Using a Community-Based Participatory Research Model to Encourage Parental

Involvement in Their Children’s Schools JoDee G. Keller, Claudia Miller, Chance LasDulce, and Rachel G. Wohrle

Parental engagement with their children’s education has been shown to have positive effects for children’s academic outcomes; thus, learning ways to increase parental engagement can be beneficial for students. Because of the importance of understanding schools in the context of the community and the essential role that community can play in supporting schools, community-based participatory research (CBPR) may be a particularly effective approach to data collection because it engages community partners as well as parents and school personnel, and it gains information that leads to meaningful interventions. This study explored the use of CBPR within an economically and ethnically diverse school community with the intent of developing strategies to foster increased parental participation in their children’s education. Social workers and social work students facilitated focus groups with parents and community stakeholders to explore ways to increase parental engagement in their children’s school and to identify barriers to engagement. The article identifies next steps based on the recommendations of participants and describes the outcomes of preliminary implementation of these steps.

KEY WORDS: community-based participatory research; diversity and equity; parental engage-

ment; public schools; relationship and community

T he institution of the school is one of the

most important and influential in a child’s

development. Family and community fill

out the context of a child’s life. When these three

systems work collaboratively, outcomes are more

positive for all and include enhanced achievement

for children and youths, increased social and political

capital for parents, and greater capacity for school

and community partners to work together (Hender-

son & Mapp, 2002). The importance of parent in-

volvement has been well established (Blair, 2014;

Jeynes, 2007; LaRocque, 2013; Toso & Grinder,

2016), but as schools are becoming increasingly ra-

cially and ethnically diverse, traditional models of pa-

rental involvement may not be as effective or rele-

vant. In addition, some parents may feel alienated

from schools for a variety of reasons. Many parents,

particularly those of color, may find it difficult to

engage with schools but still remain deeply

invested in their children’s learning (Goodall &

Montgomery, 2014). There may be additional

barriers to traditional models of engaging

parents. School social workers may be uniquely

suited to address issues around family engage-

ment and to develop and support models to

strengthen collaboration among school, families,

and community.

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN THE SCHOOLS The benefits of parental engagement in their child-

ren’s education are wide reaching and include the

domains of academics, behavior within and outside

of school, and attitudes that affect educational and

noneducational outcomes. From an ecosystems

perspective, children grow and develop within

systems—the most important being family,

school, community, and society (Bronfenbren-

ner, 1979). When there are multiple points of

contact among systems, it provides a rich web of

support for the developing child (Garbarino &

Ganzel, 2000). If the child is the only point of

contact between systems, such as family and

school, that child is at greater risk than if there

are multiple points of contact. Parental engage-

ment in the school setting provides additional

connections among family and school systems,

leading to a richer context for development. Di-

rect and indirect academic benefits to parental

doi: 10.1093/cs/cdab015 VC 2021 National Association of Social Workers 149

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

engagement include improved academic outcomes

and educational attainment (Blair, 2014; Hender-

son & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003, 2007), better

school attendance, stronger parent–teacher rela-

tionships, and improved teacher morale and school

climate (Hornby & Blackwell, 2018).

Nonacademic benefits that are related to both

school and home include positive attitudes toward

school and improved behavior and mental health of

children as well as increased parental confidence and

satisfaction (Hampden-Thompson & Galindo, 2017;

Hornby & Blackwell, 2018). Hampden-Thompson

and Galindo (2017) suggested that parental satisfac-

tion with the school is positively correlated with

children’s behavior and academic performance but

depends on both parental involvement and the de-

gree to which school personnel encourage and wel-

come participation. Henderson and Mapp (2002)

found that parental engagement had an effect on

behaviors of children and youths at home and at

school, such as lower rates of substance abuse and

teenage pregnancy, stronger social skills, and more

effective adaptation to the school environment

(Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Parental engagement, suggested Domina (2005),

benefits children and families in three significant

ways: first, by socializing children to the impor-

tance of school. Students see their parents engaged

and are more likely to engage and to value educa-

tion themselves. Second, parents who are engaged

at school form relationships with teachers and other

parents, giving them greater capacity to monitor

their children. Third, parents who are engaged in

school have increased access to “insider information”

in the sense that they communicate with teachers

and other school personnel and thus hear about

any concerns sooner so they can address those con-

cerns sooner (Domina). Based on mothers’ com-

pletion of the Behavior Problem Index (Zill,

1991), which measures such behaviors as cheating,

lying, argumentativeness, bullying, disobedience at

home and school, and difficulty getting along with

other children, Domina found that children whose

parents were engaged in school through monitor-

ing homework completion, helping with home-

work at home, and volunteering in the classroom

were assessed as having fewer of these behavior

problems.

