Stronger Together: Lessons Learned from Professional Learning Networks on Family Engagement
Executive Summary
Families In Schools (FIS) is a Los Angeles-based organization with a mission to involve families and communities in their children’s education to achieve lifelong success. Building on its twenty years experience of training and engaging with schools, families, and communities, FIS began facilitating Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) in 2017 as part of a California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) state-wide initiative. In 2017-18 and 201819, FIS facilitated two PLNs: a PLN with four Los Angeles charter management organizations, and a PLN with four Central Valley school districts. This latter PLN was facilitated in partnership with Californians for Justice, a statewide youth-empowerment nonprofit. In 201920, FIS continued to facilitate the LA Charters PLN during a third “bridge” year. These PLNs were designed to build the capacity of school and district/Charter Management Organization (CMO) staff and leaders to engage families and strengthen school-family partnerships, so that families are better able to support their children academically, advocate for their children, and participate in school and district/CMO decision-making. The Central Valley PLN also aimed to build the capacity of district staff to engage students in decision-making and foster positive school climates. To realize these goals, the facilitators provided participants with the opportunity to build relationships and share strategies, resources, and tools with one another, grounding all this work in concepts of equity and continuous improvement. This report reflects lessons that facilitators and participants learned from these PLNs. They are presented as lessons that help to answer two key questions:
How do PLNs strengthen professional learning and support continuous improvement? Lesson 1: PLN participants develop and embrace a 'growth mindset' about
learning and problem-solving. Lesson 2: PLN participants develop trusting and open relationships that
promote continued collaboration.
2
What did PLN participants and facilitators learn about family engagement best practices? Lesson 3: Authentic family engagement must stem from organizational values
and belief systems, not compliance-oriented requirements. Lesson 4: Equity needs to be front and center when families are engaged. Lesson 5: For family engagement to truly be a priority, school and
district/CMO leaders must make it visible through their staffing structures and strategic plans. Lesson 6: Education professionals are hungry for specific tools and resources
to support authentic family engagement.
PLNs and other professional networks like them have the potential to create lasting and meaningful change for organizations, families, and communities. Educational organizations and the state can build upon these lessons and scale such opportunities so that more educators, families, and students can benefit.
3
Background
Families In Schools (FIS) facilitated Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) since 2017 as part of the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence’s (CCEE) state-wide PLN Initiative. The initiative, just one component of CCEE’s broader professional learning agenda, brings together peer groups to focus on locally identified priorities. Through a structured and facilitated network, participants build their capacity to engage in decision-making and improve student outcomes through continuous improvement efforts. The Initiative began in spring 2017 with 28 Early Adopter PLNs, and Families In Schools facilitated one of those PLNs. CCEE continued the initiative in a more official capacity through 2017-18 and 2018-19, expanding to 54 PLNs. During this time, Families In Schools facilitated two networks: a Central Valley PLN in partnership with Californians for Justice, and a Los Angeles charter schools (LA Charters) PLN. In 2019-20, it has continued to facilitate the LA Charters PLN as part of the CCEE’s Bridge PLN Initiative, which provides matching funds to successful PLNs that wish to continue operating.
Purpose and Focus of the PLNs The purpose of the Families In Schools’ PLNs was to enhance family engagement efforts in support of student achievement. By building the capacity of family and community engagement professionals to engage families and strengthen school-family partnerships, FIS expected that families would better be able to support their children academically, advocate for their children, and participate in school and district/Charter Management Organization (CMO) decision-making. In the Central Valley, the PLN also included an explicit focus on student engagement. The co-facilitators - Families In Schools and Californians for Justice aimed to build the capacity of school and district/CMO staff and leaders to engage students in decision-making and foster positive school climates.
4
The Research Base The PLNs’ theory of change is supported by Karen Mapp and Paul Kuttner’s “dual capacity building framework,” which addresses the need to build the capacity (including skills, knowledge, confidence, and belief systems) of both educators and parents to forge successful school-family partnerships (2019). It is also grounded in research showing that increased parental involvement leads to improved student success in areas like student achievement, reduced absenteeism, and improved behavior (Wilder, 2014), as well as by research showing that in places where parents are empowered as partners and decisionmakers, student outcomes improve (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton 2010; Noguera, 2001). In addition, research has demonstrated that a positive school climate can improve academic achievement and help close achievement gaps (Berkowitz, 2016).
To realize these family and student engagement goals, the facilitators provided participants with the opportunity to build relationships and to share strategies, resources and tools with family engagement professionals from other school districts and charter schools. Families In Schools brought its twenty years of family engagement expertise to these networks, allowing participants to benefit from both its content-area expertise and its facilitation experience. Although each PLN was structured and facilitated in a way that allowed participants to define the focus of the network, the PLNs generally focused on:
l Building trust and relationships l Designing and implementing cycles for continuous improvement l Foundational family and student engagement practices l Family, student, and community engagement for LCFF and LCAP purposes l Enhancing equity in family and student engagement l Addressing and supporting individual school or district/CMO needs as they pertain to family and student engagement practices
5
PLN Structure
The PLNs were designed to draw upon research on effective networks, including Santiago Rincón-Gallardo and Michael Fullan’s research on the essential features of effective networks in education (2016). Among the eight essential features highlighted in this work, Families In Schools and Californians for Justice primarily focused on four, which they reviewed with PLN participants: l Forming new partnerships between students, teachers, families, and communities l Frequently interacting and learning inwards l Connecting outwards to learn from others l Continuously improving practice and systems through cycles of collaborative inquiry In addition, Families In Schools leveraged the cycle of continuous improvement presented in the California Department of Education’s Family Engagement Toolkit (2017). They used this as a guide to help participants to create action plans, implement strategies, reflect on their success, and adjust for future implementation. Team Composition. To promote intentional collaboration and deepen capacity within
schools, districts, and CMOs, FIS and CFJ encouraged participating organizations to have representative “teams” participate in the PLN, with those teams comprised of parent coordinators, administrators (i.e. school principal and/or cabinet-level leaders), staff overseeing LCAP engagement, and teachers. This was in recognition of the fact that individuals at schools and districts/CMOs often work towards intersecting and overlapping goals but rarely meet on a regular basis in their organizations. Logistics. Each of the PLNs met regularly over the course of two years, during the
2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. In accordance with CCEE requirements, each PLN met in person at least once a month. In total, the Central Valley PLN met eighteen times in person over the two years and the LA Charters PLN met nineteen times. The LA Charters PLN also met twice virtually, and they continue to meet monthly during the 2019-20 Bridge year. Both PLNs initially rotated meeting locations, with meetings taking place at county offices, school district offices, school sites, the Families In Schools downtown Los Angeles office, and other locations. Eventually, both networks settled on recurring, central meeting locations. Facilitation. Each PLN had two facilitators, who set the agendas and aimed to
facilitate continuous improvement cycles and the group’s learning, as opposed to providing training.
