Social Workers' Roles in Facilitating the Collective

Social Workers' Roles in Facilitating the Collective Involvement of Low-Income^, Culturally Diverse Parents in an Elementary School Tania Alameda-Lawson, Michael A. Lawson, and Hal A. Lawson

Social workers have pivotal roles to play in facilitating collective parent involvement in economically poor school communities. Using a community-based, participatory, and empowerment-oriented approach to social work practice and research, this study provides empirical support for this claim. It examines the narratives of 17 economically poor parents who were involved for at least six months in a collective parent involvement program, which served a low-performingTitle One elementary school in a western state. An analysis of parent interviews yielded six themes-as-facilitators for parent involvement. Parents described each facilitator in relation to their previous perceptions of (poverty-related) constraints on their own involvement and well-being. The authors conclude that school social workers implementing collective parent involvement programs can act as powerful bridging agents between families and schools.This facilitative bridging role hinges on the extent to which social workers support parents' efforts to meet their social, economic, and developmental needs. KEYWORDS: collective parent involvement; community-based participatory research (CBPR); low-income schools; neighborhood development; social workers

S

chool improvement initiatives and educational policy continue to prioritize parent involvement (PI), and for good reason.When parents are involved effectively in their children's schooling, student achievement typically improves (Jeynes, 2005). Numerous replication and extension studies provide salient details. These studies have examined the relationship between different forms of PI activity (for example, reading at home, participation in PTA and in school governance) and children's academic achievement (for example, Epstein, 2001).Together, these studies support a powerful conclusion: Irrespective of social, class, or ethnic group affiliation, PI is strongly related to children's academic achievement (Henderson &Mapp, 2002). These consistent findings and the conclusion they support have influenced both policy and practice. One consequence of this line of inquiry is that the importance of parents' involvement and influence on children's academic

172

achievement is seldom questioned. As a result, much of the current research on and policy attention to PI has shifted from a strict focus on PI and its associated outcomes to include studies examining the mechanisms involved in increasing effective, sustainable PI practices (Shutz, 2006). For schools that serve economically poor families and communities, this practice-oriented research and policy focus carries particular import. As research indicates, schools serving economically poor populations often need additional support and assistance in identifying, and then attending to, family- and community-level barriers to PI (for example, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandier, 1997; Keith, 1996; Olivos, 2003). Unfortunately, because these schools often lack the resources or capacity to provide adequate assistance to families in need of support, PI is often scant, sporadic, or altogether nonexistent (Arias & Morillo-Campbell, 2008; Auerbach, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandier, 1997;Keith,

CCC Code: 1532-8759/10 $3.00 ©2010 National Association of Sociai Workers

1996; Lawson, 2003; Mannan & Blackwell, 1992; Olivos, 2003;Valdes, 1996). When attempts to involve parents stall or fail altogether, negative side effects tend to follow. Chief among these are educator's perceptions that parents are not committed to their children's education (for example, Lareau & Horvat, 1999). When such perceptions are left unchecked, cultural divides between vulnerable families and educators are often reinforced (DelgadoGaitan, 2004). A bitter irony arises from these research fmdings. When interviewed separately, educators and parents tend to identify the same desirable outcomes for children (Lawson, 2003). Unfortunately, cultural and organizational divides continue to limit parent and teacher understandings of how they might better collaborate on behalf of children and their schools. Clearly, theoretically sound and research-supported mechanisms for bridging these divides between families and schools are needed, including new models developed by social workers for engaging vulnerable parents. DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE MODELS

Two plausible pathways to children's school success via PI have been suggested by relevant theory and research. Both pathways merit empirical investigation and theoretical clarity. The first pathway depends on a critical questioning of the construct of PI. On close examination, the strength of conventional PI doubles as one of its primary limitations: It is school-centered and individually oriented. That is,

conventional PI implicates a one-way relationship between families and schools in which parents are expected to volunteer in service of the school. Notwithstanding the types of opportunities provided to individual parents through school-centered PI activity (such as the PTA), research suggests that this approach may not be best suited for the initial involvement of some economically poor parents, particularly those who perceive that they lack the necessary invitations, backgrounds, or social-cultural resources to participate or to advocate for their children's education (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandier, 1997; Horvat, Weinebger, & Lareau, 2003).

