Christenson, S. (2003) .

School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2003, pp.
454–482
The Family–School Partnership: An Opportunity to

Promote the Learning Competence of All Students
Sandra L. Christenson
University of Minnesota
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In this article, family–school partnerships are discussed as a viable and essential way to
increase the opportunities and supports for all students to enhance their learning progress
and meet the recent demands of schooling inherent in accountability systems and most
notably of Title I No Child Left Behind legislation. School psychologists are encouraged
to make the family–school partnership a priority by collaborating with school personnel
to (a) apply principles from systems-ecological theory to children’s learning; (b) maintain
an opportunity-oriented, persistent focus when working with youth and families living in
challenging situations; and (c) attend to the process of partnering with families. Example
opportunities for school psychologists to make this partnership a priority for children’s
academic, social, and emotional learning are delineated.
As I reflect on the past two decades of research and practices with respect to
family involvement in education, I am reminded of a Charles Dickens (1859)
phrase from A Tale of Two Cities, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness . . .” (p. 1). The
“best of times” is reflected in an increased awareness of the (a) effect of family
influences on and contributions by families to children’s educational outcomes;
(b) conceptual models for family involvement; (c) importance of establishing
shared goals and monitoring child success; (d) characteristics of constructive,
collaborative relationships; and (e) variety of home- and school-based activities
to engage families in education (Chen, 2001; Christenson & Sheridan, 2001;
Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996; Epstein, 1995; Henderson & Mapp,
2002; Nord & West, 2001; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996; Swap,
1993). It is noteworthy that previous efforts to examine school psychological
service delivery at invited conferences (Brown, Cardon, Coulter, & Meyers,
1982; Ysseldyke & Weinberg, 1981) and publications (Talley, Kubiszyn, Bras-
sard, & Short, 1996) have highlighted the seminal role of parents for students’
Address correspondence to Sandra Christenson, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational

Psychology, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: chris002
@umn.edu.
454 Copyright 2003 by the Division 16, American Psychological Association

FAMILY–SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP 455
school success. At the beginning of the 21st century, our myriad efforts as a dis-
cipline—researchers, trainers, and practitioners—have resulted in the family–
school partnership being recognized as salient for positive developmental and
learning outcomes of children and youth.1
The “worst of times” is evident in the disconnect of the two primary socializ-
ing agents for educational success. This disconnect is seen daily across our
schools in (a) predominant use of the school-to-home transmission model
(Swap, 1993); (b) the extreme social and physical distance between some educa-
tors and families; (c) diminished resources for implementing family–school pro-
grams; (d) challenges reaching all families; (e) challenges related to addressing
the needs of non-English speaking families and children identified as English
Language Learners (ELL); and (f) too little focus on the interaction process that
yields a strong relationship as various interventions are implemented (Christen-
son & Sheridan, 2001; Liontos, 1992). Although shared responsibility across
home and school for educational outcomes is the rhetoric, school policies and
practices are not always aligned with this notion. I suspect an analysis of current
assessment and intervention practices would reveal infrequent use of those that
focus on home and school as contexts for children’s development and learning.
OUR CHALLENGE AS A DISCIPLINE
Educators often ask: How can schools get families to support their values and
practices? Coincidentally, families often ask: How can families get schools to be
responsive to their needs and aspirations for their children? Less often educators
and families ask: How can we work together to promote the educational experi-
ences and performance of students or this student? A recent challenge for prac-
tice is to conceptualize our work with families in a way that focuses on increas-
ing students’ opportunities and support for meeting the new demands of
schooling inherent in accountability systems.
Different Conceptualizations of Family Involvement

There are different ways to conceptualize family involvement in education. The
variations imply the value of parental participation in education, and they under-
score the importance of the home as a learning environment. However, only
some underscore active, ongoing engagement of parents and educators in ways
that connect directly with children’s learning. Consider three variations. First, do
1
As a speaker at the 2002 Invitational Conference: The Future of School Psychology, I was asked to
(a) outline critical issues that families face, or will face, in the 21st century relative to schools and
children; and (b) propose roles for school psychology, within constraints of the shortage, to address
these issues. The issues were to include the important role of parents in education. With respect to
these goals, I negotiated with the conference planners to add the centrality of a quality family–school
relationship to enhance the academic, social, behavioral, and emotional learning of children and ado-
lescents.
456 CHRISTENSON
we view our goal as enhancing parent involvement in education? If so, Grolnick,

Benjet, Kurowski, and Apostleris (1997) suggested parent involvement is the
dedication of resources by the parent to the child in terms of (a) behavior (activi-
ties at home and school); (b) cognitive-intellectual (intellectually stimulating,
enriching home environment); and (c) personal (knowledge of child’s progress
and learning content). Disseminating information on home support for learning
is a practice congruent with this orientation (Walberg, 1984; Ysseldyke & Chris-
tenson, 2002). Or, second, do we view our goal as enhancing the interface of
home and school to promote students’ learning competence? If so, Moles and
D’Angelo (1993) professed that “School–family partnerships are the mutual col-
laboration, support, and participation of parents and school staff at home or at
the school site in activities and efforts that directly and positively affect the edu-
cational progress of children” (p. 14). Developing family–school interventions to
address mutual concerns is a practice congruent with this orientation (Carlson,
Hickman, & Horton, 1992; Galloway & Sheridan, 1994). Or, third, do we add
the essential nature of the partnership with parents to ensure optimal conditions
for students’ learning? If so, Christenson and Sheridan (2001) asserted that
“families and schools as partners” refers to the following defining features:
앫 “A student-focused philosophy wherein educators and families cooperate,

coordinate, and collaborate to enhance learning opportunities, educational
progress, and school success for students in four domains: academic, so-
cial, emotional, and behavioral.
앫 A belief in shared responsibility for educating and socializing children—
both families and educators are essential and provide resources for chil-
dren’s learning and progress in school. There are no prescribed roles or ac-
tivities for families or educators; rather, options for active, realistic
participation are created.
앫 An emphasis on the quality of the interface and ongoing connection be-
tween families and schools. Creating a constructive relationship (how fam-
ilies and educators work together in meaningful ways) to execute their re-
spective roles in promoting the academic and social development of
children and youth is most important.
앫 A preventive, solution-oriented focus in which families and educators
strive to create conditions that facilitate student learning, engagement, and
development” (pp. 37–38).
In this orientation, educators are very proactive with parents, actively reaching
out to negotiate feasible roles for parental engagement with children’s learning
across school years, especially for students at risk of educational failure, and
doing so with much persistence (Christenson & Carroll, 1999). Parents are es-
sential partners and a philosophy of shared responsibility permeates school poli-
cies and practices. Given the changing educational context, families and schools
as partners is the focus of this article.
Standards and Accountability in the Educational Context

Partnering with families to enhance learning outcomes is essential to meet the
new accountability demands of schooling. According to the Education Commis-
sion of the States, educators and parents in at least 20 states are facing the effect
of high-stakes assessment on students’ grade placement; they find themselves
making decisions about grade retention or social promotion, “either-or” deci-
sions that do not guarantee effective instructional programming. In addition, 18
states have high-school exit exams and six others are phasing in exams (not yet
withholding diplomas) (http://www.ecs.org). As a result of these changes, par-
ents and educators are concerned about increased rates of drop out. Also, as part
of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, schools are being held accountable by
the U.S. Department of Education to demonstrate improvement for all students,
including those with disabilities, ELL, and those living in poverty, highly mo-
bile, and homeless (http://www.nclb.gov).