6
In addition, facilitators participated in one of CCEE’s five Professional Learning Exchanges (PLXs) with other PLN facilitators, where they received facilitation tools and models and exchanged learnings with one other. FIS provided both facilitators for the LA Charters PLN, and FIS and CFJ each provided a facilitator for the Central Valley PLN. One-on-one sessions. Facilitators also offered one-on-one sessions to PLN participants,
during which time they could explore problems of practice specific to each participant’s role or organization. The way in which this time was used varied considerably from participant to participant. Some one-on-ones resembled coaching sessions or consultancies, while some were grounded in advancing specific work products, such as family surveys.
Table 1. Participation and Demographic Data for Participating LEAs School District or Charter Management Organization
Number of Schools in the LEA
Grades Span Served by the LEA
Number of Students (2017)1
Percent “Unduplicated ” Students (2017)2
Number of PLN Participants3
100 4 44 6
P-Adult P-8 P-8 K-12
73,455 3,050 30,699 1,698
89% 97% 90% 97%
3 6 4 3
14
K-8
6,581
92%
6
13
K-12
5,314
81%
2
4 6
9-12 K-12
859 3,473
86% 97%
3 1
25
6-12
12,693
95%
1
Central Valley PLN
Fresno Unified Arvin Union Bakersfield City Unified Golden Plains Unified LA Charters PLN
KIPP SoCal Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC) Ednovate Camino Nuevo Alliance College-Ready Public Schools4
1 Source: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filescupc.asp. 2 Source: Author’s calculations using California Department of Education Unduplicated Pupil Count data (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filescupc.asp).
3 The number of participants within each year varied, but this is the total number of distinct LEA individuals who participated in at least two meetings during the two or three years of the PLNs.
4 Bridge year only
7
Barriers to Authentic Family Engagement
Participants each brought different problems of practice to the PLN. These challenges and barriers helped inform the rich discussions, consultancies, and other work of the PLN over time. By bravely bringing these challenges to the group, the participants were able to begin tackling root causes and dismantling barriers in their local context. These challenges included school and district/CMO staff and leaders: l Not seeing families as partners in improving student learning l Under valuing families as leaders and partners in decision-making, or under developing the leadership potential of interested and ready family members l Not making enough use of families as advocates in the community l Not regarding students as agents of change l Failing to engage families and students authentically, especially those who have been historically underserved by our educational systems
Lessons Learned
Six key lessons emerged from these PLNs. These are presented as lessons that help answer two key questions: First, how do PLNs strengthen professional learning and support continuous improvement? And second, what lessons did PLN participants and facilitators learn about family engagement best practices?
These lessons can inform future work focused on building the capacity of school and district leaders and staff to engage more effectively and authentically with families and students. Each of these lessons is described in detail in the pages that follow.
8
How do PLNs Strengthen Professional Learning and Support?
Lesson #1: PLNs participants develop and
to their sector’s flexibility, autonomy, and
embrace a growth mindset about learning
pressures for immediate performance.
and problem-solving.
Other participants initially imagined the PLN as an opportunity for facilitators to
PLNs function well when
coach them individually in the “best
participants become active in the learning
practices” for family engagement. One
experience. This requires them to shift their
participant explained: “I was hoping for
mindsets, putting aside expectations that
the magic potion to engage all families!”
facilitators will impart specific expertise and knowledge, and instead embrace the
Facilitators from Families In Schools
idea that they will learn the most by
and Californians for Justice repeatedly
exploring problems of practice with their
reminded participants that the network
fellow participants, even when their
needed to “go slow to go fast”. By this,
colleagues come from seemingly dissimilar
they meant that they had to lay a
organizations. For facilitators, it requires
collaborative foundation before they could
that they intentionally elevate the expertise
dive into the work of problem-solving to
of members of the group and encourage
improve family engagement practices.
members to adapt solutions for different
Further, they had to help participants shift
contexts.
their mindsets from consumers of information to active participants in the
Going slow to go fast. Many of the
professional learning process.
LA Charters and Central Valley PLN
Recognizing, though, that some
participants were initially unfamiliar with
participants had immediate and specific
and surprised by the network’s open-
needs related to family engagement,
ended format. Some even felt frustrated by
facilitators also tasked themselves with
its pace and hoped to “get to the point of”
remaining “acutely aware” of participants’
their collaboration quickly. “In the
individual needs and ensuring that more
beginning,” one participant recounted, “I
urgent problems were tackled through
was impatient to get where I feel like we
individualized coaching during the one-on-
got towards the end, because you have to
ones.
set the tone for things, and I was just like, ‘Oh my gosh. Okay, when are we going to
Participants gradually learned to
get into [the work]?’” In particular,
embrace the PLN structure and lean into
participants from charter schools
their learning. One LA Charters participant
expressed these sentiments, saying that
explained that, at first, “I didn't realize it
work in their organizations often moves at
wasn't really about you teaching me.” By
a quicker pace. This is perhaps attributable
the end of the second year, he said he had
9
learned: “It's about us teaching each
diversity. “I just need to learn from
other. We all have brought something
everybody's successes and ... what they're
here.”
bringing to the table, and it's all going to be good at the end of the day," he said.
