Overview of FamilySchool Partnerships - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Overview of FamilySchool Partnerships PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 5b98e-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Overview of FamilySchool Partnerships


improvement in grades (Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers, 1987); test scores (Epstein, 1991) ... In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.). Families and schools in a pluralistic society ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:30
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 54
Provided by: JDB5


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Overview of FamilySchool Partnerships

Overview of Family-School Partnerships
Why Family-School Partnerships?
  • parents take their child home after
    professionals complete their services and parents
    continue providing the care for the larger
    portion of the childs waking hours No matter
    how skilled professionals are, or how loving
    parents are, each cannot achieve alone what the
    two parties, working hand-in-hand, can accomplish

  • (Peterson Cooper, 1989
    pp. 229, 208).
  • See Handout 1

Why Family-School Partnerships?
Who is involved in Family-School Partnerships?
  • There are many roles that can be shared by
    parents and teachers

Co- decision makers
See Activity 1
What are Family-School Partnerships?
  • A relationship involving close cooperation
    between parties having joint rights and
  • The goals of family-school partnerships include
  • (a) enhancing success for students, and
  • (b) improving experiences and outcomes for
    children, including those that are academic,
    social, emotional and behavioral in nature.
  • (Christenson
    Sheridan, 2001)
  • See Handouts 2, 3,4, and 5

The M Ms of Parenting and Partnering
  • Make sure your child is ready to learn.
  • Monitor your child and his or her performance.
  • Motivate your child.
  • Be a good role Model.
  • Maintain a positive relationship with your
    childs teacher.
  • See Activity 2

Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to
Family-School Partnerships
  • Partnership Approach
  • Commitment to working together on behalf of the
    childs performance/ achievement is clear.
  • Communication is frequent, positive,
  • Relationship is characterized by cultural
    sensitivity cultural differences are respected,
    appreciated, and recognized as contributing to
    positive learning climates.
  • See Handouts 6 and 7
  • Traditional Approach
  • Emphasis on what schools do to promote learning.
  • Infrequent, one-directional, or problem-centered
    communication (school ? home).
  • One-size fits all orientation cultural
    differences are perceived as challenges to

Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to
Family-School Partnerships
  • Partnership Approach
  • Different perspectives are valued as important.
  • Roles are clear, mutual, and supportive.
  • Goals for students are mutually determined and
  • Plans are co-constructed, with agreed upon roles
    for all participants.
  • Traditional Approach
  • Different perspectives are seen as barriers.
  • Separate roles that distance participants.
  • Goals determined by school personnel and
    sometimes shared with parents.
  • Educational plans devised and delivered by
  • (Sheridan,

Theoretical Perspective Ecological Systems
  • An effective, constructive family-school
    partnership occurs in an ecological context, with
    the student at center
  • Students, families and schools are all part of
    interrelated ecological systems within which a
    child resides.
  • Difficulties occur when there is a mismatch
    across one or more subsystems.
  • Partnership programs and services are focused on
    forging a more effective match between the needs
    of an individual student, and strengths of the
    interfacing home school systems.
  • Main attention is always on the potential
    benefits and outcomes for students.
    (Sheridan, 2004)

Theoretical Perspective Family-Centered Approach
  • Providing direct support and assistance to
    families increases the likelihood these families
    can directly mediate their childs behavior and
    development more efficiently than can indirect
    services aimed toward the child (Dunst, Trivette,
    Deal, 1998).
  • Familys strengths, needs, and priorities along
    with the needs of their child guide the provision
    of local resources and services (Dunst, 1985
    Rappaport, 1981).
  • Family-centered services strengthen the familys
    capacity to meet their needs and the needs of
    their child (Dunst, 1985 Rappaport, 1981).
  • Families are their childs first and best

Defining Characteristics of Family-School
  • Interactions among partners are collaborative and
  • Relationships across home and school systems are
    cooperative, interdependent, and balanced.
  • Maintenance of a positive relationship is a
  • Services are flexible, responsive, and proactive.
  • Differences in perspectives are seen as
  • There is a commitment to cultural competence.
  • Emphasis is on outcomes and goal attainment.

  • (Sheridan, 2004)

Rationale for Family-School Partnerships
  • There are many systems and settings where
    children learn.
  • In the US, students spend 91 of their time from
    birth - 18 outside of school once in school,
    they spend 70 of their waking hours outside of
    school (Clarke, 1990).
  • The impact of out-of-school time (e.g., message
    about schooling, use of time, congruence with
    school environment) must be acknowledged.

