Transcript Slide 1

Family, School, and Community
Partnerships within a
Multi-Tiered
System of Supports:
“On the Team and At the Table“
Colorado Department of Education
Office of Learning Supports
“Tell Me I Forget.
Show Me I Remember.
Involve Me I Understand.”
( Chinese Proverb)
Participants will…
 Learn the WHAT, WHY, and HOW of
multi-tiered partnering for families
and schools.
 Access tools and activities to use and
share.
Presentation At A Glance
“Honoring Your Time”
 Colorado MTSS Introduction
 WHAT?
 Definition
WHY?
 Research, Laws, Shift
HOW?
 Tiers – Every Student’s Success
 Data
 Planning
Colorado Multi-Tiered System of Supports
EVERY ED, EVERY KID, EVERY FAMILY
Six Essential Components of
Colorado Multi-Tiered
System of Supports
 Shared Leadership
 Layered Continuum of Supports
 Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring
 Evidence-based instruction, interventions and
assessment practices
 Data-Based Problem Solving and Decision Making
 Family, School, and Community Partnering
Colorado Department of Education
Multi-Tiered System of Supports
Academic
Supports
RtI
MTSS
PBIS
Behavior
Supports
MTSS
Universal Screening, Continuous Progress Monitoring, Continuum of Evidencebased Support, Implementation Fidelity, Team-Based Implementation, Databased Decision Making, Outcome Oriented
Behavior
Academics
SWPBS/PBIS
Instruction & Curriculum
Additional
Learning
Supports
Family, School, and Community Partnerships
School-wide Discipline
& Climate, Classroom
Management,
Function-based
Support,
Literacy, Numeracy,
Social Studies, Physical
Sciences, History,
Physical Education,
Art, etc.
All Students, All Staff, All School Settings
Adapted from George Sugai 2012
School-based
Mental Health,
Health & Wellness
 Awareness: Families are familiar with PBIS goals
and activities at the school.
 Partnering: Families are allies in planning and
implementation.
 Extension: Families use PBIS strategies to
address behavior at home.
Adapted from Breen, Childs, & Cavallo
Activity#1
Definition
What is your definition of partnering?
Partnering is ______________________.
WHAT?
Definition
Partnering is a relationship involving close
cooperation between parties having joint rights
and responsibilities.
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001)
Partnering Principles
 Cultural and linguistic differences are directly
addressed because:
Students see their worlds working together;
There is a forum to understand the culture of
the family and the culture of the school.
(Coll & Chatman,2005)
Partnering Principles
 It is all about ongoing, sustainable, intentional
relationships.
 The focus is always on student
success - measurable goals,
progress data, and doing what works.
 A struggling student experiences collaborative
support and encouragement immediately from
home and school, thus staying engaged in
learning.
Educators, Families, Students, and
Community Resources: “On the Team”
On a football team, every player has a job to do and
a role to play. Each player is respected for his/her
unique expertise. Each player practices and works to
become better at executing personal responsibilities.
The team works together to obtain the best results
possible.
Educators, Families, Students, and
Community Resources: “At the Table”
Picture a table where people are discussing a problem
 Respecting and listening
 Understanding different perspectives
 Focusing on positive outcomes
 Disagreeing at times
 Intentionally working to compromise
Each involved party has a place “at the table,” even if
he/she can’t attend. All voices are heard.
A Research-Based Partnering
Definition
Family and Community Partnering is the collaboration of
families, schools, and communities as equal partners in
improving learner, classroom, school, and district outcomes.
In effective partnering, each stakeholder shares
responsibility for learners‘success by:
•
•
•
•
•
establishing and sustaining trusting relationships;
understanding and integrating family and school culture;
maintaining two-way communication;
engaging in collaborative problem-solving:
coordinating learning at home, school, and in the
community, using data;
• acknowledging and celebrating progress.
WHY?