Embracing differences. Participants
initially raised concerns about their
Collaborating around shared
organizational differences. Participants
objectives. As participants became more
from larger school districts and Charter
comfortable with the format, they began to
Management Organizations (CMOs)
hone the focus of their PLNs and
wondered what they could learn from their
collaborate around shared problems of
counterparts at smaller districts/CMOs or
practice. Facilitators supported participants
single school sites. Besides size, each
by coaching them through action planning,
organization’s unique structure meant that
by using consultancy protocols and other
while some participants supervised a small
tools, and by encouraging them to take ownership of the network. As one
section of family engagement practices or
facilitator explained to the participants: “I
operated on a single campus, others ran
see you as the leaders, that's what the
their organization’s entire program. To
[network] is for… All I want is just to help
address these concerns, facilitators and
create a space to guide the conversation
participants regularly reminded each other
and let you guys
that no two organizations are alike. Even
take it from there and support where I
when network participants came from
can.”
seemingly similar districts, other important characteristics rendered any “perfect one-
The facilitators, however, did more
to-one comparisons” impossible. Through
than just create space – they also provided
the work of the PLN, participants began
a structure that allowed PLN participants to
seeing the network’s diversity as a
self-lead. For example, they created clear
strength. Even when a colleague’s advice
agendas with topics and objectives for
or example was seemingly “incompatible”
each meeting, gave participants tools and
with a participant’s work because of size,
resources (see page 21 for a list), followed
demographic, or structural differences,
up with participants in between meetings,
participants found that they could find
and regularly encouraged PLN members to
ways to adapt that advice, strategy,
“stick to it” even when the process felt
program or practice to their own context.
murky.
One participant acknowledged that
Facilitators also suggested PLN
he was initially skeptical that he could
participants identify a clear objective or
learn from people whose organizations
end goal that network participants could
were so different from his own, but
accomplish together over the course of the
eventually embraced the network’s
10
two-year engagement. The LA Charters
adaptive challenges — ones that
PLN chose collectively to develop a set of
demanded new
parent engagement guidelines, and the
ways of thinking and learning and that are
participants became greatly invested in this
tough to solve on one’s own. “I realized
shared purpose and work product. As a
that bringing a problem out in the open
public document, these guidelines are
and analyzing it together and finding a
relevant to and can be used by any CMO
solution was so much easier than going in
wishing to improve family engagement.
circles, busy at work all the time, without
(See Evidence of Impact: LA Charters
really finding solutions,' a participant
PLN’s Parent Engagement Guidelines.)
concluded. As they became more reflective,
Improving practice requires new ways of thinking. As they developed their
participants found that they wanted to
growth mindsets, participants were more
develop and nurture stronger relationships
open to learning and problem-solving, and
with their communities and take the time to
this helped them change their approaches
“really hear” the perspectives of family
to family engagement. At the beginning,
members and students. They developed a
some participants were trying to tackle
greater appreciation for the valuable
somewhat narrow, technical challenges.
resources and insights families could bring
For instance, they wanted to know how
to the table and a deeper understanding of
they could get more parents to come to
their needs. More than anything, they came
LCAP meetings or increase the number of
to value long-term and sustainable
survey responses. Through facilitators’
engagement with their families and
guidance and collective conversations,
brainstormed ways to ensure their continued
they instead began to ask how they could
success. As one Central Valley participant
more authentically engage parents as
put it, “[relationships] are the heart of
partners in learning and decision-making.
making something work.” (This is explored
They began to recognize that they faced
further in Lesson 4.)
11
Evidence of Impact: LA Charters PLN’s Parent Engagement Guidelines At the LA Charters PLN outset, facilitators consciously approached possible CMO brand and identity protection concerns by encouraging participants to understand that there was room for each group to grow as a team. Because LA Charters PLN participants had so much in common, however, they found it relatively easy to collaborate. Some of them were the only family and community engagement specialists in their organizations, and often their departments operated in isolation from others in their organizations. One participant explained: “It just feels nice to be able to come into a place and even just talk about [our work].” Participants in the LA Charters PLN not only bonded over their similar roles but also common antagonistic political pressures facing their organizations in their city. They commiserated over this challenge and jointly strategized around how to more effectively harness parent voice and engagement in order to generate community support for charter schools. They recognized that this could also provide them with an opportunity to strengthen parent leadership and partner with families in new and meaningful ways. However, they identified an impediment: many charter school and network leaders lacked a coherent family engagement vision. To address this, LA Charters participants spent the PLN’s second year developing a shared set of family engagement guidelines for their organizations, and for others like theirs. (Those guidelines can be found at: https://bit.ly/ParentGuidelines.) Drawing on research and their shared practical experiences, facilitators and participants collaboratively defined six domains of family engagement: 1. Building Parents’ Capacities 2. Providing Parent Engagement Opportunities 3. Creating a Welcoming Environment 4. Ensuring Staff Buy-in 5. Leveraging Compliance 6. Evaluating Engagement Initiatives Within each domain, authors proposed numerous questions for educators to consider; scaffolded practices, strategies, resources, and activities they might use; and possible metrics and data collection techniques to assess their family engagement impacts.
12
Lesson #2: PLN participants develop
difficult to participate fully. Convening
trusting and open relationships that
representatives from all four Central Valley
promote continued collaboration.
districts at any one of their local offices was cumbersome; some participants had to
Relationships are the foundation
drive hundreds of miles to attend a two-
upon which all the other work of the PLN
hour meeting, only to drive back home
can happen. The LA Charters and Central
immediately afterwards. In LA, commute
Valley PLNs, like all CCEE PLNs, were
times were nearly as bad. Staff turnover
structured around monthly in-person
(and, at times, inconsistent representation
meetings. This provided for intensive
from a single organization) also negatively
relationship-building opportunities, and
affected the PLNs, since this work is so
facilitators were intentional about
dependent on relationships, trust, and
structuring that time to allow participants to
consistency.
establish relationships, build trust, and foster community.
