing data.

e pilot project was initiated in a suburban school district in Maryland

with support by a grant from the Maryland State Department of Education.

e district educates a diverse population of approximately 106,000 students,

of which 52.3% are White, 39.3% are Black, 4.7% are Asian/Paciﬁc Islander,

3.3% are Hispanic, and .6% are American Indian/Alaska Native. Approxi-

mately 2% are English Language Learners, and 13% have been identiﬁed with

educational disabilities. One third of the student population is considered eco-

nomically disadvantaged.

School-based professionals learned of the opportunity to participate in the

project from a ﬂier that was distributed through the professional development

oﬃce in their school systems. An eﬀort was made to recruit participants who

represented diﬀerent professions within the school and to obtain at least two

individuals from each school. is latter aim was based on the contention of

Garet et al. (2001) that when several teachers from the same school engage in

training experiences together, new practices are more likely to be sustained

than when training is provided to a single individual from a school. All in-

dividuals who applied to participate were selected, thus forming a sample of

convenience. Course fees were paid by the local school system consistent with

established policies for professional development. Fifteen participants complet-

ed the ﬁrst course (FMST 601), 12 completed the second course (FMST 610),

and 11 completed all three courses. Based on responses during brief phone in-

terviews conducted with non-completers, the three participants who did not

continue after the ﬁrst course indicated that competing demands from their

employment settings, schedule conﬂicts, and the level of outside work required

by the courses contributed to their respective decisions. e single participant

who did not continue after the second course indicated that her decision was

based on a scheduling conﬂict. e data discussed in this paper will be limited

to the 11 participants who completed all three courses. Table 4 describes the

demographic characteristics of the participants.

Across all three classes, 29 family members were involved in the pilot project

in the capacity of advocacy panel members (5), interviewees for the ethno-

graphic interview (6), or members of the school-based focus groups (18).

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

Table 4. Demographics of Participants

Variable N = 11 %

Gender

Male 2 18%

Female 9 81%

Race

Black 5 45%

White 6 54%

Age

30-39 6 54%

40-49 1 9%

50+ 4 36%

Education Level

BA/BS 6 54%

MA 5 45%

Position

Classroom Teacher 4 36%

Special Educator 3 27%

School Counselor 1 9%

School Nurse 1 9%

Media Specialist 1 9%

Occupational erapist 1 9%

Project Evaluation

e eﬀectiveness of the professional development coursework was evaluated

using multiple methods: culminating assignments completed for each course

and graded according to rubrics delineating expected competencies, post-

coursework questionnaires, and a post-coursework interview conducted in

person with individual participants six months after courses were completed.

Description of Questionnaire

Following completion of all three courses, participants responded anony-

mously in writing to a questionnaire asking three questions: (1) Has your

interest in collaborating with families changed (either increased or decreased)

since beginning the Professional Development Coursework? If yes, please

list up to three ways your interest has changed. (2) List up to three of the

most important skills you have gained through the Professional Development

Coursework. (3) How, speciﬁcally, do you plan to integrate these skills into

your work in your school?

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

An essential aspect of any professional training is the extent to which par-

ticipants apply what they have learned during training in their employment

setting. is is especially true in light of the extensive time and ﬁnancial com-

mitment made by both individuals that pursue and organizations that sponsor

continuing education opportunities. us, six months following completion

of the Professional Development Coursework, interviews were conducted with

program completers to determine how the participants were using the infor-

mation learned during the project and the status and progress of action plans

developed in the third course.

Data Collection and Analysis

Responses to post-coursework questionnaires were read repeatedly before

themes were analyzed. Two research assistants reviewed the responses, cod-

ed them independently according to themes, then discussed and revised the

coding until agreement was reached. e same process was then followed by

project developers until major themes were agreed upon across research assis-

tants and project developers.

Approximately six months after participants had completed all coursework,

follow-up interviews were conducted to determine how they were using the

knowledge and skills obtained from coursework; the status and progress of ac-

tion plan implementation; and, if plans had not been implemented, barriers

that might have prohibited implementation. Participants were contacted by

the research assistants to arrange a convenient time and place for the interview.

