Overview of FamilySchool Partnerships

1
Overview of Family-School Partnerships
2
Why Family-School Partnerships?

• parents take their child home after
  professionals complete their services and parents
  continue providing the care for the larger
  portion of the childs waking hours No matter
  how skilled professionals are, or how loving
  parents are, each cannot achieve alone what the
  two parties, working hand-in-hand, can accomplish
  together
• 
  (Peterson Cooper, 1989
  pp. 229, 208).
• See Handout 1

3
Why Family-School Partnerships?
4
Who is involved in Family-School Partnerships?

• There are many roles that can be shared by
  parents and teachers

Co- decision makers
Co-teachers
Co-learners
Co-supporters
Co-communicators
See Activity 1
5
What are Family-School Partnerships?

• A relationship involving close cooperation
  between parties having joint rights and
  responsibilities.
• The goals of family-school partnerships include
• (a) enhancing success for students, and
• (b) improving experiences and outcomes for
  children, including those that are academic,
  social, emotional and behavioral in nature.
• (Christenson
  Sheridan, 2001)
• See Handouts 2, 3,4, and 5

6
The M Ms of Parenting and Partnering

• Make sure your child is ready to learn.
• Monitor your child and his or her performance.
• Motivate your child.
• Be a good role Model.
• Maintain a positive relationship with your
  childs teacher.
• See Activity 2

7
Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to
Family-School Partnerships

• Partnership Approach
• Commitment to working together on behalf of the
  childs performance/ achievement is clear.
• Communication is frequent, positive,
  bi-directional.
• Relationship is characterized by cultural
  sensitivity cultural differences are respected,
  appreciated, and recognized as contributing to
  positive learning climates.
• See Handouts 6 and 7

• Traditional Approach
• Emphasis on what schools do to promote learning.
• Infrequent, one-directional, or problem-centered
  communication (school ? home).
• One-size fits all orientation cultural
  differences are perceived as challenges to
  overcome.

8
Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to
Family-School Partnerships

• Partnership Approach
• Different perspectives are valued as important.
• Roles are clear, mutual, and supportive.
• Goals for students are mutually determined and
  shared.
• Plans are co-constructed, with agreed upon roles
  for all participants.

• Traditional Approach
• Different perspectives are seen as barriers.
• Separate roles that distance participants.
• Goals determined by school personnel and
  sometimes shared with parents.
• Educational plans devised and delivered by
  teachers.
• (Sheridan,
  2004)

9
Theoretical Perspective Ecological Systems
Approach

• An effective, constructive family-school
  partnership occurs in an ecological context, with
  the student at center
• Students, families and schools are all part of
  interrelated ecological systems within which a
  child resides.
• Difficulties occur when there is a mismatch
  across one or more subsystems.
• Partnership programs and services are focused on
  forging a more effective match between the needs
  of an individual student, and strengths of the
  interfacing home school systems.
• Main attention is always on the potential
  benefits and outcomes for students.
  (Sheridan, 2004)

10
Theoretical Perspective Family-Centered Approach

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

11
Defining Characteristics of Family-School
Partnerships

• Interactions among partners are collaborative and
  bi-directional.
• Relationships across home and school systems are
  cooperative, interdependent, and balanced.
• Maintenance of a positive relationship is a
  priority.
• Services are flexible, responsive, and proactive.
• Differences in perspectives are seen as
  strengths.
• There is a commitment to cultural competence.
• Emphasis is on outcomes and goal attainment.
• 
  (Sheridan, 2004)

12
Rationale for Family-School Partnerships

• There are many systems and settings where
  children learn.
• In the US, students spend 91 of their time from
  birth - 18 outside of school once in school,
  they spend 70 of their waking hours outside of
  school (Clarke, 1990).
• The impact of out-of-school time (e.g., message
  about schooling, use of time, congruence with
  school environment) must be acknowledged.

13
Rationale for Family-School Partnerships

• Federal policy recognizes the need to address
  students time spent out of school and mandates
  schools to engage in partnerships with parents
  to meet the increasing academic, behavioral, and
  social needs of students.
• In 1975, PL 94-142 established the foundations
  for parental involvement in education. It
  required
• (a) notification of parents when the school
  proposed or refused to
• initiate or change an educational
  placement,
• (b) parent consent prior to evaluation and
  special education
• placement,
• (c) parental participation in the development
  of the Individualized
• Education Plans (IEPs), and
• (d) parental rights to challenge special
  education decisions.

