EDSD 7074 Walden University Fostering Family School Partnerships Discussion PPT

User Generated

Gvnan24

Business Finance

EDSD 7074

Walden University

EDSD

Description

Leadership is an important aspect of fostering family–school partnerships, and these partnerships can maximize student learning and success. School leaders are sometimes perceived by families and school staff as distant entities who may only be approached when problems arise. This is why it is important for education professionals to dedicate the time to learn about their community and the individual needs of the families that they service. They need to make conscious efforts to reach out to families and provide plenty of opportunities for them to be involved in school activities and the learning of their child. As a special education professional, what competencies might you need to foster partnerships with families of diverse types, needs, and demands within a dynamic, collaborative environment? For this Discussion, you share the competencies needed to foster relationships with diverse families.

To prepare

  • Review the module Learning Resources. Consider the benefits and challenges of family–school partnerships. Review strategies to foster relationships with diverse families. Be mindful of students’ rights and confidentiality. Reflect on previous chapters discussing the essential roles of collaborative teams.

A powerpoint for the leadership team that:

  • Explains what you believe are the most effective leadership competencies in sustaining and fostering positive family–school partnerships
  • Explains whether these competencies would be different for families of diverse types, needs, and demands
  • Addresses any potential bias relative to culturally and linguistically diverse learners
  • Explains how you would address families who are non-responsive

Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Brown-Chidsey, R. & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

  • Chapter 4, “Risk Factors and Student Success” (pp. 29–37)
  • Chapter 6, “The Essential Role of Teams in Supporting All Students” (pp. 51–60)

Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E. G. (2015). Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 160-177.

Muscott, H. S., Szczesiul, S., Berk, B., Staub, K., Hoover, J., & Perry-Chisholm, P. (2008). Creating home school partnerships by engaging families in schoolwide positive behavior supports. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 6-14.

Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Family and community partnering: "On the team and at the table" toolkit. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/RTI/FamilyCommunityToolkit.htm

Family and community partnering: "On the team and at the table" toolkit by Colorado Dept. of Education. 2009. Reprinted by permission of Colorado Department of Education.

Jennings, D. (n.d.). A parent leader’s perspective on response to intervention. Washington, DC: RTI Action Network. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/family/parentleadersperspective

RtI Action Network. (n.d.). Family involvement. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/family

