Michelle Swanger-Gagne, PhD, NCSP University of Rochester Medical Center The Institute for the Family Lisa Hiley, PhD EnCompass: Resources for Learning

I. EnCompass: Resources for Learning MISSION: EnCompass, an organization focused on evidence-based educational services and support, improves academic outcomes for students of all ages who struggle to learn.  Non-profit founded in 2006  Provides innovative educational services for struggling learners and their families  Programs in elementary and secondary schools, as well as off-site tutoring services, serving over 1,500 students each year. ◦ Academic Support & Tutoring (Secondary) ◦ Extended Learning Programs (Elementary and Secondary) ◦ Summer Enrichment (Elementary) II. Institute for the Family at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Psychiatry Department  The IFF provides connecting framework for research, clinical services, and training all with the goal of helping families cope with illness, loss, reduce family violence, and improve outcomes for children.  Comprised of three services: 1) The Wynne Center for Family Research, 2) The Family Therapy Training Program, 3) Family Therapy Services

 There are numerous settings in which children learn ◦ Children spend an estimated 91% of their time between birth to the age of 18 outside of school (Usdan, 1990); once in school, they spend an estimated 70% of their time outside of school (Clark, 1990).  Families provide the single most important influence on a child’s development, where schools provide the second most important influence.  Families provide unique contributions to children’s academic, behavioral, and socioemotional outcomes.  The interface of families and schools provide children, families, and educators with favorable outcomes.

 Providing indirect support and assistance to families increases the likelihood these families can directly mediate their child’s behavior and development more efficiently than can direct services aimed toward the child (Dunst, Trivette & Deal, 1998).  Family’s strengths, needs, and priorities along with the needs of their children guide the provision of local resources and services (Dunst, 1985; Rappaport, 1981).  Family-centered services strengthen the family’s capacity to meet their needs and the needs of their child (Dunst, 1985; Rappaport, 1981).  Families are their child’s first and best advocate.

 Families and educators are unique, co-equal partners and contributors, to a child’s learning.  An extension of family-centered principles wherein educators or other support personnel contribute to the child’s learning and development.  Underlying principles: ◦ No fault approach (i.e., shared ownership) ◦ Nondeficit approach (i.e., strengths-based) ◦ Facilitates empowerment ◦ Facilitates an ecological approach (i.e., emphasis on the mesosystem) (Christenson & Hirsch, 1998)

Parent-professional partnerships are predictive of: increased academic performance (higher grades and test scores) increased homework completion rates better work habits more consistent school attendance reduced drop-out rates school completion or increased graduation rates and higher postsecondary education enrollment socioemotional benefits (better social skills and reduced conduct problems decrease in negative behaviors such as alcohol and drug use and violence increase in positive attitudes (especially towards learning) and behaviors greater connections between home and school

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

In the presence of effective family-school partnerships, schools have been shown to: receive higher effectiveness ratings, and implement more successful school programs. Have better reputations of schools within the community; Better performance of school programs that involve parents versus identical programs that do not include parents. (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001) *It can be hypothesized that extended learning programs show similar effects from partnering with families.

TYPE 1: PARENTING (assist and educate) TYPE 2: COMMUNICATION (communicate with family about school programs and student progress. Home-school communication) TYPE 3: VOLUNTEERING or INVOLVEMENT TYPE 4: LEARNING AT HOME (connect home activities to school or curriculum activities) or CONNECTIONS AND ENGAGEMENT TYPE 5: DECISION-MAKING (PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION) TYPE 6--COLLABORATING WITH THE COMMUNITY

Family/School Collaboration Family/School Partnerships Family Engagement Family/School Connections Family/School Communication OUTCOME EXPECTATION Specific Purpose Shared Outcome Goal General Purpose General Outcome Goal INTENSITY High Intensity Low Frequency Less Intense High Frequency

 Engaged Partnerships… ◦ Empower both families and schools and community partners ◦ Are bi-directional ◦ Are ongoing, mutual, reciprocal ◦ Are coordinated interventions across settings ◦ Send congruent messages across settings ◦ Require shared information and resources ◦ Require open communication and dialogue ◦ Promote collaboration and joint decision making in planning for the child – “Collaborative Planning”

 Partnerships with University Medical Center and Non-profit organization  Partnerships between organization and educational system  Partnerships between organization and family systems  *For all forms and levels of partnerships-a partnership oriented framework or collaborative framework can be used.

School Family Community Partner Staff Eco-Map of School-Family-Community Partnerships

 Supporting Documents: ◦ Rochester Afterschool Model ◦ Rochester City School District Strategic Plan  School-based programming and integration  Regular contact and meetings with school and district leadership  Sharing reports and progress (program & student)

Revised Application Edited Logic Model Organizational Position Statement Leadership strategic planning Identification of key staff for professional learning across program areas Data capture and management of activities

Professional Learning Presentations Site-based consultation Mentoring and Technical Assistance

Family-Student-Community Showcases Newsletters Family Involvement Coordinators Learner Summaries / Progress Notes Family Program Surveys of satisfaction, experience and relevance

 Training on a general partnership model with the aim to shift employees' framework of how to work with families.  Increasing family engagement in decision making process.  Share curriculum activities with families so they can reinforce the learning at home. Gain input on curriculum from families.  Tie in two-way communication tools such as, two-way postcard

 Family involvement and engagement is crucial to impact a child’s academic functioning.  A family-centered and family-partnership oriented philosophy can help engage parents.  Family-educator partnerships can be developed through a collaborative model  Each family is different and therefore professionals must be flexible and sensitive to families needs.

 Accessing resources  Capacity within organization  Need for mindful practice  Coordinating conversation(s)  Reinforcing relevance to leadership, staff, stakeholders  On-going embedded nature of commitment at organizational and programmatic levels

 Continued collaborative partnership promoting positive and two-way communication  Recognizing individual and organization motivation for change  Commitment to professional learning  Setting realistic expectations of what we can do and should do.

You’re agency/program are identifying family engagement and partnership as a priority area for the upcoming year – what are the steps you will take to ensure success?