In contrast to school-centered, individualistic models, community-centered, collective approaches

to PI have gained increased currency over the past 15 years in economically poor, culturally diverse school communities (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004). These collective approaches to PI are founded on research-supported understandings of the daily life struggles of vulnerable families, with particular attention paid to the difficulties they often experience in securing valuable social and economic resources. In these emergent initiatives, collective PI is the target, and family support and community development strategies are the interventions used to empower parents to help improve schools from the outside in as well as the inside out. This connective work between school, family, and community processes requires that educators and other agents of the school actively seek ways to support the strengths and meet the needs of parents in addition to asking parents to become involved in schools (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 2002). For schools that have historically directed their resources and attention toward walled-in, building-centered improvement planning, this is a sea change (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies,2007). A second important pathway involves identifying, describing, and validating the technical mechanisms and organizational capacities needed to bridge the divide between schools and parents. More concretely, empirical studies are needed that highlight how social workers and other agents of the school might organize and mobihze groups of parents (collective PI) and also how new bridges developed between schools and groups of active parents might produce improved outcomes for children, families, and schools (see also Delgado-Gaitan, 2004). These two pathways were instrumental in the design of the present study. The research questions were as follows: • How do schools, families, and communities get started with collective PI? • What social work practices and related infrastructure are needed to bridge divides between famihes and schools?

ALAMEDA-LAWSON ET AL. / Facilitating ée Collective Involvement of Lout-Income, Culturally Diverse Parents in an Elementary School

173

• What are the benefits of collective PI for children, parents, and school communities? METHOD The community-centered, collective PI program highlighted in this study was initiated by a university—school—community partnership using community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods.These research methods were selected because the program under investigation was participatory and empowerment oriented. CBPR methods are recommended when the overarching goal of the research is to generate ecologically valid, contextual knowledge that can be used by community members to improve their lives (Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998). A key priority of CBPR is to avoid the common research practice of outside investigators' "extraction." CBPR promotes research practices that are done both with and for the community (deLemos, 2006; Israel et al., 1998). Consistent with CBPR, the research questions for this article were developed principally from parents' wishes to better understand how the program helped increase their own senses of development and accomplishment. Rich dialogues about parents' lives, both inside and outside of the program, grew out of parents' interest and initiative in exploring their own personal and collective experiences. However, we also remained conscious that the participatory nature of the program and the research effort did not by themselves erase power differences between researchers and participants (Boser, 2004; Merriam, 2003). As a result, we made systematic efforts throughout the research process to minimize power differences and account for threats to the trustworthiness of the data by including parents in the design, analysis, and dissemination of the research whenever possible (Cashman et al., 2008). For example, parents were copresenters at local and national conferences. Data Collection Seventeen parents of the 48 involved in the program volunteered to participate in one of

174

three focus group meetings that were designed to elicit parent dialogues of their experiences in the PI program. Data collection took place in the study school's family resource center. We asked the interview questions, which were created in collaboration with the program participants (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Participants were asked follow-up questions when clarification was needed. Sample Characteristics Each of the 17 program parents who participated in the study had at least one child currently enrolled in the school. All had been involved in the PI program for at least six months. Fifty percent of the participants had been involved in the PI program for more than six months but less than one year, 44 percent had been involved for two years, and 6 percent were involved for two years or more. All of the participants in this study were female. Their average age was 40.72 years {SD = 8.60). Eighty-eight percent were African American, 6 percent were white, and 6 percent were Latina. Fifty-six percent of the participants had completed high school.Their mean annual income was $12,820.75 {SD = $4,919.00). In addition, at the time of the study, 63 percent of the participants were receiving a $40 per week stipend (funded by the UnitedWay and the study county's Department of Human Assistance) to support their PI. Data Analysis We initially performed a basic content analysis using procedures recommended by Weber (1990) and Stewart and Shamdasani (1990). The analysis adhered to the following four main phases: data making, data reduction, analysis, and interpretation. The data-making phase consisted of converting the raw unstructured data into specific units of information. The data-reduction phase involved identifying two separate units of text encoding: (1) highest frequency word lists and (2) key-word-in-context (KWIC) lists. Highest frequency word lists were created by counting the highest frequency words in the transcripts. We developed KWIC (or concordance) lists

