Transcript Home-School Partnerships

Overview of
Family-School Partnerships
The Future of School Psychology Task Force
on Family-School Partnerships
Jennifer Burt, Ashley Taylor, Katie Magee, Laura
Mullaney, Susan Sheridan
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
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 child’s waking hours…
No matter how skilled professionals are, or
how loving parents are, each cannot achieve
alone what the two parties, working handin-hand, can accomplish together”
(Peterson & Cooper, 1989; pp. 229, 208).
See Handout 1
Why Family-School Partnerships?
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
Who is involved in partnerships?

School administrators




School psychologists




Provide leadership at a building level.
Encourage teachers to engage in partnership practices with families.
Create conditions within the school that are conducive to partnership
practices.
Facilitate and support communication between teachers and families.
Provide information to families regarding how to support student learning .
Providing support and consultation to parents as they become involved in
student learning (Christenson, 1995).
Teachers and families


Engage in relationships where communication is reciprocal.
Each person is responsive to the ideas and needs of the other person.
When is it appropriate to
engage in partnerships?

Current engagement in partnerships



20% of families work as partners in education.
70% of families believe they would and could engage in partnerships
if provided with support.
10% of families do not engage in partnerships because of significant
personal problems (Epstein personal communication 1995, as cited by
Christenson & Sheridan, 2001).

Family-school partnerships are seen as a protective factor


Partnerships should be formed when students enter school.
Partnerships should be sustained throughout their education.
When is it appropriate to
engage in partnerships?

Effective family-school partnerships

Represent a 13-year contract between families and
schools to provide a quality education for all students.
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001)



They are proactive and not reactive to student concerns.
Families and schools should engage in partnerships
throughout a student’s education.
Promote an understanding of school policies and
procedures especially when student concerns are
present.
The M & M’s 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
child’s teacher.
See Activity 1
Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations
to Family-School Partnerships
Partnership Approach:
Traditional Approach:

Commitment to working together
on behalf of the child’s
performance/ achievement is clear.

Emphasis on what schools do to
promote learning.

Communication is frequent,
positive, bi-directional.

Infrequent, one-directional, or
problem-centered communication
(school → home).

Relationship is characterized by
cultural sensitivity; cultural
differences are respected,
appreciated, and recognized as
contributing to positive learning
climates.

“One-size fits all” orientation;
cultural differences are perceived as
challenges to overcome.
See Handouts 6 and 7
Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations
to Family-School Partnerships
Partnership Approach:
Traditional Approach:

Different perspectives are valued as
important.

Different perspectives are seen as
barriers.

Roles are clear, mutual, and
supportive.

Separate roles that distance
participants.

Goals for students are mutually
determined and shared.

Goals determined by school
personnel and sometimes shared
with parents.

Plans are co-constructed, with
agreed upon roles for all
participants.

Educational plans devised and
delivered by teachers.
(Sheridan, 2004)
Roles of Families and Schools in
Partnership Models
There are many roles that can be shared by parents and
teachers
Codecision makers
Co-teachers
Co-learners
Co-supporters
See Activity 2
Co-communicators
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)
Rationale for a Multi-Tiered Approach to
Family-School Partnerships



Family-school partnerships provide a context for
families and educators to collaboratively identify
and prioritize concerns across a continuum of
opportunities and intensities.
Prevention and intervention efforts and supports
are delivered toward a universal and targeted
audience.
A multi-tiered approach enables families and
educators to provide services based on a student’s
responsiveness to previous preventions,
interventions, and supports.
Explanation for a Multi-Tiered Approach
to Family-School Partnerships

Provides various levels of family-school supports based on a student’s
identified need and responsiveness to previous efforts.

Universal – Family-school collaboration provided to support all students
and families (e.g., 4 As, Parent-School Collaboration, Parent Involvement,
Parent Education).

Targeted – Family-school collaboration provided to support identified
students and families unresponsive to previous universal efforts (e.g., Parent
Education and Intervention, Parent Consultation).