NCLB provides an exciting opportunity for school psychology to build on

consultation and intervention-oriented practices. It explicitly defines “all.” With
its focus on learning outcomes, I view NCLB as a golden opportunity for school
psychologists to change the way we work. Not only can we broaden the students
whom we serve, but we can change our orientation to partnering with families so
that the probability of home and school support for students to meet specified ed-
ucational standards is increased. We can ensure that shared responsibility for
learning outcomes is advocated.
As school psychologists act on this opportunity, two major contributions to
the educational programming for students seem likely. First, NCLB emphasizes
academic achievement, and yet, we know the power of social and emotional
learning for academic skills (e.g., Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emo-
tional Learning; http://www.casel.org). Although school personnel have under-
scored academic engagement (i.e., time on task, academic learning time), I
would suggest that as school psychologists interested in social and emotional
learning and high-school completion, we must also consider students’ levels of
cognitive engagement (i.e., self-regulated learner, student responsibility, using
learning strategies to complete a task), behavioral engagement (i.e., participa-
tion—classroom and extra curricular, attendance), and psychological engage-
ment (i.e., identification with school, belonging, positive peer relationships)—all
of which are positive, significant, low-to-moderate correlates of academic
achievement (Christenson & Anderson, 2002). For many of the student sub-
groups, increases in achievement may be revealed only after the students’ con-
nection at school and with learning is improved.
Second, school psychologists must ensure that a shared responsibility orien-
tation is front and center. The goal of family–school connections for children’s
learning must be to create a culture of success that enhances learning experi-
ences and competencies across home and school and underscores that
the partnership means shared goals, contributions, and accountability (Fan-
458 CHRISTENSON
tuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). Unfortunately, NCLB seems to deviate from
this partnership message as parents have more rights and fewer articulated re-
sponsibilities in fostering student engagement at school and with learning.
NCLB identifies schools as needing improvement if their overall performance
does not improve from year to year or if subgroups do not make adequate
yearly progress (AYP). School districts must report school performance data
broken down by school (i.e., a school report card) and subgroups annually, and
suffer sanctions (e.g., pay for supplemental services as requested by parents)
for not making AYP. Along with test performance, graduation rate, defined as
the percentage of ninth graders receiving a standard diploma in 4 years, is a re-
quired indicator in high school AYP calculations. Although the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education has recognized the importance and value of parent partici-
pation in education and is actively promoting roles for parents in NCLB with
their written materials on tips for parents (http://nces.ed.gov; Partnership for
Family Involvement in Education, 2000), my reading of NCLB does not see

delineated responsibilities for parents. In contrast, the National Educational
Goals 1 (School Readiness) and 8 (Parent Participation) designated roles
and responsibilities for educators and families (http://www.negp.gov). In this
regard, NCLB represents a step backward. Federal policies, like school prac-
tices, are not aligned with the notion of shared responsibility for learning out-
comes.
Our challenge is to create conditions for a culture of success for all students.
Although this is a daunting task, I suggest the probability of educators’ success
will be heightened only if they make the family–school partnership a priority.
School psychologists can provide leadership by applying systems-ecological
theory to children’s learning, maintaining an opportunity-oriented, persistent
focus when working with youth and families living in challenging situations, and
attending to the process for partnering with parents—all with an eye toward
meeting specified, educational standards for students.
APPLYING SYSTEMS-ECOLOGICAL THEORY
Systems-ecological theory provides a conceptual framework for organizing the

reciprocal influences on children’s learning and the degree to which the fam-
ily–school mesosystem emphasizes congruent socialization practices for stu-
dents as learners (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). The four systems principles of circu-
lar causality, nonsummativity, equifinality, and multifinality are relevant for
the family–school interface (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Circular causality
denotes that change in one individual affects other individuals and the group as
a whole. School difficulties affect children’s behavior within a family, and
conversely family problems influence students’ achievement or behavior at
school. Nonsummativity refers to the system as a whole being greater than the
sum of its parts; the whole adds the property of relationship to the parts. Coor-
dinating effort among home, school, and community resources achieves a syn-
ergistic relationship, and the notion of synergism further underscores that
school and family together can achieve more than either alone. According to
the principle of equifinality, the same outcome may result from different an-
tecedents. For example, families whose interactional styles are diverse may
each have children who are experiencing school success. Simply stated, there is
more than one path to the same goal; thus, options for family involvement are
not only accepted but expected from systems theory. Finally, multifinality
means that similar initial conditions may lead to dissimilar end states; thus sim-
ilar home support for learning strategies may have different effects on chil-
dren’s completion of homework. Therefore, a standard, uniform prescription
for parental assistance with homework may achieve the desired goal for some
children, but not for others.
School psychology has an opportunity to reframe students’ learning progress
and needs as a function of contributions from multiple contexts. Our goal is to

understand development in context by (a) noting the relevance for child out-
comes of “immediate settings” (i.e., microsystems) and the “larger contexts”
(i.e., mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems) in which the immediate settings
are embedded; (b) focusing on reciprocal relationships among systems, rather
than on the properties or practices characteristic of one system; and (c) attending
to the individual’s perception and meaning of a given situation to make sense of
the variable circumstances in which children live and learn (Bronfenbrenner,
1992). Bronfenbrenner recognized how belief systems influence child outcomes.
For example, parental attitudes toward education affect family goals and prac-
tices, and ultimately child performance at school. Similarly, Pianta and Walsh
(1996) described a necessary belief system for educators, one where educators
understand that children develop and learn in the context of the family, and that
system (i.e., child/family) must interface in a positive way with the school sys-
tem and schooling issues for children’s educational performance to be optimal.
Not all educators recognize the impact of the mesosystem for learning or believe
interventions should encompass the family. However, this may be considered the
difference between considering families as “essential partners” and considering
families as “desirable extras.”
Underscoring the Family–School Mesosystem for Learning

The failure to include routine assessment and intervention practices that focus on
family and schools as contexts for children’s development and learning is an ex-
ample of not thinking systemically about students’ level of educational perform-
ance. We seldom ask: What contextual influences enhance learning and develop-
ment of children and youth? or What conditions help this child make a personal
investment in learning? Capturing the degree to which children’s family and
school contexts are learning environments, and complementary (not symmetri-
cal) roles are created, represents a much needed, new perspective for advancing
460 CHRISTENSON
educational outcomes for students.2 Fortunately, ecological models of school

learning (Carroll, 1963; Pianta & Walsh, 1996) and assessment approaches exist
for understanding the effect of the family–school mesosytem on students’ learn-
ing. For example, Ysseldyke and Christenson (2002) have confirmed conditions
(instructional support for learning, home support for learning, and home–school
support for learning) that enhance the probability that students will be optimally
successful in school or engaged as learners. Furthermore, identifying students’
responsiveness to home–school intervention has been highlighted as a role for
school psychologists (Pasternack, 2002).
Research in the past two decades has demonstrated the power of the
family–school mesosystem on children’s school success. The power of out-of-
school learning time helps to explain school performance differences (Clark,
1990). Home learning resources and opportunities, especially during summer,
are a differentiating factor between low and high achievers (Alexander, En-
twisle, & Olson, 2001). Another explanatory factor for low school performance
is the discontinuity students experience between their school and home environ-
ments in terms of expectations and support for learning (Comer et al., 1996; Phe-
lan, Davidson, & Yu, 1998; Swap, 1993). We know that not all children learn the
attitudes, skills, and behaviors that prepare them well for the tasks of school.
Consider the finding that 84% of 1,036 high-school students reported that their
parents were available to help with schoolwork; however, 87% of students who
received grades of A or B reported that their parents were available to help with
schoolwork, whereas 24% of students who received grades lower than C re-
ported that their parents were unavailable to help with schoolwork (Binns, Stein-
berg, & Amorosi, 1997). Finally, what parents do to support learning predicts
scholastic ability better than who families are (Clark, 1983; Walberg, 1984).
Explanations for Uninvolved Families

The interface of home and school is strong for some families, weak for others,
and nonexistent for others. When students are not meeting the standards in
school, and one in three students is behind a year or more in school as reported
by the Children’s Defense Fund (http://www.childrensdefense.org), educators
often may say, “I never see the families I want to see.” This comment reflects a
serious omission, namely no analysis of how school practices influence parent
engagement at school and with learning.
Most often parental reasons for lack of engagement at school and with learning
are delineated in the literature as barriers. This is an incomplete picture, as barri-
ers exist for educators and the family–school relationship (Liontos, 1992). As cat-
egorized in Table 1, barriers for families, educators, and the relationship can be
2
Complementary roles refer to roles, albeit different, for teachers (i.e., formal instruction) and par-
ents (i.e., fostering learning at home, valuing education) directed toward a shared goal, whereas sym-
metrical roles suggest parents and teachers must engage in a similar task with the child.
TABLE 1. Barriers for Families, Educators, and the Family–School Relationship

Relationship Barriers
Families
Structural Barriers Lack of role models, information, and knowledge about resources.
Lack of supportive environment and resources (e.g., poverty, limited
access to services).
Economic, emotional, and time constraints.
Child care and transportation.
Psychological Barriers Feelings of inadequacy; low sense of self-efficacy.

Adopting a passive role by leaving education to schools.
Linguistic and cultural differences, resulting in less “how to”
knowledge about school policies and practices and the parental
role in education.
Suspicion about treatment from educators.
Perceived lack of responsiveness to parental needs or desires.

Educators
Structural Barriers Lack of funding for family outreach programs.
Lack of training for educators on how to create and sustain
partnerships with families.
Limited knowledge of data-based approaches.
Time constraints.
Psychological Barriers Ambiguous commitment to working with parents as partners.