Children &Schooh

VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3

JULY 2010

from the highest frequency words by extracting quotes that were representative of the meaning of a word or the context in which the word was used. The analysis phase consisted of clustering to compare and contrast the quotes and to allow categories to emerge that were inclusive and mutually exclusive (Patton, 1990).Meetings with parents were then held to help further derive themes from this clustering process (Cashman et al., 2008).These meetings were particularly helpful in identifying quotes to be extracted from mutually identified themes. Check-coding was established using two procedures to ensure maximum reliability of the categories and themes: intracoder reliability and intercoder rehabihty (Miles & Huberman, 1994).To ensure intracoder rehability, we conducted two separate data-analysis phases over an eight-week period. The themes and categories changed minimally over time, yielding 91 percent intracoder reliability. To ensure intercoder reliability,Tania AlamedaLawson and Michael A. Lawson cross-checked findings with Hal A. Lawson to check reproducibility of the categories and themes. An intercoder rehability of 75 percent was established for this initial round of check-coding. When discrepancies occurred, Hal A. Lawson was again consulted, and a dialogue ensued to recluster the themes and categories based on new insights. This process allowed for mutual agreement about the categorization of the data into themes. The second round of check-coding yielded 93 percent intercoder reliability (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally, copies of each transcription and final codes were returned once more to each participant to again elicit their responses to the primary codes and findings (Cashman et al., 2008).These final member checks did not yield substantive changes to the primary codes generated during earlier analyses. Setting and Population The elementary school used in this study is given the pseudonym "Morrison Elementary School." Six hundred and fifty-five students attended Morrison at the time of the study: 59 percent were African American, 16 percent were Latino,

14 percent were white, 10 percent were Asian American, and 1 percent was Native American. The percentage of children receiving free school lunch was 98 percent. At the time of the study, Morrison had a high percentage of children performing far below grade level (69 percent). In addition, the school had a particularly high rate of in- and out-of-school suspensions (68 percent),and the percentage of children repeatedly absent from school (more than 20 days absent) was also particularly high (7 percent) in comparison with that of other low-income schools in the district. Despite these challenges, the school, like other low-performing schools in the district, did not employ any full-time pupil support personnel: Only the school social worker employed by the university—school-community partnership was on site consistently to address the many psychosocial barriers to children's learning evident at the school each day. "Jeffersonville Manor" (a pseudonym) is located approximately one mile from Morrison Elementary School. It is a planned housing community consisting of two-bedroom, fourplex housing units (two units on the bottom floor, two on the top floor). Recreational facilities for the children residing in Jeffersonville Manor are scarce and dilapidated. Goods such as newspapers or pizza are not delivered to the residents because service workers will not enter the community. PI Program The PI program highlighted in this study was a contextualized replication of the rainmaker model created for the Healthy Learners Project in Miami Beach, Florida (Alameda, 1996; Briar-Lawson, Lawson, Hennon, &Jones, 2001). Consistent with CBPR and empowerment approaches to social work practice (for example, Weil, 1996),parents were provided with support from social workers in designing, implementing, and operating all PI activities. As a part of the overall program design, the level and intensity of support provided by social workers to project families progressively decreased so that families could gradually assume independent control of the program's operations. For instance, at the

ALAMEDA-LAWSON ET AL. / Faáütatingthe Collective Involvement of Low-Income, CukuruUy Diverse Parents in an Elementary School