Even though they struggled to find the time to meet, participants found themselves hungry for even more of it, and
Making the time for time-intensive work. Although relationships are
once assembled, they engaged in
foundational to this continuous
enthusiastic conversations. One facilitator
improvement work, relationship-building
reflected: “It can be challenging for our
takes time - something that is notoriously
participants to set the two hours for a PLN
hard to find in an educator’s busy day.
meeting aside, but once we begin our
Most PLN participants had jobs that
work, the productive conversation seems to
required them to wear multiple hats, juggle
fly by. … Our discussions are deep and
overlapping and competing tasks, and
meaningful, but sometimes we just can’t
attend to a constantly evolving set of
get through it all.” For networks that
urgent priorities. Even during meetings,
collectively worked on a specific work
some participants found themselves
product like the LA Charters’ handbook
focused on their home organization. In a
guidelines, two-hour monthly meetings did
focus group interview, one participant
not feel like enough time to produce
lamented: “Even right now I'm waiting on
content.
an email and seeing what's going to
Fostering Community. When the
happen next on the project we're working
PLNs met, participants engaged in team
on.” During the spring, when LEAs spend
building activities that simultaneously built
significant time collecting feedback and
personal relationships and elevated
writing their LCAPs, time constraints were
participants’ expertise, from seemingly
especially acute.
routine warm-ups to more extensive
Between busy schedules and long
consultancy and fishbone diagram
commute times, participants often found it
protocols. They bonded over shared
13
challenges and celebrated each other’s
said that they cherished these partnerships
successes, thereby cultivating trust and
and began to see their colleagues “like
promoting openness among one another.
family” and as “a community.” This sense
They acknowledged each other’s often
of community has supported ongoing
unseen work. Sometimes, something
collaboration among some PLN members
seemingly small, like praising a colleague’s
even after the formal PLN has ended.
PowerPoint presentation, went a long way
Some PLN participants and facilitators told
towards building collegiality and offering
us that they still exchange emails and
affirmation. Facilitators cultivated a “team
phone calls with one another, and still
without competition” by focusing on
others have been invited to and have
collaboration and capacity building and
visited each other's sites to observe their
steering away from comparisons or
day-to-day operations.
outcomes-oriented accountability. For
In addition, a smaller but dedicated
example, facilitators did not ask
group of LA Charters PLN participants
participants to report family engagement
opted to continue in a more formal
metrics or other hard data.
capacity for a third year, through the
These structures and activities
Bridge PLN. Families In Schools facilitators
helped foster a sense of community
continue to work with these participants to
belonging among participants and a deep
focus on a second shared objective – a
appreciation for what one called “a
research project to test how effective their
comfortable space.” Many participants
family engagement protocols are
What Lessons Did PLN Participants and Facilitators Learn about Family Engagement Best Practices?
Lesson #3: Authentic family engagement
center families in their work. This meant
must stem from organizational values and
reflecting upon why family engagement
belief systems, not compliance-oriented
matters in their organizations and taking
requirements
stock of explicit and implicit belief systems. Sometimes, this meant acknowledging that
The PLN participants are family and
not all of their school and district
community engagement professionals -
colleagues fully “buy in” to the idea that
individuals whose jobs are focused on
families can be meaningful partners in
partnering with families. Even so, those
improving student learning and school
professionals valued the opportunity to re-
success. Participants tackled these
14
challenges and others through reflection,
Building the capacity of family
introspection, and shared problem solving.
members to lead. This shift in mindset
helped support what Families In Schools regularly refers to as “authentic” engagement. In so many schools and
From compliance to authenticity.
Some of the PLN participants, particularly
districts/CMOs, staff feel urgency to
those coming from traditional school
engage family members, including parents
districts, were so focused on compliance-
and other caretakers, around the LCAP,
oriented activities (like filling out the LCAP)
district committees, and other decision-
that they or their LEA colleagues
making or advisory tables. However,
sometimes lost focus of the larger purpose
participants explored why this can’t
for family engagement. Some felt
happen in an authentic way without careful
compliance was ingrained in district
scaffolding. It must start with helping
culture. One participant said: “When I first
family members feel welcome on campus
came on in this position, I felt like parent
and giving them opportunities to be
engagement was the stepchild of the LCAP.
involved with their child’s school and
It was like, ‘Oh we have to do that. We
learning. Eventually, structured
have to do this. With Title I we have to do
opportunities can help family members
that.’ Everything was all about what you
grow as leaders and identify opportunities
had to do.”
to collaborate with school staff, influence school decisions, and help the school and
The PLN helped some participants
district improve. Through the PLN,
break away from that compliance
participants learned from colleagues in
orientation and take a more “family-
other districts or CMOs about how to do
centric” approach to family engagement.
family-centered work and also took this
Participants reminded one another about
learning back to their school and
the importance of spending time in the
district/CMO colleagues.
community in order truly to understand the
For examples of how the PLN
perspectives, values, and life experiences of the families they serve. Participants
helped participants learn from, scale, and
explored the importance of warmly
further improve successful family
welcoming families; making participation
leadership programs, see Evidence of
easier for families by offering food, child
Impact: Bakersfield City’s Parent
care, transportation, and translation;
University, Golden Plains Unified’s Project
delivering materials and presentations in
2Inspire, and KIPP SoCal’s Family
accessible and non-technical language;
Ambassadors Program.
and using a variety of communication
Interestingly, the LA Charters PLN
tools, including social media, to reach their
participants had an easier time than some
audience.
of the traditional school district participants
15
in articulating why family engagement
their homework and supporting students to
matters to them and were less likely to
and through college. Because of these
begin with a compliance lens. Because
relationships and this initial focus on
these school staff had to recruit students,
student learning, they also found it easier
they had, by design, built family
to make the leap to engaging with parents
engagement into their model and had
in broader ways - for example, in helping
learned to discern and address community
to select a new school leader or in
needs. These participants focused less,
advocating to protect charter schools
therefore, on how to engage parents in
citywide. The PLN created an opportunity
general, and more on how to involve them
for charter school participants to learn
as partners in student learning. For
about and leverage the LCAP to support
example, many of these participants spent
these and other family engagement efforts.