In all cases, interviews were conducted in the participants’ schools at a time the

participants identiﬁed as convenient.

Pairs of research assistants conducted semi-structured interviews with in-

dividual participants. One research assistant led the interview, while the other

videotaped the interview and took notes on the participant’s responses. e

interview utilized a script that included questions exploring participant’s quali-

tative impressions of the project coursework and the degree to which he or she

was using knowledge and skills obtained in courses within the work setting.

e interview was then transcribed for the purpose of data analysis. Data anal-

ysis followed the same procedures as described above.

Findings

Findings below summarize outcomes collected via: (1) participants’ re-

sponses to questionnaires completed immediately after conclusion of the third

course (eight months after the program began), and (2) in-person interviews

conducted six months after conclusion of the third course. e intent was

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

to determine both immediate and longer-term eﬀectiveness of coursework in

regard to enhancing both attitudes toward, and skills in, family–professional

collaboration. All 11 participants completed the questionnaires at the end of

the three courses comprising the program and 10 of the 11 participants com-

pleted the in-person interview.

Four primary themes were found in the responses: improved attitude to-

ward family–professional collaboration, acquisition of new knowledge or skills,

intention to apply new knowledge or skills in the work setting, and actual ap-

plication of skills in authentic settings. Evidence of more positive attitudes and

changes in the nature of interactions between participants and families were

present at both data collection points. However, evidence of taking a leadership

role to implement change at the school level was present only in the in-person

interviews. In the following section, description of these categories and illustra-

tive responses are provided.

Improved Attitude Toward Family–Professional Collaboration

Improved attitudes included taking interest in the family’s perspective, ap-

preciating diﬀerences among families, and increased self-awareness regarding

one’s own attitudes toward collaboration.

All 11 project participants noted increased interest in collaborating with

families to engage them in the educational process. Several emphasized the

need to expand upon how one deﬁnes “involvement,” and several reﬂected

upon an increased desire to understand family dynamics. e following quote

illustrates this theme:

I believe my interest in collaborating with families has increased since

beginning the courses last fall. I am interested in pursuing more authen-

tic collaboration that actively engages families in their children’s school

experiences, rather than focusing on more superﬁcial involvement. I un-

derstand and accept (ﬁnally!) that there are some families that we will

not be able to reach and that we should not give up, but instead, focus

on those families we can reach.

Almost all participants (9 of 11) oﬀered comments related to appreciating

or accepting diﬀerences. ey recognized the importance of actively seeking

to understand the perspective of the family rather than merely expressing their

own point of view when involved in dyadic interactions with family mem-

bers. As stated by one participant, “seeking to understand” and developing the

mindset necessary to suspend judgment must be deliberate and requires per-

sonal eﬀort and skill. Typical comments included the following:

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

When you stop to listen to [the family’s] story…you understand that

doesn’t mean that they’re not involved; you ﬁnd out that there are other

factors that hindered them from [coming]…when you take that extra

step to listen, then you ﬁnd other ways.

We learned techniques and questions that don’t put [families] on the

spot so much…

We learned how there’s what we think and then there’s what’s really go-

ing on and how we need to step back and look at the parents’ situation

and then assess it from their side.

Keeping an open mind further describes the positive attitude change. is

theme captured participants’ reports of recognizing and avoiding the tendency

to judge, rather than to appreciate, a family’s unique situation. One partici-

pant who started the program with an especially skeptical and negative attitude

wrote:

I feel that a big focus of this class has been on not being judgmental. I

wish I could say that I have learned to eliminate or control this aspect

of my personality. However, as both a teacher and a parent, I ﬁnd that I

cannot help but evaluate the actions and inactions that I see within my

own frame of reference. I think I can say with some degree of certainty

that I am more aware of my tendencies in this area, and I am now more

able and motivated to refrain from jumping to conclusions and making

judgments.