14
Rationale for Family-School Partnerships

• In 1986, P.L. 99-457 mandated Free and
  Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children
  ages 0-3 and instituted the Individualized Family
  Service Plan (IFSP). This required that for
  educational planning purposes, young children
  should be considered within the context of their
  family. Services should be provided not
  exclusively to the child but also to the family.
• IDEA 1997 included more meaningful parent
  participation, including establishing regulations
  for including parents on school-based teams, and
  increasing parental responsibility in the special
  education process.

15
Rationale for Family-School Partnerships

• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 specifically
  calls for local education agencies to assist
  school personnel to reach out to, communicate
  with, and work with parents as equal partners
  implement and coordinate parent programs and
  build ties between parents and the school (P.L.
  107-111,1118).
• IDEA 2004 includes
• Part B Programs for children 3 to 21 years
  which provide requirements in the areas of, but
  not limited to, parental rights and involvement,
  related educational services, multidisciplinary
  assessments, etc.
• Part C Programs for infants and toddlers
  (birth to 3 years) which
• emphasizes the notion of family involvement
  in the screening and evaluation of young children
  and in the programming for early intervention and
  IFSPs.

16
Research Findings

• In the presence of effective family-school
  partnerships, students have been shown to
  demonstrate
• improvement in grades (Fehrman, Keith, Reimers,
  1987)
• test scores (Epstein, 1991)
• attitudes (Kellagahen et al., 1993)
• self-concept, behavior, social skills (Hickman,
  Greenwood, Miller, 1995)
• greater study habits and homework completion
  rates (Clark, 1993 Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001)
• more engagement in classroom learning activities
  (Collins, Moles, Cross, 1982 Sattes, 1985)
  and
• higher attendance rates and a reduction in
  suspension rates and discipline problems (Sheldon
  Epstein, 2004).
• See Handout 8

17
Benefits for Students
18
Research Findings

• In the presence of effective family-school
  partnerships, teachers have been shown to
• become more proficient in professional
  activities,
• allocate more time to instruction,
• become more involved with curriculum,
• develop more student-oriented rather than
  task-oriented activities (Hoover-Dempsey, Walker,
  Jones, Reed, 2002),
• receive higher ratings on teaching performance
  evaluations by principals (Christenson, 1995),
  and
• indicate greater satisfaction with their jobs and
  request fewer transfers (Christenson Cleary,
  1990).

19
Research Findings

• 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).

20
Research Findings

• In the presence of effective family-school
• partnerships, schools have been shown to
• receive higher effectiveness ratings, and
• implement more successful school programs.
• (Christenson
  Sheridan, 2001)

21
Benefits to Schools
22
Research Findings

• Generalization of school programs occurs more
  readily when families are involved.
• Consultation with teachers alone is effective at
  promoting school success (Sheridan,1997), but
  generalization to home occurs only when parents
  are involved (Sheridan et al., 1990).
• Family process variables (specific things
  families do) facilitate learning educational
  success more than status variables (who families
  are).
• Social class or family configuration predicts up
  to 25 of variance in achievement family process
  variables predict up to 60 of variance
  (Kellaghan et al., 1993).

23
Cultural Considerations

• Many children from diverse cultural backgrounds
  do not speak English when they enter school and
  have not attended preschool or daycare.
• For example, the number of non-English speaking
  children has doubled since 1979.
• Parents have different levels of education,
  socioeconomic status, English competency, and
  acculturation.
• There is a scarcity of research in the area of
  family-school partnerships with children and
  families from diverse cultural backgrounds.
• There is a lack of culturally and
  psychometrically appropriate instruments.
• (Sheridan,
  Vazquez-Nuttall, Li, 2005)

24
Cultural Considerations

• Parents, regardless of educational level, income
  status, or ethnic background want their children
  to be successful in school (Christenson, 1995).
• Across groups, parents want information about how
  schools function, childrens development/learning,
  parents roles in supporting their children.
• School practices are a stronger predictor of
  parent involvement than parents educational
  level, income status, or ethnic background
  (Epstein, 1991).