Rationale for Family-School Partnerships
  • Federal policy recognizes the need to address
    students time spent out of school and mandates
    schools to engage in partnerships with parents
    to meet the increasing academic, behavioral, and
    social needs of students.
  • In 1975, PL 94-142 established the foundations
    for parental involvement in education. It
  • (a) notification of parents when the school
    proposed or refused to
  • initiate or change an educational
  • (b) parent consent prior to evaluation and
    special education
  • placement,
  • (c) parental participation in the development
    of the Individualized
  • Education Plans (IEPs), and
  • (d) parental rights to challenge special
    education decisions.

Rationale for Family-School Partnerships
  • In 1986, P.L. 99-457 mandated Free and
    Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children
    ages 0-3 and instituted the Individualized Family
    Service Plan (IFSP). This required that for
    educational planning purposes, young children
    should be considered within the context of their
    family. Services should be provided not
    exclusively to the child but also to the family.
  • IDEA 1997 included more meaningful parent
    participation, including establishing regulations
    for including parents on school-based teams, and
    increasing parental responsibility in the special
    education process.

Rationale for Family-School Partnerships
  • The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 specifically
    calls for local education agencies to assist
    school personnel to reach out to, communicate
    with, and work with parents as equal partners
    implement and coordinate parent programs and
    build ties between parents and the school (P.L.
  • IDEA 2004 includes
  • Part B Programs for children 3 to 21 years
    which provide requirements in the areas of, but
    not limited to, parental rights and involvement,
    related educational services, multidisciplinary
    assessments, etc.
  • Part C Programs for infants and toddlers
    (birth to 3 years) which
  • emphasizes the notion of family involvement
    in the screening and evaluation of young children
    and in the programming for early intervention and

Research Findings
  • In the presence of effective family-school
    partnerships, students have been shown to
  • improvement in grades (Fehrman, Keith, Reimers,
  • test scores (Epstein, 1991)
  • attitudes (Kellagahen et al., 1993)
  • self-concept, behavior, social skills (Hickman,
    Greenwood, Miller, 1995)
  • greater study habits and homework completion
    rates (Clark, 1993 Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001)
  • more engagement in classroom learning activities
    (Collins, Moles, Cross, 1982 Sattes, 1985)
  • higher attendance rates and a reduction in
    suspension rates and discipline problems (Sheldon
    Epstein, 2004).
  • See Handout 8

Benefits for Students
Research Findings
  • In the presence of effective family-school
    partnerships, teachers have been shown to
  • become more proficient in professional
  • allocate more time to instruction,
  • become more involved with curriculum,
  • develop more student-oriented rather than
    task-oriented activities (Hoover-Dempsey, Walker,
    Jones, Reed, 2002),
  • receive higher ratings on teaching performance
    evaluations by principals (Christenson, 1995),
  • indicate greater satisfaction with their jobs and
    request fewer transfers (Christenson Cleary,

Research Findings
  • In the presence of effective family-school
    partnerships, parents have been shown to
  • demonstrate greater understanding of the work of
    schools and positive attitudes about school
    (Epstein, 1986)
  • report increased contacts and communication with
    educators, and a desire for more involvement
    (Hoover-Dempsey Sandler, 1997)
  • improve their communication with their children,
    report improved parent-child relationships, and
    develop effective parenting skills (Becher,
    1984) and
  • become more involved in learning activities at
    home (Epstein, 1995).

Research Findings
  • In the presence of effective family-school
  • partnerships, schools have been shown to
  • receive higher effectiveness ratings, and
  • implement more successful school programs.
  • (Christenson
    Sheridan, 2001)

Benefits to Schools
Research Findings
  • Generalization of school programs occurs more
    readily when families are involved.
  • Consultation with teachers alone is effective at
    promoting school success (Sheridan,1997), but
    generalization to home occurs only when parents
    are involved (Sheridan et al., 1990).
  • Family process variables (specific things
    families do) facilitate learning educational
    success more than status variables (who families
  • Social class or family configuration predicts up
    to 25 of variance in achievement family process
    variables predict up to 60 of variance
    (Kellaghan et al., 1993).