Research, Law, and the Shift
…parents are a child’s first teachers…
(Adams et al., 2003)
Time
Students Spend More
Than 70% Of Their
Waking Hours Outside
of School.
During School Years (Waking
Hours)
30%
In School
Out of
School
(Clark,1990; Callender & Hansen, 2004)
70%
The Research:
Summary of 40 Years
 For Students:
 Higher achievement, more homework completion,
come to school more and stay in school longer,
observing more similarities between home and school
 For Families:
 Becoming more supportive of child and teachers,
becoming more confident in how to help child learn,
learning more about education programs
 For Teachers and Schools:
 Improved teacher morale, higher ratings of teachers by
parents, parents support schools and bond issues
Student Achievement
Factors Influencing Achievement
1. Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
School
3. Parent and Community Involvement
RESEARCH
RESEARCH
2. Challenging Goals/Effective Feedback
4. Safe and Orderly Environment
5. Collegiality and Professionalism
Teacher
6. Instructional Strategies
7. Classroom Management
8. Classroom Curricula Design
9. Home Environment
Student
10.Learned Intelligence/ Background Knowledge
11. Motivation
RESEARCH
(Marzano, 2003)
Student Achievement
Home Environment Components
That Work At ALL LEVELS:
Supporting School at Home
1. Communication About School – Frequent,
Systematic, and Encouraging
2. Supervision of homework, TV viewing, after school activities (including community
partnering)
- Marzano, 2003
Student Achievement
Homework has a positive effect on
achievement. The key is in the design.
( E p s tein & V a n V o o r his , in p r e s s)
 Communicate regularly about homework
expectations – two-way!
 Guide families in supporting learning at home.
 Jointly problem-solve concerns.
 Try Interactive Homework (TIPS – Teachers
Involving Parents in Schoolwork).
(Van Vooris, 2011)
Student Achievement
The C’s of Homework: Coordinated or
Connected or Continuous or Complementary
or Congruent or Consistent Learning
 Practice increases memory traces and fluency.
 Applying learned knowledge in the real world
reinforces concepts.
 Summarizing information forces more in-depth
processing.
(Gage &Berliner, 1998)
The Law: No Child Left Behind (2002)
(First Statutory Definition in Elementary and
Secondary Education Act - ESEA)
Defines parent
involvement as:
 Regular, two-way and
meaningful
communication
 An integral role in
assisting with their
child’s learning
 Full partners in their
child’s education
The Law: Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (2004)
In IDEA 2004, Congress stressed:
“strengthening the role and responsibility of
parents and ensuring that families of such
children have meaningful opportunities to
participate in the education of their children
at school and at home.” 20 U.S.C. 1401
(c)(5)(B)
Colorado
Law
•RtI is a required criterion in
Colorado for identifying students
with specific learning disabilities
(ECEA, 2007) and must be
implemented in every school.
• Parents must receive information
about:
• Amount and nature of data
collected;
• Strategies for increasing the
child’s rate of learning
•Results of repeated
assessment of child’s progress.
(CDE, 2007; CDE, 2008b)
A National Shift Based on
the Law and Research
The Six Types of Parent
Involvement
(Epstein, 1995)
 Parenting
 Communicating
 Volunteering
 Learning at Home
 Decision-Making
 Collaborating with
Community
National Standards for
Family-School Partnerships
(PTA,2009)
 Welcoming All Families
 Communicating Effectively
 Supporting Student Success
 Speaking Up for Every Child
 Sharing Power
 Collaborating with
Community
What is the Shift?
Traditional Parent
Involvement
 Parents
Family Partnering
 Schools are responsible
 Families and schools
 Family
share responsibility
 School initiated, set
 Flexible hours and
 School to home, one-
 Ongoing two-way
formal meetings
way communication
meeting venues
communication
What is the Shift?