Use of negative communication about students’ school performance
and productivity.
Use of stereotypes about families, such as dwelling on family
problems as an explanation for students’ performance.
Stereotypic views of people, events, conditions, or actions that are not
descriptive of behavior, but portray a casual orientation.
Doubts about the abilities of families to address schooling concerns.
Wary of interacting with families or fear of conflict.
Narrow conception of the roles families can play related to socializing
learners.
Family–School Relationship
Structural Barriers Limited time for communication and meaningful dialogue.
Communication primarily during crises.
Limited contact for building trust within the family–school
relationship.
Limited skills and knowledge about how to collaborate.
Lack of a routine communication system.
Limited understanding of the constraints faced by the other partner.
Psychological Barriers Partial resistance toward increasing home–school cooperation.

Lack of belief in a partnership orientation to enhance student
learning/development.
A blaming and labeling attitude permeates the home–school
atmosphere.
A win-lose rather than a win-win attitude in the presence of conflict.
462 CHRISTENSON
TABLE 1. Continued
Relationship Barriers
Family–School Relationship (cont.)
Psychological Barriers Tendencies to personalize anger-provoking behaviors by the other
(cont.) individual.
Misunderstanding differences in parent-educator perspectives about
children’s performance.
Psychological and cultural differences that lead to assumptions and
“build walls.”
Limited use of perspective taking or empathizing with the other
person.
Limiting impressions of child to observations in only one
environment.
Assumption that parents and teachers must hold identical values and
expectations.
Failure to view differences as strengths.

Previous negative interactions and experiences between families and

schools.
Failure to recognize the importance of preserving the family–school
relationship across time.
Note. It is important to note that these issues, which are drawn from Christenson & Sheridan, (2001), Liontos
(1992), Moles (1993), and Weiss & Edwards (1992), are neither an exhaustive list nor is there any implication that
they are weighted equally.
characterized in terms of structural aspects, which tend to dominate school-based

discussions, and psychological (i.e., attitudinal) aspects. Both are important; how-
ever, the former ensures access between parents and educators, whereas the latter
reflects an interpersonal piece. These barriers are dynamic and they must be un-
derstood in relation to each other. Conceptualizing barriers for each socializing
system as well as the relationship may serve to promote perspective taking and en-
hance the understanding of constraints involved for all individuals.
Understanding family constraints is seminal to educators’ developing sensitiv-
ity and responsiveness to families’ needs and desires for their children’s school-
ing experiences. Educators must be sensitive to the status-oriented family issues
such as socioeconomic status, parental education, and number of adults in the
home (Grolnick et al., 1997; Lareau, 1987). However, the psychological aspects,
including parents’ role conceptions, sense of self-efficacy related to involve-
ment, attitudes toward education, and expectations for their children’s perform-
ance (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997) should be our primary concern. Par-
ents are able to dedicate resources to their children’s education provided the
demands of their personal lives are reasonable and their sense of self-efficacy is
adequate (Grolnick et al., 1997). Unfortunately these circumstances do not al-
ways represent the conditions in which some children are learning and develop-
ing. Therefore, the support provided by educators is critical for understanding
outcomes for specific student subgroups. Based on a review of 66 studies, Hen-
derson and Berla (1994) concluded that the most accurate home predictors of
student success in school are the ability of the family, with the help and support
of school personnel, to create a positive home learning environment, communi-
cate high and realistic expectations for their children’s school performance and
future careers, and to become involved in their children’s schooling. All empha-
size a positive parental attitude about the value of education.
The stimulus for engaging parents in education lies with educators; therefore,
addressing barriers for educators is necessary. At the school level, it appears that
strong leadership and administrative support are essential to increasing meaning-
ful family involvement. Schools report greater success in engaging parents in a
partnership when they are responsive to the needs of parents and are friendly and
welcoming to parents (Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989).
Some school practices “fail” families (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). For ex-
ample, responding only in a crisis, defining (and labeling) the family solely by
structure (e.g., “single parent”), and viewing the family as deficient are far too
common examples of school practices that result in an uncomfortable atmos-
phere for discussion and interaction between families and school personnel.
Common labels often surround what parents and families are (i.e., uneducated or
poor) or what they are failing to do (how they are failing their children) as de-
fined by the school’s agenda. Concomitantly, there is a lack of attention to per-
sonal characteristics of a parent or family (“who” they are) and what they do to
support their children. We fail as educators when we form conclusions based on
what we believe families need. This is heightened when we do not consider how
families may be supporting their children’s education already. In fact, parents
who experience diverse ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, linguistic, and educa-
tional backgrounds are involved in the lives of their children, regardless of
whether they are formally involved in their school life (Bempechat, 1998; Ed-
wards, Fear, & Gallego, 1995). Furthermore, many families are involved in the
education of their children, albeit in ways that school personnel may not con-
sider because they see no concrete product (Wright & Smith, 1998). As a result,
there is too little outreach to families and children about whom school personnel
are most concerned. If educators portray families as “dysfunctional,” then how
can a partnership for children’s learning occur (Cavell, 2000)?
Parents and educators desire collaborative relationships; however, many barri-
ers are present. In addition to those listed in Table 1, consider how the different
perspectives held by parents and educators influence their communication
(Chrispeels, 1987). For example, parents are (and should be) concerned with
their child’s individual progress and needs. Educators are (and should be) fo-
cused on the progress and needs of the whole class or group. This difference
must be discussed, understood, and valued as assessment–intervention links for
children are created; otherwise the probability of communication difficulties,
often reflected in blaming and finger pointing, is heightened.
The barriers can be conceptualized as problem-focused ones that seem insur-
mountable for connecting family and school for the benefit of children’s learn-
464 CHRISTENSON
ing. They also can be conceptualized as opportunity-focused ones that provide

school psychologists with an expanded role to consult about creating successful
learning environments (Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002). The good news is that
barriers, if identified, understood, and thought of as opportunities, can lead to
positive service delivery changes, such as school practices for outreach to fami-
lies or new responsibilities for families.
MAINTAINING AN OPPORTUNITY-ORIENTED, PERSISTENT FOCUS
As school psychologists and other school personnel know only too well, the
variability in children’s lives is remarkable. America’s Children: Key National
Indicators of Well-Being 2002 (http://www.childstats.gov) describes the chang-
ing population and diverse family context in which 70.4 million American chil-
dren are living.3 For the first time, less than a quarter of American households
consist of nuclear families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org). One signifi-

cant change is a sharp increase in families headed by unmarried partners. Na-
tionally, the number of unmarried partners grew by 71% in the 1990s. Addition-
ally, 33% of all births in 2000 were to unmarried women.
Understanding the effects of cultural and social capital in relation to the notion
of supporting families to be engaged at school and with learning is integral to our
success for partnering. Growing numbers of parents have not had the benefit of a
positive personal schooling experience or, as new immigrants to the United
States, are unfamiliar with school policies and practices or view the purpose of
education quite differently (Bempechat, 1998). For example, the foreign-born
population of the United States has increased dramatically. In 2001, 19% of chil-
dren had at least one foreign-born parent. Also, the percentage of children whose
parents have less than a high-school diploma is much higher among children
with a foreign-born parent, suggesting the vital role information on schooling
plays for parents to be engaged with educators. Less cultural capital (Lareau,
1987) makes it difficult for parents to support their children’s learning and to
navigate the educational system, particularly at the secondary level.
The amount of time available for parents to support their children’s learning
(especially if it requires being present at school) and to interact with children
about personal matters is shrinking due to increases in single parent and dual in-
come families. Referred to as the erosion of social capital, Coleman (1987) ar-
gued that the loss of quality student–adult interaction and time was a primary
reason for decline in school performance and for more children being unpre-
pared for school tasks in kindergarten. More than 75% of all poor children live in
working families, and supports for these families raising children are less than
desirable. For example, availability of affordable child care is a primary issue. In
3
Unless otherwise indicated, the statistics for this paper have been drawn from http://www.child-
stats.gov. To avoid any misrepresentation, I have reported them in almost all cases word for word as
indicated from the specific source.
2001, 61% of children (i.e., 12 million) from birth through age 6 years (not yet in
kindergarten) received some form of child care on a regular basis from people
other than their parents, and about half of children in kindergarten to Grade 8 re-
ceived nonparental child care. Three percent of children in kindergarten to Grade
3 and 25% of children in Grades 4 to 8 cared for themselves regularly before or
after school (http://www.factsinaction.org). Parents want more after school pro-
gramming, citing the following barriers: not enough programs (51%), programs
not affordable (34%), and mediocre quality of existing programs (31%).
The number of parents a child lives with is strongly linked to the resources
available to children. For example, low-income children (less than $1500 per
month) were half as likely to participate in sports, lessons, or clubs as high-in-
come children ($4500 or more per month) (http://www.factsinaction.org). Also,
the decline in affordable housing is a complicating factor (http://www.conteme-
poraryfamilies.org). In 1999, 35% of U.S. households (owners and renters) with
children had one or more of three housing problems: physically inadequate hous-
ing, crowded housing, or housing that costs more than 30% of family income.
Some statistics suggest that families need support so that they can assist their
children’s adaptation to the demands of schooling. For example, 58% of children
ages 3 to 5 years were read to daily by a family member in 2001; however, the
rates varied as a function of mother’s educational level (73% for children whose
mother graduated from college; 42% for children whose mother did not finish
high school). Also, in 1999, among children ages 3 to 5 years not yet enrolled in
kindergarten, those with multiple risk factors were generally less likely than
those without risk factors or with only one to engage in literacy activities fre-
quently with their families. The implications for language development and
emergent literacy are glaring. At the other end of the schooling process, the Cen-
ter on Education Policy reported that 58% to 95% of students passed state high-
school exit exams on the first attempt (http://www.ecs.org). Asian and Cau-
casian students perform well; however, the subgroups of students that are well
below the rate for the total population include African American and Hispanic
students, students on free or reduced lunch, students with disabilities, and ELL,
all students who are specifically targeted in NCLB.
Repeatedly, little change in educational performance of student subgroups tar-
geted by NCLB has been reported by the National Center for Education Statis-
tics (U.S. Department of Education, 2003; http://www.nces.ed.gov). The failure
of some students to perform at normative levels and the variability in children’s
lives provide school psychology an opportunity to reframe who is at risk for
school failure and to support families with respect to their responsibility to foster
students’ learning progress.
Determining Risk for School Failure