Parental engagement with their children’s edu-

cation also promotes positive health behaviors,

resulting in decreased risk for unhealthy eating

practices, school disengagement, suicide attempts

or thoughts, and emotional distress (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). In addition

to benefits of family engagement, collaboration

with community partners can enhance positive

outcomes. “When schools, families, and commu-

nity groups work together to support learning,

children tend to do better in school, stay in school

longer, and like school more” (Henderson &

Mapp, 2002, p. 7).

ROLE OF CULTURE IN PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Although schools have demonstrated increased

efforts in encouraging parental involvement, partic-

ipation in schools may be more difficult for families

who feel excluded or dismissed because of race,

ethnicity, immigration status, or socioeconomic sta-

tus (Toso & Grinder, 2016). In a study of middle-

school parents, Hill, Witherspoon, and Bartz (2018)

found that parents value education and want their

children to be successful in school. Latinx families

described the sacrifices they have made for their

children to have the opportunity to attend school

in the United States. They reported wanting their

children to learn as much as they could, to take ad-

vantage of all their opportunities, and to aspire to

work in a profession and not just a job (Hill et al.,

2018). This valuing of education and making sacri-

fices for the next generation is true of many immi-

grant populations. Similarly, African American

parents demonstrated concern for and a focus on

keeping their children on the right track with the

fear that any mistake or failure would jeopardize

their future, thus reflecting an awareness of struc-

tural racism and inequality and the daunting task of

overcoming barriers to success for students of color

(Hill et al., 2018).

WHAT DOES INVOLVEMENT LOOK LIKE? Broad definitions of involvement include ways that

parents assist and interact with their children and

ways that schools encourage the children’s success

(Blair, 2014). Parents may have a different under-

standing of involvement based on their own story,

cultural background, and socioeconomic status.

Because school demographics and families have

changed, to reflect this diversity, an understanding

of parent involvement must expand beyond the

traditional attendance at Parent–Teacher Associa-

tion (PTA) meetings and volunteering at school.

150 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

Blair (2014) found cultural differences in defini-

tions of “involvement,” noting that more collec-

tive cultures may engage with their children differ-

ently. In some cultures, direct communication

with teachers may be seen as disrespectful, and

parents may view parental presence in the class-

room as a burden for teachers (LaRocque, 2013).

Goodall and Montgomery (2014) recommended

moving from a focus on the school and the unidi-

rectional sharing of information to a mutual ex-

change of information between parents and

school. For example, back-to-school nights, al-

though helpful, generally represent communica-

tion from the school to parents; parent–teacher

conferences can represent more of a dialogue.

The authors further suggested that parents en-

gage directly with their students’ learning rather

than with the schools, which can be most benefi-

cial for the student “so that work with parents

can move from school directed (which is useful)

to fully engaged (far more useful to students)” (p.

407). Moreover, encouraging a focus on their

students can help those parents who had negative

experiences in their own schooling or achieve-

ment to feel more engaged and even more confi-

dent.

Blair (2014) found that assisting with home-

work, attending school events together, and volun-

teering at school represented actively involved

parents who are highly invested in their children’s

success. When exploring parental involvement,

though, Hill et al. (2018) noted that both parents

and youths talked about the importance of creating

a routine and structure at home. These activities

were not identified by teachers as a form of paren-

tal involvement, pointing to the need to broaden

the understanding of what engagement may look

like. Hornby and Blackwell (2018) asserted that

when school staff considers a broader understand-

ing of parental involvement, they may be better

equipped to engage parents, including through

uses of technology.

BARRIERS TO INVOLVEMENT Even with a broader understanding of engagement,

there can be many barriers to involvement. In one

study (Hornby & Blackwell, 2018), school staff

identified barriers to parental involvement, catego-

rized as (a) parental factors that included their own

negative experiences in school and current life

issues, (b) societal factors, and (c) practical factors.