Traditional Parent
Involvement
 Parents give consent to
educational plans
 Structured volunteering
 Homework is often seen
solely as the child’s
responsibility, with
consequences for lack of
completion
Family Partnering
 Educational plans are
jointly developed and
delivered
 Supporting learning at
home and school
 Homework is seen as an
important home-school
link and communication
tool, with continuous
successful completion
integral to academic
achievement and
behavioral learning
How is the Shift Applied
to Special Education?
Traditional Parent
Involvement
 Often more of a
compliance focus
Family Partnering
 Annual, triennial reviews
 Also, there is school and
tend to be primary touch
points, with formal
progress reports
 Schools and home both
working towards goals,
but often separately
 Compliance AND student
outcome focus
home progress
monitoring, two-way
communication
 Coordinated learning
between home and
school, focused on goals
and outcomes
Activity #2
Family-School Partnering Continuum
Where are you and your school community on the partnering continuum ?
Give a number for you and one for your school?
Home and school are
separate, very
different worlds. It is
the school’s
1
responsibility to
educate children,
and the family’s
responsibility to see
that the children are
dressed, fed, and
prepared for school.
10
Schools share the
responsibility for
education with
families. The
partnership
with families is
flexible: on some
issues the parents will
be the more active
partner and on
others, the school will
be.
HOW?
Tiers, Data, and Planning
Evidence - rational, quantifiable, transparent - is the truth
the hand can touch. (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003)
 Tier 1: Universal/Core = what we do to partner
with all families
Based on
Student & Group = what we
 Tier 2: Supplemental/Targeted
Family
do to partner with some
families
Supports
 Tier 3: Individual/Intensive Support = what we
do to partner with those families with the most
unique needs
Adapted from Breen, Childs, & Cavallo
 Awareness: Families are familiar with PBIS goals
and activities at the school.
 Partnering: Families are allies in planning and
implementation.
 Extension: Families use PBIS strategies to
address behavior at home.
Adapted from Breen, Childs, & Cavallo
Multi-Tiered Family & Community
Partnering Practices
Intensive Tier - FEW
(includes all Universal, Targeted)
Individualized school and community partnering for a few
families, students and school staff.
Targeted Tier - SOME
(includes all Universal)
Focused school/community supplements and problemsolving partnering for some families, students and school
staff.
Universal Tier - ALL
School-wide PBIS efforts to welcome, include, and support
every student and family; stated beliefs that: (1) education
is a shared responsibility between families and schools;
(2) families are equal partners; (3) student success is
always the focus; each classroom provides coordinate
learning opportunities for home and school.
Universal Tier Supports Checklist
ALL Families/Staff
SCHOOL
_____1. Providing a shared understanding of the evidence and legal base for partnering.
_____2. Creating a welcoming, culturally responsive environment with multiple visiting and
volunteering opportunities (home and school).
_____3. Communicating partnering beliefs: (a) Education is a shared responsibility between
home and school;(b) Families are equal partners;(c) Student success is always the focus.
_____4. Integrating partnering practices and language into all documents, procedures, teams.
_____5. Ensuring every family uses the school technology - parent portal, email, website.
_____6. Ensuring every family knows the importance of their actions in supporting
learning at home: (a) Frequent and systematic discussions about school; (2)
Encouraging their children regarding schoolwork; and (3) Providing or working with
resources to provide supervision, support for homework and after-school time.
_____7. Sharing how school works utilizing response to intervention with all staff and families.
_____8. Providing family education on learning-related topics, based on identified needs.
_____9. Including families in school decision-making, such as on accountability committees.
_____10. Using data systematically to improve and expand family partnering practices.
_____11. Allocating time for a staff person to support personnel and families in partnering.
_____12. Collaborating with community resources.
Universal Tier Supports Checklist
ALL Families/Staff
CLASSROOM
_____1. Contacting every family personally to create ongoing, two-way
communication.
_____2. Ensuring each family, including students, understands class and
homework expectations, and how everyone will partner if a student
struggles.
