|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF |
|
TO: |
EMSC-VESID
Committee
|
|
FROM: |
Jean C. Stevens |
|
SUBJECT: |
Family Partnerships
Policy |
|
DATE: |
June 1, 2006 |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1, 2 and 4 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY
Issue for
Discussion
Should the Board of Regents direct SED staff to solicit public comment on
a proposed revised draft policy statement on family partnerships?
Reason(s) for
Consideration
Review of policy.
Proposed
Handling
The question will come before the EMSC-VESID Committee for discussion on
June 19, 2006.
Procedural
History
On May 16, 2005, the Regents endorsed the
plan of the State Education Department (SED) to seek public comment on
implementing and revising the 1991 Regents policy on parent
partnerships.
Background
Information
In 1991, the Board of Regents adopted a policy statement subtitled, “Parent Partnerships: Linking Families, Communities and Schools.” In addition to the passage of time, several factors influenced revisiting this policy, including new federal regulations. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) are comprehensive laws with provisions mandating clearer communication, timely reporting, greater accountability, enhanced technical assistance and better outcomes in parental and family involvement. In February 2005, the Department formed an internal workgroup to review the Regents 1991 policy. The workgroup reviewed national and State policies; historical and current research; recommendations for best practices; and organized the Department’s solicitation of public comment. In May 2005, the Regents approved a plan to seek public comment. More than 500 persons attended 7 public meetings and 2 focus groups to comment on the existing policy and offer recommendations for revision. Comments were also received by email and letter from a variety of individuals and organizations. The attached report presents the policy review conducted by the internal workgroup, findings from public comment and recommendations for revision to the existing policy.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Board of
Regents direct SED staff to solicit public comment on the proposed revised
policy statement and to submit a proposed final draft for discussion and action
by the Board of Regents in early 2007. An action plan to implement the adopted
policy will be submitted to the Regents following approval of the policy
statement.
Timeline for Implementation
Upon direction by the Regents, staff will proceed to solicit public comment and to propose a final draft of the revised policy statement based on public comment received.
Family Partnerships: A Policy
Review
Background and
Overview
In 1991, the Board of Regents adopted a policy statement on Linking
Families, Communities and Schools.
The statement included
extensive recommendations, based on the leading research at the time, for the
manner in which the SED and the entire school community could contribute to
building alliances in support of higher academic achievement for all
children. The policy statement also
included an action plan. The
1991 policy stated the
following:
It shall be the policy of
the Board of Regents that each school board develop and implement a
comprehensive parent partnerships policy that ensures that every school develop
and implement a plan for effective parental participation.
It shall be the policy of
the Board of Regents that the State Education Department will require a parent
participation component in the development and implementation of relevant policy
and program initiatives, and evaluate such participation as part of the
monitoring and school review process.
To ensure that
the policy is consistent with current research and practice, resonates with
communities, and is aligned with institutional priorities and resources, in May
2005 the Board of Regents directed Department staff to seek comment from
constituencies across the State on implementation of the 1991 Regents policy and
on proposed revisions to the policy.
During fall and
winter of the 2005-06 school year, Department staff conducted seven public
meetings and two invitational forums to solicit comment. More than 500 parents, teachers,
administrators, and persons involved in providing services to children and
families participated in these events. As a result of these meetings, Department
staff identified seven key priority areas that participants believe should be
addressed by a revised Regents policy.
Attachment A provides a summary of the public comment
received.
The following
report discusses the extent to which implementation occurred of the action plan
that was developed to carry out the policy statement, summarizes public comment
on the policy, articulates the seven key priority areas identified by the
interaction with the public, and proposes a revised draft family partnerships
policy statement.
With the consent
of the Regents, Department staff will seek public comment on the draft policy
statement and on strategies to address the seven key priority areas. Following these discussions, Department
staff will submit to the Regents for consideration a proposed final revised
policy statement and a plan of action for its implementation.
What happened as a result of the 1991 Board
of Regents policy?
In addition to the policy statement, the Regents approved an action plan for implementation by the Department. The following initiatives were undertaken to implement the policy:
§ Implemented Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 relating to school-based management and shared decision-making.
§ Implemented Commissioner’s Regulation 52.21 that requires all teacher education programs to teach about parent rights and responsibilities, to provide field-based experiences on interacting with parents and caregivers, and to teach communicating assessment results to parents.
§ Convened regular statewide meetings of parents hosted by the Commissioner.
§
Established the
§ Established five Parent Centers to provide information and training to parents of children with disabilities.
§ Collaborated with the USDOE Office of Special Education Programs to produce a technical assistance document, Educating our Children Together: A Sourcebook for Effective Family-School-Community Partnerships.
§ Provided funding to districts, schools, community-based organizations and parent advocacy groups in support of effective parent involvement programs.