25
Building Shared Responsibility

• Garner Administrative Support
• Practice Systems Advocacy
• Build Family-School Teams
• Increase Effective Problem Solving and Solution
  Finding
• Keep a Focus on Goals and Outcomes
• But Recognize the Importance of Process
• Foster Positive Home Learning Environments
• Focus on Communication as the foundation for all
  family involvement
• Collaboration with families is key!
• See Handout 9

26
Developing Pathways to Partnerships

• Prerequisite Conditions
• These 3 As must be in place for Actions
• to be accepted and effective

Approach
Actions Communicating a tone of partnership
through bidirectional home-school communication
and fostering family involvement in learning at
home
Successful learning opportunities and outcomes
for children
Atmosphere
Attitude
See Handout 11
27
Approach

• Approach The framework for interaction with
• families.
• Central to the partnership model is a belief in
  shared responsibility for educating and
  socializing children both families and
  educators are essential for childrens growth and
  development inside and out of school.
• Emphasis is placed on relationships, rather than
  separate roles how families and educators work
  together to promote the academic and social
  development of students.

28
Approach
29
Atmosphere

• Atmosphere The climate in schools for families
  and educators.
• The affective climate in interactions among
  families and schools.
• The physical climate in schools that make them
  inviting and family-friendly.
• All families must feel welcome!
• Differences in parent backgrounds experiences
  must be recognized.
• Personal difficulties in school or previous
  conflicts may be prominent.
• Ethnic, linguistic, religious, class differences
  can widen the gap.

30
Atmosphere
31
Attitude

• Attitude The values and perceptions held about
  family-school
• relationships.
• All families have strengths.
• Parents can help their children succeed in school
  -- they must be provided with the opportunity and
  necessary information and support.
• Schools and families influence each other.
• Parents have important information and
  perspectives that we need to help educate their
  children.
• Parents and educators each bring unique and
  important perspectives and expertise to the table
  as co-equals.
• See Handouts 10, 12, and 13

32
Attitude
33
What are Evidence-Based Interventions?

• Practices that are informed by research, in
  which characteristics and consequences of
  environmental variables are empirically
  established and the relationship directly informs
  what a practitioner can do to produce a desired
  outcome (Dunst, Trivette, Cutspec, 2002, p.
  3).
• The label of evidence-based interventions should
  be used when programs have successfully
  demonstrated efficacy under the conditions of
  implementation and practice (Kratochwill
  Shernoff, 2004, p. 35).

34
The Use of Evidence-Based Interventions

• There has been a current paradigm shift in school
  psychology toward the implementation of
  empirically validated interventions among
  children, families, and schools.
• Likewise, the increased accountability within
  the educational systems, as mandated by multiple
  federal accountability initiatives (e.g., IDEA
  and NCLB), have required these systems to report
  the efficacy of interventions as well as provide
  effectiveness data on child and family outcomes.

35
Identifying Evidence-Based Interventions

• Goal A of the Family-School Task Force was to
  identify evidence based models of effective
  family-school partnerships.
• These programs were examined and coded for
  evidence- based outcomes related to their
  produced intended effects using the following
  criteria
• empirical/theoretical foundation, design
  qualities, statistical treatment of the
  interventions
• the implementation of key evidence components
  which promote internal validity and the necessary
  features for home and school-based implementation
  of these interventions and
• factors of interest, as identified by the
  consumer, in the evaluation of the external
  validity and utility of these interventions
  (Kratochwill Stoiber, 2002).

36
Goals of Evidence-Based Interventions

• After identifying numerous evidence-based
  interventions, the goal was to
• influence practitioners selection and
  implementation of family-school interventions
  through a systematic dissemination of the
  research evidence and
• narrow the research to practice gap related to
  the practice feasibility, acceptability, social
  validity, fidelity, and sustainability of these
  service delivery models when working with
  families (Sheridan, 2005).