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation ISSN: 1047-4412 (Print) 1532-768X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20 Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman To cite this article: John W. Eagle, Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, Andrew Snyder & Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman (2015) Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:2-3, 160-177, DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960 Published online: 22 Dec 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3788 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 26 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hepc20 Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25:160–177, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929960 Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration Between School Psychologists and Administrators to Promote Systems-Level Change JOHN W. EAGLE, SHANNON E. DOWD-EAGLE, ANDREW SNYDER, and ELIZABETH GIBBONS HOLTZMAN Rhode Island College Current educational reform mandates the implementation of schoolbased models for early identification and intervention, progress monitoring, and data-based assessment of student progress. This article provides an overview of interdisciplinary collaboration for systems-level consultation within a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) framework. The roles of school psychologists and schoolbased administrators are presented in relation to the implementation of MTSS practices within an implementation science model. The training and expertise of each discipline are highlighted related to respective aspects of implementation drivers (i.e., competency, organization, leadership). Functions of principals and school psychologists during team-based, problem-solving MTSS practices are described based on a problem-solving framework consistent with school-based consultation. Future directions for graduate training of school psychologists and principals and directions for consultation research are provided. Educational policy has explicitly recommended the need for models that promote early identification and intervention, employ progress monitoring, and use data to assess student progress (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). These mandates have served as a catalyst for educational reform, resulting in the emergence of school-wide problemsolving frameworks such as Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Correspondence should be sent to John W. Eagle, PhD, Department of Counseling, Educational Leadership, and School Psychology, Rhode Island College, 600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Providence, RI 02908. E-mail: jeagle@ric.edu 160 Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 161 Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). However, these approaches have often been delivered in ‘‘silos’’ in which one system was devoted to academic difficulties and another to behavioral concerns. Given the strong alignment of several key features of RTI and PBIS (Sugai, 2009), increasing attention has been placed on the need for an integrated model that braids initiatives for academic, behavioral and social-emotional needs (McIntosh, Goodman, & Bohanon, 2010) into a single Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). MTSS can be defined as ‘‘an evidence-based model of education that employs data-based problem-solving techniques to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention’’ (Gamm et al., 2012, p. 4). Rationale for MTSS The basis for MTSS reform efforts is multifaceted and predicated upon theoretical, empirical, and practical considerations. The conceptual framework for RTI and PBIS mirror one another, with both models emphasizing prevention, data-based decision-making, problem solving, evidence-based interventions, and implementation fidelity (Sugai, 2009). This, coupled with the recognition that academic and behavioral difficulties are often interconnected (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004), provides a theoretical basis for merging RTI and PBIS initiatives. Preliminary research has helped establish an empirical foundation for MTSS. Specifically, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that integrated approaches are associated with greater improvements in both academic and behavioral outcomes (Ialongo, Poduska, Werthamer, & Kellam, 2001; Lane & Menzies, 2003; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; Stewart, Benner, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2007). Finally, there are pragmatic justifications for reform efforts. The current climate in education is often characterized by waning financial resources and overburdened educators. As such, viewing RTI and PBIS as competing initiatives is counterproductive and may unduly stress an already strained educational system. Further, implementation of two parallel systems-change initiatives may hinder sustainability (McIntosh et al., 2010). Implementation Science as a Framework for Systems-Level Change The scientific study of effective processes for implementing evidence-based interventions into practice with fidelity and sustainability, otherwise known as implementation science, is at the forefront of systemic-change initiatives in education, psychology, and health (Eccles & Mittman, 2006; Forman et al., 2013; Green, 2012). Although there are variations of implementation science models, this paper will follow a widely used model developed by Fixsen and Blase (2008). This model is currently used by the majority of states and supported by the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) State 162 J. W. Eagle et al. FIGURE 1 Implementation drivers. Source: Fixsen & Blase (2008). Personnel Development Grants program to implement a MTSS framework within schools. Facilitating meaningful and sustainable systems-level change as related to MTSS is a complex process. It requires an understanding of the components associated with the evidence-based program (e.g., MTSS), effective implementation practices (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), and an interdisciplinary approach. Implementation science provides a framework for thinking about organizational change and bridging the ‘‘research to practice’’ gap often found in the field of education. Within this framework, implementation is viewed as a process with distinguishable stages including (a) exploration, (b) installation, (c) initial implementation, (d) full implementation, (e) innovation, and (f) sustainability. This continuum of implementation development extends over a period of 2–4C years. Further, successful implementation incorporates a common set of core components referred to as implementation drivers. These are categorized (see Figure 1) as (a) competency drivers (i.e., selection, training, coaching, and performance evaluation), (b) organization drivers (i.e., systems intervention, facilitative administration, and decision support data system), and (c) leadership drivers (i.e., technical and adaptive; Fixen et al., 2005). Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 163 All three forms of implementation drivers are critical to changing the behavior of adults who provide evidence-based practices within schools. Effective and sustainable implementation of MTSS practices occurs through the building of staff competencies and system capacity for school-wide reform. This competency development requires the careful selection of staff who provide professional development training and ongoing coaching. However, change is unlikely to occur without the presence of organizational components to support implementation over time. Organization supports are developed by facilitative administrators (e.g., principals, superintendents) who provide the leadership and structure needed to implement MTSS practices. Effective leadership represents the third component needed to successfully implement systems-level change. Two types of leadership are identified within implementation science: technical and adaptive. Technical leadership, akin to management, uses an established procedure to respond to straightforward issues (e.g., managing time and budgets). Adaptive leadership refers to guiding others through complex changes and times of uncertainty, which may include issues related to motivation, consensus building, and changing roles among staff. School-based consultation can apply implementation drivers to support change at multiple levels, including the individual student (client-centered), classroom (consultee-centered), building, or district (systems-level). For example, a consultant may consider several implementation drivers, including selection (competency driver), systems intervention (organizational driver), and performance assessment, through a systems-level/organizational consultation approach (Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huttleston, 2012). In developing the competency drivers related to training and coaching of school staff, a consultant might engage in consultee-focused consultation (Knotek, Kaniuka, & Ellingsen, 2008). And, a client-centered consultation (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990) focus may be emphasized in evaluating individual student outcomes related to MTSS services. This article focuses on an interdisciplinary approach between school psychologists and administrators to promote the implementation of MTSS practices. Each discipline is uniquely positioned to support necessary implementation drivers, offering distinct yet complementary skills critical to successful large-scale reform. School psychologists provide content expertise in the core components of MTSS, including data-based decision making, curricular and instructional methodology, evidence-based interventions, and systematic problem-solving procedures. This knowledge base is essential for developing staff competency in the use of intervention practices (i.e., competency drivers). Educational leaders such as superintendents and principals exhibit expertise in fostering hospitable organizational and systems environments that support effective and sustainable implementation of MTSS practices (i.e., organizational drivers). Both principals and school psychologists may possess knowledge of technical and adaptive leadership and 164 J. W. Eagle et al. may utilize social influence strategies (French & Raven, 1959; Cialdini, 1984) to achieve meaningful change (i.e., leadership drivers). It is essential that these respective disciplines cultivate a collaborative relationship by sharing common values and perspectives, as well as leveraging their expertise to maximize MTSS reform efforts. Successful reform efforts in schools require the development of a collaborative culture and strong leadership (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). In systems-level change, district leadership needs to be knowledgeable, aware, and involved in the scaling-up process (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012). Knowledge about the systemic change initiative is essential, but it is as important to be aware of the personnel skills and capacities existing within the system to strategically utilize staff. As the understanding of other professions increases, collaborative partnerships become more effective, as does the ability to provide more comprehensive supports to students and families (Winitzky, Sheridan, Crow, Welch, & Kennedy, 1995). To effectively implement systemslevel change initiatives, it is also critical to leverage the expertise of the respective disciplines to promote competency in intervention practices, ensure organizational support, and establish effective leadership. Promoting Competency Development Within MTSS School psychologists play an integral role in promoting and supporting competency development within the core components of MTSS, including data-based decision making, evidence-based interventions, implementation fidelity, and systematic problem solving. In MTSS, data-based decision making includes universal screening of all students, implementation of evidenced-based interventions at multiple tiers, and ongoing progress monitoring to inform the decisions at each tier. A problem-solving process supports ongoing evaluation of the data in order to make timely and ongoing informed decisions (Gresham, 2007). The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) has identified (a) data-based decision making, and (b) consultation and collaboration as two school psychology practices that permeate all aspects of service delivery (NASP, 2010). In addition to having training and