175

inception of the program, social workers and social work interns assumed full responsibility for outreach and training. Consistent with empowerment theory, as PI and parents' capacity increased, social workers assisted parents in assuming more and more responsibility for all activities associated with the program and its operation, including training and assisting other parents. At Morrison Elementary, parents received a $40 stipend for each week they participated in the PI program. Collective PI activities that were designed and run by parents at Morrison included a home visitation and outreach program, a school-based referral and information center, a classroom intervention team, and a student-to-student mentoring program. Data analyzed in a separate study (AlamedaLawson & Lawson, 2010) indicate that children of parents involved in these collective PI activities had significantly higher standardized test scores than the children of a comparison group of families at the school. Moreover, selective indicators of school improvement, such as increased parent participation in school-sponsored activities (such as back-to-school night and open houses) and the overall suspension rate at the school, also improved significantly following program implementation (Linkages for Kids, 2003). However, in this article, we limit our analyses to the qualitative findings that highlight both the social and technical mechanisms from which those individual and collective outcomes may have come about. FINDINGS Removing Poverty-related Barriers All of the parents in the study reported that PI had been previously difficult for them. The difficulties parents experienced in relation to their involvement were mostly attributable to ongoing barriers and constraints related to poverty. Because of the extent of the barriers faced by these parents over the course of their lifetimes, responsiveness and empathy toward their needs and experiences represented a necessary condition for their initial PL A quote from a newly involved parent, Jenifer, highlights this sentiment:

176

The parents need to be dealt with . . . they don't need people who have never experienced the things that parents have experienced. . . . In a way that will insult the parents if a person who has never had to go through anything go and approach them. You know, they need somebody who has been through things to help them. That's why it's true that some parents can help other parents. It doesn't take a degree to solve a problem. It's not necessary all the time. A lot of these parents need an ear, someone who will listen to them.... So that's the start. The PI program in this study was structured to provide a buffer to some of the fiscal constraints faced by economically poor parents and famihes. Once involved, parents were provided with fiscal and occupational development supports while they operated their programs. Parents reported that financial incentives for PI played an important role in their initial involvement. For instance, one parent, Sophia, said, "Before I got involved . . . I didn't want to get involved. I mean I got involved for the stipend." Parents suggested that stipends were important because the stipends helped them meet their basic needs. One parent, Katie, said, "The little change helps. It helps.That httle chump change is just enough to keep you from going under." Opportunities for Parents' Development and Accomplishment In addition to the financial assistance that the stipend provided, parents perceived that stipends contributed to their sustained involvement with the program. Data indicated that sustained PI helped parents prepare for future economic- and employment-related opportunities outside of the program. These opportunities were viewed by parents as a benefit of their PL Veronica said, I look at all the girls that are employed now.... We are given more motivations to ... like a lot of our members are getting into school. Now we have some that are working outside the school, and some of them had never worked a day in their lives. And they had the motiva-

Children &Schoo!s VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3

JULY 2010

tion to go out and look for work and better themselves because they had the self-esteem. The PI program was also structured to encourage and reward parents' ownership and initiative. Specifically, the program was structured to encourage and support parents as they identified the results they wanted and needed and then worked to achieve them. The data indicate that this structure is an important facilitator for sustained PL Parents reported that they were involved because they felt ownership over the program. Specifically, parents' narratives indicated that they gained a sense of ownership over the program by virtue of being able to design the activities in which they participated and that this ownership was instrumental in their involvement. However, in addition to ownership, parents also remained involved because they felt that their efforts were successful. One parent said, I've stuck with this program for so long because I feel that it's successful. I like the way the prograin is structured that we do what we feel is needed type ofthing That's why I stick with it. That's why I tell people I have hope that there is going to be something bigger for me and I'm a part of it. In addition to improvement in parents' own senses of self-worth and motivation, parents also report that respect and recognition from other adults, including other parents, was important to their ongoing PI. For these parents, perceptions of respect and recognition appeared to lead to feelings of connection and belonging among members of the PI program. These benefits appeared particularly important for parents in light of their reports of social isolation prior to their involvement: One reason that I got involved was because you feeling down and you bored and ain't nothing changing. So I just decided one day I'm going to take a walk up to the school. And that's what I did, I just walked through the door and everyone just had respect for each other and I liked it. I felt needed, and when I left I

I've Stuck with this program for so long because Ifeel that it's successful I like the way the program is structured that we do what we feel is needed. . . . That's why I stick with it.

had a big ol' smile on my face 'cuz I wasn't afraid no more.