§ Created the New York State Learns Program featuring PBS broadcasts on education issues.
§ Collaborated with statewide Parent Information Resource Centers to support districts and schools.
§ Developed school report cards to provide parents with timely and accurate information on school performance.
§ Designed and developed Just the Facts, a series for parents on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
§ Participated in and supported national and regional Title I conferences and workshops.
§
Implemented, in collaboration with
The
regulations on school-based management and shared decision-making influenced the
enactment of legislation that created school leadership councils in
The
Department also supported efforts to provide technical assistance and support to
school districts in developing parent partnerships and to train cadres of parent
leaders. The Department has assisted partners and school districts to create
strong parent programs in many places in the State. However, the resources to replicate and
disseminate these programs with the necessary breadth and depth have not been
commensurate with the need. In
addition, we have not leveraged all the resources of the University of the State
of
Why change now? What direction should we
take?
Since 1991,
the State has changed in many significant respects. Families are increasingly diverse and
have needs that require better, consistent coordination across the Department
and USNY. From 1993 to 2004, the
number of special education students increased 19.6% and the number of students
classified as having autism has been growing exponentially. From 1991 to 2004, the number of limited
English proficient students rose 23.2%.
Just as demographics have changed, so has the aforementioned regulatory environment. NCLB and IDEA require the Department to fulfill many of the ambitious goals of the 1991 action plan. SED is required to provide technical assistance with respect to parental involvement, to ensure that parents receive timely information in a language they can understand, and to provide parents with the information and skills they require to effectively teach, support and advocate for their children. States must report on the method, quality, and oversight of services to students with disabilities.
Because of demographic shifts and new mandates, the Department is revisiting the Regents policy and identifying ways in which we can creatively leverage the power of USNY with the resources of SED. Leveraging these resources requires the articulation of priorities that meet the needs of today’s families and fulfill new federal regulations under IDEA and NCLB.
What priorities should be set by the Board
of Regents in the new policy statement?
In February 2005, the Department formed an internal USNY workgroup to study the existing policy statement. The workgroup reviewed national and state policies; historical and current research; recommendations for best practices; and organized the Department’s solicitation of public comment. In addition, more than 500 parents attended 7 public meetings and 2 focus groups to provide Department staff with comments on the existing policy and recommendations for a new policy. The participation in the public discussions and members of the SED internal workgroup identified seven key priorities to be addressed in the Regents family partnership policy:
1. Leverage Partnerships with USNY and Build Interagency Collaboration – Many persons and organizations both within and outside of USNY touch the lives of children and families. There is a need at the local community, district, regional, USNY and State levels to develop mechanisms that allow those involved with children and families to develop synergistic strategies for carrying out their responsibilities. One of the most critical first contacts with families are pediatricians and hospitals, and much more should be done to develop programs to ensure that all women and children receive quality care, that families have access to information on how to promote children’s health through nutrition and exercise, and that pediatricians have access to tool kits to promote children’s learning. Cultural institutions like museums, libraries, theaters and others offer a complementary type of access. SED and USNY have a tremendous opportunity to establish a new paradigm for collaboration. The barriers to collaboration include established practices, resistance to change, and limited time and resources. Institutional leaders, however, can refocus resources to address the issue. New partnerships with State agencies and for-profit firms (especially in communications) are needed.
2. Augment Existing Resources – Promoting truly successful family partnerships on a meaningful scale will require significant fiscal and personnel resources to be reallocated or additional resources allocated for this work. Without some shift in resources, it will be hard to move the policy statement from rhetoric to reality. For the past several years, the Board of Regents has unsuccessfully sought $5 million per year in State aid to implement successful components of parental involvement programs in order to raise student achievement (see Attachment B). To promote family partnerships, the Regents should aggressively advocate for resources for this purpose.
3. Improve Communication – Many parents find the school environment to be unwelcoming and/or intimidating. School staff share with families the desire to see children succeed academically. However, particularly in urban school districts, school staff often are not residents of the communities in which the school is located and are not familiar with the language and/or culture of the families of many of their students. Efforts by schools and districts to use technology to provide parents with information, or to go into the community to disseminate information to parents, is often sporadic. Schools and districts should develop coherent communication plans factoring in technological innovation, affordability for and usage by targeted populations. As devices become smaller, cheaper and more widely used, schools and districts will have new opportunities to seek parental involvement. Perhaps the most significant “model” is an informed person with a commitment to share resources. While this singular method of interaction is not efficient, it remains powerful. Persons who make this degree of commitment to parental involvement should be rewarded and supported to a greater extent.