knowledge related to the core components of MTSS, school psychologists have the capacity to support effective implementation practices. In an indirect service capacity, school psychologists can promote and support the development of the competencies needed for MTSS to be effective. This can be accomplished through specific competency drivers, such as selection, training, coaching, and performance assessment. In MTSS, it is important to understand who is best able to provide screening/assessment, intervention, progress monitoring, and evaluation procedures in promoting the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral health of all students. The selection of team members who will lead by example Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 165 as well as promote the value of the approach is integral to the success of the system change. The critical aspect for selection is to focus upon the individual’s ability to fulfill the functions of the role, not the person’s current position or title. Thus, school psychologists play an important role in the selection of appropriate personnel for positions as coaches and/or members on MTSS teams. Due to their knowledge base, expertise, and educational background, school psychologists often serve as providers of professional development content to school staff. This training is essential in building infrastructure and is often done in a gradated manner, with designated individuals receiving outside, in-depth training and then using the trainer’s model (Castillo et al., 2012). Once trained, for implementation to be successful, ongoing support and coaching is necessary. School psychologists are well positioned to serve in the role of coach in areas of assessment and intervention. Many skills required in MTSS are new to school-based personnel and ongoing support allows for scaffolded application of new learning. It has been shown that when there is sustained support for new practices, the fidelity of implementation increases significantly (Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Merrell, 2008). Often fulfilling roles as problem-solving team facilitator, professional development trainer, and/or ongoing coach, school psychologists utilize their knowledge of evaluation to assist in the final competency driver, performance assessment. Related to the delivery of MTSS practices, performance assessment is provided at a variety of different levels: student progress and outcomes, fidelity of instruction and/or intervention supports, fidelity of problem-solving process within teams, and staff perceptions of the effectiveness and acceptability of MTSS supports. Ensuring Organization Support for MTSS It is widely regarded that the actions of a building principal play a key role in effective systemic change within schools (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Stollar et al., 2008). In a complementary role to school psychologists, principals often utilize their training and expertise to function within schools to promote MTSS practices from an organizational driver perspective. Organizational drivers include (a) systems intervention, (b) facilitative administration, and (c) decision-making data systems. Clearly, principals establish organizational support for MTSS implementation by providing facilitative administration, but administrators also play major roles in providing a systems intervention orientation and selecting, financing, and utilizing decision-making data systems. In general, facilitative administrators provide support in the form of proactive, enthusiastic, and dynamic attention to the barriers and organizational climate related to effective implementation of MTSS by school staff. 166 J. W. Eagle et al. This support addresses needs related to the effective implementation and sustainability of competency drivers through policy decisions, allocation of resources, procedural considerations, and addressing system culture issues. Organizational support also includes actively seeking input and feedback (particularly related to staff satisfaction) from different systems within the organization and using the information to make appropriate modifications to organizational activities. Within the control of the school leader is the decision-making authority around the allocation of resources, including those related to finances, building space, and personnel. How a principal divides up resources among competing interests and needs impacts the potential investment of faculty and staff toward MTSS initiatives. Financial resources allocated by principals related to MTSS include (but are certainly not limited to) professional development funds, cost of core curricula and supplementary interventions, purchase of data management systems (e.g., School-Wide Information System, AIMSweb, STAR), supplies related to MTSS activities, and financing substitute teachers during times of staff professional development. Space in school buildings remains a premium, and building administration can systemically support MTSS implementation by providing adequate locations for staff professional development, dedicated areas for student support (both at the targeted group and individual levels of support), dedicated and technologically sufficient areas for MTSS team meetings, and additional space needed for MTSS activities (e.g., check-in/check-out, data entry). Additionally, MTSS initiatives require the allocation of personnel to engage in different activities than their traditional position. For example, school psychologists might be utilized in roles related to professional development trainings. District- and building-level administrators are in positions that can enhance MTSS implementation and provide structures within school schedules that can assist the sustainability of systems-level change. Among these are establishing specified intervention periods (or blocks) to allow targeted group-based supports or individualized intensive supports to be provided to students. Principals can also establish consistent schedules for common team planning and MTSS team meeting times. The consistency of these meetings establishes a routine that promotes communication, collaboration, and the fidelity of team-based, problem-solving processes. Further, building administrators need to provide adequate time for staff competency development, via training and ongoing coaching. Effective Leadership in MTSS Reform Efforts Today’s educational leaders operate in a post-A Nation at Risk (1984) and post-No Child Left Behind (2001) environment. Of paramount importance in this system are high-stakes testing results that demonstrate marked im- Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 167 provement on a yearly basis and the increased accountability of the school principal. This all occurs amidst meager budgets, lower teacher morale, and increased teacher turnover, and increased numbers of at-risk students (Tucker & Codding, 2003). New paradigms of school leadership (several born out of the business literature) abound. Most reference and promote these overlapping terms: ‘‘shared leadership’’ (Sergiovanni, 2005), ‘‘distributed leadership’’ (Spillane, 2006), and ‘‘leverage leadership’’ (Marzano, 2005). All of these models see the principal akin to a symphony concertmaster, ensuring that everyone is doing his/her job just right—not too fast, not too loud—in harmony with the other players. Integral to this model is the principal’s ability to leverage the expertise (e.g., knowledge, skills, and dispositions) of those in the building. Their primary leadership functions include setting the direction, then identifying those who can share in the work of improving teaching and learning. Indeed, distributed leadership embodies the collaborative nature in which principals and school psychologists provide leadership drivers for the implementation of MTSS. In order to be successful in the current educational climate, a paradigm shift within educational leadership training and practice has occurred related to the conceptualization of the roles and responsibilities of a principal. A distinction has been made between ‘‘leadership’’ and ‘‘management’’ and an understanding that they both represent distinct knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In short, ‘‘leadership’’ refers to the bigger-picture, strategic, visioning domains (who, what, and why), while ‘‘management’’ deals with operations and tactics (how and when). In a similar manner, implementation science views leadership drivers in two categories: adaptive and technical. Adaptive leadership is synonymous with the above ‘‘leadership’’ denotation and represents the facets of leadership related to the direction of the school through systemic reform via adherence to vision, motivation, enthusiasm, and establishing building consensus. Technical leadership is tantamount to ‘‘management’’ and is centered upon the procedures required to implement innovations effectively at the practice level. In MTSS reform many of the aspects of adaptive and technical leadership are fulfilled by the roles of both principals and schools psychologists. One of the most critical roles for adaptive leadership is to manage expectations and ‘‘keep the plane flying while it is being built.’’ In his groundbreaking book, ‘‘Leading in a Culture of Change,’’ Michael Fullan (2001) presents a model depicting leadership’s function within an institution and the favorable results that come when the role is successfully carried out. Fullan acknowledged that 100% approval ratings and success measures are impossible in times of competing interests and limited resources. Instead, he established the following goal: ‘‘More good things happen; fewer bad things happen.’’ Through energy, enthusiasm, and hope and the commitment from school faculty/staff and external stakeholders (e.g., parents and com- 168 J. W. Eagle et al. munity members), leadership can maintain the system’s persistence toward the school’s vision. This framework for establishing realistic expectations within system change is consistent with adaptive leadership in implementation science that promotes leadership to manage expectations and ‘‘manage the awkwardness’’ (Blase & Goodman, 2013) of the implementation stages of MTSS reform. Effective leadership understands that systemic change is a slow, deliberate process and that even though it won’t always go smoothly, it will get better over time as staff gain more competencies, experience, and efficiency with the process. Many school staff participating in the implementation of MTSS may find their professional roles modified to a certain degree. Principals and school psychologists are in prime leadership roles to encourage, facilitate, and reinforce staff for altering their previous, traditional responsibilities. They also have the ability to provide staff with additional professional development opportunities to assist them in building capacity for their new roles. Implementing MTSS Within a Consultation Process School-based consultation provides a structured approach for the delivery of prevention-based interventions (Meyers, Meyers, & Grogg, 2004). Within the school consultation literature, several models offer important implications for primary prevention and the delivery of services within a tiered framework, including mental health consultation (Caplan, 1970), school-based problem-solving consultation (Kratochwill, 2008), organizational consultation (Meyers et al., 2012), and team-based approaches such as pre-referral intervention teams (PITs; Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). Notably, the focus of consultation within these models may vary to inform decisions across multiple tiers. For example, a client-centered approach may inform decisions at an individual student level, a consultee-centered approach at a classroom level, or systems-centered approach at a schoolwide level. Although there are some nuanced differences between problemsolving activities emphasized in the school consultation literature and those in tiered frameworks such as MTSS (Erchul, 2011), a key similarity is the systematic use of a stage-wise process consisting of problem identification, problem analysis, plan development, plan implementation, and plan evaluation. Given the shared use of structured problem-solving procedures and a growing body of evidence suggesting a multi-tiered system can be implemented through a consultation process (Kratochwill, 2008), the authors propose that school-based, problem-solving consultation offers one approach that can be used to collaborate with other key stakeholders when implementing systems-level reforms. The following fictional case study is intended