Transcript Parents of vulnerable children speak into the system

Parents of vulnerable children speak
into the system
Piloting an empowerment methodology
for increasing parental engagement in
schools and learning
Susan Maury, Researcher
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
3rd Annual Sector Research & Evidence Forum
2 August 2013
Uplift intentions & goals
 A small, sharp action research project piloting an
empowerment methodology.
 Intention was to improve parental engagement in
schools and learning.
 Focused on parents: their voice, their viewpoint,
their vision.
 Allow parents to develop their own indicators &
outcome measures.
Why parents? The policy context
“Family involvement in schools is…central
to high quality education and is part of the
core business of schools.”
(DEECD Family-School Partnerships Framework: a guide for schools and
families, p. 2)
Recognition is there – but are we succeeding at
reaching those who are on the margins?
Theoretical frame
Epstein’s Overlapping Spheres of Influence (1987).
Why parents? the research landscape
Local and international research overwhelmingly supports
the positive outcomes which are achieved through parent
engagement. Two streams of parental engagement: in the
school community, and in their child/ren’s learning
experiences (in the home, or through family outings).
 Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., and Sanders, E. (2012).
Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from
research. Family-School and Community Partnerships
Bureau.
Emerson et al
Parental engagement influences on student achievement:
 Higher grades and test scores,
 Enrolment in higher level programs and advanced




classes,
Higher successful completion of classes,
Lower drop-out rates,
Higher graduation rates, and
A greater likelihood of commencing postsecondary
education.
Emerson et al, cont.
Parent engagement influences on child development:
 More regular school attendance,
 Better social skills,
 Improved behaviour,
 Better adaptation to school,
 Increased social capital,
 A greater sense of personal competence and efficacy for
learning.
What reduces engagement?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Parental role construction reflects a hands-off approach;
Parents experience poverty & have a low sense of efficacy;
Community values, norms and attitudes are not in
alignment with supportive behaviours;
Parents are ineffective at insulating children from negative
influences or promoting positive choices;
Social networks/peer effects are negative;
Engagement approaches are simplistic and unlikely to
address complex needs in high-risk, disadvantaged
populations.
Uplift research goals




Development and pilot of an empowering, interactive tool
which facilitates:
Parents creating a vision for their children's school years.
Parents identifying specific actions for families, the school(s)
and the community to take in support of the vision.
Parents set their plan in motion.
Indicators developed which could be aggregated up.
 Also reflect on models for CSO/school partnerships.
Assumptions
 Parents have critical insight and knowledge concerning their




children and their environment.
A positive perspective frames the discussion in action and
hope while still allowing critical analysis.
A creative, organic process results in richer, more meaningful
outcomes while also increasing ownership.
Within the identified scope, participants are able to direct
the process.
Participation in the workshops was confined to parents and
the research team.
Methodology frame
1.Community groups self-develop indicators.
2.Indicators aggregated up for a shared pool.
3.Annual review and self-rating. Leads to a plan.
4.Ratings are aggregated up, for a comparative
overview across groups.
 Measuring Empowerment? Ask Them: Quantifying qualitative outcomes
from people’s own analysis. Jupp, Ali & Barahona; Sida 2010
Methodology
Three 3-hour workshops, held weekly.
 Workshop 1: Visioning
 Workshop 2: Planning
 Workshop 3: Advocating
Location: SEIFA and AEDI
Location: Hastings Westpark Primary School
Hastings SEIFA index of disadvantage rating:912.2
Mornington Peninsula overall SEIFA rating: 1,022.5
AEDI indicates that the Hastings region:
 has approx. double the percentage of vulnerable children
than the Australian, Victorian, and the Peninsula average:
18.3% compared to the Victorian average of 7.7%.
 has significantly lower comparative percentage of children
above the 50th percentile : 44.4% compared to 59.0%
Victorian average.
Location: 2012 NAPLAN results
Assessment
area
Grade 3 All
Grade 3 similar
Grade 5 All
Grade 5 Similar
Reading
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Persuasive
writing
Substantially
below
Below
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Spelling
Substantially
below
On par
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Grammar &
punctuation
Below
On par
Substantially
below
Substantially
below
Numeracy
Below
On par
Substantially
below
Below
Participants
 Nine participants in total.
 All women.
 6 had children enrolled at Hastings Westpark Primary.
 1 had children enrolled at the other primary school located
in Hastings.
 1 had a child enrolled at the local Catholic primary school.
 1 was a grandmother.
 Some also had older children who attended the local
secondary school.
Workshop 1: Visioning
Vision: introductions
Vision: Framework
Vision: What do we want?
Workshop 2: Planning
Planning: specifying vision
Planning: specifying vision, cont.
Extended
learning
Active fun
Equality
Life
skills
Guided
behaviours
Planning: identifying actions
Planning: Identifying actions
What specific actions can the community take to support this
vision?








Rename Westpark (“Wallaroo”?)
Redesign park with kids/teens involvement
Community clean-up – ongoing
Automatic hard rubbish pick-up - no voucher/pay system
Self-cleaning toilets
Regular police patrols and security cameras
Training for community leaders
Education & facilitation for getting a WWCC
Workshop 3: advocating
Advocating: engagement
Advocating: engagement, cont.
Advocating: commitments
Outcomes - parents




Participants very happy with both the process and their
outputs. Some of their comments:
Hands-on nature of the workshops was a plus; the process
wasn’t boring or passive.
Surprise at the high degree of consensus, and the
comprehensive outcome from such a creative process.
“We are thinking more, and more comprehensively, about
these issues.”
“Our vision has skills which are necessary for everyone, but
they look different in each life.”
Outcomes – research goals
The workshops far exceeded the anticipated goal of
increasing parent engagement in the school.
 Primary focus is to change the community.
 Understand the power of an inclusive approach.
 Demonstrated high levels of empowerment.
Due to sample size of one, unable to realise goal of
developing meaningful indicators.
Achieved goal of a reflective experience for the agency.
Replicability?
The process is only a small part of a bigger system
 Antecedents: There was space for this group already
carved out.
 Process: Important – but does not stand alone.
 Support structure: Includes school(s), community
groups, City Council, agencies, others.
 Assistance is necessary.
 Appropriate systems & structure provide a venue for the
group to give voice for meaningful change.
Replicability? Cont.
What we don’t know:
 Would this process work with CALD families?
 Would this process work with more marginalized, lowfunctioning individuals?
 Could vision and plan outcomes be aggregated up in a
meaningful way, providing a list of indicators which could be
used across communities?
 Could the outcomes be useful to communities across time for
planning and measuring progress?
Lessons for policy
What is meant by ‘parent engagement’? Is the key question:
 “How can we engage parents to make the school
better and/or improve educational outcomes for
children?”
Or:
 “In what ways can the school and community
better support parents in guiding and directing
their children’s holistic development?”
Lessons for policy, cont.
 Policy and processes need to address the
unique, complex barriers to participation
which families on the margins face.
 Many needs are likely to be locationspecific. Others may be system-wide.
 Expectations and attitudes may influence
outcomes.