37
Actions Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Numerous evidence-based models have been
  identified which utilize and promote
  family-school partnerships.
• These models have been separated into the
  following areas
• 1. Family-School Interventions with
  Preschool Children
• 2. Parent Consultation with School-Related
  Outcomes
• 3. Parent Education as Parent-Centered
  Prevention
• 4. Home-School Collaboration
• 5. Parent Involvement Interventions with
  School-Aged
• Children
• 6. Parent Training and Family Interventions for
  School
• Behavior Change

38
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Family-School Interventions with
  Preschool Children domain the following have been
  identified as strong or promising evidence-based
  models
• Strong evidence-based models include
• Parent and teacher training intervention (Goff
  Demetral, 1983)
• Parent Child Interaction Therapy (Hembree-Kigin
  McNeil, 1995) See Handout 14
• The Incredible Years Training Series
  (Webster-Stratton, Reid, Hammond, 2001) See
  Handout 15
• A promising evidence-based model includes
• PARTNERS parent education program
  (Webster-Stratton, 1998) See Handout 16

39
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Parent Consultation with
  School-Related Outcomes domain the following have
  been identified as strong or promising
  evidence-based models
• Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (Sheridan,
  Kratochwill, Bergan, 1996) See Handout 17
• Parent Behavioral Consultation (Cavell Hughes,
  2000 Doll Kratochwill, 1992 Loitz
  Kratochwill, 1995 Rhoades Kratochwill, 1998)
  See Handout 18

40
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Parent Education as Parent-Centered
  Prevention domain the following have been
  identified as promising evidence-based models
• Aware Parenting Model (Bronstein, Duncan,
  Clauson, Abrams, Yannett, Ginsburg, Milne,
  1998) See Handout 19
• Reading Made Easy (Harrison, 1981 Mehran
  White, 1998) See Handout 20

41
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Home-School Collaboration domain the
  following have been identified as strong or
  promising evidence-based models
• Strong evidence-based models include
• School-based Literacy Program/Family Literacy
  Program (Morrow Young, 1997) See Handout 21
• Promising evidence-based models include
• Parent-Teacher Action Research Teams plus Social
  Skills Instruction (Forest Pearpoint, 1992
  McConaughy, Kay, Fitzgerald, 1999 OBrian,
  Forest, Snow, Hasbury, 1989) See Handout 22
• A home-school note program with home
  reinforcements and a family problem-solving board
  game (Blechman, Taylor, Schrader, 1981) See
  Handout 23

42
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Parent Involvement Interventions with
  School-Aged Children domain the following have
  been identified as promising evidence-based
  models
• In the single-participant category
• Parent Tutoring (Duvall, Delquadri, Elliot,
  Hall, 1992 Hook DuPaul, 1999) See Handout 24
• In the group-participant category
• Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Parent Involvement
  (Heller Fantuzzo, 1993) Handout 25
• Parents Encourage Pupils (Shuck, Ulsh, Platt,
  1983) See Handout 26

43
Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions

• Within the Parent Training and Family
  Interventions for School Behavior Change domain
  the following have been identified as strong or
  promising-evidence based models
• Strong evidence-based models include
• Problem-Solving Skills Training plus Parent
  Management Training (Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson,
  French, Unis, 1987 Kazdin, Siegel, Bass,
  1992) See Handout 27
• Time-Limited Social Learning Family Therapy
  (Sayger, Horne, Walker, Passmore, 1988) See
  Handout 28
• Promising evidence-based models include
• Family Behavioral Therapy (Azrin, Donahue,
  Teichner, Crum, Howell, DeCato, 2001)
• Multi-Systemic Therapy (Brown, Henggeler,
  Schoenwald, Brondino, Pickrel, 1999 Henggeler
  et al., 1999 Scherer, Brandino, Henggeler,
  Melton, Hanley, 1994)

44
Challenges to Family-School Partnerships

• Structural barriers for educators include
• lack of training in how to partner effectively
  and collaboratively with families
• lack of efficacious partnering resources or
  models available to practitioners
• educators portrayal that families are
  dysfunctional
• linguistic and cultural differences between
  families and schools
• lack of funding for family outreach programs
• limited time for communication and meaningful
  dialogue between families and educators
• limited contact for building trust between
  families and educators
• lack of routine and strength-based communication
  and
• lack of sustained interactions over the course of
  time.
• (Christenson, Carlson, Valdez,
  2002)

45
Challenges to Family-School Partnerships

• Psychological barriers for families include
• educators use of negative communication about
  their childs school performance
• doubts about families abilities to effectively
  partner with educators in addressing
  school-related concerns
• Self-efficacy and role construction
• fear of conflict with educators
• limited use of perspective taking by educators
• suspicion about treatment from educators and
• educators lack of responsiveness to familial
  needs.
• (Christenson, Carlson, Valdez,
  2002)

46
Solutions to Challenges

• Dissemination of family-school research that is
  conducive to practitioners to further the
  implementation of evidence-based interventions
  (Dunst, Trivette, Cutspec, 2002).
• Promoting an emphasis for practitioners in
  schools to encourage partnerships with families
  based on functional elements that
• foster bi-directional communication,
• enhance problem solving across home and school,
• encourage shared decision making, and
• reinforce congruent home-school support.