to illustrate best practices by depicting the roles of school psychologists and Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 169 principals in implementing MTSS within a consultation process, as well as the connections between those roles and implementation science. Background Information John Doe High School is located in a large urban district, serving 1,900 students in ninth through 12th grade. Approximately 14% of the students receive special education services and 2% of the population is English Language Learners (ELLs). The school is currently in its third year of implementing MTSS reforms. The building-level team is comprised of the principal, school psychologist, two general education teachers and one special education teacher. The team meets on a monthly basis to review data related to implementation and outcomes associated with MTSS practices. The school psychologist serves as the team leader, facilitating the problem-solving process. Problem/Needs Identification During a monthly problem-solving meeting, the building-level team discussed a growing concern related to high rates of student absenteeism and disengagement. Several team members expressed that poor attendance may increase students’ risk for dropping out and poor learning outcomes due to missed instructional opportunities. To determine the extent of the problem, the MTSS team examined several sources of school data that may be related to disengagement, including students who (a) attend school less than 80% of the time, (b) averaged 3 or more office discipline referrals (ODRs) per month, or (c) were failing one or more classes. A review of the data revealed that approximately 80 students met all three criteria. Of those students, almost half were currently receiving special education services. The team decided to target a reduction in ‘‘disengagement,’’ which it defined as students who attended less than 80% of the time, averaged 3 or more ODRs, and were failing at least one class. To make the process more manageable, the team decided to focus on a pilot group of students who met the above listed criteria and were currently receiving special education services. The team planned to track students’ level of disengagement via ODRs, attendance records, and course grades via the school information management system (IMS). Roles supporting implementation. Systems-level consultation within a tiered framework requires both knowledge of MTSS intervention components and effective implementation practices. During the initial phase of problem solving, the school psychologist provided content expertise by facilitating the problem-solving process with fidelity, operationally defining the target concern, establishing systematic selection procedures to identify students that will receive the intervention, and using data to validate the problem 170 J. W. Eagle et al. and establish baseline levels of performance (competency driver: performance assessment). Similarly, the principal played a key role in providing organizational support by ensuring the team had sufficient time to meet, substitute teachers to cover team members’ classes during meeting times (organizational driver: facilitative administration), and had access to data to inform the team’s decisions (organizational driver: decision support data system). Problem/Needs Analysis Analysis phase. During the problem analysis phase, a multisource and multi-informant process was used to identify factors that may be influencing attendance rates and engagement levels for the group of students targeted for the intervention. Data sources included academic data (e.g., grades, course failures, credit accrual) and interviews with case managers/special education teachers. Factors believed to trigger high rates of absenteeism and disengagement included (a) limited connections to the school (e.g., not involved in any extracurricular activities), (b) limited positive interactions between the students and building staff, (c) instructional mismatch between students’ skills and tasks presented to them, (d) low levels of student motivation, and (e) low levels of family involvement in the students’ education. Consequences associated with high absenteeism and disengagement included missed instructional opportunities, failing grades, and low levels of work completion. The school psychologist shared several evidence-based interventions targeting increased student attendance and engagement. The team discussed several factors that may influence intervention selection and implementation, such as (a) time to implement the intervention, (b) personnel with the expertise needed to implement the plan, (c) cost of intervention materials, and (d) strategies to assess progress and monitor fidelity. Based on these criteria, the team selected Check & Connect (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl, 2012) as the Tier 2 intervention. Plan development phase. Check & Connect is a comprehensive intervention model designed to promote students’ engagement with school. The key components of the intervention include (a) ‘‘Check,’’ which refers to systematic monitoring of a student’s educational and behavioral progress via alterable variables, such as absences, behavioral referrals, and grades; and (b) ‘‘Connect,’’ which refers to building the capacity for problem solving within the student in an individualized and timely manner. This is achieved through establishing a trust-based, mutual relationship between a student and a mentor and providing a persistent source of motivation. After selecting the intervention, the team decided to modify their original data collection strategy. Rather than reporting on the three sources of data via the IMS system, the team opted to monitor progress using the ‘‘Check & Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 171 Connect High School Monitoring Form,’’ which tracks several additional alterable indicators of student engagement, such as academic data (i.e., number of Ds and Fs, number of missing assignments, cumulative grades, credit accrual), behavior data (i.e., unexcused absences, tardies, office discipline referrals), and communication data (i.e., contact with students and families). As part of the plan development phase, the team reviewed the roles and personnel required to implement the intervention. The school psychologist agreed to be the intervention coordinator, responsible for selecting and training the mentors, overseeing fidelity, and monitoring progress toward goals. Given the emphasis on enhancing relationships with adults in the building, several of the students’ case managers/special education teachers were asked if they would be willing to serve as mentors. Mentor responsibilities included weekly checks of data using the monitoring form and weekly meetings with the student to share the data, support problem solving, and discuss the importance of school. An Excel file based on the Check & Connect monitoring form was developed by the school psychologist to support data collection efforts. The tool was also used to monitor the fidelity of intervention implementation, as mentors were required to check off the days of the week that specific activities occurred. Roles supporting implementation. During the problem analysis stage, the school psychologist supported effective implementation by facilitating the problem-solving process with fidelity, suggesting an intervention that has a strong evidence base, and using alterable indicators of student engagement to monitor progress (competency driver: performance assessment). The principal facilitated implementation by providing funds for the ancillary costs associated with intervention implementation, and leveraging existing personnel resources to serve as the intervention coordinator and monitors. Specifically, the building administrator released the special education teachers from other duties (e.g., bus duty) and agreed to provide a small stipend to the Check & Connect coordinator and mentors (organizational driver: facilitative administration). Plan Implementation During the plan implementation stage, the school psychologist operated as a consultee-centered consultant when the consultation focus shifted to developing the skills and competencies of the mentors in Check & Connect intervention procedures. This was accomplished by (a) jointly (with the MTSS team) selecting case managers/special education teachers with the personal characteristics and willingness to serve as monitors (competency driver: selection); (b) providing training to the mentors that was skills based and incorporated adult learning principles (competency driver: training); (c) offering ongoing coaching and technical assistance by observing the 172 J. W. Eagle et al. mentors, providing feedback on their performance, and assisting with the development of intervention materials (competency driver: coaching); and (d) participating in weekly meetings to review student outcome data and fidelity data collected via the monitoring form (competency driver: performance assessment). In addition to jointly selecting staff as mentors (competency driver: selection), the principal also ensured adequate time for the school psychologist to provide training to the mentors (organizational driver: facilitative administration). In addition, the principal eased concerns related to changing roles of the staff serving as monitors (leadership driver: adaptive). Plan Evaluation During the plan evaluation phase, the team collaboratively evaluated the outcomes related to the MTSS Tier 2 intervention: Check & Connect. First, the team assessed the fidelity of implementation for the Check & Connect intervention. A synthesis of data from the Check & Connect Monitoring Sheet was presented at the meeting. Specifically, the team determined that mentors met with their students to check in at least 80% of the time. Second, the team reviewed the Monitoring Sheet to evaluate student progress, assess patterns of risk, and establish decision rules to determine if particular students would benefit from more individualized supports. Results indicated that the majority of students met their individual goals on the indicators (e.g., grades, ODRs, attendance). However, 5 students did not respond to the basic level of intervention and were considered high risk and in need of a more intensive intervention. In these cases, the intensive version of ‘‘Check & Connect’’ was implemented. Each of the five students received additional supports, depending upon the area of need. Examples included more intensive problem solving with families and staff, facilitation of goal setting, and/or referral to mental health supports outside of the school. Finally, the team then discussed how to share and disseminate the results with key stakeholders (e.g., larger school staff, families, students). Roles supporting implementation. The school psychologist had previously provided the Check & Connect monitoring sheet to staff implementing the intervention, compiled the datasheets over time, synthesized the data, and presented the data to the team (competency driver: performance assessment). The principal gave the team access to the data management systems needed (organizational driver: decision-making data system) so that the team was able to review outcome data related to the alterable outcome variables targeted by the intervention. The school psychologist facilitated team discussion pertaining to specific decision rules regarding particular students’ response or nonresponse to the Check & Connect intervention. The school psychologist then informed team members of the school’s procedures related to informing families about their child’s performance and educational policy Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 173 related to obtaining parental consent for the provision of more intensive supports (leadership driver: technical). DISCUSSION The continued philosophical, political, and practical impetus for MTSS reform has brought renewed interest in systems-level consultation and the roles that educational personnel undertake within these initiatives. School psychologists and educational leaders provide critical content knowledge and leadership for effective implementation of MTSS practices. Founded on a problem-solving framework, systems-level MTSS implementation is guided by both a problem-solving framework (consistent with a behavioral consultation model), and an implementation science framework. Within an implementation science paradigm, principals and school psychologists provide distinct expertise in competency (school psychologists) and organizational (principals) drivers and complementary and collaborative skills within