time exploring how parents could be stronger partners in helping children with
Evidence of Impact: Bakersfield City’s Parent University In Bakersfield City School District, family and community engagement is one of the district’s five key levers for supporting students. The district accomplishes this, in part, through an extensive Parent University program that provides family members with classes, workshops, and other opportunities to learn and grow as parent and community leaders. In 2018-19, more than 400 parents graduated from this program, an increase of 113 parents from 2016-17. Also, Bakersfield City provides a Family and Community Engagement Liaison at each of its 43 school sites specifically to get parents involved and engaged in their child’s learning, and their role on the campus provides direct lines of communication that assist in the increase of parent participation district-wide. Central Valley PLN participants eagerly learned about Bakersfield City’s program and took ideas from Bakersfield back to their own districts. For example, participants learned that Bakersfield district leaders train parents on how to run their District Advisory Committee (DAC) meetings, serve as parent teachers for Parent University, and foster their leadership skills through monthly parent leadership academies, while giving them ownership over these meetings. Participants loved this idea, which one described as a “culture shift,” and several said that they were working to implement it in their own districts.
16
Evidence of Impact: Golden Plains Unified’s Parent Leadership and Parent-to-Staff Pipeline Programs Golden Plains Unified has multiple programs and strategies for growing parent leaders and strengthening connections between schools and the community. The districtwide philosophy of “growth mindset around personal development” is reflected in these programs which focus on leveraging parents’ assets and developing their leadership skills. For many years, Golden Plains has been implementing one of these programs, Project 2INSPIRE. This California Association for Bilingual Educators (CABE) program builds parent leaders and strengthens the capacity of school, district, and family stakeholders to work together as partners. In Golden Plains, this extensive and time-intensive program has produced dozens of parent leader graduates who now offer workshops through which they train other parents districtwide. After several years implementing this program, and having developed a strong and united cadre of parents, staff and family members, they challenged themselves to design what might come next for this cohort of leaders and for other potential parent leaders. Using tools and concepts introduced through the PLN, including the consultancy protocol, the fishbone diagram, and the Continuous Improvement Cycle, parents and staff identified opportunities to further develop their programs and deepen parent capacity. Ultimately, this work led to the creation of a Career Ladder Cohort. This parent-to-staff pipeline program helps address staff recruitment and retention challenges so prevalent in small, rural school districts. Through an eight-week course, parents learn from various leaders in the district, including directors of food services, human resources, and maintenance divisions; acquire concrete job skills like resume writing and interview techniques; and learn about how to work in schools as classroom and yard duty aides, cafeteria support staff, and crossing guards. Program participants are given the opportunity to volunteer and gain experience at their respective school sites while learning employable skills. The added benefit of this program is that it helps build stronger connections between schools and their parents, allowing the district to leverage their many skills, talents, and other assets. Participating parents have collectively provided thousands of hours of volunteerism to the district and have also gone on to serve on many school and district committees and advisory groups.
17
Evidence of Impact: KIPP SoCal’s Family Ambassador Program KIPP SoCals Family Ambassador Program develops family leaders. These individuals advocate for their children’s education and help foster connections between the school sites and the community. At monthly meetings, family ambassadors learn about parenting strategies and ways to support their children’s academic success. The ambassadors then distribute these strategies, tools, and resources at their school sites. KIPP SoCal’s family ambassadors have hosted numerous events to engage their families and build community including “KIPP Talks” modeled on TED Talks and a family summit entitled “Our Children are College Bound.” Family ambassadors decide the topics for these events by learning about their community’s needs. KIPP SoCal’s family engagement team is always looking for ways to improve and further scale this successful project. To support them, Families In Schools facilitators shared research and lessons learned from other parent leadership programs, including a Wisconsinbased Head Start Parent Ambassador program, and encouraged them to consider how those lessons might be adapted to the KIPP context. In turn, KIPP SoCal family engagement leaders facilitated conversations with their family ambassadors about how they might make the program more inviting for future participants.
Lesson #4: Equity needs to be front and
something they would like to address after
center when families are engaged
establishing baseline programs and progress.
Schools, districts, and CMOs need to confront issues of race, bias,
Some participants wanted to better
discrimination, privilege, and power in
understand the difference between equity
their communities. If they do not, families
and equality and most were eager for
will not feel fully welcomed, included, or
strategies that could help them explain that
heard, and authentic engagement will,
difference to others in their communities.
therefore, not happen.
For example, participants in the Central Valley PLN wanted to become more fluent
At multiple times during the PLNs,
and comfortable explaining equity to
participants wrestled with how to fully
community members who feel that giving
address these systemic issues and other
more resources to traditionally
aspects of equity in their work. Many
underserved students may be taking
participants initially saw equity as an
resources away from their own children, or
important but secondary consideration –
18
from the majority. One facilitator said that
Families In Schools often asks the
PLN participants often experienced
question, “In which department(s) does
pushback in their communities from people
your family engagement staff live within
who would say things like: “We are in a
your organization?” With this question,
post-racial society. Do we really need to
they open a conversation about the
pour more resources into some student
priorities of a school, district, or CMO
groups, particularly by race?”
which are often implied by their staffing, leadership, and governance structures.