Although many statistics represent status variables (i.e., demographics) over
which educators have little or no control, they allow us to identify individual or
466 CHRISTENSON
groups of students for whom additional supports are warranted to meet the stan-
dards set by teachers and parents, and more recently NCLB—populations with
whom the discipline of school psychology should take special note. To ignore
the apparent gaps in educational outcomes for students reported annually by the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is to “admire the problem.”
In contrast to focusing exclusively on reported statistics, Pianta and Walsh
(1996) have redefined risk for school failure by extending the discussion beyond
status variables to include the effect of the quality of the family–school relation-
ship as a primary contributing factor to level of child risk. They argued that sta-
tistics describe what is, given existing circumstances, but say little about what
can be, given different circumstances. They theorized that children are educated
in low-risk circumstances if the child/family and schooling systems are func-
tional; home and school communicate, providing children with congruent mes-
sages about their learning. High-risk circumstances occurred when children de-
rived meanings from home or school that resulted in conflicting emotions,

motivations, or goals for students.
Students’ adaptation to schooling depends in part on the degree of support,
opportunity to learn, and resources available to the child across settings and
school years (Pianta & Walsh, 1996). We know the benefits of family–school
collaboration. Extending far beyond the notion of involving parents in activities,
they include (a) sharing in educational goals for countering information from
competing sources such as media and peers; (b) maximizing opportunities for
students to learn at school and at home; (c) building social capital for students
through mutual support efforts by families and educators; (d) circumventing
blame when children exhibit learning and behavior difficulties in school; (e) en-
hancing communication and coordination among family members and school
personnel; (f) maintaining home–school continuity in approaches across school
years; (g) sharing ownership and commitment to educational goals; (h) increas-
ing understanding of the complexities of a child and his or her situation; and (i)
pooling of resources across home and school, which increases the range and
quality of solutions, diversity in expertise, and integrity of educational programs
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).
To ensure better outcomes for students, the discipline of school psychology
can provide leadership by identifying groups of students for systematic interven-
tion (e.g., as determined by district data on mandated tests or NCES data), de-
signing mesosystemic intervention programs, and evaluating the effectiveness of
these programs; thereby adding to our knowledge base of evidence-based inter-
ventions (Gutkin, 2002). This, of course, means we have myriad opportunities to
partner with diverse families.
Opportunities to Partner with Diverse Families

Educational statistics collected annually by the NCES have identified repeatedly
the same subgroups of students for whom school performance is poor. Rather
than the statistics suggesting a hopeless situation (e.g., poverty rates, ELL serv-
ices) or an attribution for poor school performance, they represent an opportu-
nity for school psychologists, in collaboration with others, to embrace cultural
and ethnic diversity to learn of new ways to educate students and support stu-
dents and their families.
It is critical to differentiate home support for learning and supporting families
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Equally important to sharing effective home
support for learning strategies is supporting families to sustain their engagement
with their children’s learning. Families do not need to be fixed but they need to
be supported in their efforts to educate their children in ways they see fit.
We support families when we deliver a clear, unambiguous message about the
benefits of the partnership and the essential nature of the parental role for chil-
dren’s learning. Many parents need an explicit invitation to partner. Using the
established empirical base, we can explain that children perform most optimally
in school when instructional, home, and home–school support for learning exists
(Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2001). Should parents choose not to participate,
school personnel can explain they will do their part at school; however, they can
also make it clear that they believe this is only part of the equation for school
success (Christenson, 2000; Christenson & Buerkle, 1999). Repeating this mes-
sage and providing opportunities to parents is critical for some parents to be-
come engaged.
We support families when we meet families where they are and when we
strive to understand their perspectives, desires, and needs. Bempechat (1998) ar-
ticulated a series of provocative questions related to variation in children’s home
socialization practices, such as: How hard does the child have to try to do well in
school? How have the parents prepared the child for the tasks in school? What is
the parental understanding of the schooling process? What is the parental under-
standing of their roles and responsibilities? How do the parents encourage their
child’s success in school? How have negative attitudes about learning devel-
oped? Reaching out to parents and finding out what they desire to be actively en-
gaged in their children’s learning and to meet the standards (e.g., What do you
desire from the school so you can assist your child’s learning?) is critical. We
want to set the expectation for parental engagement, but we should be wary of
dictating how parents might best participate. Consider how a belief in shared re-
sponsibility for educational outcomes might be advanced if educators routinely
invited parents to partner to promote learning competencies (even when the child
is having learning difficulties), expected parents to be engaged, and were willing
to negotiate how parents participate.
We support families when we individualize information on successful home
and classroom learning environments (Ysseldyke & Christenson, 2002). A key is
to find what works for a particular child and his or her family. The intensity and
frequency with which the home environment is a learning environment must be
considered. For example, if parents cannot help due to specific circumstances
(e.g., working two jobs), a supportive strategy is to identify with the parents an
468 CHRISTENSON
individual who serves as a contact with the school and supports the student’s
learning after school hours. Finally, engaging parents in ways that children per-
ceive as helpful is important, as too much involvement may be interpreted by
youth as parents trying to be controlling and intrusive.
There is no question that education must be made a salient focus in many
homes. For some families, education and schoolwork get lost, whether to ex-
cessive family and work demands, previous negative interactions with school
personnel, or negative personal school experience. We support families to en-
hance learning at home when we find a way to affirm all parents’ participation.
We can ask parents: How do you want to be involved? Affirming parents’ roles
and giving them options helps educators to be responsive to specific situational
demands. The classification of parental roles by Scott-Jones (1995) is very
helpful. She has suggested that parents can enhance learning at home and per-
formance in school by valuing, mentoring, helping, and doing; note that doing
is not necessarily linked to child learning. Similarly, the distinction between ac-
ademic and motivational home support for learning is highly relevant (Bem-
pechat, 1998). We would be wise to rethink the traditional role for parents of
assisting with and reinforcing academic work (i.e., academic support), and to
consider also how parents help by developing habits of learning (i.e., motiva-
tional support). Bempechat (1998) has called cogently for parents and teachers
to make education and learning a priority, arguing that motivational support for
learning (i.e., encouraging student effort, reinforcing the value of learning, per-
sisting in the face of challenge, structuring time for studying) is critical to so-
cialize students as learners. Supporting families to enhance learning at home
requires none less than attending to the process for creating productive rela-
tionships.
ATTEND TO THE PROCESS FOR PARTNERING
To move from a cycle of failure for some students to a culture of success for all
students, we must direct our efforts toward a process for partnering with fami-
lies.4 We know that behavioral and academic difficulties for students do not dis-
appear with one problem-solving session or intervention. Sometimes home and
school will work together within and across school years to continue to address
mutual concerns and provide mutual support for enhancing the learning progress
of youth. A reasonable question is: Have we focused our efforts more on solving
the referred child behavior and less on restructuring the family–school relation-
ship to create mutual support for addressing child-related concerns, which may
be ongoing? The family–school partnership is a 13-year contract (Epstein,
4
The terms parent and family have been used interchangeably in this article. Also, the author recog-
nizes that many students live with guardians and extended family, such as grandparents. All terms
should be thought of as potential individuals with whom educators build a relationship to enhance
children’s learning.
1995). Educators working as partners with parents in one year strengthen the
partnership for subsequent years.
Focusing on process requires reframing our actions from those aimed at a
quick solution for a referral concern to those that reinforce shared responsibility
for educational outcomes. Forming connections means developing an intentional
and ongoing relationship between school and family designed to directly or indi-
rectly enhance children’s learning and development, and to address the obstacles
that impede it (Merseth, Schorr, & Elmore, 1999). A shared responsibility orien-
tation operates on a different model of schooling, one in which parents are
viewed as essential. A primary focus is placed on the rights, roles, and responsi-
bilities of parents, educators, and students related to children’s learning out-
comes, not simply on delegation of services to parents (Seeley, 1985). Typical
school-based practices have focused on the implementation of activities, driven
by the question: How can we involve families? Offering parent involvement ac-
tivities devoid of a healthy family–school relationship have yielded less than de-
sired levels of active parental engagement and personal investment in children’s
learning success, particularly for some families. Rather than educators asking
how to involve uninvolved families, we should be asking how to enhance learn-
ing competencies and educational outcomes for students. Partnering with parents
is a viable and necessary avenue.
As described elsewhere (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001), four A’s—Ap-
proach, Attitudes, Atmosphere, and Actions—represent a process for construct-
ing quality family–school connections for children’s learning. The process in-
volves prerequisite conditions that set a tone for partnership, namely (a) the
approach adopted toward the role of families; (b) the degree to which construc-
tive attitudes between families and educators exist; and (c) the atmosphere pres-
ent for interaction between families and educators in their particular school con-
text. They must be addressed for actions to be implemented effectively.
Opportunities for school psychologists relative to this process are listed in the
Appendix.
Approach: The Framework for Interaction with Families