Intensive – Family-school collaboration provided to students and families
unresponsive to previous targeted efforts (e.g., Parent Consultation [conjoint
behavioral consultation] and Parent Intervention).
See Handout 8
The Multi-Tiered Approach to
Family-School Partnerships
Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individualized supports for families and students unresponsive to the
first two tiers (e.g., Parent Consultation [conjoint behavioral
consultation] and Parent Intervention).
Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions
Specific preventions and remedial interventions for
targeted groups of families and students identified as “at
risk” and unresponsive to the first tier (e.g., Parent
Education and Intervention, Parent Consultation).
Tier 3
1-7%
Tier 2
5-15%
Tier 1: Universal Interventions
Engaging all families as collaborative
partners (e.g., 4 As, Parent-School
Collaboration, Parent Involvement,
Parent Education).
Tier 1
80-90%
Theoretical Perspective:
Family-Centered Approach

Providing direct support and assistance to families increases
the likelihood these families can directly mediate their
child’s behavior and development more efficiently than can
indirect services aimed toward the child (Dunst, Trivette, Deal, &
1998).

Family’s 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 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.
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)
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.
Rationale for
Family-School Partnerships

Federal policy recognizes the need to address student’s 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.
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.
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 IFSP’s.
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 9
Benefits for Students
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).
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).
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)
Benefits to Schools
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).
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 familyschool partnerships with children and families
from diverse cultural backgrounds.
(Sheridan, Vazquez-Nuttall, & Li, 2005)
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, children’s 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).


See Creating Partnerships with Culturally Diverse Families PowerPoint
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 10
Developing Pathways to
Partnerships
Prerequisite Conditions:
These “3 A’s” must be in place for Actions
to be accepted and effective
Approach
Actions
Atmosphere
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
Attitude
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Sheridan & Kratochwill, in press)
See Handout 11 and Creating Conditions for Family-School Partnerships PowerPoint
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 children’s 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.
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.
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 12 and 13
Actions
Actions: What schools do to build partnerships and shared
responsibility for education between families and schools.



Actions must be distinguished from activities
Activities represent a narrow focus on how to involve
families in education (e.g., curriculum night, parent-teacher
conferences)
Actions focus on more broadly on the relationship or
connection between families and school relative to
children’s school performance
See Handout 14
Actions:
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).
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.
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 evidencebased 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 schoolbased 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).
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).
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
3. Parent Education, Training, and Intervention
4. Family-School Collaboration
5. Parent Involvement Interventions
See Creating Conditions for Family-School Partnerships PowerPoint
Actions:
Evidence-Based Interventions

Interventions with Preschool Children




Incredible Years Training Series
PARTNERS Parent Education Program
Parent Child Interaction Therapy
Dialogic Reading
See Handouts 15, 16, 17, and 18
Actions:
Evidence-Based Interventions

Parent Consultation



Conjoint Behavioral Consultation
Parent Behavioral Consultation
Parent Education, Training, and Intervention



Problem-Solving Skills Training plus Parent
Management Training
Aware Parenting
Reading Made Easy
See Handouts 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23
Actions:
Evidence-Based Interventions

Interventions Using Family-School Collaboration




School-Based Literacy Program/Family Literacy Program
Parent-Teacher Action Research Teams plus Social Skills
Instruction
School-Home Notes and Family Problem Solving Board
Game
Parent Involvement



Parent Tutoring
Parents Encourage Pupils
Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Parent Involvement
See Handouts 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29
Challenges and Solutions to
Family-School Partnerships

Structural
 Shape
the collaborative dialogue and
working relationships between families
and schools

Psychological
 Influence
an individual’s motivation to
personally engage with families or
educators
(Christenson, 2004)
See Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions PowerPoint
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. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 2, 8193.
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, 219-241
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for
learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside school is critical. Public
Welfare (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.
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, 330337.
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.
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 highrisk 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/hyperactivity
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 children’s education?
Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42. Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/papers.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/familyschool/papers/Teachers_involving_parents.doc/
Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N H., Unis, A. S. (1987). Effects of parent management training and
problem solving skills training combined in the treatment of antisocial child behavior. 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.
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 firstgrade 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 maintenance. 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.
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., Kratochwill, 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.