To address this, Families In Schools and Californians for Justice introduced a
Giving voice and influence to
session on the history of inequality in
family engagement professionals. In
education. They looked at outcomes by
districts and CMOs that have family
student groups and discussed why it is so
engagement professionals on senior
important to look at both opportunities and
leadership teams, it translates into an
outcomes by race. The facilitators and
organizational culture that values family
participants exchanged strategies for
engagement. PLN participants who sat on
engaging in conversations with school
leadership teams or who had opportunities
staff, families, and community members
to bring their ideas to site and
about complex and sometimes emotionally-
district/CMO leaders were more likely to
charged topics related to equity.
influence LEA decisions and even
Participants also engaged in conversations
orientation toward family engagement.
about how to make equity primary rather
These participants found that they
than secondary in family and student
successfully influenced the orientation of
engagement. They learned to ask
their school and district/CMO colleagues
questions like: “Who’s not in the room?
around family engagement. This was
Whose voice has not been heard?” They
evidenced by their superintendents and
talked about specific demographic groups
school site principals use of more
that they needed to reach out to and
consistent and asset-based, equity-oriented
strategies for better including those families
language around engagement, or even just
and students. In Fresno, for example, this
by mentioning the importance of parent
led to the creation of foster youth student
and student voice more often. In addition,
advisory committees so that those students’
participants who had influence (or who
voices would not be lost.
successfully cultivated it) within their systems were more likely to see family engagement programs greenlit and built
Lesson #5: For family engagement truly to
into their LCAPs. Some also successfully
be a priority, school and district leaders
secured goals related to family
must make it visible through their staffing
engagement in their LEA’s strategic plans
structures, governance, and strategic
or LCAPs.
plans.
19
Support from the top. Of course, it
Through the PLN, participants
is not enough for family engagement
explored ways to foster greater “buy in''
professionals to have position or influence:
among their organizations’ leaders and
school, district, and CMO leaders must
staff where it did not already exist.
also deeply value family partnerships
However, the clear lesson is that
themselves. Often, PLN participants
leadership matters, and for authentic
acknowledged that their leaders generally
family and student engagement practices
care about family engagement, but that it
to be sustained over the long term, this
is rarely a top priority. One participant, in
must begin at the top and be reflected in
reference to a typical support team
the language, culture, and actions of the
meeting, said: “Family engagement is
organization. (To learn how one PLN
somewhat expected, but it’s not really
participant implemented these practices,
something that we go deep in.”
see “Evidence of Impact: Systematizing Family Engagement at PUC.”)
Evidence of Impact: Systematizing Family Engagement at PUC Since opening their first school in 1999, Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC) has made family participation a central tenet of their work. Furthermore, the founding leaders were guided by a strong vision and commitment to considering parents as partners through participatory traditions and practices that focused on attendance and the exchange of information. As the network grew, this made it harder to bring on board new team members and ensure consistent family participation practices across the network, especially amid leadership transitions. Recognizing the growing differences among schools’ parent involvement, PUC created a new director role geared towards supporting new leaders, aligning practices and developing a more robust parent engagement approach to partnering with families. This newly founded director position was tasked to join FIS’ charter-focused Professional Learning Network with the goal of exchanging best practices that would grow and transform parent engagement at PUC. Through participation in the FIS LA Charters PLN, PUC participants confirmed the need for establishing clear, written principles or guidelines that would support leadership development throughout its schools. This became a clear necessity when parent engagement saved a PUC school from closure. It was “a big wake-up call” for leaders, many of whom saw that deep family engagement meant so much more than simple involvement opportunities.
20
They saw the strength of organized and empowered parents, confirming the founding leaders’ vision of making parents equal partners at the table, and collaborating and holding leaders accountable to create systemic change. In response, participants from PUC began adapting and using the LA Charters Parent Engagement Guidelines even before the ink was dry. To ensure that guidelines would resonate within PUC, PLN participants modified, or “PUC-ified,” them. With these guidelines, PLN participants anticipate new and seasoned leaders alike will be able to appreciate clarity and achieve milestones through facilitating a tiered adoption of the PLN-produced guidelines. Leaders will be able to say, “I can really stand on these pillars because this is what PUC believes when it thinks about parent engagement” and act accordingly Governance structures reflect priorities. In districts that fully embrace authentic family-
community-school partnerships, it is visible in the organization's governance and oversight structures as well. For example, when Fresno Unified created its student advisory board and committees, Fresno Unified signaled that student voices matter when it comes to spending and decision-making. (See Evidence of Impact: Fresno Unified’s Student Advisory Committees and Board).
Evidence of Impact: Fresno Unified’s Student Advisory Committees and Board With the passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) legislation, Fresno Unified commenced a district-wide Student Advisory Board to gather input and help inform planning. This student-led board is responsible for representing student interests to the Board of Trustees. In recent years, Fresno has also worked to create student advisory committees on each high school campus, which now includes all thirteen high school campuses. Through these committees, students learn about LCFF, the LCAP, and help inform recommendations for district priorities and spending. Additionally, a district-wide foster youth roundtable, which includes involvement from multiple community groups serving this student population, helps to represent their unique needs and perspectives. At the end of the year, student representatives from these committees come together to share their ideas with each other and with the student advisory board. Through this model, the districtwide advisory board can effectively represent the perspectives and recommendations of students across Fresno Unified.
21
The school-level student advisory committees have rapidly evolved and improved since they began. One Fresno PLN participant explained: “It went from students being like, ‘I’m here to eat pizza because you told us there was going to be free pizza’ to students really being passionate about something that they want to be changed in their school.” The district’s LCAP survey responses illustrate this dramatic change: In 2017-18, 90 students responded to the LCAP survey. In 2018-19, 9,918 students responded. The Fresno PLN participants say the PLN played an important part in fueling their success. Through the PLN, they were able to receive advice and guidance around challenges they were facing, learn tips and strategies from other districts, and celebrate their successes with colleagues in similar roles who could understand and appreciate the wins, both big and small. The other Central Valley participants also learned from Fresno. At the end of the two years, additional districts were experimenting with student advisory committees, citing districts like Fresno as an inspiration and guide.
Lesson #6: Education professionals are
participants admitted that they initially
hungry for specific tools, resources, and
showed up wanting to be trained.
practical strategies to support authentic
Ultimately, both goals were
family engagement
achieved: PLN participants walked away
Although the PLN created space for
with many new resources that could
participants to solve problems together
support their work and Families In Schools
using cycles of continuous improvement, it
avoided becoming the keeper and sharer
became clear that participants also wanted
of all that knowledge by leveraging the
specific tools, resources, and practical
groups’ expertise.
strategies to support their work. This was
In some cases, facilitators brought
true even for participants who had been
specific tools to the PLNs (see page 21 for
doing family engagement work for a very
a list of these tools and resources). Many
long time. In some cases, this was because
participants expressed appreciation for
they wanted to continue to deepen their
things like LCAP and Dashboard trainings
practice and advance engagement
which FIS developed specifically for the
strategies in their communities. In others, it
PLNs. One participant from PUC said: “I
was because they were less familiar with
was able to take that [training] back
some of the state’s newer policies and
immediately to the principals and start
tools like LCFF, the LCAP, and the
having them analyze their data...and
California School Dashboard. Some
prepare themselves to train their families.”