The framework approach for interaction with families that is supported by sev-
eral theories and research findings views parents as essential, not merely desir-
able, for children’s optimal performance in school. The view that parents are es-
sential for children’s learning is too often an implicit assumption in schools. The
missing piece is the explicit acknowledgment, particularly in school attitudes
and actions, that parents are essential partners. Adopting an approach that recog-
nizes the significance of families and the contributions of schools for children’s
engagement at school and with learning provides a necessary framework for
family–school connections aimed at promoting students’ learning outcomes.
This approach focuses on systems perspectives. Children’s level of academic,
social, and behavioral competence cannot be understood or fostered by locating
470 CHRISTENSON
problems in child, family, or school in the absence of a focus on the dynamic in-
fluence of relationships among the systems. The access, voice, and ownership of
parents and educators are essential for promoting success of students with and
without disabilities. For example, consider the potential impact of parents’ and
educators’ access (i.e., rights to inclusion in decision making processes); voice
(i.e., feeling that they were heard and listened to at all points in the process); and
ownership (i.e., satisfaction with and contribution to any action plan affecting
them) during family–school meetings about students’ instructional programming
or behavior. School psychologists are poised to ask a question that will advance
our knowledge of student outcomes: How are resources of the child and the
learning context organized to respond to problems or help the child meet devel-
opmental demands or demands of assigned tasks in school over time? The cen-
trality of the role played by students is not lost or minimized as students, in
transaction with others, are active participants in their learning. As noted by
David Seeley (1985) in his book, Education Through Partnership, “The product
of education (learning) is not produced by schools, but by students with the help
and support of schools, parents, peers, and other community resources” (p. 65).
Attitudes: The Values and Perceptions Held about

Family–School Relationships
Partnering with parents is an attitude and is not only an activity to be imple-
mented. And yet, schools tend to be activity driven, despite the fact that gaining
the cooperation of and collaboration with parents is not primarily a function of
the activities provided. Rather, “families and schools as partners” is a way of
thinking about forming connections, not about how educators can “fix the fam-
ily.”
Constructive attitudes, which adopt a collaborative stance and make the rela-
tionship a priority, allow school personnel and parents to ask the question, even
when differing perspectives are apparent: How can we work together to address
a concern, shared goal, or promote the learning competence of a student? The
development of constructive attitudes between parents and educators is the re-
sponsibility of both educators and parents. Collaboration involves both equality
(i.e., the willingness to listen to, respect, and learn from one another) and parity
(i.e., the blending of knowledge, skills, and ideas to enhance the relationship,
and outcomes for children) (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). In practice, con-
structive attitudes are demonstrated and modeled by parents and educators when
they (a) listen to one another’s perspective; (b) view differences as strengths; (c)
focus on mutual interests; (d) share information to co-construct understandings
and interventions; (e) respect the skills and knowledge of each other by asking
for ideas and opinions; (f) plan together and make decisions that address par-
ents’, teachers’, and students’ needs; (g) share in decision making about a child’s
educational program; (h) share resources to work toward goal attainment; (i)
provide a common message about schoolwork and behavior; (j) demonstrate a
willingness to address conflict; (k) refrain from finding fault; and (l) commit to
sharing successes.
Atmosphere: The Climate in Schools for Families and Educators

An atmosphere that facilitates collaborative family–school partnerships is one
that is characterized by trust, effective communication, and a mutual problem-
solving orientation. Of particular importance is the degree to which educators
have examined the school climate to ensure that it is welcoming and inclusive
for all families. In a recent study, ethnically diverse parents overwhelmingly
identified relationship variables as the most significant determinants of welcom-
ing school environments (Windram, Godber, Hurley, Marquez, & Christenson,
2002). Parental perspectives did not vary as a function of ethnicity (Caucasian
vs. non-Caucasian) or educational service delivery (regular vs. special educa-
tion); however, there were significant differences as a function of school level

(elementary vs. secondary). Elementary schools were viewed as more welcom-

ing on several dimensions.
Explicit opportunities for parents and educators to discuss the culture of the
school and of the family (i.e., norms, values, beliefs, expectations, actions) are
integral to the development of trusting relationships (Phelan et al., 1998). We
need to ask: Is it possible to respect each other, make joint decisions, and engage
in honest, two-way communication, all defining features of collaboration, with-
out trust? Trust is an intangible characteristic that develops over time with re-
peated contact and exposure. Some families may be willing to trust school per-
sonnel more readily than others, particularly if they are accustomed to the
traditional practices and norms established in schools. One-time events or inter-
actions with family members do not allow educators to learn about family be-
liefs, practices, values, or preferences. They do not allow families to explore
their feelings about the school, or their comfort level with adults in that environ-
ment who may be different from them on a number of important dimensions.
And, they do not provide ongoing opportunities to allow parents and educators
to learn from and about each other and increase acceptance of each other. Trust
building between home and school often runs counter to practices in schools
where quick and efficient solutions are sought. In many circumstances, effi-
ciency is valued over the interaction process that requires time to build trusting
relationships and get to know one other. Too often parental participation is initi-
ated in the midst of a crisis situation, such as when a child’s behavior at school
becomes uncontrollable. In such situations, trust between parents and teachers is
vital to yield a positive outcome for the student (e.g., the development and im-
plementation of an intervention plan to address the behavioral concerns).
Effective communication sets the tone for a positive atmosphere or “climate
building” between family and schools (Weiss & Edwards, 1992). Communica-
tion must inform parents about the policies and practices of schools, ways to en-
hance students’ learning and development, and monitoring students’ progress. In
472 CHRISTENSON
a study sponsored by the National Association of School Psychologists, parents