leadership drivers. These professions also serve essential and pivotal roles throughout problem-solving practices within MTSS. The problem-solving practice within behavioral consultation and the systemic development provided through implementation science are not exclusive of one another, just as the roles and functions of principals and school psychologists complement each other throughout MTSS reform. Implications for Training Both principals and school psychologists play a significant role in MTSS reform. It would be beneficial for each discipline to have a stronger knowledge base related to each other’s training, areas of expertise, and professional roles. By training in interdisciplinary environments, future school psychologists and principals can gain better perspectives of their potential complementary and collaborative activities. It would be most beneficial if this training occurred within the framework of systems reform, as both disciplines would significantly benefit from more comprehensive content knowledge, training, and experience in implementation science. The background of school psychologists in facilitating team-based, problem-solving activities with fidelity is necessary for the effective implementation of MTSS practices. School psychology courses in consultation should emphasize not only the problem-solving process of a behavioral consultation model, but other process variables related to providing consultative services in teams. This would include content such as developing collaboration among a variety of individuals, moderating relational variables among team members, and effective use of social influence to build team consensus. A comprehensive approach to consultation training including 174 J. W. Eagle et al. systems-level, consultee-focused, and client-focused consultation models would be preferential to support effective preservice training for school psychologists working in schools implementing a MTSS framework. Principal and educational leadership training would be enhanced if graduate programs extended the amount of content related to both the structure of MTSS practices and aspects of effective implementation and sustainability. Although principals are able to delegate different responsibilities within MTSS reform, deeper knowledge of competency drivers as pertaining to MTSS practices will enable them to make effective adaptive leadership decisions. Implications for Future Research A systems perspective of MTSS reform, via implementation science, has significant implications for future research in the area of consultation. Although developed from a problem-solving framework, consultation practices within MTSS implementation provide unique environments and challenges. As much of the problem-solving structure within MTSS is team-based, future research should focus on the aspects of group dynamics (particularly related to collaboration and team leadership) that lead to effective outcomes. Much of MTSS team-based practices are based upon the efficient use of time and resources, indicating that future research should address streamlining the problem-solving process while maintaining fidelity of the process and intervention implementation. Further, a large part of consultation within MTSS involves building capacity within school staff to implement practices or interventions with fidelity. Thus, it would be important to assess whether the provision of professional development trainings, based on adult learning principles, within MTSS provide changes in staff behavior, and if those changes are sustainable over time. REFERENCES Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Blase, K., & Goodman, S. (2013). Stages of implementation: Initial implementation. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.signetwork.org/event_calendar/ events/728. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., Minch, D., & Hines, C. (2012). Problem solving: Response to intervention evaluation tool Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 175 technical assistance manual (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.floridarti. usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/ta_manual_revised2012. Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & connect: A comprehensive student engagement intervention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company, Inc. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1. Erchul, W. P. (2011). School consultation and response to intervention: A tale of two literatures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21, 191–208. Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A. (2008). Drivers framework. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, The National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield, S. A., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 77–100. French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a time of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gamm, S., Elliott, J., Halbert, J. W., Price-Baugh, R., Hall, R., Walstron, D., Uro, G., & Casserly, M. (2012). Common core state standards and diverse urban students: Using multi-tiered systems of support. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools. Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Exceptional Children, 51, 377– 384. Green, J. (2012). Editorial: Science, implementation, and implementation science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 333–336. Gresham, F. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Springer. Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146. Knotek, S. E., Kaniuka, M., & Ellingsen, K. (2008). Mental health consultation and consultee-centered approaches. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 127– 145). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consultation: Applications in prevention and intervention systems. In A. Thomas & J. 176 J. W. Eagle et al. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1673–1688). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2003). A school-wide intervention with primary and secondary levels of support for elementary students: Outcomes and considerations. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 431–451. Marzano, R. J. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146–154. McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanon, H. (2010). Toward true integration of academic and behavior response to intervention systems, Pt 3: Tier 3 support. Communiqué, 39, 30–31. Meyers, A. B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., Proctor, S. L., & Huttleston, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 106–124. Meyers, J., Meyers, A. B., & Grogg, K. (2004). Prevention through consultation: A model to guide future developments in the field of school psychology. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 257–276. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Standards for graduate preparation of school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. L., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K–12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73. O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297– 310. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved from http:// www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinal report.pdf. Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A classwide consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37, 315–332. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Threetier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Interventions, 9, 239–252. Stollar, S. A., Schaeffer. K. R., Skelton, S. M., Stine, K. C., Lateer-Huhn, L., & Poth, R. L. (2008). Best practices in professional development: An integrated, three-tiered model of academic and behavior supports. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 875–886). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Consultation and Collaboration Within MTSS 177 Sugai, G. (2009). Reaching all students: RTI & SWPBS. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/pbis_resource_detail_page.aspx?Type=1&PBIS_ ResourceID=807. Tucker, M., & Codding, J. (2003). The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 58–74. Winitzky, N., Sheridan, S., Crow, N., Welch, M., & Kennedy, C. (1995). Interdisciplinary collaboration: Variations on a theme. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 109–119. John W. Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. He serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode Island State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks. Shannon E. Dowd-Eagle, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. She serves as a Co-Project Coordinator for the OSEP funded Rhode Island State Personnel Development Grant related to the implementation of Multi-Tiered System of Supports frameworks. Andrew Snyder, EdD, directs the Educational Leadership Program at Rhode Island College. A former middle school principal, Dr. Snyder teaches courses in change leadership, ethics, and community partnerships. Elizabeth Gibbons Holtzman, PhD, is a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at Rhode Island College. Her interests include interdisciplinary training in assisting school staff to provide effective supports in educational settings. Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this article. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Howard S. Muscott Stacy Szczesiul Becky Berk Kathy Staub Jane Hoover Paula Perry-Chisholm Schoolwide positive behavior supports (SWPBS) is a culturally responsive set of systems, practices, and data-based decision-making features designed to achieve socially important behavior change. One important feature of SWPBS is the evidence-based practice of engaging families as partners in schooling. Statewide initiatives, early childhood education programs, and K-12 schools engaged in SWPBS can establish and use home-school partnerships as leverage for school improvement. How can schools foster family engagement in developing, implementing, and sustaining SWPBS? What are the challenges associated with such engagement? What barriers do schools face? What effective state- and school-level strategies enhance family engagement and home-school partnerships? 6 COUNCIL FOR EXCEH'IONAL CHILDREN Creating HomeSchool Partnerships by Engaging Families in Schooiwide Positive Behavior Supports Our nation's schools are faced with complex and deep-rooted challenges such as poverty, discrimination, weak school-family relationships, low student motivation, and high student mobility. These challenges must be overcome if children and youth are to meet their needs for belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 1990}; experience social competence and academic achievement in school; and ultimately enjoy a high quality of life. To support families, schools must utilize evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning. Moreover, these approaches must he embedded in efficient systems that allow practitioners to implement them with fidelity and cross the research-to-practice divide, which historically serves as a deterrent to school reform efforts. One promising approach to school reform that is gaining significant traction across the country is schooiwide positive behavior supports (SWPBS), a culturally responsive set of evidencebased interventions designed to achieve socially important behavior change and improve academic achievement [U.S. Department of Education, 2000). SWPBS involves creating a set of universal behavior support features for proactively and systematically (a) identifying, teaching, and reinforcing valued social behaviors and Cb) identifying and responding effectively to challenging behaviors that undermine teaching, learning, and social relationships {Sugai & Horner. 1999). Using systems to support adults, practices to support students, and data for decision making. SWPBS arguably has grown in popularity like no other school reform effort in educational history [Sugai & Horner, 2006). Research and program evaluations have shown that schools implementing SWPBS with fidelity experience improvements in school climate; reductions in problem behaviors that would have led to office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions; increased opportunities for academicengaged time; and gains in student achievement (Bradshaw, 2006; Homer, Sugai, Eber. Phillips. & Lewandowski. 2003; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, in press). Barriers to Family Engagement and Home-School Partnerships ln Playing Their Paris [Public Agenda. 