4. Increase Transparency – The education system is exceedingly complicated on two levels in particular. First, it is difficult for parents to access the wide array of services that are available to support their needs. Similarly, it is difficult for staff to convey the breadth of resources. Second, parent rights under federal laws, State regulations and local policy are complex and daunting. The challenge of increasing transparency means leveraging the capacities of SED and USNY in ways that increase access, rather than overwhelm and intimidate. Parents, community-based organizations and other partners in the teaching and learning community should be enjoined to contribute to this essential task.
5. Create Professional Development Opportunities – All school staff need high quality preservice and in-service training on how to work effectively with parents. SED should explore ways in which coursework might include issues such as cultural competency and how to partner with different types of families, including non-native speakers of English, immigrants, homeless families, and families where the caregiver has low literacy skills. In addition, SED should explore how in-service training for school staff might include familiarity with the community in which they teach, its cultures and the resources available to support families. Training is also critically important so that school staff become familiar with the barriers to partnership that are faced by such caregivers as grandparents, siblings, and foster parents. Research indicates that professional development for parents increases involvement, builds community and eases collaboration with school staff. Parents benefit when they can learn about the curriculum so that they can directly support their children’s learning. Moreover, technology can support professional development by bridging regional divides across the State. Trends toward customized educational programs and feature-rich visual environments can create accessible “on demand” service for families with unique challenges. Video-conferencing, online meetings and other approaches can strengthen collaboration, creativity and cultural awareness. New functions will bring new challenges that still require the resolve of schools and communities to learn and grow together.
6.
Strengthen and Streamline Governance –
7. Measure Performance and Quantify Accountability – That which is measured improves. The degree of meaningful parental involvement in children’s education is largely unmeasured and unreported at present. The Department should investigate the feasibility of collecting data on parental involvement at each school. Transparent accountability systems should be developed using widely accessible technology.
What policy revisions are required to
respond to these seven priorities, strengthen family involvement and meet the
requirements of federal laws and regulations?
If a revised policy is to be deemed a success, it should affirm the rights and responsibilities of parents to participate as full partners in the education of their children and should provide a foundation for affirming the strong correlations between academic achievement by all students and family involvement programs.
The policy must also ensure compliance with new federal mandates, as well as quantify and report measures of accountability. Finally, the policy must be subject to ongoing review and critical assessment around the implementation of each of the seven priorities.
To accomplish these objectives, the Regents should consider adopting the following policy statement:
Proposed Board of Regents
Policy Statement on Family Partnerships The
Board of Regents defines “parent” as a natural parent, a legal guardian or
other caretaker standing in loco parentis (such as a grandparent or
stepparent with whom the child lives, or a person who is legally
responsible for the child’s welfare); and the Board of Regents defines
“partnership” as active engagement between parents and families and the
education community supporting student achievement. The
Board of Regents recognizes: §
Federal
and State laws and regulations require plans, policies and practices that
support parental and family involvement in the education of
children. §
Engaging
parents and families in the education process is linked to improved
academic achievement. §
Parents
and families are the first educators of children. §
Education
is the shared responsibility of schools, parents and families, and the
community. The
Board of Regents affirms the following components of successful family
involvement programs: §
Communication
between home and school is regular, two-way, meaningful and conducted in
the language or mode of communication most accessible to parents and
caregivers. §
Responsible
parenting is promoted and supported. §
Parents
play an integral role in assisting student learning. §
Parents
are welcome in the school, and their support and assistance are
sought. §
Parents
and families are full partners in the decisions that affect children and
families. §
Professional
development is provided to parents, teachers and
administrators. §
Community
resources are made available to strengthen school programs, family
practices and student learning. §
Educators
demonstrate socio-economic and cultural competence in the design,
implementation and evaluation of parental and family involvement policies
and programs. In
order to ensure that successful family partnerships are created and
implemented, it shall be the policy of the Board of Regents
that: ·
Schools and districts
inform parents of their rights in a manner that is clear, courteous,
consistent and in a language that they understand;
and ·
Appropriate USNY
institutions will be encouraged to develop and implement a parent and
family education and outreach program; and ·
The State Education
Department develop and implement a plan for USNY coordination and
interagency collaboration in support of family partnerships;
and ·
The State Education
Department include where appropriate a parent and family involvement
component in all policy and program
initiatives. |
What are the next steps?
§
Upon direction
by the Board of Regents, staff will begin developing an action plan and conduct
a second round of public forums across the State to solicit comment on the draft
policy statement – Fall 2006.
§
Staff will
continue iterative dialogue with targeted external constituents on a proposed
action plan – Fall 2006 and Winter 2006-2007.
§
Adoption by the
Board of Regents of a revised Family Partnership Policy Statement and Action
Plan will be scheduled on the Board’s 24-month calendar – Winter
2006-2007.
§
Staff will
present the Board of Regents with baseline findings on implementation of a
revised Board of Regents Family Partnership Policy Statement and Action Plan –
Winter 2008.