(regardless of income level, ethnicity, or their child’s academic and behavioral
performance) overwhelmingly indicated they would use information on how
schools function (e.g., how grades are earned, scheduling, transitions, home-
work) to assist their children’s school performance (Christenson, Hurley, Sheri-
dan, & Fenstermacher, 1997). In fact, the top 11 of 33 preferred parent involve-
ment activities were oriented toward informing parents about school and student
learning and behavior. School personnel want parents to be involved, but
parental engagement depends on parents being informed, invited, and feeling in-
cluded, not controlled. Unfortunately, not all school practices (a) inform parents
frequently and systematically about their child’s progress toward learning goals
and/or how to assist children’s learning (i.e., specific process involved in learn-
ing to read); (b) invite parents to share information and resources relevant to the
child’s learning; and (c) include parents, by setting mutually determined goals
and shaping intervention plans to be feasible for implementation by parents and

teachers. Finally, we must be concerned about disconnects between home and
school perspectives and practices. For example, a recent national study (Chen,
2001) revealed discrepancies between educators’ and parents’ reports on school
practices, particularly related to conveying information and including parents in
decision making. For each school practice, public kindergarten to Grade 8 school
personnel were more likely than parents to indicate that schools used the prac-
tice. Our concern must be focused on why educators’ practices are not informing
parents as intended.
Adopting a mutual problem-solving orientation is yet another opportunity to
communicate effectively with families, particularly in terms of providing realis-
tic, yet optimistic messages about students’ learning competence. Problem-solv-
ing structures provide an opportunity for bidirectional communication, view par-
ents and school personnel as resources for addressing educational concerns, and
help to foster optimism about what the partners can accomplish by working to-
gether (Carlson et al., 1992; Sheridan et al., 1996).
Actions: Strategies for Building Shared Responsibility

Christenson and Sheridan (2001) have described in detail seven broad actions to
enhance family–school connections for children’s learning: (a) garnering admin-
istrative support, (b) acting as a systems advocate, (c) implementing
family–school teams, (d) increasing problem solving across home and school,
(e) identifying and managing conflict, (f) supporting families, and (g) helping
teachers improve communication and relationships with families. Recognizing
that families belong to no one discipline, I suggest that an eighth action for
school psychologists is to collaborate with others in the development of cohe-
sive, coordinated family–school–community interventions (Adelman & Taylor,
1999). Actions, which are oriented toward building shared responsibility for ed-
ucational outcomes, are purposefully distinguished from activities (see Appen-
dix). Actions focus on the connection between family and school for children’s
learning, whereas activities represent a narrow focus on how to involve families
in education.
With respect to building shared responsibility for educational outcomes,
school psychology can be a stimulus for thinking of how common points of par-
ent–educator contact (e.g., orientation/back to school night, workshops, monitor-
ing students’ performance, conferencing) can be altered to invite parent partici-
pation, increase parental responsibility for learning, and to focus all actions on
shared responsibility for improved learning outcomes (Christenson & Sheridan,
2001). Also, we can ensure that the balance of power between parents and pro-
fessionals is altered to enfranchise parents as equal partners (i.e., using commu-
nication structures to enhance dialogue and mutual understanding of child
needs). Harry’s (1993) examples of parental assessment roles: parents as asses-
sors, presenters of reports, policy makers, and advocates and peer supports can
be embellished to include parental intervention roles.
ROLES FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
School psychologists can have a truly significant impact on student engagement

with learning, learning experiences, and educational outcomes for all students.
We can focus our efforts on the “affordance value” of students’ total learning en-
vironment, or how the family–school context facilitates or impedes students’
adaptation to challenges and demands of schooling. We must attend to critical
macrosystemic influences, such as the effect of NCLB and high-school exit
exams, on the learning status of individuals and groups of students as well as the
national focus on teaching students to read, which includes working with par-
ents. We must understand the belief systems of all families, and be sensitive to
the kinds of information and supports they desire as well as the resources they
bring to assist their children in meeting educational standards. We can support
school personnel to implement practices based on shared responsibility for edu-
cational outcomes.
This is the “best of times” for the discipline of school psychology to embrace
exciting opportunities to expand our roles by (a) espousing the value of family and
school contexts for optimal learning; (b) working to close gaps in educational out-
comes for student subgroups; and (c) providing leadership in working with di-
verse families. Diversity is broad and varied, including characteristics related to
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, culture, and sexual orientation. I hope
the discipline of school psychology will embrace the concept of diversity and
strive to build capacity for families and school personnel to partner in enhancing
learning outcomes for students. A comprehensive resource delineating not only
evidence for the impact of family, school, and community connections on student
achievement but also annotated bibliographies of evidence-based programs has
been written by Henderson and Mapp (2002) and is available from the Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory (http://www.sedl.org/connections/).
474 CHRISTENSON
If school psychology chooses “the age of wisdom, “ we will recognize the

centrality of collaborating with school personnel to think systemically about stu-
dents’ learning, maintain an opportunity-oriented, persistent focus when work-
ing with youth and families living in challenging situations, and attend to the
process for partnering with all families. We will do this for the express purpose
of developing and evaluating targeted family–school interventions toward learn-
ing goals and for meeting educational standards specified by NCLB.
Also, if school psychology is serious about improving the impact of American
education and closing the achievement gap for student subgroups, we will work
with others to make family–school partnerships a priority in our schools. I spec-
ulate that our contribution would be monumental if, by placing the partnership
front and center for child outcomes, we addressed two barriers. First, school per-
sonnel (ourselves included) need to be educated in how to partner with parents to
promote student competence. Second, school personnel must impact parental
and societal attitudes toward education. Regardless of ethnic, economic, or edu-

cational background, parents have the capability (and responsibility) to support
their children’s learning and to make education a priority. These two broad areas
offer promise to move toward the notion of shared responsibility for educational
outcomes. It is our job to connect with parents around learning by developing the
relationship and addressing barriers for their engagement.
To improve educational outcomes for all students, the philosophy that must
permeate all family and school practices is that parents and teachers, families, and
schools are essential. Dialogue about the rights, roles and responsibilities, and re-
sources of educators, parents, and students should be routine when planning edu-
cational programs. We must be willing to serve as systems consultants and to alter
our assessment and intervention practices. We might begin our efforts by:
앫 Infiltrating all practices in schools with a family–school focus, beginning

with existing structures (e.g., pre-referral assistance teams, assessment pro-
cedures, instructional and behavioral interventions, parent–teacher confer-
ences).
앫 Explaining school, home, and partnership conditions that foster students’
learning competence. We partner because we want improved learning out-
comes and school experiences for students.
앫 Actively pursuing and reaching out to parents where they are, whether at
home, at work, or in the community. We cannot be setting bound, waiting
to interact with parents only when their children do not perform or behave
as expected at school.
앫 Actively pursuing parents early, even at the hospital. Given the powerful
data from Hart and Risley (1995) about the impact of early language acqui-
sition on reading achievement and the cultural priorities that parents trans-
mitted through talking as a function of socioeconomic differences, the po-
tential impact of developing mechanisms to converse about and support
parents in language development and school readiness seem astounding.
앫 Individualizing actions adopted in the partnership. For example, some par-

ents may only need information about the essential nature of their role and
home support for learning strategies. Other families may need information
and attention to a specific constraint, such as the need for reading resources
in the home. And other families may also need ongoing support to maintain
a connection with educators for their children’s learning.
앫 Determining under what circumstances a family–school connection may
not be beneficial or worth the time expended (Rutter & Maughan, 2002).
There is no question that extra time is required to collaborate with parents. Ed-
ucators find time to handle a crisis or conflict between families and schools, per-
haps in some cases at the expense of not having time for dialogue and building a
relationship. Admittedly, we need to identify time efficient methods. For exam-
ple, educators could streamline methods for communicating with families; some
methods will reach 80% of the parents (e.g., newsletters), leaving 20% of parents
for more unique and undoubtedly more time-consuming methods (e.g., home
visiting). Not every strategy must be applied to every parent. Also, school psy-
chologists might consider beginning with a small caseload of targeted students
for whom mesosytemic interventions are implemented, and adding students and
families across school years. Finally, it is critical to understand that what is being
advocated is the development of family–school partnerships, not parent–teacher
partnerships or parent–psychologist partnerships. Therefore, if job roles and
functions for school personnel are broadened, more families might be reached.
CLOSING COMMENTS: THE FUTURE
It is time to raise the bar for all children’s performance in school; creating fam-
ily–school partnerships is a viable and essential way to enhance academic, social,
and emotional learning of youth. It is my hope that school psychologists will take
the initiative to raise the bar for students’ performance in school by heeding John
Fantuzzo’s (1999) advice to make “partner” a verb with all families, including
those whose children may be doing less well than desired or who feel disengaged
from the schooling process. If we are serious about achieving higher standards and
outcomes for students, school psychology must be serious about ensuring that
family–school connections for children’s learning are routine practice.
To alter the culture of failure for many students, which is represented by stu-
dents viewing school (and learning) as an “interruption in their day,” an empha-
sis must be placed on reciprocal influences where both the family and school
must support learners and they must deliver a congruent message about the value
of learning. Fifteen years ago, Dorothy Rich (personal communication, 1987) of
the Home and School Institute in Washington, D.C. opined, “Families and teach-
ers might wish that the school could do the job alone. But today’s school needs
families and today’s families need the school. In many ways, this mutual need
may be the greatest hope for change.” Her statement is highly relevant in 2003. I
476 CHRISTENSON
encourage school psychology to consider partnering with parents to be an excit-

