A presentation to theNational Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education February 29, 2012 ...
… it’s something… You’re going to vote if you see your parentsvoting. If you saw your grandmother voting, your mother, you...
Who Stole Public Schoolsfrom the Public? A case study on parent and community involvementAbout the Research ...
Traditional Schools of Thought on Parent involvement Research on “involvement” focused on “parents”– ...
What was in the literature on the public’s role in school and parent/community involvement Id...
Turn in the JourneyConsulting project leads to new school-of-thought oncommunity/school relations Definition of key stake...
Theoretical FrameworkEmpowerment theory Freire, P. (2000)Theory of civic capacity Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D...
Research Question What are the conditions under which a diverse citizenry can be brought together around the aim of improv...
Case Study of the “Public” in the City of Mount Vernon Method for Data Collection In-depth I...
Key Stakeholder Groups Interviewed • Administrators • Elected Officials •Principals...
Key Findings The public has a deep commitment to the institution of public education The public is un aware that public...
Respondents’ Responses “How Do Things Get Done for PublicEducation in Mount Vernon?” by Stakeholder Group_________________...
Respondents’ Responses “Is that a good thing?”—A Follow-upQuestion to “How Do Things Get Done for Public Education inMount...
Key Findings on Major Causes for Disenfranchisement Misguided attempts on the part of school board officials to manage a...
Signs of a “Public” Ready to Act ____________________________________Examples:• Research findings show 92% of respondents ...
16
of 16

National coalition for parent involvementrevised

National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education:Note this is an updated version of overheads for Wednesday's meeting
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Published in: Education      
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - National coalition for parent involvementrevised

  • 1. A presentation to theNational Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education February 29, 2012 , Claudia L. Edwards, PhD St John Fisher College 1
  • 2. … it’s something… You’re going to vote if you see your parentsvoting. If you saw your grandmother voting, your mother, yourfather. You’re going to vote, you know? Hey, I’m going tovote, too, because it’s a family tradition, or whatever you want tocall it. It’s passed down. But if your family isn’t used to, if you’re notused to seeing your family voting, then you’re not going to go outand vote either. A lot of black people don’t vote. Their grandparentsdidn’t vote. Their mother didn’t vote. Their father didn’t vote, and Idon’t vote. I’m not trying to be funny…I don’t vote! Excerpts from community focus group 2
  • 3. Who Stole Public Schoolsfrom the Public? A case study on parent and community involvementAbout the Research 3
  • 4. Traditional Schools of Thought on Parent involvement Research on “involvement” focused on “parents”– Epstein; 2001; Sizer and Sizer (1999); Henderson and Mapp (2002)  Creative and effective ways to connect parent/family involvement efforts with student achievement  Parents working with schools to improve the performance of their own children’s education journey  Parents as “consumers” of public education 4
  • 5. What was in the literature on the public’s role in school and parent/community involvement Identified patterns of re-segregation taking place in America creating apartheid schools in urban and suburban municipalities (Orfield and Eaton, 1996; Orfield, 2001; Orfield and Lee, 2004) Research on building civic capacity as a strategy for improving public schools--Examined the politics of urban education (Stone, 1998; 2005) Discussions on the importance of a fully engaged public prepared to take greater responsibility for holding officials and themselves accountable for high performing schools (Puriefoy, 2005) Documented historical evidence of the “first Public” and how public engagement was a function of American democracy (Mathews, 2006) 5
  • 6. Turn in the JourneyConsulting project leads to new school-of-thought oncommunity/school relations Definition of key stakeholder groups for school administrators changed from “parents and families” to the “entire public” Recognition of the public, including parents as “owners” versus “consumers” of public schools New “buzz” word for school community relations shifted “Parent and family involvement” to “public engagement” 6
  • 7. Theoretical FrameworkEmpowerment theory Freire, P. (2000)Theory of civic capacity Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., and Pierannunzi, C. (2001)Critical Race TheoryBell (1985) 7
  • 8. Research Question What are the conditions under which a diverse citizenry can be brought together around the aim of improving the performance of public schools in the city of Mount Vernon The study examined: I. The extent to which there was a shared believe that public education was of value to the people II. Public perception of the major problems facing the District III. The potential for building a coalition in support of public schools IV. Barriers that would have to be overcome to build a diverse coalition 8
  • 9. Case Study of the “Public” in the City of Mount Vernon Method for Data Collection In-depth Interviews Individuals (78) Focus Groups (5) Observations Review of Documents 9
  • 10. Key Stakeholder Groups Interviewed • Administrators • Elected Officials •Principals •Appointed Officials • Assistant Principals • Business Community • Teachers • Safety Officers • School Nurses Education General specialists Influentials Community Community Based At-Large Organizations • Not for Profit • Youth Organization • North Side Residents • PTA/ PTA Councils • South Side Residents • Clergy • Fleetwood Residents 10
  • 11. Key Findings The public has a deep commitment to the institution of public education The public is un aware that public belongs to the Public –18% understood ownership A public ill-equipped for the important role of self-governance Public has little trust in the decision-making process for public schools—60% Absence of school safety and the absence of leadership from all sectors— two leading factors impeding education reform 11
  • 12. Respondents’ Responses “How Do Things Get Done for PublicEducation in Mount Vernon?” by Stakeholder Group______________________________________________ Stakeholder Group Specialist CBO CAL Influentials TotalFormal Process 6% 3% 6% 3% 17%Behind Closed Doors 11% 19% 8% 8% 47%Combination 10% 6% 7% 6% 28%Things Don’t Get Done 3% 0% 4% 1% 8%Total 29% 28% 25% 18% 100%
  • 13. Respondents’ Responses “Is that a good thing?”—A Follow-upQuestion to “How Do Things Get Done for Public Education inMount Vernon?” by Stakeholder Group______________________________________________ Stakeholder Group Specialist CBO CAL Influentials Total No 13% 19% 23% 4% 60% Yes 11% 9% 2% 4% 26% Sometimes 4% 6% 0% 4% 15% Neutral 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 28% 34% 26% 13% 100%
  • 14. Key Findings on Major Causes for Disenfranchisement Misguided attempts on the part of school board officials to manage a broken system versus overseeing systemic change Public unaware of its role as owners of public schools Public unprepared and ill-equipped to take its place as owners of public schools Public prioritizes loyalty over accountability—an unwillingness to hold its elected and appointed officials accountable Abandonment of the middle class 14
  • 15. Signs of a “Public” Ready to Act ____________________________________Examples:• Research findings show 92% of respondents saw value in a citywide effort in support of higher achieving schools• Signs of increased civic capacity• The establishment of a citywide coalition in support of public schools 15
  • 16. 16