Attachment
A
Summary of
Public Comment
SED presented the public with four key
questions. More than 500
persons attended 7 public forums and 2 focus groups and approximately 450
persons submitted comments at the forums and online. The four questions (developed in
collaboration with an SED internal workgroup and the Parent Advisory Council)
were as follows:
Question
1: How do we
define parent and family partnerships and how do we measure their
success?
Elements of
Effective Partnerships
§
Two-way
communication between schools and parents.
§
A welcoming and
safe school environment.
§
Frequent
communication about “good news.”
§
Mutual respect
betweens schools and parents.
§
School leaders
with open-door policies for parents.
§
Outreach to
parents of students with disabilities.
§
Outreach to
non-English speaking parents and families.
§
Outreach to
parents with low levels of literacy and numeracy.
§
Use of survey
data to plan events and activities.
§
Coordinated use
of cultural resources and activities.
§
Focus on
academic achievement and curriculum-based training for
parents.
§
Responsiveness
to complaints.
§
Clear complaint
resolution procedures.
§
Parental and
institutional collaboration on websites.
§
Parental and
family involvement in school governance.
§
Work with
community and faith-based groups to expand outreach.
Measurements of
Success
§
Accountability
criteria for schools and districts.
§
Participation
rates at schools and in community-based programs.
§
Opportunities
for parental and family involvement.
§
Attendance at
parent-teacher conferences.
§
Surveys of
parental involvement in governance.
§
Annual surveys
of parental satisfaction and classroom involvement.
§
Data collected
on the frequency and type of parent-school contact.
§
Collaborations
with social service agencies.
§
Translated
documents available to parents and families.
§
Fiscal support
for initiatives and improvements.
Question
2: What are the
barriers to successful partnerships?
§
Some
administrators fail to implement all aspects of existing
policies.
§
Inability of
some teachers to participate in parental involvement activities outside of the
regular school day.
§
Inability of the
State Education Department to effectively enforce regulations governing parental
involvement.
§
Some parents are
not always included in meaningful consultation with schools and districts.
§
Some school
security staff have no training in parental involvement or customer
service.
§
Some schools and
districts do not publish parent-friendly guides on parent
rights.
§
Some schools and
districts do not use existing system and community resources to increase the
participation of non-English speaking parents.
§
Some staff need
additional in-service and preservice training.
§
Some partnership
activities are delegated to staff with higher priority
responsibilities.
§
Some parent
coordinators have insufficient training to introduce parents to broader
information, resource and support networks.
§
Some schools and
districts have limited data about parents and families.
§
Some schools and
districts have only a limited use of technology.
Question
3: Provide one or
two examples of policies/programs that encourage
partnerships/involvement.
§
The Parent
Partnership Network of Syracuse provides extensive outreach and advocacy support
for parents.
§
LeMoyne College
Teacher Education program emphasizes cultural competence.
§
YOU!, an
initiative of The Village at
§
In
§
§
§
Case workers
visit parents’ homes and bridge gaps between home and
school.
§
§
Honeoye
Falls-Lima CSD recruits parents to participate in budget development process
(Quality Education Design).
§
EPIC
collaborates with WNED (
§
Question
4: Given
competing priorities, what resources should be committed by the State Education
Department, USNY institutions, districts and schools to develop and support
family partnerships?
§
Build
intra-agency collaborations and promote synergy between SED and
USNY.
§
Build
interagency collaborations to promote synergy between SED/USNY and other
agencies; collaborate with the
Council on Children and Families.
§
Add parental
involvement to curriculum in schools of education.
§
Increase access
to information about schools using technology.
§
Provide
assistance to parents based on surveyed areas of concern.
§
Support and
extend resources for family literacy and adult education.
§
Develop and
publish school report cards that measure the effectiveness of parent involvement
programs.
§
Create new
governance structures for meaningful parental involvement.
§
Develop a
legislative agenda to increase available funding.
§
Conduct
workshops on budgeting and financial management; navigating social service
agencies; accessing community resources; civics and legislative engagement; and
nutrition and health.
§
Establish
professional standards for partnerships.
§
Provide
technical assistance to appropriate USNY institutions.
§
Encourage
schools and districts to reach out to parents in communities and hold meetings
and other events in housing projects and community
centers.
§
Develop and
disseminate models for school leaders and teachers to work in
communities.
§
Ensure that
parents are involved in the development of the District Comprehensive Education
Plan (DCEP), Comprehensive District Education Plan (CDEP) and Comprehensive
Education Plan (CEP).
§
Develop
mentorship programs.
§
Sponsor research
on best practices.
§
Develop quality
indicators for partnerships.
§
Develop a
partnerships master plan.
§
Direct SED to
reallocate resources for the full implementation of a partnerships
policy.