ing opportunity for our discipline to enhance learner outcomes and to provide
supports to all students to meet established standards.
REFERENCES
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (1999). Mental health in schools and system restructuring. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 19, 137–163.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A
seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 171–191
Bempechat, J. (1998). Against the odds: How “at-risk” students exceed expectations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Binns, K., Steinberg, A., & Amorosi, S. (1997). The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American
Teacher 1998: Building Family–School Partnerships: Views of Teachers and Students. New
York: Louis Harris.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child develop-
ment. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp.
187–249). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Brown, D. T., Cardon, B. W., Coulter, W. A., & Meyers, J. (Eds.). (1982). The Olympia proceed-
ings. School Psychology Review, 11, 107–214.
Carlson, C. I., Hickman, J., & Horton, C. B. (1992). From blame to solutions: Solution-oriented fam-
ily–school consultation. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collabora-
tion: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 193–213). Silver Spring,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model for school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
Cavell, T. A. (2000). Working with parents of aggressive children: A practitioner’s guide. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychology Association.
Chen, X. (2001). Efforts by public schools to involve parents in children’s education: Do school and
parent reports agree? (NCES #076). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics.
Chrispeels, J. A. (1987). The family as an educational resource. Community Education Journal,
10–17.
Christenson, S. L. (2000). Families and schools: Rights, responsibilities, resources, and relationship.
In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 143–177). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Christenson, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). Commentary: The centrality of the learning context
for students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review, 31, 378–393.
Christenson, S. L., & Buerkle, K. (1999). Families as educational partners for children’s school suc-
cess: Suggestions for school psychologists. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Hand-
book of school psychology (709–744). New York: Wiley.
Christenson, S. L., & Carroll, E. B. (1999). Strengthening the family–school partnership through
check and connect. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Learning to cope: Developing a person in com-
plex societies. (pp. 248–273). New York: Oxford University Press.
Christenson, S. L., Hurley, C. M., Sheridan, S. M., & Fenstermacher, K. (1997). Parents’ and school
psychologists’ perspectives on parent involvement activities. School Psychology Review, 26,
111–130.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential connections
for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, R. M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside school is critical.
Public Welfare, 17–23.
Coleman, J. (1987 August-September). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 32–38.

Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The
Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dickens, C. (1859). A tale of two cities. New York: Walter J. Black.
Edwards, P. A., Fear, K. L., & Gallego, M. A. (1995). Role of parents in responding to issues of lin-
guistic and cultural diversity. In E. E. Garcia, B. McLaughlin, G. Spodek, & O. Saracho
(Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education
(pp. 141–153). New York: Teachers College Press.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
Fantuzzo, J. W. (August 24, 1999). Discussant for the symposium: Preventing school failure through
the use of nontraditional helpers. Annual meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Boston, MA.
Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate as-
sessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 92, 367–376.
Galloway, J., & Sheridan, S. M. (1994). Implementing scientific practices through case studies: Ex-
amples using home-school interventions and consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 32,
385–413.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of parent in-
volvement in schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 538–548.
Gutkin, T. (Ed.). (2002). Miniseries on evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School
Psychology Quarterly, 17, 339–546.
Harry, B. (1993). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system: Communication and
empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful difference in the everyday experience of young Ameri-
can children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, H. M. (1989). School climate enhancement through
parental involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87–90.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.) (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
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: Southwest Educational Devel-
opment Laboratory.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their chil-
dren’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school relationships: The importance of cul-
tural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85.
Liontos, L. B. (1992). At-risk families and schools: Becoming partners. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearing-
house on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.
Merseth, K. K., Schorr, L. B., & Elmore, R. F. (1999, September). Schools, community-based inter-
ventions, and children’s learning and development: What’s the connect? The CEIC Review,
8, 6–7, 17.
Moles, O. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles and open-
ings. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 21–49). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Moles, O. C., & D’Angelo, D. (Eds.) (1993). Building school–family partnerships: Workshops for
urban educators. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI).
Nord, C. W., & West, J. (2001). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in their children’s schools by
family type and resident status. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
478 CHRISTENSON
Pasternack, R. H. (2002). The demise of IQ testing for children with learning disabilities. Keynote at
the annual meeting of National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family, peers, and
school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pianta, R., & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relation-
ships. New York: Routledge.
Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 40, 451–475.
Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Parent–child interactions and school achievement. In B. A. Ryan, G. R.
Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family–school connec-
tion: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 75–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seeley, D. S. (1985). Education through partnership. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Insti-
tute for Public Policy Research.
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A
procedural manual. New York: Plenum.
Swap, S. M. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Talley, R. C., Kubiszyn, T., Brassard, M., & Short, R. J. (Eds.) (1996). Making psychologists in
schools indispensable: Critical questions and emerging perspectives. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Center for Education Staistics. The condition of Edu-
cation 2003, (NCES 2003-067). Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.nces.ed.gov.
Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,
397–400.
Weiss, H. M., & Edwards, M. E. (1992). The family–school collaboration project: Systemic inter-
ventions for school improvement. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school
collaboration: Enhancing children’s academic and social competence (pp. 215–243). Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Wright, G., & Smith, E. P. (1998). Home, school, and community partnerships: Integrating issues of
race, culture, and social class. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 145–162.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional Assessment of Academic Behavior.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Weinberg, R. A. (Eds.). (1981). The future of psychology in the schools: Pro-
ceedings of the Spring Hill symposium. School Psychology Review, 10, 113–318.
Windram, H., Godber, Y., Hurley, C., Marquez, P., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Diverse parent per-
spectives of welcoming school environments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sandra L. Christenson, Ph.D., received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (School

Psychology) from the University of Minnesota in 1988 and is a Professor of Educational
and Child Psychology and Coordinator of the School Psychology Program at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota. Her primary research interests are in the areas of family-school part-
nerships, promoting student engagement and school completion for alienated youth, and
applications of systems-ecological theory to create assessment-intervention links for
struggling students. The School Psychology Program at the University of Minnesota is
accredited by the APA.
APPENDIX
EXAMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY TO
ENHANCE THE FAMILY–SCHOOL CONNECTION1
Approach: The Framework for Interaction with Families

앫 Opportunity to provide consistent messages to families that the school will
partner to promote the educational success of students.
앫 Opportunity to communicate how parents are integral to attaining optimal
educational goals for students.
앫 Opportunity to disseminate a system-wide “essential message”—research
has shown that students perform the best in school when parents (out-of-
school time) and teachers (in-school time) provide shared standards and
expectations, consistent structure, cross-setting opportunity to learn, mu-
tual support, positive, trusting relationships, and modeling (Ysseldyke &

Christenson, 2002).
앫 Opportunity to ensure that the philosophy of the school (i.e., mission state-
ment) explicitly articulates that the family–school relationship (e.g., bi-di-
rectional communication) impacts students’ academic, social, behavioral,
and emotional learning.
앫 Opportunity to modify assessment practices to ensure that the effect of mu-
tual influences (no pure school time or home time) on student performance
in school are accounted for or that adequate information about the child’s
academic and social behavior across settings to “co-construct” the bigger
picture is discussed.
앫 Opportunity to conceptualize children’s level of school performance as a
function of the supports for learning present before, during, and after the
school day.
앫 Opportunity to include parents as assessors and presenters of reports during
the assessment process (Harry, 1993).
앫 Opportunity to include parents as policymakers with respect to
home–school practices and policies (Comer et al., 1996; Harry, 1993).
앫 Opportunity to communicate in varied forms (print and non-print) that pos-
itive habits of learning are maximized when there is congruence across
home and school about the value of education, expectations for perform-
ance, and support for educational programming.
앫 Opportunity to model the relevance of a quality family–school partnership
by fostering bidirectional communication, enhancing problem solving
across home and school, encouraging shared decision making, and rein-
forcing congruent home–school support for students’ learning.
1
These example opportunities were extracted and adapted from concepts presented in Christenson &
Sheridan (2001).
480 CHRISTENSON
Attitudes: The Values and Perceptions Held about

Family–School Relationships
앫 Opportunity to model an attitude that embraces collaboration as a central
mode of operating, and reinforces:
(a) problem solving and no-fault interactions;
(b) the value of suspending judgment and jumping to conclusions;
(c) a positive and strength-based orientation where parents and teachers
are doing the best they can; and
(d) parents and educators as co-teachers and co-learners about the child’s
school performance.
앫 Opportunity to encourage families and school personnel to engage in per-
spective taking across home and school, modeling there are no problematic
individuals (parents, teachers or students), only a problematic situation that
requires the attention of the student, home, and school, all for the benefit of
the student’s learning.