Self-awareness regarding one’s own attitudes toward collaboration is an essen-

tial step in understanding families’ worldviews and thus a foundational compo-

nent introduced in the ﬁrst course. e following example from questionnaires

administered at the completion of the coursework illustrates this lesson:

I learned how much my bias, my life style, and my opinions impact how

I view my students and their families. Many times it is so easy to say

what should be or why don’t parents do this or that, or the apple doesn’t

fall far from the tree, etc. Many times I draw these conclusions without

knowing my student’s family situation. e more I know about my stu-

dents and their family situations, the more I can relate to my students

and be a help to them.

While improved attitude was evident immediately upon the completion

of the coursework, we did not feel this was a suﬃcient goal, in and of it-

self. erefore, we were gratiﬁed to note that the change in attitude that was

initially noted in questionnaires appeared to have been sustained once partici-

pants returned to their work settings. Speciﬁcally, participants noted that their

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

own behaviors reﬂected more tolerant attitudes and that this change was a di-

rect result of the coursework. Comments that supported this positive attitude

included mention of listening without judgment, taking a strengths-based per-

spective, and recognizing that each family has a story to be heard and a voice

to be brought to the table. For example, one participant talked about previ-

ously interpreting a family member’s lack of responsiveness to a request for a

meeting as the family “not caring.” Since completing the coursework, this indi-

vidual has begun to explore other factors that might be involved when families

do not attend school meetings and to reach out in other ways. For example,

she indicated that she might send a more comprehensive email or ﬁnd another

way to communicate rather than requiring or expecting a family to come to

the school. She further reported that parents appreciated this more ﬂexible and

open-minded approach.

Positive attitudes were also sustained in the form of willingness to use clear-

er communication when interacting with family members, as illustrated in the

following quote:

Communication is probably one of the best things that came out of the

class. It’s always in the back of my mind to think about what might be

going on and what I’m saying and how I’m saying it and how it sounds

and how things are coming out of my mouth and how it might be in-

terpreted by other people in diﬀerent situations. It just deﬁnitely made

me more aware of what I say when I talk to people and how I say it

sometimes.

Another indication of positive attitude change that transferred to the work

setting was participants’ ability to recognize a family’s unique situation and

identify their strengths. Interviewees oﬀered comments highlighting the im-

portance of recognizing what family members bring to the interaction as a

prerequisite to building eﬀective partnerships. One participant discussed how

her improved attitude was demonstrated in her interactions with family mem-

bers by sharing the following:

…maybe change my demeanor a little bit so that in my interactions with

parents I try… I think to maybe look for strengths rather than always

looking for weaknesses and trying to approach things in more of a posi-

tive manner even when it’s a negative thing.

A goal of the program was to increase participants’ recognition that build-

ing trust with a family is a prerequisite to engagement and that even when

one uses highly developed communication skills, true collaboration is not

ensured. However, once trust is established, the stage is set for building the

family–professional relationship by using new skills proﬁciently. us we now

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

transition from discussing attitudes that reﬂect awareness of the importance of

relationship-building to a discussion of new knowledge and skills acquired by

participants.

Acquisition of New Knowledge or Skills

e major category of new knowledge and skills acquired through the

coursework was skilled communication, as this was mentioned by all 11 partic-

ipants in the questionnaires. Participants’ comments reﬂected the importance

of developing eﬀective questions and using other advanced communication

skills (e.g., reframing, conﬂict resolution) as primary vehicles for building re-

lationships with families. Nine project participants described speciﬁc skills

gained in communication and collaboration. One participant stated that she

now “feels more conﬁdent in engaging parents in a positive dialogue, because

I feel I have reﬁned skills and awareness in questioning and identifying verbal

and nonverbal cues.” Eﬀective communication is frequently noted in the lit-

erature as critical when working with families, but the speciﬁc speaking and

listening skills that comprise eﬀective communication are often not delineated.

oughtful preparation of questions or comments prior to communicating

with families, as well as listening fully to another person while she or he speaks

(rather than thinking of one’s next response), were skills taught and practiced

as part of the program coursework. Several participants reﬂected upon the need

to simply “be present” as a way to let families know of their interest in develop-

ing a relationship. Two quotes below clearly illustrate this concept:

If we truly want to help children be successful, we must realize that

parents and guardians need to feel that they are being heard and that

their concerns are being taken into consideration. is allows us to work

together for the betterment of the children, and as educators, that should

be our main focus.