47
Solutions to Challenges

• Disseminate this information in non-traditional
  ways that will reach practitioners (Dunst,
  Trivette, Cutspec, 2002).
• Examples include PowerPoint and video
  presentations, CD ROMS, and guidebooks for the 6
  types of family-school interventions.
• Identification of strong or promising-evidence
  based models.
• Within disseminating the positive outcomes of
  family-school partnership models, practitioners
  could also be provided cost and effectiveness
  data on these models.

48
Solutions to Challenges

• Examples
• Consider flex time to accommodate flexible
  scheduling.
• School psychologists can present at workshops and
  conduct in-service training for teachers.
• School psychologists can work with parent groups
  and/or school government teams.
• Conduct scheduled home visits.
• Establish parent centers within schools.
• Conduct activities/social events to increase
  parents opportunities to communicate with
  teachers and other educators.

49
References

• Blechman, E. A., Taylor, C. J., Schrader, S. M.
  (1981). Family problem solving versus home notes
  as early intervention with high-risk children.
  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
  49, 919-926.
• Bronstein, P., Duncan, P., Clauson, J., Abrams,
  C. L., Yannett, N., Ginsburg, G. et al. (1988).
  Preventing middle school adjustment problems for
  children from lower income families A program
  for aware parenting. Journal of Applied
  Developmental Psychology, 19, 1299-1352.
• Brown, T. L., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S.
  K., Brondino, M. J., Pickrel, S. G. (1999).
  Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and
  dependent juvenile delinquents Effects on school
  attendance at posttreatment and 6-month follow
  up. Childrens Services Social Policy, Research,
  and Practice, 2, 81-93.
• Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools
  What is the role of the school psychologist?
  School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118-132.
• Christenson, S. L., Carlson, C., Valdez, C. R.
  (2002). Evidence-based intervention in school
  psychology Opportunities, challenges, and
  cautions. Journal of School Psychology, 17,
  466-474.
• (Christenson, S. L., Cleary, M. (1990).
  Consultation and the parent-educator partnership
  A perspective. Journal of Educational and
  Psychological Consultation,1(3), 219-241
• Christenson, S. L., Sheridan, S. M. (2001).
  Schools and families Creating essential
  connections for learning. New York Guildford
  Press.
• Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students
  succeed What happens outside school is critical.
  Public Welfare, pp.17-23.
• Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting
  practices that positively affect student
  achievement. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.). Families and
  schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 85-105).
  Albany State University of New York Press.

50
References

• Collins, C. H., Moles, O., Cross, M. (1982).
  The home-school connections Selected partnership
  programs in large cities. Boston, MA Institute
  for Responsive Education.
• Dunst, C. J. (1985). Rethinking early
  intervention. Analysis and Intervention in
  Developmental Disabilities, 5, 59-71.
• Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Cutspec, P. A.
  (2002). Toward an operational definition of
  evidence-based practices. Centerscope, 1, 1-10.
• Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Deal, A. (1988).
  Enabling empowering families. Cambridge, MA
  Brookline Books, Inc.
• Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J. C., Elliot, M.,
  Hall, R. V. (1992). Parent-tutoring procedures
  Experimental analysis and validation of
  generalization in oral reading across passages,
  settings, and time. Journal of Behavioral
  Education, 2, 281-303.
• Epstein, J. L. (1991). Paths to partnership What
  we can learn from federal, state, district, and
  school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5).
• Goff, G. A., Demetral, G. D. (1983). A
  home-based program to eliminate aggression in the
  classroom. Social Work in Education, 5-14.
• Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M.
  (1987). Home influences on school learning
  Direct and indirect effects of parent involvement
  on high school grades. Journal of Educational
  Research, 80, 330-337.
• Heller, L. R., Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993).
  Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership
  Does parent involvement make a difference? School
  Psychology Review, 22, 517-535.
• Hembree-Kigin, T. L. McNeil, C. B. (1995).
  Parent-child interaction therapy. New York
  Plenum Press.