앫 Opportunity to maintain the focus of the family–school connection and
communication on student progress and success.
앫 Opportunity to encourage active parental engagement in decision making;
educators inform, invite, and include parents to help address concerns for
students’ learning.
앫 Opportunity to emphasize a win-win attitude in the presence of conflict;
the needs of parents, teachers, and students must be considered in educa-
tional programming.
Atmosphere: The Climate in Schools for Families and Educators

앫 Opportunity to ensure that ample trust-building events between parents and
schools (e.g., multicultural potlucks/student celebrations, principal’s hour,
family fun nights, committees designed to address home–school issues,
workshops where parents and school personnel learn together) occur be-
fore serious decisions are made with respect to educational programming
(e.g., special education placement, grade placement).
앫 Opportunity to analyze home–school communication and develop a plan
that includes streamlined system-wide strategies (e.g., regular progress re-
ports, contact time and person) as well as teacher specific or individual
strategies (for unique situations).
앫 Opportunity to ensure that all families, even those with limited contact
with schools or negative personal experience with schools, understand the
language of schooling (i.e., how schools function).
앫 Opportunity to work with diverse families to ensure they, and their chil-
dren, feel connected at school and with learning. We have much to learn
from families. For example, what does the purpose of education mean to
families from varied cultural backgrounds? How do families see their roles
regarding their children’s schooling? How can we truly embrace (and help
others to) cultural differences and address the needs of non-English speak-
ing families or parents of students identified as ELLs?
앫 Opportunity to enhance problem solving with parents as a means for arriv-
ing at a plan of action that is based on consensus.
Actions: Strategies for Building Shared Responsibility

앫 Garnering administrative support.
앫 Opportunity to establish a family–school policy for enhancing learn-
ing outcomes for students.
앫 Opportunity to encourage or be involved in staff development that in-
fuses a focus on partnering with families.
앫 Acting as a systems advocate.
앫 Opportunity to underscore the salience of the family–school mesosys-
tem in assessment-intervention practices.

앫 Opportunity to ensure that goals and understanding of child behavior

are mutually determined.
앫 Opportunity to keep and sustain a focus on the salience of education
by negotiating a consistent, feasible way for families to support stu-
dents’ reading and learning.
앫 Opportunity to consult about family–school models and to evaluate
school efforts for partnering with families.
앫 Implementing family–school teams.
앫 Opportunity to underscore all communication with shared responsi-
bility between families and schools (e.g., discussing co-roles, partner-
ship agreements).
앫 Opportunity to use bidirectional communication strategies that stress
working as partners to improve educational outcomes for students.
앫 Increasing problem solving across home and school.
앫 Opportunity to implement solution-oriented approaches for educa-
tional planning.
앫 Opportunity to foster shared responsibility for educational outcomes
by inviting parental assistance to resolve school-based concerns,
helping parents foster personal goals for children and youth, and find-
ing out what parents desire to fulfill their commitment to their chil-
dren’s educational success.
앫 Opportunity to actively include and maximize the power of the target
student’s use of in-school and out-of-school time with mesosytemic
interventions (e.g., Galloway & Sheridan, 1994).
앫 Opportunity to learn from and be responsive to the needs of parents
whose children are not being successful in school or parents of groups
of children who represent “gaps” in educational outcomes at a na-
tional level.
앫 Identifying and managing conflict.
482 CHRISTENSON
앫 Opportunity to facilitate shared decision-making structures stressing

that parents’ and educators’ access, voice, and ownership are heard
and understood.
앫 Opportunity to design, implement, and evaluate problem-solving
structures that include perspective taking, learning from each other,
and sharing constraints of each system.
앫 Supporting families.
앫 Opportunity to reach out to parents who are identified as “hard to
reach” for the purpose of learning what would help them foster their
children’s learning competence.
앫 Opportunity to help parents understand policies and practices, be a re-
source for their questions, provide regular information on their child’s
progress and resources to address the gaps in learning, and foster a
positive learning environment at home.
앫 Opportunity to remove obstacles for families that inadvertently dis-

courage active participation (limited personal or material resources to

assist student learning).
앫 Opportunity to describe service delivery to parents in a non-pejora-
tive way (i.e., one that focuses on the kinds of supports parents would
find helpful to assist their child’s learning). Parental needs vary; per-
haps there are parents who need information (i.e., information only),
need attention to unique situational demands/circumstances in the
family context (i.e., information and attention), and need support on
an ongoing basis (i.e., information and attention and support).
앫 Helping teachers improve communication and relationships with families.
앫 Opportunity to communicate the desire to develop a working partner-
ship with families, the crucial nature of family input for children’s ed-
ucational progress, importance of working together to identify a mu-
tually advantageous solution in light of concerns, and clarity about
conditions that foster students’ academic, social, behavioral, and
emotional learning (Weiss & Edwards, 1992).
앫 Opportunity to ensure that parents have needed information to sup-
port children’s progress.

Christenson, S. (2003) .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christenson, S. (2003) .

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christenson, S. (2003) .

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2003, pp.

The Family–School Partnership: An Opportunity to

Address correspondence to Sandra Christenson, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational

454 Copyright 2003 by the Division 16, American Psychological Association

OUR CHALLENGE AS A DISCIPLINE

Different Conceptualizations of Family Involvement

we view our goal as enhancing parent involvement in education? If so, Grolnick,

앫 “A student-focused philosophy wherein educators and families cooperate,

Standards and Accountability in the Educational Context

bile, and homeless (http://www.nclb.gov).

NCLB provides an exciting opportunity for school psychology to build on

Family Involvement in Education, 2000), my reading of NCLB does not see

APPLYING SYSTEMS-ECOLOGICAL THEORY

Systems-ecological theory provides a conceptual framework for organizing the

and needs as a function of contributions from multiple contexts. Our goal is to

Underscoring the Family–School Mesosystem for Learning

educational outcomes for students.2 Fortunately, ecological models of school

Explanations for Uninvolved Families

TABLE 1. Barriers for Families, Educators, and the Family–School Relationship

Psychological Barriers Feelings of inadequacy; low sense of self-efficacy.

Perceived lack of responsiveness to parental needs or desires.

Psychological Barriers Ambiguous commitment to working with parents as partners.

Psychological Barriers Partial resistance toward increasing home–school cooperation.

Failure to view differences as strengths.

Previous negative interactions and experiences between families and

characterized in terms of structural aspects, which tend to dominate school-based

ing. They also can be conceptualized as opportunity-focused ones that provide

MAINTAINING AN OPPORTUNITY-ORIENTED, PERSISTENT FOCUS

consist of nuclear families (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org). One signifi-

Determining Risk for School Failure

rived meanings from home or school that resulted in conflicting emotions,

Opportunities to Partner with Diverse Families

ATTEND TO THE PROCESS FOR PARTNERING

Approach: The Framework for Interaction with Families

Attitudes: The Values and Perceptions Held about

Atmosphere: The Climate in Schools for Families and Educators

tion); however, there were significant differences as a function of school level

(elementary vs. secondary). Elementary schools were viewed as more welcom-

a study sponsored by the National Association of School Psychologists, parents

and shaping intervention plans to be feasible for implementation by parents and

Actions: Strategies for Building Shared Responsibility

be embellished to include parental intervention roles.

ROLES FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY

School psychologists can have a truly significant impact on student engagement

If school psychology chooses “the age of wisdom, “ we will recognize the

and societal attitudes toward education. Regardless of ethnic, economic, or edu-

앫 Infiltrating all practices in schools with a family–school focus, beginning

앫 Individualizing actions adopted in the partnership. For example, some par-

CLOSING COMMENTS: THE FUTURE

encourage school psychology to consider partnering with parents to be an excit-

York: Louis Harris.

Coleman, J. (1987 August-September). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 32–38.

Teachers College Press.

Sandra L. Christenson, Ph.D., received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (School

Approach: The Framework for Interaction with Families

tual support, positive, trusting relationships, and modeling (Ysseldyke &

Attitudes: The Values and Perceptions Held about

the student’s learning.

Atmosphere: The Climate in Schools for Families and Educators