Cultural Considerations
  • Many children from diverse cultural backgrounds
    do not speak English when they enter school and
    have not attended preschool or daycare.
  • For example, the number of non-English speaking
    children has doubled since 1979.
  • Parents have different levels of education,
    socioeconomic status, English competency, and
  • There is a scarcity of research in the area of
    family-school partnerships with children and
    families from diverse cultural backgrounds.
  • There is a lack of culturally and
    psychometrically appropriate instruments.
  • (Sheridan,
    Vazquez-Nuttall, Li, 2005)

Cultural Considerations
  • Parents, regardless of educational level, income
    status, or ethnic background want their children
    to be successful in school (Christenson, 1995).
  • Across groups, parents want information about how
    schools function, childrens development/learning,
    parents roles in supporting their children.
  • School practices are a stronger predictor of
    parent involvement than parents educational
    level, income status, or ethnic background
    (Epstein, 1991).

Building Shared Responsibility
  • Garner Administrative Support
  • Practice Systems Advocacy
  • Build Family-School Teams
  • Increase Effective Problem Solving and Solution
  • Keep a Focus on Goals and Outcomes
  • But Recognize the Importance of Process
  • Foster Positive Home Learning Environments
  • Focus on Communication as the foundation for all
    family involvement
  • Collaboration with families is key!
  • See Handout 9

Developing Pathways to Partnerships
  • Prerequisite Conditions
  • These 3 As must be in place for Actions
  • to be accepted and effective

Actions Communicating a tone of partnership
through bidirectional home-school communication
and fostering family involvement in learning at
Successful learning opportunities and outcomes
for children
See Handout 11
  • Approach The framework for interaction with
  • families.
  • Central to the partnership model is a belief in
    shared responsibility for educating and
    socializing children both families and
    educators are essential for childrens growth and
    development inside and out of school.
  • Emphasis is placed on relationships, rather than
    separate roles how families and educators work
    together to promote the academic and social
    development of students.

  • Atmosphere The climate in schools for families
    and educators.
  • The affective climate in interactions among
    families and schools.
  • The physical climate in schools that make them
    inviting and family-friendly.
  • All families must feel welcome!
  • Differences in parent backgrounds experiences
    must be recognized.
  • Personal difficulties in school or previous
    conflicts may be prominent.
  • Ethnic, linguistic, religious, class differences
    can widen the gap.

  • Attitude The values and perceptions held about
  • relationships.
  • All families have strengths.
  • Parents can help their children succeed in school
    -- they must be provided with the opportunity and
    necessary information and support.
  • Schools and families influence each other.
  • Parents have important information and
    perspectives that we need to help educate their
  • Parents and educators each bring unique and
    important perspectives and expertise to the table
    as co-equals.
  • See Handouts 10, 12, and 13

What are Evidence-Based Interventions?
  • Practices that are informed by research, in
    which characteristics and consequences of
    environmental variables are empirically
    established and the relationship directly informs
    what a practitioner can do to produce a desired
    outcome (Dunst, Trivette, Cutspec, 2002, p.
  • The label of evidence-based interventions should
    be used when programs have successfully
    demonstrated efficacy under the conditions of
    implementation and practice (Kratochwill
    Shernoff, 2004, p. 35).

The Use of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • There has been a current paradigm shift in school
    psychology toward the implementation of
    empirically validated interventions among
    children, families, and schools.
  • Likewise, the increased accountability within
    the educational systems, as mandated by multiple
    federal accountability initiatives (e.g., IDEA
    and NCLB), have required these systems to report
    the efficacy of interventions as well as provide
    effectiveness data on child and family outcomes.

Identifying Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Goal A of the Family-School Task Force was to
    identify evidence based models of effective
    family-school partnerships.
  • These programs were examined and coded for
    evidence- based outcomes related to their
    produced intended effects using the following
  • empirical/theoretical foundation, design
    qualities, statistical treatment of the
  • the implementation of key evidence components
    which promote internal validity and the necessary
    features for home and school-based implementation
    of these interventions and
  • factors of interest, as identified by the
    consumer, in the evaluation of the external
    validity and utility of these interventions
    (Kratochwill Stoiber, 2002).

Goals of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • After identifying numerous evidence-based
    interventions, the goal was to
  • influence practitioners selection and
    implementation of family-school interventions
    through a systematic dissemination of the
    research evidence and
  • narrow the research to practice gap related to
    the practice feasibility, acceptability, social
    validity, fidelity, and sustainability of these
    service delivery models when working with
    families (Sheridan, 2005).