_____3. Providing information on current learning content, with specific outof-school coordination strategies and follow-up.
_____4. Asking families what they need to support learning at home and
following up.
_____5. Sending /sharing progress data regularly to families, with
opportunities for discussion.
_____6. Share with the students how the partnering between the school and
home are working together for their success.
Targeted Tier Supports Checklist
SOME Families/Staff
(includes Universal)
______1. Designating people and processes to reach out and
individually encourage families and staff who may be hesitant
or uncomfortable.
______2. Including families as equal partners throughout the
problem-solving process, providing information and
participation in decision-making.
______3. Supporting teachers and families in mutually developing and
implementing student plans such as IEPs, ALPs,
BIPs, and READ.
______4. Ensuring families understand and participate in the
implementation of small group (standard protocol)
interventions.
Intensive Tier Supports Checklist
A FEW Families/Staff
(includes Universal and Targeted)
_____1. Individualizing family-school partnering plans and
support when needed.
_____2. Providing school, family and community wraparound
when needed.
_____3. Providing conflict resolution support and process
when needed.
Evidence-Based Interventions for Each & Every Kid
TERTIARY PREVENTION
• Function-based support
• Wraparound
• Person-centered planning
SECONDARY PREVENTION
• Check in/out
• Targeted social skills instruction
• Peer-based supports
PRIMARY PREVENTION
• Teach SW expectations
• Proactive SW discipline
• Positive reinforcement
• Effective instruction
• Family, School, & Community
Partnerships
• Bully Prevention within PBIS
Why More Support?
The Targeted or Intensive Tier?
 Student is struggling
 Teacher is struggling
 Family is struggling
 Partnership is struggling
Colorado MTSS
PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS
Educators, Families, and Students
Step 1—Define the problem
What is the problem?
Step 4—Evaluate
Is it working?
Step 2—Problem Analysis
Why is it occurring?
Step 3—Plan Implementation
What are we going to do about it?
Family Role in
Problem-Solving Process
 Share responsibility as an equal partner.
 Collaborate & communicate with teachers about
student.
 Support student learning at home.
 Attend problem-solving team meeting, if possible. If
attending isn’t possible, it is important to
communicate before and after a meeting.
 Partner in intervention planning and monitoring.
 Participate in decisions for any assessment and/or
referral for special education evaluation.
(CDE 2008,b)
Goals, Interventions, and Progress
Monitoring In Problem-Solving
 What is OUR MEASURABLE GOAL, outcome,
target ?
 What is OUR INTERVENTION, based on OUR
data?
 How are WE MONITORING progress?
 How will WE EVALUATE and REVISE according to
OUR data?
Show Me The Data
Visual data show the
same information to all
partners so can equally
share in decision-making.
This lessens conflicts and
biases and creates
common understanding.
Family & Community
Partnering Tools
Available online at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/rti/FamilyCommunityToolkit.htm
Use Partnering Vocabulary
 Words:“WE”, “OUR”, “US”
 Goals: What do we want to ACHIEVE TOGETHER?
 Roles: How can WE PARTNER around that?
 Data: How will WE KNOW it is working?
 Input: What does the family or school or
community resource THINK, FEEL, KNOW?
 Decisions: WE ALL are “at the table” and “on
the team”.
 Responsibilities: What are WE EACH doing?
 Students: What is BEST for OUR student?
Share Data
 Planning Team Feedback
 Benchmarks of Quality
 Family Survey
 Family Sharing Sheet
 Home Information for Problem-Solving
 Home-School-Home Notes
Plan for Hurdles
Challenges
Family
School
Solutions
Remember the Essentials
(Wallet Cards!)
“New Tool”
Created Summer 2012 and available for download today
Remember Partnering
Can Be New For Many
 Because it may be a new experience for many families,
educators, and community resources to be sharing
responsibility, special care must be taken to educate.
(CDE, 2008b)
 Having families and community resources directly
involved may also be new for school staff … assigning a
“liaison” linking all partners may be helpful .