It really does shed new light on a situation if you put yourself in the

other person’s shoes and truly see the situation through their eyes. I also

learned that parents just want to be heard and understood and until we

fulﬁll that need, we cannot build a relationship with them that can lead

to oﬀering assistance.

Most participants (8 of 11) identiﬁed conducting action research using fo-

cus groups as an important skill they acquired. In the ﬁnal course, participants

learned the method and art of group interviewing, and how to gather and ana-

lyze information for action planning. Skills were ﬁrst developed and practiced

in the classroom and then in the ﬁeld, in the form of focus groups conducted in

the participants’ home schools. e importance of conducting focus groups in

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

the school setting, rather than using only simulated practice in the classroom,

is expressed in the following statement:

After completing this course, I feel that I developed an understanding of

action research that could be put to use in a variety of ways. Book learn-

ing is great, but what we have completed is a reality. Meeting with our

administrator and parent groups was a priceless way to interact with a

cross-section of people who impact us as educators.

e program in its entirety was an opportunity for participants to integrate

skills necessary to enhance family engagement into their professional practice.

Rather than rely on a single workshop or course, the project allowed for con-

sistent, ongoing learning and practice. e intent that each course builds upon

prior courses was recognized by participants as critical to their skill develop-

ment and was perceived as foundational to the success of the program. e

opportunity to practice skills in increasingly authentic settings was recognized

as important by participants and is highlighted in the quote below:

We began with interviewing each other about our families. We then

moved on [to] interviewing a family with a child with special needs.

We ended by conducting focus groups of administrators or teachers and

families. rough this all we learned an inﬁnite amount of techniques

to become better action researchers…we truly became expert interview-

ers. Additionally, we learned the proper techniques for conducting focus

groups from preparation right through to data analysis. I feel conﬁdent

that I could conduct another focus group in the future and have a suc-

cessful outcome.

Intent to Apply New Knowledge and Skills in the Work Setting

While improved attitudes and eﬀective communication are important com-

petencies, they would be insuﬃcient without intent to apply them in authentic

situations. Too often professionals assume that because they are familiar with

families, building relationships with them will be natural, easy, or automatic.

us, a desired outcome of the coursework was for participants to identify in-

tentional actions necessary to engage families. rough this process, we hoped

to maximize transfer of learning from the training setting to the employment

setting. In regard to the application of content and skills learned through the

coursework to encounters with families in participants’ schools, two subcatego-

ries emerged: using knowledge and skills in one’s own work as an educator, and

sharing new knowledge with colleagues.

At the conclusion of the program, 9 of the 11 respondents indicated that

they planned to use their new skills to modify their own interactions with

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

families. A speciﬁc example demonstrating the skill of listening fully, as was

discussed above, can be found in the following participant statement:

I hope to use the information I learned in order to be a better teacher,

communicator, and leader. As a teacher I have to talk to parents quite

frequently. I will listen and ask questions, not just talk. I will try and ﬁnd

out “why,” not just tell parents “what.”

e program also emphasized collaboration among professionals as one

approach to encourage practices that enhance relationships with families in par-

ticipants’ schools. Project participants understood that to truly change school

climate, they must involve colleagues in enhancing relationships with families.

For example, one participant suggested that the family involvement committee

of which she was a part might be more eﬀective if it changed its approach.

At school, I am a member of the family involvement committee. is

committee plans for and runs many of the after-school events. We gath-

er, decide what events are needed, and go about planning them. From

what I have learned in this class, maybe we are going about this in the

wrong manner. Perhaps we should start the year with a survey or focus

group to get input as to what the community of (school name) wants. I

have learned that if people know we are interested in their thoughts and

opinions, they will feel more connected and hopefully participate more.