Actions Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Numerous evidence-based models have been
    identified which utilize and promote
    family-school partnerships.
  • These models have been separated into the
    following areas
  • 1. Family-School Interventions with
    Preschool Children
  • 2. Parent Consultation with School-Related
  • 3. Parent Education as Parent-Centered
  • 4. Home-School Collaboration
  • 5. Parent Involvement Interventions with
  • Children
  • 6. Parent Training and Family Interventions for
  • Behavior Change

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Family-School Interventions with
    Preschool Children domain the following have been
    identified as strong or promising evidence-based
  • Strong evidence-based models include
  • Parent and teacher training intervention (Goff
    Demetral, 1983)
  • Parent Child Interaction Therapy (Hembree-Kigin
    McNeil, 1995) See Handout 14
  • The Incredible Years Training Series
    (Webster-Stratton, Reid, Hammond, 2001) See
    Handout 15
  • A promising evidence-based model includes
  • PARTNERS parent education program
    (Webster-Stratton, 1998) See Handout 16

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Parent Consultation with
    School-Related Outcomes domain the following have
    been identified as strong or promising
    evidence-based models
  • Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (Sheridan,
    Kratochwill, Bergan, 1996) See Handout 17
  • Parent Behavioral Consultation (Cavell Hughes,
    2000 Doll Kratochwill, 1992 Loitz
    Kratochwill, 1995 Rhoades Kratochwill, 1998)
    See Handout 18

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Parent Education as Parent-Centered
    Prevention domain the following have been
    identified as promising evidence-based models
  • Aware Parenting Model (Bronstein, Duncan,
    Clauson, Abrams, Yannett, Ginsburg, Milne,
    1998) See Handout 19
  • Reading Made Easy (Harrison, 1981 Mehran
    White, 1998) See Handout 20

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Home-School Collaboration domain the
    following have been identified as strong or
    promising evidence-based models
  • Strong evidence-based models include
  • School-based Literacy Program/Family Literacy
    Program (Morrow Young, 1997) See Handout 21
  • Promising evidence-based models include
  • Parent-Teacher Action Research Teams plus Social
    Skills Instruction (Forest Pearpoint, 1992
    McConaughy, Kay, Fitzgerald, 1999 OBrian,
    Forest, Snow, Hasbury, 1989) See Handout 22
  • A home-school note program with home
    reinforcements and a family problem-solving board
    game (Blechman, Taylor, Schrader, 1981) See
    Handout 23

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Parent Involvement Interventions with
    School-Aged Children domain the following have
    been identified as promising evidence-based
  • In the single-participant category
  • Parent Tutoring (Duvall, Delquadri, Elliot,
    Hall, 1992 Hook DuPaul, 1999) See Handout 24
  • In the group-participant category
  • Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Parent Involvement
    (Heller Fantuzzo, 1993) Handout 25
  • Parents Encourage Pupils (Shuck, Ulsh, Platt,
    1983) See Handout 26

Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions
  • Within the Parent Training and Family
    Interventions for School Behavior Change domain
    the following have been identified as strong or
    promising-evidence based models
  • Strong evidence-based models include
  • Problem-Solving Skills Training plus Parent
    Management Training (Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson,
    French, Unis, 1987 Kazdin, Siegel, Bass,
    1992) See Handout 27
  • Time-Limited Social Learning Family Therapy
    (Sayger, Horne, Walker, Passmore, 1988) See
    Handout 28
  • Promising evidence-based models include
  • Family Behavioral Therapy (Azrin, Donahue,
    Teichner, Crum, Howell, DeCato, 2001)
  • Multi-Systemic Therapy (Brown, Henggeler,
    Schoenwald, Brondino, Pickrel, 1999 Henggeler
    et al., 1999 Scherer, Brandino, Henggeler,
    Melton, Hanley, 1994)

Challenges to Family-School Partnerships
  • Structural barriers for educators include
  • lack of training in how to partner effectively
    and collaboratively with families
  • lack of efficacious partnering resources or
    models available to practitioners
  • educators portrayal that families are
  • linguistic and cultural differences between
    families and schools
  • lack of funding for family outreach programs
  • limited time for communication and meaningful
    dialogue between families and educators
  • limited contact for building trust between
    families and educators
  • lack of routine and strength-based communication
  • lack of sustained interactions over the course of
  • (Christenson, Carlson, Valdez,