1999), a national survey of parents and public school teachers revealed that most parents considered their children's teachers as accessible and caring, and teachers were more likely to be complimented than criticized. However, when it came to engagement in decision making. Public Agenda found most parents uncomfortable in leadership roles and most teachers uncomfortable having parents in those roles. In fact, despite federal policy [the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, NCLB; Individuals With DisabUity Education Improvement Act of 2004, IDEA) that clearly mandates family and community engagement, most teachers and administrators "still think of themselves as individual leaders of classrooms, schools, or districts with little attention to the Importance of teamwork and collaboration with parents and community partners" [Epstein & Sanders, 2006, p. 82). As noted by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, "Successful interagency partnerships make every effort to include family members In the decisions and actions that affect their own children. Parents and family members are tbe experts on their own children, and insofar as possible, they must be allowed, encouraged and supported to participate actively in every aspect of decision making regarding their families' children" [2002, p. 25). Major barriers include [a] one-side power relationships between schools and famihes [Nogera, 1999); [b) inadequate teacher preparation regarding establishing and sustaining relation- TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN JULY/AUC 2008 7 Additional Resources Alliance for School Mental Health. (2006). PBIS school-family-communitypartnership toolkit. Long Island, NY: Author. Available from the Office of PB!S, District 75, NYC Public Schools, 400 First Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Beach Center on Disability. [2007). Family research instruments and toolkits. Available at http://www.beachcenter.org/families/family_researchjoolkit. aspx Bouffard, S. M., & Stephen. N. (2007). Promoting family involvement in middle and high schools. Principal's Research Review, 2(6), Reston, VA: NASSP. Available at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/ research/nassp.html Caspe, M., & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Lessons from family-strengthening interventions: Learning from evidence-based practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Available at http://vvww.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/ fine/resources/research/lessons.html Kentucky Commissioner of Education's Parents Advisory Council. (2007). The missing piece of the proficiency puzzle: Recommendations and a rubric for involving families and community in improving student achievement. Lexington, KY: Department of Education. National Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/P2000/center.htm Nationai Parental Information Resource Center Coordination Center: h ttp: //www. nationaipirc. org/ Public Education Network (2004). School-parent compact: Action guide for parent and community leaders. Washington, DC: Author. PBIS-NH School Contacts For more information about how schools implemented the programs described in this article, contact: Dublin Consolidated School Main St., Box 1006 Dublin, NH 03444-1006 May Clark, Principal (603) 563-8332 mclark@conval.edu East Derry Memorial School 18 Dubeau Drive Derry. NH 03038-4807 Sue Devine, Third Grade Teacher (603) 432-1260 sdevine@derry,kl2.nh.us Hillside Middie School 112 Reservoir Avenue Manchester, NH 03104 Stephen Donohue, Principal (603) 624-6352 sdonohue@mansd.org 8 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Lakes Region Community Child Services Center 22 Strafford Street, Unit 4 Laconia. NH 03246 Marti Ilg, Program Coordinator (603) 524-1235 martiilg@hotmail.com Mastricola Lower Elementary School 7 School Street, Merrimack, NH 03054 John Fabrizio, Principal (603] 424-6218 john.fabrizio@merrimack.kl2.nh,us Southem New Hampshire Head Start P.O. Box 5040, 40 Pine Street Manchester, NH 03108-5040 Pam Lane. Family Services Manager (603) 668-8010 plane@snhs.org ships with parents (Epstein & Sanders, 2006); (c) limited time and material resources for engaging parents; and (d) pressure from underresourced national and state accountability measures. Finally, teachers' and administrators' attitudes about parent engagement are often shaped by the cultural filter of White, middle-class values, assumptions, and experiences and do not align with those of some families and the neighborhood (Henderson, Johnson, Mapp, & Davies, 2006). When these barriers cannot be addressed satisfactorily, regression to blaming and scapegoating is common, and the likelihood of disengagement increases significantly. Families that are challenged by poverty, single parenthood, language and literacy barriers, and cultural differences are no longer likely to be dismissed outright by school personnel as dysfunctional (Leistyna, 2002). However, unless schools make concerted efforts, family engagement is more likely to occur with some families—those from more educated, more economically stable backgrounds—than with others—those from less educated, working class backgrounds (Sheldon, 2003). The result of such circumstances is predictable: parents who understand the system act on a sense of entitlement and make requests for scarce resources. In turn, teachers and administrators satisfy the active parents' requests to diminish the potential for confrontation, leaving the students of less savvy and empowered parents with fewer advantages. Schools that answer the call to purposefully reenvision the role of parents in creating better learning environments for children strive to empower all parents—regardless of their educational or socioeconomic backgrounds— to be active partners in their children's school experience. Such schools productively channel the advocacy efforts of typically active parents and effectively mitigate feelings of marginalization, inferiority, or uncertainty in parents who have traditionally felt less empowered. In both cases, parents are recognized as important members of the school community, increasing the Schools [can] productively channel the advocacy efforts of typically active parents and effectively mitigate feelings of marginalization, inferiority, or uncertainty in parents who have traditionally felt less empowered. likelihood of improvements in academic achievement and social competence for all children. Toward a Partnership Model Expanding the definition of "family engagement" is the first step for schools in creating more inclusive, productive places of learning for students and adults. Engagement is predicated on building trusting relationships with family members; that is to say, relationships in which teachers and parents respect one another, believe In each other's ability and willingness to fulfill their responsibilities, have high personal regard for one another, and trust each other to put children's interests first (Bryk & Schneider, 2005; Henderson et al., 2006). Relationship building is enhanced when schools use family centered practices that respect the uniqueness and personal circumstances of all families (Keenan, 2004), including those who have children with disabilities (Muscott, 2002), and provide opportunities for leadership (Epstein, 2002). Epstein (2002) provides an expansive framework through which educators must think deeply about how they support and facilitate parenting, learning at home, communicating, volunteering, participating in decision making, and collaborating with community. Schools on the path to meaningful inclusion of families recognize parents (and grandparents or guardians) as being engaged in their children's educational experiences when they provide for their child's basic physical and psychological needs, promote the child's learning at home, volunteer in the classroom, advocate on behalf of the child with teachers and administrators, participate on decision-making committees, become active in community organizations that promote the work of schools and the welfare of all children, or some combination thereof (see box, "Additional Resources"]. Many New Hampshire schools involved in SWPBS, via the Positive Behavioral Interventions and SupportsNH (PBIS-NH) initiative, have begun using Epstein's [2002) framework to shift how teachers and families think about partnerships related to students' academic and social-emotional growth (see box, "What Does the Literature Say about SWPBS?"). They do not assume that families who have traditionally been considered disengaged are making a conscious choice not to get involved in their child's school experience. Rather, schools are recognizing that a range of challenges may prohibit well-intentioned families from effective engagement. As a result, they are embedding proactive and responsive systems and practices that address a wide range of needs and challenges. Responsiveness to Family Engagement Educators in PBIS-NH schools think about parent engagement in terms of Epstein's (2002) framework and a multi-tiered approach that addresses responsiveness to family engagement through three tiers of support: universal, targeted, and intensive. Once schools identify the range of behaviors and actions that constitute engagement, the next logical step is determining what families need to know or access to "engage." Thus, teachers and administrators implicitly recognize their responsibility to meet families at their own level with regard to engaging in their child's education experience. Schools that perform a focused assessment of parents' needs understand what strategies or supports will be necessary to (a) sharpen a wide range of parents* basic skills, (b) establish consistent systems of two-way communi- cation, (c) create a spectrum of volunteering opportunities, (d) teach families how to support students' academic progress by exposing them to new academic and behavior content and skills, (e) expand the influence of families by sharing power in decisions about teaching and learning at their schools, and (f) tap into the resources and strengths avaiiable in the community. Being responsive to all families requires that educators understand the range of readiness for engagement that exists and be able to match strategies to each family's place on the continuum. Although engagement needs for most will be satisfied by universal strategies, some families will need more targeted forms of support. For example, most families might only need basic information regarding how they might engage in their child's education effectively. For many of these parents, information provided through traditional communication systems What Does the Literature Soy About SWPBS? SWPBS particularly emphasizes the relationship between school and home, making educators and family members prominent agents in transforming students' educational experiences. Not surprisingly, SWPBS draws on a robust research literature to validate its emphasis on homeschool partnerships. The literature suggests that such partnerships improve attendance, homework completion, and student achievement (Christenson & Sheridan 2001; Henderson. Johnson, Mapp, & Davies, 2006), particularly in urban areas (Nogera, 1999). and independent of family background (Keith et al.. 1993). Family engagement has also been shown to decrease school violence (Boulter, 2004), improve graduation rates, and increase the likelihood that early adolescents will enroll in higher education (Deslandes & Bertrand. 