Social Workers as Facilitators Social workers directed and coordinated the PI program in this study. Parents identified these social workers as important initial facilitators for PI. Parents identified five social work practices as instrumental for their involvement: door-to-door outreach, persistence, passion, responsiveness, and information and resource linkages. Parents beheved that door-to-door outreach to their homes in the community was important to their initial engagement. However, parents also emphasized that one visit would not have ehcited PL Instead, persistence, manifested in repeated home visits, was a key mechanism in the PI intervention. Persistence was important to this PI program because parents identified themselves as socially isolated prior to their involvement. As Mercedes said. It helped me because when I had first met them [social work interns], I was in a shell . . . you know.... I just isolated myself from everyone. And one ofthe interns, she just persisted and persisted and I said, "No," because I didn't want to be bothered. 'Cause I was really rude, I was, but they didn't stop . . . they just kept going on and on, and I kept saying "no". . . . [But] it was a different way of getting me. So finally one day I said,"What the hell," and here I am ever since. Parents believed that social workers' passion was an important aspect of their intervention. One parent, Kim, said,"It [outreach] was a good thing 'cuz they were passionate about what they were doing. It wasn't like a quota they had to

ALAMEDA-LAWSON ET AL. / Fadlitatingée Colkctive Involvement of Low-Income. Culturally Diverse Parmts in an Elementary School

177

meet." Social workers' responsiveness to parent needs and concerns was also cited by parents as a key facilitator for their PL Responsiveness entails implementing with fidehty the most fundamental principle of social work and family supportive practice: Provide or develop interventions and supports in relation to the lived experiences and perceived realities of the client. Accordingly, parents reported that outreach efforts free of preexisting (professional) agendas helped to engage them. Another important source of parents' initial engagement was the attempts of social workers to help parents learn about resources in their community. Parents identified social workers' resource linkages and mobilization efforts as key components of the intervention. As Stacy said, "Every day they would come by and say something to you or they would call they would give you some more information. They knew how to reach you in outreach . . . they were really informative." Protecting and Enhancing Children's Weli-Being An additional theme that emerged from parent interviews was parents' desires to ensure that their children's well-being was protected and enhanced. Guardians of their children's wellbeing, parents characterized their involvement as an effort to facilitate their children's educational achievement and vertical social mobility. This protection theme merits particular emphasis, because parents perceived that they needed to be involved at the school for their children to be treated well and fairly. Asked why she was involved, one parent said,"Just to make sure that teachers weren't mean to my baby. That's why I got really involved." In addition to feeling more comfortable about their children's welfare at school, parents also perceived that their children felt more comfortable at school when parents were present. In fact, parents report that children's active encouragement of their involvement helped to sustain their PL As Ophelia said. My kids like me heing up here. They love it. They get mad when I don't go. They ask

178

me, "You coming to the school today?" If I say "no," they tell me, "You need to go to school". . . . My kindergartner smiles when he sees me here. In addition to children's roles in encouraging PI, parents also reported that the interactions that they have with other school-age children helps them to develop as parents. Portia said, I can now see how spending more time with my children is good for them. So, I now spend more time with my children. They get more quality time from me. They see their mother heing, doing something positive. And trying to reassure them that there are positive things out there in the world. . . . I can say that this is one of the good choices that I did make— especially for my relationship with the two youngest. This overarching theme of family development as faciUtator for PI, although important, was not the only incentive or benefit reported by this sample of parents. In fact, parents reported that the personal benefits they received as a part of their participation in the program were among the most important facilitator for their ongoing PL For these parents, the personal benefits they experienced from PI included senses of ownership and efficacy; respect, recognition, financial incentives, and Job opportunities; and a sense of connection to others. Collective PI Data indicated that group or collective involvement was an important facilitator for PL One parent said,"With a group you can get a lot more done.With the group fighting towards the same things, people tend to listen more." Parents perceived that collective PI fostered both the individual and collective accomplishments of group members. In this respect, group identification does not occur at the expense of individual development and accomplishment. Group (collective) involvement helps foster individual development. Geneva said.