51
References

• Hickman, C. W., Greenwood, G., Miller, M. D.
  (1985). High school parent involvement
  Relationships with achievement, grade level, SES,
  and gender. Journal of Research and Development
  in Education, 28, 287-294.
• Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., Becker, D.,
  Johnson-Leckrone, J. (2002). Family-based
  prevention counseling for high-risk young
  adolescents Immediate outcomes. Journal of
  Community Psychology, 30, 1-22.
• Hook, C. L., DuPaul, G. J. (1999). Reciprocal
  peer tutoring for student with attention-deficit/h
  yperactivity disorder Effects on reading
  performance at home and at school. School
  Psychology Review, 28, 60-75.
• Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker,
  J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., Jones, K.
  P. (2001). Parent involvement in homework.
  Educational Psychologist, 36 , 195-209.
• Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Sandler, H. (1997). Why
  do parents become involved in their childrens
  education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1)
  3-42. Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from
  http//www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/pa
  pers.html
• Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T, Jones, K.P.,
  Reed, R.P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents
  (TIP) Results of an in-service teacher education
  program for enhancing parental involvement.
  Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 1-25.
  Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from
  http//www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/pa
  pers/Teachers_involving_parents.doc\
• Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N H.,
  Unis, A. S. (1987). ??? Journal of the American
  Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26,
  416-424.
• Kellaghan, T, Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., Bloom,
  B. S. (1993). The home environment and school
  learning Promoting parental involvement in the
  education of children. San Francisco
  Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Kratochwill, T. R. Shernoff, E. S. (2003).
  Evidence-based practice Promoting evidence-based
  interventions in school psychology. School
  Psychology Review, 33, 34-48.

52
References

• Kratochwill, T. R. Stoiber, K. C. (2002).
  Evidence-based interventions in school
  psychology Conceptual foundations of the
  procedural and coding manual of division 16 and
  the society for the study of school psychology
  task force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17,
  341-389.
• McConaughy, S. H., Kay, P.J., Fitzgerald, M.
  (1999). The achieving, behaving, caring project
  for preventing ED Two-year outcomes. Journal of
  Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 224-239.
• Mehran, M., White, K. R. (1988). Parent
  tutoring as a supplemental compensatory education
  for first-grade children. RASE, 9, 35-41.
• Morrow, L. M., Young, J. (1997). A family
  literacy program connecting school and home
  Effects on attitude, motivation, and literacy
  achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
  89, 736-742.
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
  107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).
• Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox A
  social policy of empowerment over prevention.
  American Journal of Community Psychology, 9,
  1-25.
• Sayger, T. V., Horne, A. M., Walker, L. M.,
  Passmore, J. L. (1988). Social learning family
  therapy with aggressive children Treatment
  outcome and maintance. Journal of Family
  Psychology, 1, 261-285.
• Sattes, B. (1985). Parent involvement A review
  of the literature (Report No. 21). Charleston,
  WV Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
• Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting
  students to school Using family and school
  community involvement to reduce chronic
  absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14, 39-56.

53
References

• Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on
  evidence-based parent and family interventions
  What we do in the future? School Psychology
  Quarterly, 20, 518-524.
• Sheridan, S. M. (2004, September). Family-school
  partnerships Creating essential connections for
  student success. Keynote presented at the
  Resource Teacher Learning and Behaviour
  Conference, Chistchurch, New Zealand.
• Sheridan, S.M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical
  bases of conjoint behavioral consultation.
  School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119-133.
• Sheridan, S. M., Kratcohwill, T. R., Bergan, J.
  R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation A
  procedural manual. New York Plenum Press.
• Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott,
  S. N. (1990). Behavioral consultation with
  parents and teachers Delivering treatment for
  socially withdrawn children at home and school.
  School Psychology Review, 19, 33-52.
• Sheridan, S. M., Vazquez, E., Li, C. (2005,
  April). The future of home-school partnerships
  Update on the work of a future task force.
• Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct
  problems in head start children Strengthening
  parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and
  Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730.
• Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., Hammond, M.
  (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting
  social competence A parent and teacher training
  partnership in head start. Journal of Clinical
  Child Psychology, 30, 283-302.