Challenges to Family-School Partnerships
  • Psychological barriers for families include
  • educators use of negative communication about
    their childs school performance
  • doubts about families abilities to effectively
    partner with educators in addressing
    school-related concerns
  • Self-efficacy and role construction
  • fear of conflict with educators
  • limited use of perspective taking by educators
  • suspicion about treatment from educators and
  • educators lack of responsiveness to familial
  • (Christenson, Carlson, Valdez,

Solutions to Challenges
  • Dissemination of family-school research that is
    conducive to practitioners to further the
    implementation of evidence-based interventions
    (Dunst, Trivette, Cutspec, 2002).
  • Promoting an emphasis for practitioners in
    schools to encourage partnerships with families
    based on functional elements that
  • foster bi-directional communication,
  • enhance problem solving across home and school,
  • encourage shared decision making, and
  • reinforce congruent home-school support.

Solutions to Challenges
  • Disseminate this information in non-traditional
    ways that will reach practitioners (Dunst,
    Trivette, Cutspec, 2002).
  • Examples include PowerPoint and video
    presentations, CD ROMS, and guidebooks for the 6
    types of family-school interventions.
  • Identification of strong or promising-evidence
    based models.
  • Within disseminating the positive outcomes of
    family-school partnership models, practitioners
    could also be provided cost and effectiveness
    data on these models.

Solutions to Challenges
  • Examples
  • Consider flex time to accommodate flexible
  • School psychologists can present at workshops and
    conduct in-service training for teachers.
  • School psychologists can work with parent groups
    and/or school government teams.
  • Conduct scheduled home visits.
  • Establish parent centers within schools.
  • Conduct activities/social events to increase
    parents opportunities to communicate with
    teachers and other educators.

  • Blechman, E. A., Taylor, C. J., Schrader, S. M.
    (1981). Family problem solving versus home notes
    as early intervention with high-risk children.
    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
    49, 919-926.
  • Bronstein, P., Duncan, P., Clauson, J., Abrams,
    C. L., Yannett, N., Ginsburg, G. et al. (1988).
    Preventing middle school adjustment problems for
    children from lower income families A program
    for aware parenting. Journal of Applied
    Developmental Psychology, 19, 1299-1352.
  • Brown, T. L., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S.
    K., Brondino, M. J., Pickrel, S. G. (1999).
    Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and
    dependent juvenile delinquents Effects on school
    attendance at posttreatment and 6-month follow
    up. Childrens Services Social Policy, Research,
    and Practice, 2, 81-93.
  • Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools
    What is the role of the school psychologist?
    School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118-132.
  • Christenson, S. L., Carlson, C., Valdez, C. R.
    (2002). Evidence-based intervention in school
    psychology Opportunities, challenges, and
    cautions. Journal of School Psychology, 17,
  • (Christenson, S. L., Cleary, M. (1990).
    Consultation and the parent-educator partnership
    A perspective. Journal of Educational and
    Psychological Consultation,1(3), 219-241
  • Christenson, S. L., Sheridan, S. M. (2001).
    Schools and families Creating essential
    connections for learning. New York Guildford
  • Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students
    succeed What happens outside school is critical.
    Public Welfare, pp.17-23.
  • Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting
    practices that positively affect student
    achievement. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.). Families and
    schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 85-105).
    Albany State University of New York Press.

  • Collins, C. H., Moles, O., Cross, M. (1982).
    The home-school connections Selected partnership
    programs in large cities. Boston, MA Institute
    for Responsive Education.
  • Dunst, C. J. (1985). Rethinking early
    intervention. Analysis and Intervention in
    Developmental Disabilities, 5, 59-71.
  • Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Cutspec, P. A.
    (2002). Toward an operational definition of
    evidence-based practices. Centerscope, 1, 1-10.
  • Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Deal, A. (1988).
    Enabling empowering families. Cambridge, MA
    Brookline Books, Inc.
  • Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J. C., Elliot, M.,
    Hall, R. V. (1992). Parent-tutoring procedures
    Experimental analysis and validation of
    generalization in oral reading across passages,
    settings, and time. Journal of Behavioral
    Education, 2, 281-303.
  • Epstein, J. L. (1991). Paths to partnership What
    we can learn from federal, state, district, and
    school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5).
  • Goff, G. A., Demetral, G. D. (1983). A
    home-based program to eliminate aggression in the
    classroom. Social Work in Education, 5-14.
  • Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M.
    (1987). Home influences on school learning
    Direct and indirect effects of parent involvement
    on high school grades. Journal of Educational
    Research, 80, 330-337.
  • Heller, L. R., Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993).
    Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership
    Does parent involvement make a difference? School
    Psychology Review, 22, 517-535.
  • Hembree-Kigin, T. L. McNeil, C. B. (1995).
    Parent-child interaction therapy. New York
    Plenum Press.