Seven of 11 participants oﬀered comments related to the intent to use new

knowledge and skills for broader school change. A participant spoke of how

the focus group process taught and conducted as part of the third course was

already making an impact in her own practice:

e knowledge and experiences I have gained from this class have al-

ready aﬀected future professional endeavors. e focus group conversa-

tions were valuable and will be utilized in the future to address needs or

further develop programs at our school. Also, we have presented a plan

that we are eager to implement and feel will greatly beneﬁt our school. It

is already planned to present our plan to the staﬀ, and key players have

been identiﬁed to start the process. Additionally, we have started to break

down barriers between families, staﬀ, and administration, and we will

hopefully continue to open doors for more opportunities to strengthen

our relationships.

Authentic Application of Improved Attitudes, New Knowledge,

and New Skills

Interviews conducted with 10 of the 11 participants six months after the

program was completed were noteworthy in that most of the participants could

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

clearly recall the purpose of each course and what they learned in each course.

While recall of content is fundamental for application in authentic settings, it

is not an end in and of itself. A more important objective was to increase par-

ticipants’ use of skills in their own day-to-day practices and to enhance their

ability to eﬀect broader school change. All of the participants who completed

the interviews reported using the skills and knowledge they had obtained and

indicated some degree of action based on participation in the coursework. A list

of speciﬁc action initiatives can be found in Figure 1. Some of the initiatives in-

cluded: taking actions to facilitate home–school communication, assuming new

leadership and/or family involvement roles in their schools, eﬀecting changes

in school culture related to collaboration, enhancing involvement of adminis-

trators, and conducting additional focus groups. However, it should be noted

that participants did not always achieve goals established as a result of their fo-

cus groups. In one school, for example, the four professionals who completed

the coursework did not achieve their goal of establishing a Welcome Commit-

tee at their school, although plans were in place and some aspects of the plan

were enacted. Interestingly, several commented to us that the email requesting

their participation in the in-person interviews revived their interest in fully ex-

ecuting their plan.

We were encouraged that 5 of 11 participants took a non-required indepen-

dent study course (following completion of the three-course sequence) which

guided them through implementation of the projects identiﬁed from their fo-

cus groups. Of those ﬁve, three completed three additional credits and earned

a Post-Baccalaureate Certiﬁcate in Family–Professional Collaboration.

Interviews also revealed a positive outcome that was not anticipated—

increased respect from colleagues and school administrators, as captured in this

comment:

ere seems to be a greater awareness of diﬀerent things that we identi-

ﬁed as problems, and to me, it is not wonderful, but it’s much better

environment-wise here. I do think from taking the course that we gained

respect in the school as far as from the administrators and from the other

teachers that saw us do this project, as far as the validity of what we’re of-

fering and what we presented, because you know they did see us working

hard, they were involved with our interview sessions that we would do,

and so I think we came up with the ideas. ey were supportive because

they knew that the work was done within the building, with real people,

with the families that we actually deal with. So, yeah, I mean that was a

huge positive from it.

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

Broader School Initiatives With Examples of Each Initiative

Actions to Facilitate Home–School Communication

Communication folders sent home in child’s backpack (adopted by two •

schools)

Email communication between teachers and home enhanced with assistance •

of technology liaison

Letter sent home to parents with introduction and teacher’s business cards•

ESOL Information Packets developed for new students and families•

Disability support information included in monthly school newsletter •

(adopted by two schools)

Option oﬀered for evening special education (IEP) meetings •

Actions to Improve Parent–Teacher Associations (PTA)