LaRocque (2013) found challenges to family in-

volvement also being related to constraints facing

teachers, because teachers may feel like it is addi-

tional work to include parents. Other barriers may

be related to specific family challenges, including

parents’ work schedules or personal issues, whereas

others may be “related to language, cultural, and

socioeconomic dissonance between families and

schools” (LaRocque, 2013, p. 112), increasing the

potential for miscommunication and misunder-

standings. Parents may not know how to navigate

the school system, and school personnel may inac-

curately assume that all parents are familiar with

school processes (LaRocque, 2013).

Implicit bias within the schools as well as more

blatant forms of discrimination can present barriers

to family engagement. Hill et al. (2018) found that

Latino and African American “parents and youth

are well aware of the differential treatment. They

are aware of this, while they were equally likely as

Euro-Americans to endorse the school” (p. 23).

Chang et al. (2013) posited that contextual chal-

lenges of immigrants (for example, language bar-

riers, discrimination, fewer economic opportuni-

ties, fear) may lead them to prioritize meeting

family needs over civic participation. Language

challenges can further lead to a lack of hope and

lowered expectations, which also can affect partici-

pation (Chang et al., 2013). Ishimaru et al. (2016)

noted that parents and families from nondominant

communities may feel devalued, excluded, or

unwelcome. Thus, lower rates of parental partici-

pation among marginalized populations may not

be surprising.

Essentially, though, education is a relational ven-

ture and thus is central to understanding family–

school partnerships (Hill et al., 2018). One of the

many activities of school social workers is to make

connections among community, schools, and fami-

lies (National Association of Social Workers,

2012), knowing that parental engagement is critical

to children’s success and that most parents want to

be involved and supportive but do not always

know how or may not feel comfortable in the

school setting. The unique skill set of school social

workers allows them to address barriers to involve-

ment and build connections across systems.

In the present study, following the procedures of

community-based participatory research (CBPR), a

university–school district team worked in full part-

nership to identify a research question and develop

Keller, Miller, LasDulce, and Wohrle / Community-Based Participatory Research in a Public School Setting 151

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

strategies to collect and interpret data. Essentially

CBPR involves the community as equal partners

through each step of the research process (see Al-

len-Meares, Hudgins, Engberg, & Lessnau, 2005;

Branom, 2012; Hacker, 2013, for more complete

descriptions of CBPR). District administrative staff

identified an interest in learning the most effective

ways of increasing parental engagement in their

children’s education, beginning with an elementary

school. Essentially, the research question they posed

was, “What are the things that we, as school district

staff, can do to increase parental/family engagement

in their children’s education?” District staff further

suggested focus groups as a way of reaching and en-

suring meaningful participation by the largest num-

ber of parents, and they formulated questions for

those focus groups.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION School Information The elementary school selected by the school dis-

trict had an enrollment of 404 students (Washing-

ton Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

[OSPI], n.d.; see the 2019–2020 data). Of those

students, 54.2 percent were female; 60.9 percent,

Latino; 14.9 percent, White; 11.1 percent, multira-

cial; 5.4 percent, Black; 4 percent, Asian; 3.5 per-

cent, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; and 0.2 percent,

American Indian and Alaska Native. English lan-

guage learners made up 37 percent of the school

population, and 88 percent of the students were

designated as low income, thus qualifying for free

or reduced-price lunch (OSPI, n.d.). In addition,

the school began a dual language program in 2017,

beginning with kindergarten, and has added a grade

each year; in the program, students receive instruc-

tion in all subjects in both English and Spanish.

Community Information The school principal and counselor noted that

parents and families as well as residents of the im-

mediate and neighboring communities may not

have a clear sense of the community surrounding

the school. The school is located in an unincorpo-

rated area adjoining a larger urban area, and the

school may be the unifying tie within the commu-

nity. Table 1 provides more of the community

context by using the county in which the school

district is located for comparison. As the table

shows, children in the school district were facing

challenges, including income and housing stability.

At this particular elementary school, approximately

90 percent of the children came from renter house-

holds. The district’s annual turnover rate was about

35 percent, but this school’s rate might be slightly

higher (P. Elery, principal of Harvard Elementary

School, Tacoma, Washington, personal communi-

cation, January 24, 2019).