  • Hickman, C. W., Greenwood, G., Miller, M. D.
    (1985). High school parent involvement
    Relationships with achievement, grade level, SES,
    and gender. Journal of Research and Development
    in Education, 28, 287-294.
  • Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., Becker, D.,
    Johnson-Leckrone, J. (2002). Family-based
    prevention counseling for high-risk young
    adolescents Immediate outcomes. Journal of
    Community Psychology, 30, 1-22.
  • Hook, C. L., DuPaul, G. J. (1999). Reciprocal
    peer tutoring for student with attention-deficit/h
    yperactivity disorder Effects on reading
    performance at home and at school. School
    Psychology Review, 28, 60-75.
  • Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker,
    J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., Jones, K.
    P. (2001). Parent involvement in homework.
    Educational Psychologist, 36 , 195-209.
  • Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Sandler, H. (1997). Why
    do parents become involved in their childrens
    education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1)
    3-42. Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from
  • Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T, Jones, K.P.,
    Reed, R.P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents
    (TIP) Results of an in-service teacher education
    program for enhancing parental involvement.
    Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 1-25.
    Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from
  • Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N H.,
    Unis, A. S. (1987). ??? Journal of the American
    Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26,
  • Kellaghan, T, Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., Bloom,
    B. S. (1993). The home environment and school
    learning Promoting parental involvement in the
    education of children. San Francisco
    Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Kratochwill, T. R. Shernoff, E. S. (2003).
    Evidence-based practice Promoting evidence-based
    interventions in school psychology. School
    Psychology Review, 33, 34-48.

  • Kratochwill, T. R. Stoiber, K. C. (2002).
    Evidence-based interventions in school
    psychology Conceptual foundations of the
    procedural and coding manual of division 16 and
    the society for the study of school psychology
    task force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17,
  • McConaughy, S. H., Kay, P.J., Fitzgerald, M.
    (1999). The achieving, behaving, caring project
    for preventing ED Two-year outcomes. Journal of
    Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 224-239.
  • Mehran, M., White, K. R. (1988). Parent
    tutoring as a supplemental compensatory education
    for first-grade children. RASE, 9, 35-41.
  • Morrow, L. M., Young, J. (1997). A family
    literacy program connecting school and home
    Effects on attitude, motivation, and literacy
    achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
    89, 736-742.
  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
    107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).
  • Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox A
    social policy of empowerment over prevention.
    American Journal of Community Psychology, 9,
  • Sayger, T. V., Horne, A. M., Walker, L. M.,
    Passmore, J. L. (1988). Social learning family
    therapy with aggressive children Treatment
    outcome and maintance. Journal of Family
    Psychology, 1, 261-285.
  • Sattes, B. (1985). Parent involvement A review
    of the literature (Report No. 21). Charleston,
    WV Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
  • Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting
    students to school Using family and school
    community involvement to reduce chronic
    absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14, 39-56.

  • Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on
    evidence-based parent and family interventions
    What we do in the future? School Psychology
    Quarterly, 20, 518-524.
  • Sheridan, S. M. (2004, September). Family-school
    partnerships Creating essential connections for
    student success. Keynote presented at the
    Resource Teacher Learning and Behaviour
    Conference, Chistchurch, New Zealand.
  • Sheridan, S.M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical
    bases of conjoint behavioral consultation.
    School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119-133.
  • Sheridan, S. M., Kratcohwill, T. R., Bergan, J.
    R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation A
    procedural manual. New York Plenum Press.
  • Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott,
    S. N. (1990). Behavioral consultation with
    parents and teachers Delivering treatment for
    socially withdrawn children at home and school.
    School Psychology Review, 19, 33-52.
  • Sheridan, S. M., Vazquez, E., Li, C. (2005,
    April). The future of home-school partnerships
    Update on the work of a future task force.
  • Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct
    problems in head start children Strengthening
    parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and
    Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730.
  • Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., Hammond, M.
    (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting
    social competence A parent and teacher training
    partnership in head start. Journal of Clinical
    Child Psychology, 30, 283-302.
About PowerShow.com