Number of PTA meetings decreased to four a year based on parent feedback•

Length of PTA meetings shortened•

Liaison position created to improve communication between PTA •

representatives and principal

Actions to Improve School Environment

Information table placed in main entrance to school•

Bulletin board created to recognize family volunteers•

Use of parent volunteers increased (e.g., to read books on tape for school use)•

New program developed, “Diapers to Diplomas,” that featured 10 •

professionals speaking on services for students from birth to 21 years of age

with special needs

Involvement of administrators in nonacademic events with parents increased•

Focus groups involving teachers, parents, and support staﬀ developed to •

explore concerns related to students with behavioral problems

Figure 1. Application of Skills in School Settings: Summary of Activities Six

Months After Program Completion

An additional unexpected ﬁnding was participants’ increased leadership

roles through interaction with the school’s administration. Many of the par-

ticipants reported developing a closer working relationship with principals and

other school leaders as well as increased participation on family involvement

committees. Other participants were pursuing or had acquired leadership roles.

For example, one became an assistant vice principal, and another was planning

on becoming a pupil personnel worker (i.e., school social worker).

In summary, ﬁndings indicated that improved attitudes, knowledge, and

skills were immediately apparent upon completion of the coursework and were

sustained six months afterwards, although participants demonstrated applica-

tion of skills to varying degrees. All participants continued to report a positive

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

change in attitude toward collaboration and more eﬀective communication

with families. Engagement in the coursework provided opportunities for all

participants to become advocates for, and some to become leaders in, increas-

ing meaningful family involvement in their schools. Many implemented the

plans that developed from focus groups and others used the knowledge they

acquired to build more eﬀective relationships with families on an individual

level. Although gaining increased respect from school administrators and being

provided with increased opportunity to take on leadership roles related to fam-

ily involvement were not initial goals of the coursework, they were nevertheless

important and noteworthy outcomes.

Discussion

e positive inﬂuence of family involvement on children’s and adolescents’

school performance has been well established, yet teacher preparation pro-

grams often do not teach the skills necessary to engage families in a thorough

or systematic manner. e intent of the current pilot project was to address

this training deﬁcit. Analysis of themes that emerged from questionnaire data

suggests that, following completion of three graduate level courses that ad-

dressed family–professional collaboration, school-based professionals felt they

enhanced their skills in communication and collaboration and experienced

positive change in attitudes toward collaboration. More importantly, sever-

al participants reported making changes in how they interacted with families

even prior to the completion of the three-course sequence, while other par-

ticipants articulated speciﬁc ways in which they planned to utilize new skills

in their work settings. Additionally, six months after training was completed,

most participants reported that they had generalized skills learned in the class-

room to their work settings in a variety of ways. Five participants reported

that they had voluntarily implemented action plans they had developed during

the third and ﬁnal course, and most of the others reported implementation of

some aspect of the action plan.

e pilot project was successful in achieving stated goals. e developmental

aspect of the coursework was reinforced as participants noted how the courses

built upon one another and how, ultimately, they viewed this as an impor-

tant aspect of the program. As the courses were oﬀered as university graduate

courses prior to being taught as part of this community initiative, they were

more rigorous than other professional development experiences in which the

participants had been involved. While this may have resulted in early attri-

tion of some participants, those who completed the coursework emerged as

leaders or potential leaders in their schools. e coursework was designed to

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

promote positive change in attitudes and use of skills in authentic settings and

those goals were accomplished. Although increased involvement with school

administration was an intentional aspect of the program, it was not initially

articulated as a speciﬁc goal. However, it was in this area that another aspect of

the program’s success was evident. One participant captures this well:

I think the biggest thing has been the message that was sent to the ad-

ministration. I think that they heard some [of] the data that was pre-

sented. ey are actually doing things now to increase that welcoming

feeling; they have been active at more parent nights; they have tried to

be a little more involved in the diﬀerent things, more welcoming, more

seen in the diﬀerent activities instead of being isolated and secluded in

the oﬃce.

e positive outcomes of the coursework extended beyond changing atti-

tudes and improving skills. Not only did participants report using new skills

individually but also reported contributing to change in their schools by work-

ing with family members, colleagues, and administrators to engage families.

Several participants completed additional graduate coursework and had plans

to move into leadership roles. While there were many accomplishments, there

were also areas that could be improved as the program is replicated in the state

and further developed into a model for other school systems.