Children &Schools VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3

JULY 2010

I have changed. I have more self-esteem, and I am a stronger person, per se. I enjoy it. It changed me 'cuz I wasn't feeling like I was very important to the community, like I was just a part of somebody litde like I couldn't voice my opinion and get some changes done. Whereas with my involvement now, I feel like I'm more wanted and more needed. 1 feel like I'm more able to help people. I feel like I can voice my opinions and something can change from it. Because I see a lot of teamwork, you know, everybody is all together. So therefore you get more push when everybody is together for the same purpose. Parents' senses of social support and social connection represented an important facilitator for collective PL In addition to benefiting parents, data indicated that the social ties and social capital generated through collective PI improved parental monitoring practices in the community. Dajon said, I like when the children say, "Come and meet my mom," and stuff like that. Or, when I meet their parents I let them know if or when I see their sons in the yard—I'll let them know how their sons are doing. Or they just come to me and ask me, 'cuz I'm out on the yard aU that time. 'Cuz they know if they kids be up to something, I'U see it. In addition to increased social ties in the community, parents perceived that their outreach activity in the community helped to develop a broader sense of community in the neighborhood. Parents reported that this sense of community was developed most readily when parents were able to help other parents access community resources that helped meet their basic needs. Phyllis said, I see many community residents doing differently, doing different things as far as knowing more about what to do when the landlord doesn't come to fix the heater. So, what I see is a big change, you know, when a community resident see them out there they know they can ask for help.

School Improvement In addition to viewing PI as a needed service in the community, parents also perceived that the school improved as a result of their involvement, contributing to both children's success in school and parents' senses of accomphshment and development. In particular, parents reported that PI creates needed supports for children and the school that others in the school may not provide due to differences in cultural background and experience. Portia said. We also know their parents, and we are from the community. The teachers they only see during school time, they see us parents all the time. They know that we know their parents. We know things about them. So, I think they give us more respect because they see us not as an employee or a teacher or a staff but a parent. So I believe they look at us and treat us as if they were with their own parents. Parents' abilities to act as school improvement resources were connected to their perceptions of their efficacy in supporting their children and the school. Data indicated that contributing to school improvement is a source of accomplishment for parents that serves to further incentivize their ongoing involvement. One parent said. Yeah, you know, it helps when we're in the classroom working with the children one on one. And intervening for the teachers and for the principal with kids that are having problems with fighting and sometimes, you know, they just walk out the classroom. And that's where we step in—to make sure that child gets a chance to learn that day. That's why we're needed at the school to help both children and the school. In sum, parents perceived that they contributed to school improvement because they understood the background and experience of the school's children. Parents, in turn, reported that they used their own funds of knowledge and experience to respond to the needs of children and their families in the school and in the community. Collective PI appeared to be the

ALAMEDA-LAWSON ET AL. / Faälitating the Collective Invobement of Lnv-Income, Culturally Diverse Parents in an Elementary School

179

mechanism that helped to facilitate and drive PI activity. Parents perceived that collective PI fostered both the individual and collective accomplishments of group members. And parents identified the central roles of social workers in facilitating their involvement. DISCUSSION

Findings from this study yielded six themesas-facilitators for PL Parents participating in this study described each facilitator in relation to previous perceptions of constraints to their involvement and well-being. Every constraint appears to be poverty related. The data suggest that modest stipends ($40 per week) act as important incentives for PI because they help to buffer poverty-related constraints. More concretely, monetary incentives empower parents, facilitating PI initially and also helping to sustain it. In contrast to conventional, individualistic, and voluntary PI, the collective PI in this study provided parents with meaningful work, which enhanced parents' self-efficacy and well-being (for example. Alameda, 1996; Briar-Lawson et al., 2001; Lawson & Alameda-Lawson, 2008). This finding appears to be a novel contribution of this study. In the same vein, the data suggest that collective PI with financial incentives may help families to meet their own needs and, as they do, also help them to meet the needs of other families in the community (for example, Keith, 1996). In other words, parents in this study were empowered to provide social services to themselves and to other families. This finding is another novel contribution of this study. It extends conventional policy and practice about the school-linked services designed to address family needs and facilitate children's learning readiness. And it provides the important reminder that all families, even the most vulnerable ones, have the capacity to serve themselves and others (Briar-Lawson et al., 2001). The key is to provide them with the technical assistance, social supports, and economic resources they need to perform such helping roles. This study affirms these claims and provides relevant details.