2005). TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ' JULY/AUG 2008 9 {e.g., newsletters, open houses, resource lists, and parent conferences) will suffice. However, for some families, a second tier of targeted supports may be required to support effective engagement in their child's education. These families may need information in their native language, provided by a translator, or personal contact by a school staff member with whom there is mutual trust and respect, rather than a mass e-mail or newsletter. Positive relationships hold the key to success. At the intensive tier, a small number of families may be disengaged from their child's school because of. for example, their own failed school experiences, an ineffective relationship with their child, persona] challenges, or previously compromised relationships. Unpleasant relationships or experiences promote escape and avoidance behaviors, which make school and family engagement difficult. In these cases, teachers and administrators must adopt a highly individualized and respectful 10 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN CC Before getting involved with the PBIS program, I found myself yelling, fighting and having no patience with my two daughters, Natalie, age 4, and Nicole, age 2. As a result of our involvement with the Black Bear TVacks program, my husband and 1 now work better with the girls. The girls now pick up their own toys, put their own dirty clothes away and we can sit down at the dinner table without them getting out of their chairs. One big improvement is that I am not always yelling and losing my patience and we have more bonding times together. —Dawn Johnson Parent, Lakes Region Child Care Center approach that requires, at its core, an understanding of families' unique needs, fluency with specialized interaction and relationship-building skills. and knowledge and access to targeted resources and supports. These families may not feel they have the power or capacity to effect change for their children and see disconnecting from the school as the only viable option. Schools that operate with an approach that is expanded, proactive, and organized along a continuum of intensifying parent support and engagement, however, are more likely to experience mutually beneficial outcomes associated with family-school partnerships (Keenan, 2004). For example, schools involved in the Mental Health and Schools Together: New Hampshire initiative (e.g., Peterborough Elementary and Littleton High School; see www.nhceb!s.seresc.net/family_ engagement_article2008) have linked with local community mental health centers and developed a facilitated referral process to help families access appropriate and culturally responsive mental health supports in a timely fashion. improvement in mean math scores on the New Hampshire state test. More important, 16 (59%) made gains in reading proficiency levels and 14 (52%) made gains in math pro0ciency levels. PBIS-NH and Family Engagement Since the inception of the PBIS-NH systems change initiative in the fall of 2002. SWPBS has heen systematically introduced and comprehensively supported in 141 public and private preschools and K-12 schools; the PBISNH initiative reaches more than 40,000 New Hampshire children, 98% of whom attend public schools. To date. By articulating concrete values, identifying evidence-based practices, establishing transparent linkages with area organizations, and outlining the specific criteria and expectations for schoolbased teams, PBIS-NH lays the groundwork for families and educators to develop relationships and cultivate productive partnerships. These exceptional partnerships, in turn, serve to holster the mission of PBIS-NH to sup- PBIS-NH State-Level Practices for Family Engagement One type of activity involves helping parents become fluent in using PBIS strategies to create a home climate that is conducive to studying, completing projects, and doing homework. PBIS initiatives are actively underway in 17% of New Hampshire's public schools, reaching 16% of public school students in the state; and teachers, administrators, and families in these schools are experiencing a number of important educational outcomes. For example, program evaluations reveal that PBIS-NH early childhood education (ECE) programs and schools experience decreases in problem behaviors resulting in less office discipline referrals and suspensions and increases in time for teaching, learning, and leadership activities, which result in improvements in academic achievement [Muscott et al., in press; Muscott et al., 2004; New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Intervention and Supports, 2008). In school year 2006 to 2007, ECE and K-12 schools in multiple cohorts had 1,088 [7.1%) fewer office discipline referrals and 260 (16%) fewer suspensions than the previous school year. Of 27 elementary, middle, and multilevel schools analyzed over a 2-year timeframe, 24 (89%) showed improvement in mean reading scores and 11 (41%) showed port the social-emotional well-being and achievement of all New Hampshire's students. We hegan our efforts by creating linkages with statewide family and youth leadership organizations (e.g.. National Alliance on Mental Illness-NH, Granite State Federation of Families, Parent Information Center, Alliance for Community Supports, Main Street Academix) that resulted in state-level policy, shared trainings and presentations, and joint grant proposals. These state-level partnerships produced consensus on a definition of a family-friendly school as a place where all families (a) feel welcomed, valued, and respected; (b) have opportunities for their opinions to be heard and their input known and acted upon; (c) have varied and authentic opportunities to be involved in activities of decisionmaking; and (d) feel satisfied with these elements (New Hampshire Family Engagement Work Group, 2004). To operationalize these values, the Family Engagement Work Group identified the features of a family-friendly TEACHING school as a place where families (a) are informed of school activities in a variety of ways, tb) have access to information about how they can support their child's learning, (c) have access to information about how they can be involved in supporting learning in school through volunteering and assisting, and (d) know what resources are available and how to access those resources. As a second outcome, the group articulated a skill set for family members who serve on the universal leadership team (see www.nhcebis. seresc .net/ f amily_engagem ent_ article2008). The group also ratified the policy of the New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports that all ECE programs and schools be required to have at least one family member on their universal leadership team. Finally, the group agreed with the recommendation that schools regularly assess responsiveness to family engagement using the Family Engagement Checklist (Mann & Muscott, 2004) and develop an action plan to address any areas not fully implemented. PBIS-NH School-Level Family Engagement Practices Engaging families through parenting and learning at home. Many New Hampshire ECEs and K-12 schools have developed engagement activities related to parenting and learning at home that are delivered at open houses or in more formal workshops. One type of activity involves helping parents become fluent in using PBIS strategies to create a home climate that is conducive to studying, completing projects, and doing homework. Another typical activity involves helping families design a behavioral matrix based on home routines that is consistent with the expectations used in the SWPBS system. For example, the Southern New Hampshire Head Start in Nashua was the first ECE in the PBISNH initiative to support parents with basic parenting skills using an adapted home matrix based on their Heads Up program (Be Safe, Be Kind, and Take Care of Our Things). Family workers visited families to help them create EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN JULY/AUC 2008 11 positively stated, observable behaviors for home routines such as bedtime, mealtime, and peer play. To enhance connections between school and home, the Lakes Region Child Care Services Center surveyed parents to assess interest and barriers, and partnered with another local agency, UpStream, to offer a five-part parenting series. Educators and family members involved in creating and delivering the "Parenting Series" considered the universal needs of the families by conducting surveys; providing training, materials, practice, and feed- CC in school programs and understand their children's progress—and schools become more aware of parentaJ strengths and concerns. Schools such as Mastricola Lower Elementary, Hillside Middle, and Dublin Consolidated Elementary (see box, "Additional Resources"), which we spotlight in this article, recognize the role that communication plays in creating partnerships with families. They created a number of universal communication systems, such as monthly newsletters with a write-in parent advice section, initial SWPBS activities My children love this school—the school has been a phenomenal support for me and my kids. I can communicate with the school staff about anything. When you have the support you need, you succeed. —Parent of a student at South Meadow Middle School, Peterborough back in natural settings; including parents in decision making and leadership; and emphasizing positive behavioral expectations (Be Safe, Be Kind, and Take Care). Results inciuded high and consistent attendance, high graduation rates from the training series, contintied participation after the training concluded, reports of improved family functioning, and creation of a community of leaders and learners. One father, for example, noted that the bedtime routine had become much more peaceful since they implemented the ideas: "We don't have to fight with him at bedtime anymore, we just look at the matrix and know what to do." Engaging families through two-way home-school communication. Historically, schools have used unilateral forms of communication with families by disseminating pertinent information through irregular administrative letters, parent handbooks, newsletters, report cards, or infrequent phone calls. According to Epstein (2002), a defining element of school-home partnerships is establishing effective two-way communication systems. Through the reciprocal exchange of information, families are better equipped to engage 12 COUNCIL FOR ExcEPnoNAi. CHILDREN to introduce the program to parents, periodic open houses with aligned activities, an interactive Web site, and a parent liaison who solicits information from families and brings questions and suggestions to school meetings. Mastricola's monthly school newsletter features a SWPBS column to inform and engage parents, listing the upcoming "Behavior Skill ofthe Week" and offering suggestions for fostering common approaches in "The Big 3" (safety, respect, and responsibility; see www.nhcebis.seresc.net/document/ filename/369/Mastricola_ES_Nov_ newsletter_revised_highlighted.pdf). Every 6 weeks, members of Hillside Middle School's parent-teacher organization (PTO) edit and print their Beak Speaks parent newsletter (see www. nhcebis. seresc.net/document/ rilename/365/Beak_Speaks_pages_ combined.pdf). During tbe first year of the SWPBS initiative, the newsletter incltided articles about the adoption of the program and an explanation of what it would mean to students. Additional articles clarified the dress code, cbanges to the tardiness policy, details of the Hillside High-Five acknowledgment program, and data summaries. The use of interactive rollout activities to introduce the SWPBS program to students and families and open houses to create ongoing, two-way dialogue about the program are typical in PBISNH ECE centers and K-12 schools. Dublin Consolidated School, a small, rural elementary school, used a consistent schedule of open houses to achieve two-way communication with families and creatively sustain tbe momentum for SWPBS implementation. During one such open house. An Evening of ABCs, families participated in four different activities that highlighted the important aspects of the program. According to Principal May Clark: Fifth graders wrote and performed skits showing families bow students exhibit the ABCs in three locations: arrival/dismissal, lunch, and physical education classes. A Jeopardy! game that had been used in a school activity with students was used to inform and assess families' knowledge of the ABCs. The ABC song was performed by second graders and taugbt to families. Finally, students shared their responses to a writing prompt related lo respect in four small groups so families had the opportunity to hear the work done by students of all ages. The open house was attended by more than 90 family members. Viewed through Epstein's (2002) framework, this form of engagement provided an opportunity for two-way communication witbin the context of a fun, interactive hour of activities. Events were made relevant by (a) using discipline data to identify the specific routines needing additional behavior support (i.e., arrival/dismissal, lunch, and physical education classes); (b) maximizing opportunities for students to design and perform at open houses; (c) emphasizing activities that actively invoived parents and students; and (dj showcasing student products (e,g,, written essays, posters) that highlighted the integration of academics witb bebavior support and contributed to a positive school climate. Periodic and brief surveys are also a good way to gauge whether families feel connected to the school and understand their child's experiences. Some families do not respond to paper surveys; schools might employ a second-tier attempt through