22
Others expressed appreciation for the
(See Evidence of Impact: Camino Nuevo’s
fishbone diagram and were able to point
Data Tracking.) In this case, the Families In
to specific changes it helped them
Schools facilitator connected the CMO
implement. For example, one participant
with the district, demonstrating that LEAs
from Ednovate said that the exercise
could benefit from platforms and networks
helped her diagnose breakdowns in school
that enable statewide sharing and resource
site coordination that had led to
exchange.
fragmented communication with parents.
Importantly, the PLN created space
To fix this, she decided to implement a
for participants to practice using tools like
common parent calendar that synced
the fishbone diagram and consultancy
important dates (including events,
protocols in a safe and structured
deadlines, and commitments) across grade
environment. The facilitators allowed for
levels and departments.
ample practice and found that, over time,
In addition to getting tools from the
participants became more comfortable
facilitators, participants also shared tools
using these tools, and the discussions
with one another. For example, a
became richer. (See Tools and Resources
participant from Arvin Unified explained
for an abridged list of resources shared
that her district planned to improve their
and used in the PLNs.)
District Advisory Council meetings’ agendas and facilitation using the “Robert’s Rules of Order” after learning about it from a Bakersfield City colleague In another example, Camino Nuevo – an LA Charters participant – adopted an idea that had been surfaced by Bakersfield City School District in the Central Valley PLN.
Evidence of Impact: Camino Nuevo’s Data Tracking Camino Nuevo Charter Academy was spending a lot of time tracking parent participation and volunteer hours across its six school sites. To stay on top of it, family liaisons met for “data parties” every other month, during which time they would type up the numerous hand-written sign-in sheets and enter data into a Powerschool custom screen. Through the PLN facilitators, Camino Nuevo learned about a simple but powerful data
23
tracking tool used by staff in Bakersfield City School District. Under this new system, each parent volunteer has an ID card, which he or she scans upon entering and leaving the school site. After an extensive analysis of several programs to capture parent data, Camino Nuevo decided to try Parent Square. The program allows for efficient school-home communications as well as self-tracking of volunteer hours. Data is automatically tabulated, and reports are easy to run. Having saved time previously spent collecting and analyzing data, family liaisons now have more capacity to work directly with families and the community. Going forward, this tool will be funded through the LCAP.
Linking Family and Community Engagement to Student Outcomes
The ultimate goal of family and student engagement is to improve student success in schools. Some indicators of student success include Dashboard data like test scores, chronic absenteeism, and suspension rates. However, evaluating the impact of professional learning on student outcomes will require a long view and a nuanced understanding of how family engagement connects with and drives levers of student achievement. The LA Charters Bridge PLN is doing just that. The participants are engaged in a collaborative action-research project to study how family involvement affects student learning. In working together, PLN participants acknowledged that some of the most involved parents still have children who struggle academically. They began wondering whether they could better support families in ways that were responsive to their students’ needs. They began by generating a list of criteria to be used to identify roughly thirty “highly involved” families, looking at metrics like attendance at workshops, participation on committees, and participation in parent conferences. They then looked at student outcomes like grades, homework completion, and test scores for those families’ children. The goal is to understand whether and how involvement connects to student success, and then to improve family engagement practices in ways that strengthen that connection. This is a key concept to changing mindsets for prioritizing family engagement within LEAs.
24
Tools & Resources
PLN facilitators shared numerous resources with participants. Some of the ones facilitators and participants found to be most valuable are listed here.
Continuous Improvement Resources
Family Engagement Resources
These resources helped PLN participants self-
These resources directly support PLN participants’ parent and family engagement efforts.
reflect, and assess and improve their organization's effectiveness.
•
National School Reform Faculty’s Consultancy Protocol
•
Californians for Justice and Families In Schools’ LCAP Community Engagement
“Stop, Start, Continue” Reflection
Framework •
“Complex vs. Complicated Problems in
CORE Districts’ Modified Empathy Interviews Guide
Education” Worksheet inspired by
•
Shane Safir’s (2017) work
•
Families In Schools’ LCFF/LCAP Parent
•
Activity
•
•
Engagement Module
Diagram
•
CA School Dashboard Mock Sessions
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s Fishbone
•
•
Prior research by scholars and practitioners like Anne Henderson,
California Department of Education’s
Karen Mapp, and their colleagues
Family Engagement Toolkit
(2002, 2007)
Facilitating Power’s Spectrum of
•
Community Engagement
Selections from the Center on Innovation and Improvement’s Handbook on Family and Community Engagement (2011)
•
Meeting protocols such as “Save the Last Word for Me”; Californians for Justice’s facilitation “cheat sheet” inspired by Shane Safir’s (2017) work; and Robert’s Rules of Order.
25
Recommendations for district, CMO and state leaders
The lessons learned from these family engagement PLNs point toward the following recommendations for state and district leaders, and for others in the field: 1. Articulate clear goals around why family engagement matters to student learning and attainment and to organizational vitality and success.
District and CMO leaders need to move beyond compliance when it comes to LCFF and stakeholder engagement. Districts and CMOs can begin by articulating how authentically engaged parents and other family members can help improve student learning, contribute to school, district, and CMO decisions, improve school culture and climate, and foster better school-to-community connection. Articulating these goals and this theory of change first, as district or CMO teams, will make it easier to identify ways that families can be engaged and can ensure that their priorities and supporting activities are reflected in LEA plans like the LCAP. 2. Make family engagement a priority by authentically integrating it into decision-making structures and processes.