180

Mechanisms for Individual and Collective PI Results from this study provide some potentially important knowledge regarding social workers' roles in relation to the microdynamics of parents' individual and collective involvement.These dynamics appeared to flow from the participatory approach to the program and its development. For instance, the group meetings and activities of involved parents that were co-led by social workers appeared to create important opportunities for social interactions that initially spawned, and then constituted, parents' collective PL Here, social workers' ability to elicit parents' ideas and suggestions for school and community improvement appeared to be a key contributor to parents' ownership of, and commitment to, the PI program, the school, and the community. Although others have also emphasized the importance of using parent knowledge, experience, and ideas in structuring programs and services for families (for example. Alameda, 1996; Briar-Lawson et al, 2001; Family Resource Coahtion, 1996), results from the present study support social workers' potential in leading the development of asset-based community development programs in economically poor schools and communities (see also Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Although parents' senses of ownership over PI activity represented an important theme in the data, this theme was not identified by parents in isolation from other facilitators for PI. Instead, data indicated that parents' senses of ownership wfere heightened when they felt that they were successful. As a consequence, it appears that another facilitator for PI was results-oriented ownership, with parental efficacy

developing simultaneously. Results-oriented ownership appears related to individual senses of agency and accomplishment. The notion that parental expertise was sought and utilized and that parental suggestions led to successful outcomes was a powerful motivator for ongoing involvement. However, data also indicated that results-oriented ownership (as experienced by individual parents) may further relate to orbe contingent on another novel finding for ongoing PI: results-oriented ownership that promotesjoîMt ownership and efficacy. This

Children & Schools VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3

JULY 2010

Five social work practices were identified as instrumental for individual and collective PI: door-to-door outreach, persistence, passion, responsiveness, and information and resource linkages.

finding, in particular, which emphasizes collective processes and collective PI as a facilitator for individual PI, appears to represent an important empirical contribution of this study (see also Shutz, 2006; Vincent, 1996). Social workers with knowledge of and training in group work are uniquely positioned to facihtate collective PI in similar school communities. Implications for Social Work Education Social workers, like educators, can be agents for institutional change. Social workers in this study played key roles, as parents indicated. Five social work practices were identified as instrumental for individual and collective PI: door-to-door outreach, persistence, passion, responsiveness, and information and resource linkages. Collectively, these findings suggest that social workers can act as institutional and cultural brokers between families and their children's school.This finding is especially significant for schools where often the least successful students come from families who are experiencing poverty-related barriers and constraints (Adelman & Taylor, 2005). It is important to note that this bridging work appears to have been facilitated by a broader orientation to school social work that targeted family and neighborhood development as much as children's clinical needs in school (for example, Bowen, 1999). Such an approach to school social work practice is based on the view that social workers might better support the development of children, families, and their communities when they authentically include parents in the design, implementation, and operation of needed supports and services. Moreover, in addition to including parents in the design and delivery of services, the social worker and niaster's-level social work interns involved in the PI program were further instructed to gradually "fire them-

selves" from their facilitating roles throughout the program so that key aspects of the program could be sustained by parents without professional intervention. In this respect, our findings suggest that more enduring school social work practices may be promoted in similar school community contexts when schools of social work directly attend to issues of transference of power and sustainable social work practices in their practice curriculums. implications for Social Woric Research Results from this study that support parental development and results-oriented ownership as key facilitators for individual and collective PI also have implications for social work research. The present findings indicate that university— community-school partnerships that use participatory approaches to practice and research can develop both service- and research-oriented activities that work in tandem with the needs of the community (Boser, 2004; Cashman et al., 2008; deLemos, 2006). CBPR, as used in the university—community partnership responsible for the PI program highlighted in this study, shows promise as one such research practice and agenda. If this study helps to promote an innovative research and development agenda focused on vulnerable parents, their contributions to their school communities, and the innovative roles played by social workers, it will have achieved its primary purpose. S REFERENCES Adelman, H., & Taylor, L (2005). Ttie school leader's guide to student learning support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Alameda,T. (1996). R.A.I.N.makers:The consumers' voice. In K. Hooper-Briar & H. Lawson (Eds.), Expanding partnerships for vulnerable children, youth, and families (pp. 46-56).Washington, DC: Council on Social Work Education. Alameda-Lawson,T., & Lawson, M. (2002). Building community collaboratives. In M. O'Melia & K. K. Miley (Eds.), Pathways to power: Readings in contextual social practice (pp. 108-127). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Alameda-Lawson,T., & Lawson, M. (2010). Collective parent involvement, empowerment, and children's academic achievement: A pilot study. Manuscript in progress. Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Canipbell, M. (2008). Promoting ELL PI: Challenges in contested times. East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in

