Indicators of Family Engagement Melanie Lemoine and Monica Ballay Louisiana State Improvement Grant/SPDG

Background Information LaSIG 2 Second round of SPDG funding Main project goals to improve student outcomes by improving the service delivery at the state, district, school, and individual levels Focused on two issues Professional development Improving family engagement

Background Information Research on family engagement Students perform better when positive relationships and partnerships exist between families and schools When family members are leaders in the school, outcomes improve The school improvement process is more effective if it includes all stakeholders including family members

A Significant Concern Schools expressed a desire to improve relationships with families but lacked direction to do so Two needs A simple measure for schools to determine what structures were currently in place A measure of the level at which schools were engaging families

Developing the Scale Strategist group Determine what is important Review the literature Review current assessment tools Capture all voices Consultant Narrow focus Assist in developing the actual scale

Developing the Scale Organized around four dimensions Communication Family Support Decision Making Partnerships

Developing the Scale A total of 25 items The number of Items for each dimension ranged from six to eight Responses to each item on a four point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

Pilot Tests Two pilot tests Pilot 1 Five schools with approximately 150 respondents Items functioning well Respondent comments resulted in adding two items Pilot 2 Four schools with approximately 150 respondents Six items deleted One item moved to a different subscale Items functioning well

Indicators of Family Engagement Scale General characteristics 21 items reflect perceived levels of family engagement Four subscales Communication Family Support Decision Making Partnerships

Family Engagement Survey for Schools

Indicators of Family Engagement Scale Technical issues Item functionality All item reliabilities were acceptable All coefficients across all scales functioned well Validity Content validity established in development Construct validity confirmed with a principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation All items loaded as expected except for a single exception

Indicators of Family Engagement Scale Technical Issues (Cont’d) Reliability Cronbach alphas for the total scale and subscales were calculated Scores were.86,.81,.86,.83, and.93 for the four subscales and the total score respectively

Indicators of Family Engagement Scale Scoring Subject must respond to at least 75% of the items on the total scale or any subscales Scores are the means of non-missing items for the respective total and subscale items

Indicators of Family Engagement Scale Score interpretation Score Range Level of Engagement 1.00 – 1.50Insufficient level of meaningful family engagement 1.51 – 2.50Low level of meaningful family engagement 2.51 – 3.50Moderate level of family engagement 3.51 – 4.00High level of family engagement

Survey Administration 14 Districts 120 Schools Online application through Survey Monkey Some sites conducted all 3 Facilitated results discussions with staff School improvement decisions Triangulation of data

Triangulation of Family Engagement Across Stakeholders School Survey Family Survey Student Survey

Alignment of Surveys: School Survey A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or are used to communicate with families in my school. Family Survey A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or are used to communicate with my family. Student Survey A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or are used to communicate with me and my family.

School Survey Families are informed of academic programs. Family Survey I am informed of the school’s academic programs available for my child. Student Survey The school informs my family and me of academic programs. Alignment of Surveys:

Survey Results Correlate survey results and SPS Triangulation of survey results Impact on individual schools

Top 10 Schools with SPS 114 or ↑

High School Results from all 3 groups: School Overall Score: 3.32 Communication: 3.59 Family Support: 3.22 Decision Making: 3.12 Partnership: 3.33 Families Overall Score: 3.40 Communication: 3.55 Family Support: 3.39 Decision Making: 3.28 Partnership: 3.41 Students Overall Score: 2.93 Communication: 3.01 Family Support: 2.95 Decision Making: 2.79 Partnership: 2.98

Elementary School Results from all 3 groups: School Overall Score: 3.22 Communication: 3.54 Family Support: 3.17 Decision Making: 3.10 Partnership: 3.08 Families Overall Score: 3.14 Communication: 3.15 Family Support: 3.18 Decision Making: 3.06 Partnership: 3.13

Impact on Schools Ah-ha moments Baseline data for schools were established Schools began looking more closely at other family measures Schools created a more effective action plan to engage families when data were displayed numerically School staff wanted more answers to survey results

Use of the Scale Short term plans Provide a self assessment of the level of family engagement by school, family, and/or student Identify the strengths and areas of need in terms of family engagement Provide access to additional resources provided by LaSIG Long term analyses Incorporating the results into school improvement plans Correlation between survey results and student achievement

Discussion Question: What initiatives are currently underway in your state to support family engagement?

Discussion Question: What resources are available to schools and districts to support family engagement?

Discussion Question: What assessment tools are currently in place to measure family engagement at the school, district, and state level? How are they working?

Contact Information Louisiana State University Melanie Lemoine Monica Ballay