(CDE, 2008a)
 The Multi-Tiered System of Supports/problem-solving
process is a more transparent, fluid, and open
framework than most previous systems for supporting
students - all partners may need support .
Activity #3 Plan Actions
What are next steps? Data?
1.
2.
3.
How will we know what is
working? Data?
Activity #13
Multi-Tiered Family,
School, and Community
Partnering is __________
because _______________.
“…No matter how skilled professionals are,
nor how loving families are, each cannot
achieve alone, what the parties, working
hand-in-hand, can accomplish together.”
( A d a p t e d f r o m P e t e r s o n a n d C o o p e r a s c i t e d b y t h e F u t u re s i n S c h o o l
P s y c h o l o g y Ta s k F o r c e o n Fa m i l y - S c h o o l P a r t n e rs h i p s , 2 0 0 7 )
CDE MTSS and SLD Information
 RTI (Response to Intervention)
http://www.cde.state.co.us/RtI/
 PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports)
http://www.cde.state.co.us/pbis/
 SLD (Specific Learning Disabilities)
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/SD-SLD.asp
 State Personnel Development Grant (School, Family,
and Community Partnering)
http://www.cde.state.co.us/RtI/spdg/Family.htm
Contact Information
Cindy Dascher
Mishele Carroll
Parent
PBIS Systems Integration
Coordinator
[email protected]
[email protected]
303-866-6876
303-866-6251
Additional Resources
 Constantino, S.M., (2008). 101 ways to create real family engagement .






Galax, VA: ENGAGE! Press.
Constantino, S.M. (2003). Engaging all families: Creating a positive
school culture by putting research into practice. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education.
Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.V., Simon, B.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansorn, N.R., &
Van Voorhis, F.L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships:
Your handbook for action. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jenkins, T. (2007). When a child struggles in school. Charleston, SC:
Advantage
Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.L., Johnson, V.R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond
the bake sale: The essential guide to family -school partnerships. New
York: The New Press.
Lines, C.L., Miller, G.L.,& Arthur -Stanley, A.(2011). The power of family school partnering: A practical guide for mental health professionals and
educators. New York: Routledge.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2002). The essential conversation: What parents
and teachers can learn from each other. New York: Random House.
References
• Bridgeland , J.M., Diliulio, J. J., & Balfanz, R. (2009). On the frontlines of school s:
Perspectives of teachers and principals on the high school dropout problem.
Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC. Retrieved from
http://ww w.ci vicente rprises.net /report s/on_the_f ront _lines_of _school s.pdf
• Christenson, S. L. (1995 ). Families and schools: What is the role of the school
psychologist ? School Psycholog y Quarterly, 10, 118-132.
• Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential
connecti ons for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
• Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside of
school is critical. Public Welfare, (17-23).
 Callender, S. & Hansen, A. (2004). Family -School Partnerships: Information and
approaches for educators. NASP Helping Children at Home and School II. Baltimore,
MD: National Association of School Psychologist s.
• Colorado Department of Education. (2007). ECEA rules . Retrieved from
http://ww w.cde.state. co.us/cdesped/downl oad/pdf /ECEARules_Effective1 2 - 30- 07.pdf
• Colorado Department of Education. (2008a). Family
involvement in
schools:Eng agi ng parents of at -risk youth. Denver, CO: Author.
• Colorado Department of Education. (2008b). Guidelines for identif ying students with
Specific Learning Disabilities . Denver, CO: Author.
References
• Colorado Department of Education. (2008c). Response to intervention ( RtI): A
 practitioner ’s guide to implementation . Denver, CO: Author.
 Colorado Department of Education. (2008c). Response to intervention ( RtI): A





practitioner ’s guide to implementation . Denver, CO: Author.
Colorado Department of Education (2009). Response to intervention ( RtI):
Family & community partnering: “On the team and at the table” toolkit:
Denver, CO: Author.