First, as a grant-funded project, coursework was oﬀered at minimal ﬁnancial

expense to participants. is may have aﬀected their attitude about training in

a positive direction or may have enhanced desire to participate from the outset.

If this project were to be replicated in other school systems, several strategies

might be eﬀective in addressing this issue. As many school systems have poli-

cies for reimbursement of continuing education, prospective participants could

be encouraged to take advantage of this beneﬁt. A second strategy might be to

further develop the leadership aspect of the program to make it more attractive

to school administrators. A ﬁnal option would be to explore a skills-based ap-

proach and merge the content from the three courses into a one- or two-course

program. For example, the second course, which is more skills-based, may be

oﬀered as a stand-alone course if desired change is limited to improving par-

ticipants’ communication skills. is approach is being investigated in a related

project by the current authors. A ﬁnal limitation is that project participants

came from a single suburban school system. While the school system was di-

verse in regard to race and socioeconomic status, similar outcomes may not be

realized when participants work in urban or rural school systems. Exploration

of factors related to replication will be addressed through expansion of the pi-

lot project into additional school systems and eventually through oﬀering the

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

coursework in a hybrid fashion, incorporating face-to-face meetings with on-

line learning in an eﬀort to reach learners in remote locations.

Future Directions

Other challenges lay ahead. ere is often little incentive for school-based

professionals to engage in rigorous graduate coursework that does not directly

lead to an additional professional degree, increased salary, or other form of for-

mal recognition. While an optimum solution would be for state departments

of education to include mandatory coursework on family–professional collab-

oration in teacher education certiﬁcation requirements, it is unlikely that this

will occur any time soon. In the current pilot project, participants reported

school administrative support to be important for both their motivation to

complete the coursework and their ability to foster change in practice. Accord-

ingly, recruitment eﬀorts in subsequent school systems will incorporate school

administrator commitment to recognizing contributions of project participants

through a variety of means. ese may include providing leadership opportu-

nities related to addressing family–professional collaboration at the school or

school-system level or public recognition through school or system newsletters

or websites. Sustainability of practice over time is an important outcome of

any system change eﬀort and is signiﬁcantly enhanced when participants are

provided with the immediate opportunity for skill use after training (Jarrell,

O’Neill & Hasse, 2009). us, aﬀording project participants the opportunity

to provide in-service to school faculty might serve to both increase general-

ization to other members of the school community as well as sustain project

participants’ own skills.

It will be important for future research to consider methods for reducing

obstacles to implementing action plans developed as a result of focus groups.

Not surprisingly, in interviews conducted with project participants six months

post-training, the issue of time emerged as a primary barrier. A second issue

that emerged was the continuing need to further change school climate in

terms of receptivity to increasing family involvement. To address these issues,

future coursework might include identifying potential obstacles to implemen-

tation of plans in the work setting and development of strategies to address

them. Having participants engage in peer-to-peer coaching, long considered

an eﬀective approach for teachers who wish to incorporate new skills into their

behavioral repertoire (Joyce & Showers, 1981; Licklider, 1995), may also in-

crease the potential for action plan implementation.

Overall, preliminary analysis from this pilot project supports the feasibility

of training school-based professionals to foster parental engagement in their

children’s education. In the words of one participant:

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

roughout all of these courses I have learned the value of forming and

strengthening relationships between families and professionals. By put-

ting aside our assumptions, we can hear the needs of each other more

clearly. Additionally, I learned that families and staﬀ have many com-

mon beliefs and that we can activate small steps in order to improve

our relationships. Also, that listening is deﬁnitely important, but taking

action to initiate change is what families and professionals ﬁnd most

signiﬁcant.

References

Barnard, W. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment.

Children & Youth Services Review, 26, 39-63.

Barnett, E. (2004). Characteristics and perceived eﬀectiveness of staﬀ development practices in

selected high schools in South Dakota. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(2), 3-18.

Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004).

Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collabora-

tion. Exceptional Child, 70, 167-184.

Brazil, K., Ozer, E., Cloutier, M. M., Levine, R., & Stryer, D. (2005). From theory to practice:

Improving the impact of health services research. BMC Health Services Research, 5, 1-5.

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-1

Dauber, S., & Epstein, J. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner city

elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic

society (pp. 53-71). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for

school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81-120.

doi:10.1207/S15327930pje8102_5

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2006). Interactions: Collaboration skills for the school professionals (5

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Suk Yoon, K. (2001). What makes

professional development eﬀective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hiatt-Michael, D. (2006). Reﬂections and directions on research related to family-community

involvement in schooling. School Community Journal, 16(1), 7-30.

Howland, A., Anderson, J. A., Smiley, A. D., & Abbott, D. J. (2006). School liaisons: Bridging

the gap between home and school. School Community Journal, 16(2), 47-68.

Hudson, P., & Glomb, N. (1997). If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both partners

to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,

442-448.

Jarrell, J. L., O’Neill, D. G., & Hasse, L. A. (2009). A clinical research training eﬃcacy study

with a comparison of subjects who did and did not use learning within 4 months of train-

ing. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 16(2), 5-11.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: e messages of research. Edu-

cational Leadership, 37, 379-385.

THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

JOURNAL

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: e contribution of “coaching.” Journal

of Education, 163, 163-172.

Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A. J. L. (2000, September). School district parent involvement

policies and programs. e Elementary School Journal, 101, 101-118.

Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent–school

conﬂict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 240-251.

Lawler, P. A. (2003). Teachers as adult learners: A new perspective. New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education, 98, 15-22.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from the Education Schools Project

website: www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm

Licklider, B. L. (1995). e eﬀects of peer coaching cycles on teacher use of complex teaching

skill and teacher’s sense of eﬃcacy. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9, 55-68.

Minke, K. M. (2000). Preventing school problems and promoting school success through

family–school–community collaboration: Strategies and programs that work. In K. M.

Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—Promoting school success (pp. 377-

420). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2000). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000

(Report No. NCES 2001-088). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Nation-

al Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.

pdf

Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice training or professional development: Contrasting oppor-

tunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 815-830.

doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00045-8

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partner-

ships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196-206.

Souto-Manning, M., & Swick, K. J. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about parent and family involve-

ment: Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood Education Journal,

34(2), 187-193. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0063-5

Westby, C., Burda, A., & Mehta, Z. (2003). Asking the right questions in the right ways: Strat-

egies for ethnographic interviewing. e ASHA Leader, 8(8), 4-5,16-17.

Author’s Note:

Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the

Maryland State Department of Education. e authors contributed equally to

this project and preparation of the manuscript. Authors’ names are listed in

alphabetical order and should not be construed as identifying relative contri-

butions to this research.

Susan M. Bartels is a tenured professor at Towson University, where she is

the director of the Graduate Program in School Psychology. She is a licensed

psychologist and a Nationally Certiﬁed School Psychologist. Dr. Bartels super-

vises graduate students engaging in their school psychology ﬁeld work in public

schools and teaches in the areas of school-based interventions, social/emotional

TRAINING SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS

assessment of youth, and family-professional collaboration. Her research focus-

es on fostering family–professional collaboration in school settings.

Karen Goldrich Eskow is a tenured professor and chairperson of the Depart-

ment of Family Studies and Community Development at Towson University.

She is a Certiﬁed Family Life Educator and program director for the Post-

baccalaureate Certiﬁcate Program in Family–Professional Collaboration. Her

most recent research has focused on families who have a child or young adult

on the Autism Spectrum. She has also been involved with the study of families

with children and young adults who have neurodevelopment disorders.

Dr. Bartels and Dr. Eskow have presented together on the topic of fostering

parent-professional collaboration at over 20 international, national, and state

conferences. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to: Su-

san M. Bartels, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Towson University, 8000 York

Rd., Towson, MD, 21252, or email [email protected]