Within the last decade, family engagement in California has become recognized as a key component of an overall strategy for improving educational student outcomes. As such, supporting and deepening California’s efforts to align and strengthen family engagement within a comprehensive framework that is rooted in access and equity, capacity building for both educators and families, and tracking and monitoring progress for improving family engagement (i.e. self-assessment tool) can open up new possibilities for reimagining how families, educators, and community can partner together. Districts and CMOs should integrate family engagement specialists into senior-level staffing structures and/or ensure they have the ear of key decision-makers and influencers. Further, they should integrate family engagement goals into the LCAP and strategic plans and ensure all site and district/CMO-level leaders are aware of and helping to achieve those goals. Consequently, uplifting family engagement best practices across the state will require California to provide additional guidance and supports around the process of data collection, collaboration, metrics, and self-reflection, all of which are vital for promoting the life chances of our most vulnerable students.
26
3. Build the capacity of family members to be leaders.
When family members, including parents and other caretakers, are supported to lead, school communities thrive. Building the capacity of family members to take on leadership roles, however, demands investment of time and careful scaffolding. It begins with families feeling welcome, and moves on to include opportunities to be involved at school in meaningful ways, and subsequently opportunities to engage authentically in decision-making, accountability, and collaborative leadership structures. Building the capacity of families first demands building the capacity of school and district/CMO staff and leaders to do this work.
4. Create structured, intentional opportunities for family engagement professionals to learn and grow.
The PLNs have proven to be an excellent model for supporting professional learning related to family engagement, and these should be more broadly adopted. At the same time, there are plenty of other ways in which schools, districts, and counties can support the professional development of family engagement professionals and other educators and administrators. Importantly, this professional learning should include the following components: l Regular and sustained professional learning, with that time and space held sacred and protected from infringement by other priorities l Structured opportunities for professionals to learn from one another and build relationships across sites, districts, and CMOs l Skilled facilitation that helps participants drive their own learning in a safe, supportive environment l Opportunities for participants to co-construct work products or jointly problem solve l Flexibility around when and where to meet, including making use of virtual meeting and learning formats l Settings that allow professionals to exchange practical tools, resources, and strategies l Time to learn from and reflect on research-based best practices l Opportunities for participants to expand their professional networks in order to deepen their access to resources, connections, and support from experts and colleagues in the field
27
Conclusion
The Professional Learning Networks facilitated by Families In Schools and Californians for Justice offered family engagement professionals a unique, rich, and transformational experience. Through the PLNs, participants accessed a rich array of resources, tools, and strategies that they are actively using to improve family engagement in their communities. Participants developed relationships that are enabling them to exchange resources and insights with one another, even after the formal PLN has ended. Perhaps most importantly, the PLNs facilitated shifts in mindset for many participants. They learned that improving practices and outcomes in their schools and districts/CMOs requires a deep exploration of root causes and collaborative problem solving. They strengthened their understanding of and connections to their communities. They learned to help their schools and districts/CMOs replace compliance-oriented practices and mindsets with authentic family engagement strategies – ones that celebrate families’ many assets and foster true partnerships between educators, family members, and students. These PLNs, and other professional networks like them, have the potential to create lasting and meaningful change for organizations, families, and communities. Districts, CMOs, and the state should build upon these lessons and scale such opportunities so more educators, families, and students can benefit.
28
References
Berkowitz, R. Moore, H, Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A Research Synthesis of the Associations Between Socioeconomic Background, Inequality, School Climate, and Academic Achievement. Review of Educational Research. Bryk, A., Bender Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J.Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. California Department of Education. (2017). Family Engagement Toolkit: Continuous Improvement Through an Equity Lens. Sacramento, CA: Author. Center on Innovation and Improvement. (2011). Handbook on Family and Community Engagement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Henderson, A. T. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Henderson, A., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family-School Partnerships. New York: The New Press. Mapp, K. L. & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships (Version 2). Retrieved from: www.dualcapacity.org Noguera, P. A. (2001). “Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of parents.” In Social capital in poor communities. S. Saegert, J. Phillip Thompson and M. Warren (Eds.),New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Rincón-Gallardo, S. & Fullan, M. (2016). “Essential features of effective networks in education", Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 5 - 22. Safir, S. (2017). The Listening Leader: Creating the Conditions for Equitable School Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wilder, S. (2014). “Effects of Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement: A MetaSynthesis.” Educational Review 66(3):377–97.
29
Acknowledgments This report was prepared by Carrie Hahnel and Sean Arseo, in collaboration with Families In Schools staff, including Program Manager Jeff Wiser, Director of Training & Capacity Building Rachel González Martínez, and Director of Advocacy Sandy Mendoza who facilitated the PLNs, as well as Vice President of Programs & Strategic Partnerships Tina Ochoa. The Professional Learning Networks were supported by the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), a state agency designed to build the capacity of educational leaders and stakeholders across the state. Thank you to the four school districts - Arvin Union, Bakersfield City, Fresno Unified, and Golden Plains Unified - and five Charter Management Organizations - Alliance CollegeReady Public Schools, Camino Nuevo, Ednovate, KIPP SoCal, Partnerships to Uplift Communities - that participated in these PLNs, and the school, network and district personnel who shared their time, experiences, strategies, and insights with one another every month over the course of these PLNs. Their ongoing commitment to improving family and student engagement practices in California should inspire and guide us all. Finally, thank you to Californians for Justice, especially Organizing Director Geordee Mae Corpuz and Capacity Building Manager Najla Gomez Rodriguez, for their collaboration in facilitating the Central Valley PLN and their unwavering commitment to lifting up student voices.
About Families In Schools
As the leading family engagement capacity building organization in California, FIS has twenty years of experience developing programs and training school leadership and staff using research-based strategies that support and reinforce effective family engagement practices, in addition to providing direct service facilitation of curricula for parents. Our trainings are grounded on the Dual-Capacity Framework developed by the U.S. Department of Education and by the California Parent Engagement Framework, both of which highlight the importance of professional development for staff on how to authentically partner with families to support student learning, especially families from low-income and immigrant communities.
30