Colorado Department of Education (2010). District accountability handbook.
Denver, CO: Author.
Colorado Department of Education (2011). Commissioner ’s report to the state
board of education: Dropout prevention and student engagement unit.
Denver, CO: Author
Epstein, J.L. (1991 ). Paths to partnership: What can we learn from federal,
state, district, and school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5).
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (9), 701-702.
References
 Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.V., Simon, B.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansorn, N.R., & Van




Voorhis, F.L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your
handbook for action. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J.L. & Van Voorhis, F.L. (in press). The changing debate: From
assigning homework to designing homework. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.)
Contemporary debates in child development and education. New York:
Routledge.
Esler A.N., Godber Y., & Christenson, S. L. (2008) . Best practices in supporting
home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
school psychology V (pp. 917-936)). Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Gage, N.L. & Berliner, D.C. ( 1998). Educational psychology (6 th ed.). Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Garcia Coll, C., & Chatman, C. (2005) . Ethnic and racial diversity . In H. Weiss,
H.Kreider, M.E. Lopez, & C. Chapman (Eds.) , Preparing educators to involve
families: From theory to practice (pp. 135-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
References
 Henderson, A.T., Mapp, K.L., Johnson, V.R., & Davies, D. (2007) . Beyond the




bake sale: The essential guide to family -school partnerships. New York: The
New Press.
Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on achievement. Austin, TX:
National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools.
Hirsch, E., Sioberg , A., & Germuth, A. (2009). TELL Colorado: Creating
supportive school environments to enhance teacher effectiveness. Retrieved
fromhttp://tellcolorado.org /sites/default/files/attachments/Colorado_TELL -finalreport.pdf
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Whitaker, M.C., & Ice, C.L. (2010). Motivation and
commitment to family-school partnerships. In S.L. Christenson & A.L. Reschly
(Eds.), Handbook of school -family partnerships (pp. 30-60). New York:
Routledge.
Lines, C., Miller, G.L., Arthur -Stanley, A. (2011). The power of family -school
partnering: A practical guide for school mental health professionals and
educators. New York: Routledge.
References
 Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into





action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
National Parent Teachers Association (2009). PTA national standards for
familyschool partnerships: An implementation guide . Retrieved
fromhttp://www.pta.org /Documents/National_Standards_Implementation_Gu
ide_2009.pdf
New Teacher Center. (2011). What are the voices of Colorados’ teachers
telling us? Retrieved from
http://tellcolorado.org /sites/default/files/attachments/CO11_brief_general_t
rends.pdf
Pianta, R. & Walsh, D. B. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Constructing
sustaining relationships . New York, NY: Routledge.
Sheridan, S.M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical bases of conjoint
behavioralconsultation . School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119 -133.
Simon, B.S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects .
NASSPBulletin, 85 (627), 8-19.
References
 Wellman, B. & Lipton, L. (2004). Data-driven dialogue: A facilitator ’s guide to




collaborative inquiry. Sherman, CT: MiraVia.
United States Bureau of the Census (2004). Population predictions .
Retrievefrom http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/
United States Department of Education. (2006). 34 CFR Part 300: Assistance
to stat for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for
children with disabilities. Final rule. Federal Register, 71, 46783 – 46793.
Van Voorhis, F.I. (2011). Maximum homework impact; Optimizing time,
purpose, communication, and collaboration. In S. Redding , M. Murphy, P.
Sheley (Eds.). Handbook on family and community engagement. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Weiss, H., Little, P., Bouffard, S., Deschenes, S., & Malone, H. (2009).
Strengthen what happens outside of school to improve what happens inside .
Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 592-596.
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant
from the US Department of Education, #H323A090005.
However, these contents do not necessarily represent the
policy of the US Department of Education, and you should
not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Project Officer, Jennifer Coffey, PhD.