Although some may see deficits, this school and

community presented a number of resources. The

dual language program is an asset because, in addi-

tion to language learning benefits, it ensures com-

munication in Spanish and English, that children

hear Spanish spoken in classrooms and hallways,

and that someone is always present in the building

who is fluent in Spanish. Across the street from the

school are a church, a food bank, and an assisted-

living facility. Staff from each of those organiza-

tions meet monthly with the school principal and

counselor to coordinate activities. For several years,

the church has provided a community dinner every

month during the school year to serve school fami-

lies and offer opportunities for socializing and rec-

reation. Church members prepare and serve food

donated by the food bank, and kitchen staff at the

assisted-living facility prepare dessert. In addition,

the school counselor has a care team of students

who make birthday and other greeting cards for

residents of the assisted-living facility. Those resi-

dents, in turn, sew small comfort pouches that the

counselor distributes to students as needed. The

food bank also operates a clothing bank that fami-

lies at the school use, and the clothing bank

attempts to procure specific items, such as shoes or

coats.

Hacker et al. (2012) recommended having a

broad definition of community to include stake-

holders, target population, community liaisons. In

this study, the nearby church, food bank, senior

housing, and monthly community partner meet-

ings provided a window into some of the com-

munity’s resources. Clearly, this school has a broad

base of community support fostered by the efforts

of school staff and community partners.

METHOD Development of Research Tools and Strategies In keeping with a CBPR approach, initial meet-

ings with school district staff (including the public

information officer and family engagement coordi-

nator [FEC], who is a bilingual–bicultural social

152 Children & Schools VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 JULY 2021

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /cs/article/43/3/149/6326852 by 81695661, O

U P on 03 August 2021

worker) identified general focus group questions to

gain information about parental involvement and

communication from the school district. Partner-

ships were created with staff, parent leaders, and

other community stakeholders. Through conversa-

tions with these partners, the focus group guide

was refined and revised multiple times to include

questions about the community as well as the effec-

tiveness of the school and district’s current com-

munication strategies (see Appendix A for the final

focus group questions).

The district/university team attended commu-

nity/school dinners to gain a better sense of the

community, to be more visible, and to develop trust.

Parent leaders recommended using PTA family

night, community/school dinners, and a letter to all

parents from the principal to recruit participants.

They noted the communication challenges in a

school that is split fairly evenly between two primary

languages. The original recruiting script and letter

were modified to reflect the recommendations of

this group of parents as well as district partners, and

verbal and written communications were in English

and Spanish. Facing challenges in recruiting research

participants that were representative of the diverse

school community, we, through partner input,

adapted our initial research plan to make focus

groups more accessible and convenient for partici-

pants by holding them as a part of regularly sched-

uled school and community events.

Data Collection Data collection tools and strategies included focus

groups, interviews, and participant observation and

involved university faculty, students, school district

staff, and parents. Focus groups were facilitated sep-

arately in English and Spanish. Facilitators included

two social workers, one from the district and one

from the university, and three social work students,

one of whom was a district intern. At least two

members of the research team were present in each

focus group: one who was the primary facilitator

and one who was a secondary facilitator and note-

taker. Focus groups were audiotaped.

We conducted 10 focus groups in total with 49

participants representing 46 families. Of those fam-

ilies, 26 were Spanish speaking, 19 were English

speaking, and one was Cambodian (Khmer speak-

ing). The school population consisted of 228 fami-

lies, so the convenience sample represented approx-

imately 20 percent of these families. Participants in

focus groups were 67.4 percent female and 32.6

percent male. They identified race or ethnicity as

Latinx, 50 percent; African American, 17.4 percent;

White, 21.7 percent; multiracial, 6.6 percent; and

Asian American, 4.3 percent.

Data Analysis Three researchers independently reviewed focus

group notes and transcripts to look for themes. Each

researcher listed parent responses under the broader

areas around the four focus group questions: (1) gen-

eral ideas about parental engagement, (2) positive

feedback (what’s working), (3) barriers to involve-

ment, and (4) suggestions for improvement. Each

then grouped responses according to subthemes. We

compared findings and refined themes. We again in-

dependently read and coded transcripts and notes af-

ter identifying the themes. All findings were dis-

cussed among the entire research team, which also

included the district FEC.

FINDINGS Broadly, parent participants were enthusiastic about

desiring to share their perspectives and build a stron-

ger school community. The importance of commu-

Table 1: Comparison of Housing and Poverty Status in the Study’s School District and the County

Housing and Poverty Status County School District

% %

Poverty rate: Percentage under age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018b) 14.5 20.1

Percentage living in households receiving SNAP, SSI, or other public assistance

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a)

24.5 32.9

Percentage living in owner-occupied housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018c) 61.7 55.2

Percentage living in renter-occupied housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018c) 38.3 44.8

Notes: SNAP ¼ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [U.S. Department of Agriculture