ALAMEDA-LAWSON ET AL. / fadlitating the Coikctive Involvement of Low-Income, Culturally Diverse Parents in an Elementary Schooi

181

education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42, 250—283. Boser, S. (2004). Ethics and power in communitycampus partnerships for research. Action Research, 4,9-21. Bowen, N. K. (1999). A role for school social workers in promoting student success through school—family partnerships. Social Work in Education, 21, 34—47. Briar-Lawson, K., Lawson, H., Hennon, C , & Jones, A. (2001). Family-centered policies and practices: International implications. New York: Columbia University Press. Cashman, S. B.,Adeky, S. A., Allen, A. J., Corburn,J., Israel, B.A., Montano,J., et al. (2008).The power and the promise: Working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health. 98, 1407-1417. deLemos,J. L. (2006). Community-based participatory research: Changing scientific practice from research on communities to research with and for communities. Local Environment, 11, 329—338. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement through homeschool partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein,J. L. (2001). School,family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. New York:Westview Press. Family Resource Coalition. (1996). Guidelines for familycentered practice. Chicago: Author. Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. hu^ún.TK.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.,Johnson,V, & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale:The essential guide to family—school partnerships. New York: New Press. Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandier, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67. 3—42. Horvat,E. M.,Weininger,E. B., & Lareau,A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 319—351. Israel,B. A., Schulz,A.J., Parker,E.A., & Becker,A.B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public heaith. Annual Review of Public Health, 19. 173-202. Jeynes, W H. (2005). A nieta-analysis ofthe relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269. Keith, N. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined:The potential of community schools? Education and Urban Society, 28, 237-268. Kretzmann,J., & McKnight,J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL: ABCD Publications. Lareau,A., & Horvat. E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family—school relationships. Sociology of Education. 72, 37-53. Lawson, M. A. (2003). School—family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parental involvement. Urban Education, 38, 77—133. Lawson, M. A., & Alameda-Lawson,T. (2008, March). Exploring the promise of collective parent engagement in enhancing social settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research A.ssociation, New York.

182

Linkages for Kids. (2003). Community action network: Annual report to United Way. Sacramento, CA: Author. Mannan, G., & Blackwell,J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers and opportunities. Urban Review, 24, 219-228. Merriam, S. (2003). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Olivos, E. M. (2003). Dialectical tensions, contradictions, and resistance: A study ofthe relationship between Latino parents and the public school system within a socioeconomic structure of dominance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University/Claremont Graduate University, San Diego/Claremont, CA. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Shutz,A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city:The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76, 691-743. Stewart, D.W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (Eds.). (1990). Focus groups:Ttteory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. NewYork:Teachers College Press. Vincent, C. (1996). Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London: Falmer Press. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Weil, M. (1996). Model development in community practice: An historical perspective. Jouraa/ of Community Practice, 3(3—4), 5—67. Tania Alameda-Lawson, PhD, MSH^is associate professor. Division of Social Work, California State University, Sacramento, 6000J Street, Sacramento, CA 958í9-6090;e-mail: [email protected]. Michael A. Lawson, MS, is a doctoral candidate. School of Education, University of California, Davis. Hal A. Lawson, PhD, is professor. School of Social Welfare and School of Education, University at Albany, State University of NewYork. Original manuscript received July 31, 2009 Final revision received September 10, 2009 Accepted September 16, 2009

Children &Schools VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3

JULY 2010

Copyright of Children & Schools is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.