a telephone poll. Volunteers with clipboards can also administer surveys at school events. Mastricola Elementary, for example, developed and distributed a survey to assess parent awareness of their "The Big 3" program, The leadership team used findings from the survey to develop articles for their newsletters. (See www.nhcebis.seresc. net/document/filename/366/Mastricol a_ES_PBIS_Survey_05.pdf for surveys from Mastricola Elementary School.) Family members who do not speak English, have limited reading skills, and/or lack educational resources at home may need additional supports and different communication mechanisms. Without adequate and accurate translators and translations, some children may misunderstand and/or miscommunicate school messages. Investments in computer-based translation systems, third-party liaisons, translated materials, automated phone messages, and so forth are worthwhile to bridge the language divide between educators and non-English-speaking families. Engaging families through volunteering and shared decision making. Traditionally, parental involvement in schools has been unsystematic, voluntary, and limited (e.g., chaperoning field trips, participating in fundraisers, tutoring), and perceived by some educators as time-consuming and obligatory rather than helpful. Educators in PBIS-NH schools have moved family engagement toward Epstein's [2002) vision in which recruitment is systematic, opportunities for volunteering are available to al! families, and family engagement is influential to student success. When schools view parents as partners and engage them in decision-making processes that are mutually respectful, they realize higher levels of student achievement and greater public support. PBIS-NH schools are required to have at least one family member on the universal leadership team to attend trainings, participate in team meetings, bring the family perspective to decision making, support rollout activities, serve as a liaison to family organizations, and encourage other famiiy members to become active. For example, Mastricola and East Derry Memorial actively recruit family members to serve as equal partners on SWPBS teams that make decisions affecting teachers, administrators, students, and families. At Mastricola, Maureen TYacy, the parent member, has use and reinforce the [program] at school, at home and in the community. Parents have found that the tenets . . . are helpful in enhancing parenting skills and creating a positive environment at home. Our goal over the next 2 years is to improve two-way communication and involve more families and the community in evaluating and measuring the success of the program, it will be wonderful to see that Periodic and brief surveys are also a good way to gauge whether families feel connected to the school and understand their child's experiences. done more than serve as a liaison for the team, PTO, and parent volunteer program. She has set up information tables during parent conferences, coordinated a SWPBS section in the annual Merrimack Christmas parade in conjunction with the student council, and developed a SWPBS Parent Hotline to provide answers and information for families. Similarly, Leah Manchester, parent member on East Derry Memorial's universal leadership team, takes her role seriously. I was the outsider, the noneducator in the group, but 1 wanted to truly be part of the team. So, I try to attend all meetings and special events, and I offer to help in any way I can. For the most part, my role as parent representative has been primarily as an information conduit, helping parents understand what SWPBS is and how [it] works. . . . At each PTA meeting. Vice Principal Lidia Desrochers and I provide an update of what behaviors the students are working on, their accomplishments, our celebrations and what to expect next. Our monthly PTA newsletter reaches a larger audience. I am glad to part of the SWPBS team. We have made progress in helping families understand what we are trying to accomplish and how they can opportunity expanded so that other parents and community members can participate. We believe that providing a wide range of family engagement practices will continue to be important as the [program] becomes even more a part of our culture in the next few years. Although volunteers should not be involved in disciplining students, they can certainly receive training to participate in other aspects of the program, including teaching expectations and providing acknowledgment when students exhibit desired behaviors. However, family members, like staff, also should receive training on confidentiality, appropriate social interactions, handling conflicts, seeking assistance/ advice, and so on. Mastricola Elementary's behavioral matrix supports the expectations that school volunteers exhibit safe, respectful, and responsible behaviors while in the school, further strengthening school climate and the idea that family members are role models for children even at school. The matrix is a part of the Volunteer Handbook and used during training (see www.nhcebis.seresc.net/ family _engagement_article2008). Looking Ahead Educators in PBIS-NH schools are working diligently to create safe, successful, and satisfying teaching and TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN JULY/AUG 2008 13 learning climates that support students" social competence and academic achievement. They purposefully work on establishing trusting relationships with families that form tbe basis for a wide range of engagement practices. No matter bow well intentioned the effort, there are clear barriers to engagement between schools and families, Whether schools choose to acknowledge their role in mitigating the barriers will, no doubt, make a difference in the quality of a child's educational experience. Fortunately, empirical evidence suggests that educators and parents can overcome barriers that obstruct wellintentioned families from engaging in their children's educational experiences when schools choose to endorse and implement responsive, multi-tiered interventions and supports tbat address the wide range of engagement needs. Tbe family engagement strategies we describe give testament to the emerging power of reform efforts in New Hampshire using SWPBS to support adults, evidence-based practices to support students, and data-based decision making to assess effectiveness. The true test will be whether the effective family engagement practices being used in many PBiS-NH ECE programs and K-12 schools can be sustained with fidelity and ultimately expanded across the state. It is likely that increasing the engagement of families as authentic partners witbin tbe culture of SWPBS wili significantly improve the probability that students experience increased social competence and academic achievement in school and ultimately enjoy a higher quality of life. References Boulter. L. (2004). Family-school connection and school violence prevention. The Negro Educational Review. 55(1), 27-40. Bradshaw, C. (2006, July). Project Target: An evaluation of PBIS in Maryland. Presentation at meeting of OSEP Project Directors. Baltimore. MD. Brendtro. L. K.. Brokenleg, M.. & Van Bockern. S. (1990). Reelaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service. Bryk. A., & Schneider, B. (2005). Thist in sehoob: A core resource for improvement. New york: Russell Sage Foundation. Christenson. S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential 14 COUNCIL FOR ExcErTiONAL CHILDREN connections for learning. New york: Guilford Press. Deslandes, R.. & Bertrand. R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-level schooling. The Joumal of Educational Research. 98. 164-175. Epstein. J. L. (2002). School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders. M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Joumal of Education, 81(2). 81-120. Henderson, A., Johnson, V., Mapp, K., & Davies, D. (2006). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family/school partnerships. New york: The New Press, Horner, R, H,, Sugai, G,, Eber, L , Phillips, D,, & Lewandowski, C, A, (2003). Illinois positive behavioral interventions and sapports project: 2002-2003 progress report. Chicago: rSBE EBD/PBIS Network. Keenan, S. (2004), Family and professional partnerships within a system of care: Exploring the role of families in preservice and in-service development and training. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Technical Assistance Parlnership for Chiid and Family Mental Health, Keith, T, Z., Keith, P. B., TYoutman, G, C. Bickley, P, G., TVivette, P, S., & Singh, K. (1993), Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade students' achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review. 22, 474-496. Leistyna, L, (2002), Extending Ihe possibilities of multicultural communily partnerships in urban public schools. The Urban Review, 34[l), 1-23, Mann, E,, & Muscott, H, S, (2004), The family engagement checklist Bedford, NH: New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Muscott. H, S. (2002), Exceptional partnerships: Listening to the voices of families. Preventing School Failure. 46. 66-69. Muscott, H. S,, Mann, E., Benjamin, T. B., Gately, S., Bell, K., & Muscott. A, J. (2004). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Prehminary results of a statewide system for implementing schooiwide discipline practices. Education and lYeatment of Children, 27, 453-475, Muscott, H. S,. Mann, E,. & LeBrun, M. (in press). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementation of schoolwide positive bebavior support on student discipline and academic achievement, .Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2002), Mental health, schools and families working together for all children and youth: A shared agenda. Alexandria, VA: Author, New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Intervention and Supports, (2008), PBtS-NH: 2006-2007 report to the NH DOE. Bedford, NH: Author. New Hampshire Family Engagement Work Group, (2004), Family-friendly schools. Bedford, NH: New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Nogera, P. (1999), TVansfonning urban schools thraugb investments in the social capital of parents. Motion Magazine. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from www. inmotiotimagazine,com/pncapl.html Public Agenda (1999), Playing their parts: What parents and teachers really mean by parental involvement. Retrieved April 12, 2008. from www.publicagenda.org/ speciats/parent/parenl,blm Sheldon, S, (2003). Linking school-familycommunity partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on stale tests. The Urban Review, 25(2), 149-165, Sugai. G., & Homer, R, H. (1999), Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective School Practices, 17, 10-22, Sugai, G., & Horner, R, H. (2006). A protnising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology' Review. 35, 245-259. U.S. Depariment of Education. (2000), TWenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author. Howard S. Muscotl (CEC NH Federation), Director; Stacy Szczesiul (CEC MA Federation), Evaluation Coordinator: and Becky Berk, Associate Director. New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Bedford. Kathy Staub, Hiltside Middle School Parent-Teacher Organization, Manchester. New Hampshire. Jane Hoover and Paula Perry-Chisholm, PBIS Coaches. Mastricola Elementary School, Merrimack, New Hampshire. Address correspondence to Howard Muscott, New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 29 Commerce Drive. Bedford. NH 03110 (e-mail: hmuscott@seresc.net). TEACHING Exceptional Children. Vol. 40. No. 6. pp. 6-14. Copynght 2008 CEC.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hey! Kindly find the attached answer and in case of any issue, let me know. Thank you and all the best.

Leadership for fostering family-school

partnerships
Student’s Name
Institution
Date



To sustain and foster positive family-school partnership, it is
important to have human competency.



This equips you with attitude, knowledge and skills needed in

planning, organizing and mobilizing resources available so as to
achieve the goal and vision of engaging everybody in the
community in the partnership.


To involve families of diverse cultures, home visits is one way
that can help understand the families more. This would help
incorporating all cultures and coming up with partnerships that
covers everybody, without leaving anyone out.



Family members should be given opportunities for
development of their participation skills.



This can be done by helping the families understan...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags