! " # $ % & % ' % ! " ! ! !#! !' $! %! & " ! ! '! ()*
%! + & ! ,!-. /!0
'
" # ' '% $$ (' .! ' 1%
20 /1%
3! ! !4(!551
4!5 -1%
What Parents Expect of Urban Alternative Schools and How These Schools Address Parents’ Expectations to Make Needed Changes
A dissertation submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced studies Of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Education
In Urban Educational Leadership Of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services
2010
by
Shirley Kaye Gibson
M.A. University of Louisville, 1979 B.A. Morehead State University, 1972
Committee Members
Dr. Nancy A. Evers, Chairperson Dr. Roger L. Collins Dr. Barbara J. Hammel Dr. James W. Koschoreck ii
Abstract
Several studies have examined parent expectations of schools in general
(Gewertz, 2008; Carney-Hall, 2008; Keller, 2008; Stelmach, 2005; Boal, 2004; Lawson
2003; Wherry, 2003; Cheney, 2002; Bomotti, 1996; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). Other studies have more specifically addressed parents’ expectations of urban schools and their reasons for choosing private and magnet schools over public urban schools for their children (Ghazal 2006; Spann, Kohler, Frank & Soenksen, 2003; Goldring & Hausman,
1999). However, little is known about what parents expect of urban alternative “last chance” schools in particular. This research study used qualitative methods to explore the stories of parents, teachers, and principals in three urban alternative “last chance” schools located in the Midwestern United States. The study used school archival data, field observations, and transcripts of in-depth interviews with 17 parents, 6 teachers, and 3 principals to understand parents’ expectations of these schools.
The research questions for this study were: What do parents expect of urban alternative “last chance” schools; are these schools meeting parents’ expectations; and how are these schools changing to address parents’ expectations?
The research showed most parents of urban alternative students expect a quality education that meets the needs of their children, credit recovery for on time high school graduation, frequent and timely communication from school to home, a safe learning environment, school personnel who genuinely care for their children, small group social skills classes, and opportunities for increased parent involvement in their child’s education. The research efforts of this study also indicated that educators agreed with parents that their greatest expectation for their children was that they graduate from high iii school on time. Urban alternative educators also felt that parents expect staff members to communicate openly and freely with them concerning their children’s needs. And finally, school staff members indicated that parents expect them to meet their child’s individual educational needs.
The research from this study also indicated that most parents agreed that urban alternative schools are meeting or exceeding their expectations for their children’s academic success and social needs. Most parents also agreed that staff members were doing their best to provide timely communication to them concerning their child’s academic progress. Many parents indicated that although they felt free to voice their concerns, they recalled only a few instances of school-wide change resulting form their input. However, on the other hand, most staff members agreed that urban alternative schools were using parent input to a greater degree to make needed changes in school policies. Data collected from parents and educators alike revealed that most research participants agreed that parents’ greatest expectation of urban alternative schools is that their children receive the same high quality of education that they would expect to receive at traditional school sites.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to the participants who took part in this study. Each parent, teacher, and administrator from the three alternative schools graciously shared their time, insights, and information with me. I thank them for allowing me to enter into their worlds, learn from their experiences, and share in their efforts to improve education for our urban alternative students.
I am indebted to Dr. Evers, my advisor and committee chairperson. She has stood beside me through life’s up and downs, encouraging me to continue despite delays and obstacles. Her high standards, excellence in research, and devotion to education have inspired me to persist. Thank you for being a superb role model.
Special thanks to all my committee members, Dr. Barbara Hammel, Dr. James
Koschoreck, and Dr. Roger L. Collins, who encouraged and supported me throughout my studies at the University of Cincinnati. Thanks to each one for your feedback and suggestions that have contributed greatly to this study.
Thanks to my family and friends for their support and their understanding of my limited time. Thanks to my mother, sons, grandchildren, and husband for their interest, help, encouragement, and love over the past three years.
A special thanks to my cohort, Stacy Millburg, Yejida Mack, Michael Gaines,
Mike Sharp, Mortenous Johnson, and Stephen Hooker. I cherish your friendship, encouragement, and support. Finally, thanks to the University of Cincinnati and the
College of Education for providing me the opportunity to pursue my doctoral studies and fulfill my dreams in the field of Urban Educational Leadership. v
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Rich, and my granddaughter, Nathalie, whose patience, understanding, and support made it possible for me to attain my greatest educational aspiration. Thank you for helping me realize my dream. vi
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...ii
Acknowledgments..……………………………………………………………………....iv
Dedication……….………………………………………………………………………...v
Table of Contents……………………….………………………………………………...vi
Chapter I: Statement of the Problem and Review of the Literature………….……………1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1
Research Questions………………………………………………………………..6
Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………..6
Alternative Schools………………………………………………………..7
History and Development of Alternative Schools………………...7
Characteristics of Alternative Schools…………………………...10
Parent Expectations and Involvement……………………………………14
Expectations……………………………………………………...15
Academics………………………………………………..15
School Climate…………………………………………...16
Communication…………………………………………..17
Opportunities for parent involvement……………………18
Involvement……………………………………………………...19
Parent and school collaboration………………………….19
Parent partnership models………………………………..24
Change…………………………………………………………………...29
Summary…………………………………………………………37 vii
Chapter II: Design and Methodology……………………………………………………39
Rationale for Qualitative Study………………………………………………….39
Identification of the Sites………………………………………………………..43
The Metropolitan Area…………………………………………………..43
The Three Schools……………………………………………………….44
Green Spring Academy………………………………………….45
Upper Heights Alternative………………………………………46
Edwards Community……………………………………………50
Gaining Entrée…………………………………………………………………..53
Identification of Participants…………………………………………………….55
Researcher’s Role………………………………………………………………..56
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………...58
Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………………..60
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...61
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………....….63
Summary…………………………………………………………………...…….63
Chapter III: Analysis of the Data………………………………………………………...64
Individual Stories of the Three Urban Alternative Schools…………………….. 67
Green Spring Academy…………………………………………………..67
Upper Heights Alternative……………………………………………….94
Edwards Community…………………………………………………...114
Parents’ Expectations of Urban Alternative Schools………………….………..125
What are Parents’ Expectations of Urban Alternative Schools?...... 125 viii
Are Urban Alternative Schools Meeting Parents’ Expectations?...... 130
How are Urban Alternative Schools Changing to Address Parents’
Expectations?...... 133
Summary…………………………………………………………………….….138
Chapter IV: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications………………………………...142
Summary…………………………………………………………………….….142
Findings and Conclusions………………………………………………….…...147
Implications………………………………………………………………….….162
References………………………………………………………………………….…...169
Appendices………………………………………………………………………….…..179
Appendix A: Researcher’s Letter to Parents…………………………….……...179
Appendix B: Guidelines for Individual Interviews with Parents………….……180
Appendix C: Guidelines for Individual Interviews with Teachers and
Principals...……………………………………………….………181
Appendix D: Observation Guide……………………………………………….182
Appendix E: Informed Consent Form…………...……………………………...183
Chapter I 1
Statement of Problem and Review of the Literature
One of the greatest challenges faced by large urban school districts is to improve
communication between school personnel and parents. Parent involvement has long been
recognized as a major factor in promoting student academic success and ultimately
predicting vocational stability (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Comer et. al., 1996; Epstein, 2001;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson, 2007). School districts attempt to involve parents
in supporting student academic achievement, positive socialization, values acquisition,
and equitable education attainment (Fuhrman & Lazerson, 2005; Gutmann, 1987;
Robinson, 2007). Current research and practice provides examples of parental
involvement through a support model. According to this model, the role of parents, both
at home and in the school, is to support the work of teachers (Brown, 2007). Using the
support model, research conducted over the past several years has shown that the level of
parental involvement directly corresponds to the socioeconomic status of the family
(Moles, 1993; Vaden-Kiernan & McManus, 2005; Brown, 2007). Further, other
qualitative studies have shown that a lack of parental involvement in schools reflects the
diminished role that education plays in the lives of many middle-class and working-class
families (Lareau, 1987, 2000; Brown, 2007).
Within the past decade the number of alternative education programs serving
youth at risk for academic failure has risen substantially. Part of the reason for this
increase in the number of these schools has been the result of redefining or modifying the
student population served by alternative schools. Alternative education programs often viewed as “individualized opportunities designed to meet the educational needs of youth identified as at-risk for school failure,” (Foley & Pang, 2006, p. 1) have been modified to 2 also include programs for disruptive youth who are experiencing difficulty in traditional schools (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1999). As a result of this restructuring, these “last chance” alternative school programs are faced with the challenge of developing innovative and appropriate academic programs while at the same time emphasizing a disciplinary orientation for students too disruptive for the traditional school setting (Foley, & Pang, 2006).
Parent involvement is crucial to the success of these “last chance” alternative schools. However, “research over the past 35 years has consistently shown that disadvantaged parents are less active in supporting teachers than middle-class parents, and that minority parents are less positive in their support of teachers than White parents”
(Brown & Beckett, 2007, p. 502). According to multiple and diverse criteria used to guide admission of students into alternative education programs, most students are the children of these disadvantaged parents (Foley & Pang, 2006). Students most often admitted to alternative disciplinary schools are there as a result of home school referral, truancy, suspension/expulsion from traditional school, academic underachievement, potential dropout status, or teen parent issues (Foley & Pang, 2006).
Students assigned to alternative disciplinary schools are highly representative of minority groups, are older because of previous retentions, are potential dropouts, and are experientially advanced because of life situations peculiar to their life environments
(Foley & Pang, 2006). These students enter school with a unique set of needs. Most have experienced several educational set backs already. Some act out in the classroom to cover up the fact they are illiterate or poor readers at best (Brown & Beckett, 2007). 3
Urban school children bring even more serious social issues with them to the
alternative school site. These children have often witnessed a violent death of a family
member, know class members who have been killed in crossfire shootings, and know that
the drug or gang culture awaits them just in case they fail out of school (Davis, 2006).
They suffer further as a result of legislative policies that have reduced social welfare
income supplements as a result of changing or eliminating many government programs over the years affecting children’s economical status. This lack of needed resources is particularly devastating when considering the fact that many of these students receive no child support from their absent fathers (Weimann, Agurcia, Rickert, Berenson & Volk,
2006). Consequently, parents of these students carry a host of social problems and obstacles with them when they enroll their children in alternative schools.
These low income, often minority parents, frequently feel alienated from the educational staff who work with their children. Parents who find themselves trapped in poverty, as well as “parents of color have historically well-founded skepticism of schools,” (Robinson, 2007, p. 4) stemming from their own experiences of inequality, social disenfranchisement, and racial marginalization at various levels of life including housing, employment, and especially education (Anyon, 1997; Ravich, 2000). Parental skepticism may also be a result of parents’ own childhood school experiences which have left them feeling alienated and unworthy of involvement. Some educators continue to
“perpetuate this skepticism by maintaining a distance between themselves and student
families,” (Robinson, 2007, p. 4) by failing to include parents in the education of their
children. (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003). 4
As a result of previous negative experiences, these parents are often filled with anger, suspicion, rejection, frustration, and distrust for the school system. They may not understand why their child has been “put out” of school and often feel they are victims of unfair treatment from administrators who do not care enough to call them and set up appointments for conference times to discuss their child’s problems. They feel pushed aside into yet another program that they suspect will do very little for their child.
Consequently, they often question their child’s assignment into the alternative school setting. These parents frequently identify a host of pressing needs for their children, and many report that schools are not doing enough to address these as priorities (Spann,
Kohler, Frank & Soenksen, 2003). Parents of these urban students need to become active participants in the schools’ policy and decision making efforts.
In order to move parents into their rightful position as active stakeholders in the educational system, school personnel need to listen to parents as they express their needs and expectations for their children (Robinson, 2007). Parents often choose urban magnet schools over non-magnet schools as a result of seeking smaller class sizes, more technology in instruction, a more convenient location, and more frequent opportunities for parental involvement (Goldring & Hausman, 1999). Other parents choose private urban schools expecting a safer environment, better discipline, a stronger academic curriculum, or a particular religious education (Ghazal, 2006).
Simply stated, these are some of our urban parents’ expectations. But are alternative schools sensitive to parents’ expectations, and what changes do alternative school leaders need to make to address parents’ expectations? Educational reform will require the joint efforts of parents and schools collaborating together for the benefit of the 5
children. As parents of urban students work with school personnel to improve the quality
of their children’s education, parents will become more experienced in their new
collaborative role with school personnel. Gutmann (1987) clearly defines the parents’
role in the education of children in her augmentation of Noah Webster’s (1790) essay
“On the Education of Youth in America”:
Education…forms the moral character of citizens...[Further, since] democracies
must rely on the moral character of parents, teachers,…and ordinary citizens to
educate future citizens, democratic education begins not only with children who
are to be taught but also with citizens who are to be their teachers (p. 49).
These “teachers” include parents, school personnel, community members, and all
adults who work together to promote the educational development of children in our society. “Since children are influenced by these various actors, it seems that public institutions should be purposeful in creating opportunities for all stakeholders in school communities including parents, to have a place where they can exercise their democratic rights and have a voice in the discourse of the education of our nation’s children”
(Robinson, 2007, p.2). The creation of these equitable supports and avenues make possible the dream of an equal education for all children. These supports should certainly include parents since they have a knowledge base of their children’s needs as well as a committed interest in their children’s educational success.
Although we have general information about parent expectations of urban schools, little is known about what parents expect of urban alternative schools in particular. Additionally, little is known about whether these schools are meeting parent expectations, whether these schools are seeking to know about parent expectations, or if 6 alternative schools are using parent suggestions to make needed change within alternative school programs. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate parents’ expectations of an urban alternative last-chance school and how that school addresses parents’ expectations to make needed changes.
Research Questions
The questions explored by this study are:
1. What do parents expect of urban alternative schools?
2. Are urban alternative schools meeting parents’ expectations?
3. How are urban alternative schools changing to address parents’ expectations?
This research will be significant to urban alternative school leaders who desire to develop successful educational programs for students at risk for academic failure and dropping out of school. Knowing parents’ expectations for these alternative school programs will enable educational leaders to understand how to make meaningful changes that address parents’ needs and concerns.
Review of the Literature
A review of literature on urban alternative education, parents’ expectations, and change affirms the notion that parent involvement is critical to establishing, sustaining, and improving urban alternative education. First, a review of the history, development, and characteristics of alternative schools is provided. Second, literature concerning parent expectations provides information in the following areas: involvement, collaboration, and empowerment through parent partnership models. Third, studies related to educational change and sustainability complete the review. 7
Alternative Schools
Although the term alternative school has traditionally referred to “public schools which are established by school systems to serve populations of students who are not academically succeeding in the traditional public school environment” (Kallio & Sanders,
1999, p. 27), a common definition of alternative schools accepted by practitioners, administrators, researchers, and policymakers does not currently exist (Lehr & Lange,
2003). Further, “the alternative education field has a major divide between the differing philosophies of alternative programs” and lacks empirical evidence to identify the
“components necessary to create effective alternative educational programs” (Quinn,
Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006, p. 11). Regardless of the obvious ambiguity of terms, alternative schools have become safety nets for those students who would have failed academically or dropped out of school.
History and Development of Alternative Schools
Early alternative schools emerged in the 1960s and 1970s designed to engage students who were “turned off” and had “tuned out.” These early alternative schools attempted to focus on the whole child tending to be “experimental in nature,” encouraging students to “look within” and “express themselves openly” (McGee, 2001, p.
588). Various educational philosophies provided the groundwork for several movements within the U. S. educational system including the free school movement and the freedom school (Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006). Early alternative schools often incorporated the phrase “Free School” or “Open School” in their names such as the
Jefferson County Open School located in Lakewood, Colorado, and the St. Paul Open
School, in St. Paul, Minnesota. This free school movement based its educational 8 philosophy and political ideology on the work of A. S. Neill, a progressive educator who founded Summerhill, a private residential school in Great Britain in 1921 (Conley, 2002).
Neil believed that traditional schools confined students preventing them from exercising their freedoms needed to learn.
The philosophy guiding the freedom school purported the idea that traditional schools were not appropriate for African-American students because these schools produced “subjects, not citizens” (Conley, p. 63). The mission of the freedom school was to teach the basic core classes—reading, writing, and speaking skills—through the presentation of Black history (Conley, 2002).
According to McGee the definition of alternative education has evolved over the years to include students with a much broader spectrum of personal and social problems that were not as prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s. Today’s alternative schools serve students who confront an assortment of the following issues: divorced parents; dysfunctional home life; financial instability; high mobility; academic failure; poor anger management skills; limited health care; physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; premature death of loved ones; and alcoholic or drug addicted parents (McGee, 2001).
Alternative schools have also been defined as an outgrowth of the charter school movement. One such school was established in 1967 for dropouts in Newark, New
Jersey. Though the term “alternative school” was unknown then, this school was essentially “chartered” by the state of New Jersey as a tuition-free private high school, charging no tuition as an experiment in juvenile-delinquency prevention with the only selection criteria being that the students had dropped out of school and had at least one arrest and conviction on their juvenile records (Fruchter, 2007). 9
Despite the widespread existence of various alternative school programs, a generic description of what constitutes an alternative education program continues to be elusive (Atkins, 2001, Lehr & Lange, 2003). As early as 1974, Smith defined an alternative school as any school that (a) provides alternative learning experiences beyond those provided by the traditional schools within its community and (b) is available to all students at no additional cost (Smith, 1974). Based on this definition, numerous examples of alternative school programs exist throughout the United States. Examples would include private and public alternative programs, charter schools, juvenile detention education programs, as well as adult education programs (Atkins, Bullis & Todis, 2005).
As alternative school programs have become more widespread, the challenge of defining alternative education has increased as well. In 1994, Raywid developed a three- level classification system for classifying alternative school programs in the United
States:
(a) Type I--schools are attended by choice (e.g. magnet schools) and are developed
around specific strategies and programs.
(b) Type II--schools are described as last chance schools where students are sent as a
last effort to avoid suspension or expulsion.
(c) Type III--schools are remedial and therapeutic in nature (Raywid, 1994).
As changes continued to occur within the field of education concerning alternative schools, Raywid (1998) redefined her structure to “capture the complexities of alternative education today” (Quinn, Jeffrey, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006, p. 12). 10
The restructuring also has three levels:
1. Change the student with alternatives that attempt to fix the student. Students are
temporarily assigned to highly structured settings with therapeutic components
available.
2. Change the school by modifying the traditional curriculum to focus on a highly
positive school climate.
3. Change the educational system by making system-wide changes in the
traditional school system. This approach has led to the “small-schools movements
and the school-within-a-school movement” (Quinn, Jeffrey, Poirier, Faller, Gable
& Tonelson, p. 12).
Regardless of all the efforts to define what an alternative program should be, controversy continues to persist. Recent research indicates that alternative education should be defined on a state level. However, only about half of the states report passing legislation which addresses alternative education (Katsiyannis & Williams, 1998).
However, in 2002, the U. S. Department of Education defined an alternative education school as a “public elementary/secondary school that addresses needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school, provides nontraditional education, serves as an adjunct to regular school, or falls outside the categories of regular, special education or vocational education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 55).
Characteristics of Alternative Schools
Alternative schools continue to provide supportive learning environments that address the specific needs of specific groups of students (Dick, Kaiser, Waters & Perry,
2003; Korn, 1990). Some alternative school programs were established to address the 11 educational and vocational needs of students who were otherwise unsuccessful in the public school system. Those most pressing needs of today’s alternative school students include dropout prevention, credit recovery, social skills education, and graduation (Coyl,
Jones & Dick, 2004). Alternative schools support students in these areas by utilizing an approach and philosophy that differs from the traditional school system in a number of ways. Korn (1990) outlined these differences in the following manner:
1. Students explore their personal interests independently.
2. Teachers develop lesson plans that are flexible and adaptable to individual
needs of students.
3. Students work jointly with teachers to set individual goals, competing with
themselves rather than peers.
4. These core concepts are characteristic of educational philosophies of
alternative schools that support students who are potential dropouts and are at
risk for academic failure (Coyle, Jones & Dick, 2004).
In an effort to provide empirical evidence to identify the components of effective alternative education programs, the results of a research study “suggest that these alternative programs create personalized environments in which students feel respected and fairly treated and where expectations for social, interpersonal, and academic success are supported” (Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006, p. 13). This research further revealed that students characterized an effective alternative school as one in which fairness is enforced, mutual respect exists between teachers and students, teachers utilize a non-authoritarian teaching approach, and an openness to student suggestions 12 concerning change and flexibility is evident in the school program (Quinn, Poirier, Faller,
Gable & Tonelson).
A qualitative research study that also provides data from student interviews further helps to identify components of an effective alternative high school. The research was conducted among students in a nonpunitive alternative high school serving a student body of half American Indian, with the balance being African American, White, and
Latino. Although this school offers a “last chance at secondary education,” it was defined by its critics as utilizing a curriculum that was “too easy” and hiring teachers who were
“too soft” (Jeffries, Hollowell & Powell, 2004, p. 64). Although this school serves a population of students whose academic achievement is hindered by a vast array of social problems, these same students define their school as safe, welcoming, and educationally strong, preparing them for their individual futures. These seemingly contradictive descriptors help provide a total picture of alternative educational programs.
Characterizing alternative education programs through the eyes of students improves programs and services (Darling & Price, 2004). By utilizing student voice in an effort to make needed changes to improve alternative educational programs, a California research study shows that students value the following characteristics in alternative school programs:
• solid educational opportunities;
• challenging classes; and
• gifted and dedicated teachers.
Students participating in this research study primarily provided their ideas of effective alternative education by completing an exit questionnaire, providing data which gave 13 voice to their ideas and suggestions for more effective alternative education programs
(Darling & Price, 2004).
To further describe alternative schools, a research study suggests that functional curriculum assessment, program assessment, and continual staff development are necessary components of effective alternative school programs (Tissington, 2006). Such programs are established to “meet the educational needs of youth identified as at-risk for school failure” (Foley & Pang, 2006). This research study found that alternative programs tend to be site-based, often operating in substandard physical facilities with limited academic supports. The student population is usually comprised mostly of high school aged students. The school typically uses a general educational curriculum supplemented with vocational educational education and serves a large number of students identified as disabled. The most widely supported common characteristics of alternative education programs include the following characteristics:
• small class size;
• individual attention;
• a supportive environment;
• education relevant to students’ futures; and
• involving students in flexible decision making.
(Lange & Sletten, 2002)
Multiple and diverse criteria tend to guide admissions of students into alternative education programs. Listed below are the ten most frequently reported criteria for these admissions:
• referral by home school; 14
• social-emotional/behavioral issues;
• truancy;
• expulsion from tradition school;
• suspension for tradition school;
• expulsion eligible from traditional school;
• academic underachievement within designated age range (e.g., 10-19 years);
• dropout;
• potential dropout; and
• teen parent.
(Foley & Pang, 2006)
In summary, the most basic characteristic of an alternative education program is one that makes a “commitment to serve at-risk students in the most basic and comprehensive ways possible” (DeBlois, 2007, p. 39). Although these at-risk students may lack skills in reading, writing, or math, their inability to fit in is often reflected in more deep rooted needs. A “proactive model” of alternative education provides a positive school culture, which depicts the same “excellence and high expectations” exemplified within the traditional school setting (Leone & Drakeford, 1999, p. 86). The overarching goals of these programs are (1) to help students show respect to others and (2) to help students find ways of resolving conflicts peacefully (DeBlois, 2007).
Parent Expectations and Involvement
Parents want to be involved in their children’s education but are sometimes hindered by challenges inadvertently put upon them by the very schools that purport to educate their children. They are often marginalized, avoided, and discouraged from 15
effective parental involvement, perceiving both real and imagined barriers to their own
participation in school/parent partnerships (Lareau, 1996; Olivos, 2006; Lawson, 2003).
Parents are often “instrumentalized and forced into conformity and schooling practices
that perpetuate…their exclusion…” (Olivos, p. ix). When parents perceive that they have
no power in the school decision-making process, they tend to acquiesce to the needs of
the school or simply back off (Lawson 2003). As a result, this “mutual dissatisfaction and distrust between school and family” (Carvalho, 2001, p. 29) hinders effective parental involvement, resulting in a “no-win” dilemma which serves to further alienate parents and teachers (Lightfoot, 1978).
Expectations
Parents desire success for their children and have voiced their expectations in several research studies. Research shows that parents’ expectations of schools can be classified according to the following broad topics: academics, school climate, discipline, communication, and opportunities for parent involvement (Wherry, 2003; Gewertz, 2008;
Lawson, 2003; Stelmach, 2005).
Academics. Parents state that “…the single most important thing [that schools can do] is to set high expectations for academics” (Wherry, p. 6) by presenting a challenging curriculum. In a case study involving three mothers’ experiences in an Alberta initiative for school improvement, parents also expected schools to provide a “well-rounded education” for their children as well as equip them with “basic skills” for life (Stelmach, p. 173). The three mothers felt that schools that provide children with a “well-rounded”
education do so by equipping the children with a “wide range of knowledge and skills.”
Two of the three mothers described a “broad based” education as one that incorporates 16
academic and social competence, as well as cultural experiences into the curriculum. By
identifying these expectations, parents showed that their first concern was for their
children to be both academically and socially successful, while at the same time gaining
the necessary skills for their future life and work (Stelmach, 2005). Information resulting
from interviews of 30 parents sending their children to urban Catholic schools revealed
that these parents expected their children “to learn everything they can, be exposed to
different teaching methods, be prepared for high school, and never be behind (Ghazal,
2006).
Parents also expect help with their own academic needs from their children’s
schools. Bicultural parents who need help because of language barriers, or other parents
who need tutoring assistance acquiring their graduate equivalency test sometimes look to
the school for help in these areas. The results of interviews from 13 African American
parents of low socioeconomic standing revealed that the school should provide “school-
based job training programs and GED classes to increase the skills and capacities of
parents and community members” (Lawson, 2003, p. 122). Parents want extended hours
for afternoon, evenings, and weekends to allow families to “engage in recreational and
learning activities, and parents to attend adult education and parenting classes” (Boal,
2004.
School climate. A positive school culture seeks to create and maintain a safe and orderly educational community that keeps students in school and engaged in learning
(Cincinnati Public School Affairs Department, 2008), thus promoting a positive school climate. Parents from around the country shared their expectations of schools in an effort to offer advice to professionals who deal with their children. Parents of special needs 17 children stated in response to survey questions that smaller class size was a high priority for them (Cheney, 2002). Parents also expect the school to make their children feel safe and protected from bullies on the playground (Wherry, 2003). Along with academics, parents also expect teachers to maintain a disciplined environment where children learn values such as respect for others and responsibility for their actions in a back to basics school environment that stresses both discipline and character education (Bomotti, 1996).
Parents want teachers to teach “responsibility, community, and fairness,” while at the same time instilling a “love for learning” within the child (Wherry, p. 6). When discipline issues occur with older students, parents also have high expectations for students’ due process rights which include the opportunity to meet with teachers, principals, and hearing officers (Carney-Hall, 2008).
Communication. Parents expect to be informed by their child’s classroom teacher.
They expect to receive information from the school about what children are learning in class, what they need in the classroom, what the teacher’s concerns are about the child, and what the overall expectations of the school are. Parents want to know when their children are having problems either academically, behaviorally, or socially before it is too late. Parents want lots of information, especially concerning such matters as testing, test- taking tips, study tools, etc. Parents want teachers to address their child’s individual needs and abilities in a “positive, caring, way.” Parents expect teachers’ communications home to be fashioned in a positive way. In other words, parents want to know the good points as well as the negative ones concerning their child. Parents love a weekly email from teachers to remind them of tests, upcoming assignments, and school events. They state that these frequent messages help them become more involved in their child’s 18
education. Parents also appreciate a school Web site about daily assignments, future tests,
and overall curriculum information. This type of information helps “bridge the gap
between the school and parents” (Wherry, 2003). Finally, parents want more support
from educators during those transitional years, grades 8 and 9, concerning their child’s
plan for success in high school, opportunities to be involved in selecting course work
requirements for their child’s graduation, and a single point of contact with the secondary
school for gaining information about graduation and college requirements (Gewertz,
2008).
Opportunities for parent involvement. Research shows that parents want to be
involved in their child’s education, even if they are not presently involved (Epstein &
Hollifield, 1996). Parents expect teachers, administrators, and counselors to show them
how to help their children improve their math and reading scores, improve attendance, as
well as how to meet other important goals. Parents indicated that they expected their
children to complete high school, continue their education in preparation for self-support,
and live a productive, happy, healthy life (Mack, 2004). Parents want to have a voice in
their child’s school decision making process because parents believe their experiences,
knowledge, and expertise are also important to the well-being of the school (Mack, 2004;
Lawson, 2003). Parents want to be involved, “both individually and collectively, in decisions regarding their children’s education, including the establishment of goals and standards” (Boal, 2004). Finally, parents expect to be encouraged by school personnel to become more actively involved in their child’s education (Gewertz, 2008; Boal, 2004;
Bomotti, 1996). 19
Involvement
Although many parents work several jobs outside the home and face other various time restraints, they want to know what they can do in the limited time they have to help their child succeed in school (Epstein & Jansorn, 2004). Even parents who were pointed out by school teachers and administrators as not being involved in their children’s education believed themselves to be involved and wanted to continue to be involved both at home and school.
Parent and school collaboration. Schools working together with families to support children’s learning can be a powerful force for positive change (Barber, 2000).
Research concerning the development, utilization, and improvement of parent partnerships with schools indicate that collaboration with and empowerment of parents is a win-win situation for all--students, parents, schools, and communities (Lawrence-
Lightfoot, 2003; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996; Brown & Beckett, 2007; Sanders, 2008;
Comer, Hayes, Joyner, Ben-Avie, 1996; Comer & Hayes, 1991; Sheldon & Epstein,
2002; Sheldon, 2007). Although everyone supports the idea that parents and teachers should be allies and partners, maintaining effective parent school partnerships can be a challenge (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2001; Keller, 2008; Cohen, Linker & Stutts, 2006).
Research indicates that impediments to effective collaboration between parents and schools can hamper the effectiveness of partnerships intended to improve the academic environment of the child. On the one hand parent involvement can strengthen schools, while on the other hand parent involvement may be perceived to be too demanding and overwhelming for the schools. According to research, parents have changed their approach in viewing schools. “Parents are approaching schools with a 20
contract mentality” (Keller, 2008, p. 11). They are expecting results from schools and
this can often “throw off” educators leading to conflict if unrecognized and unaddressed
(Keller, 2008).
Results from a collaboration model developed on behalf of children with
emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) indicated that “collaborators must continually
maintain a focus on the best interests of the child” while at the same time strive to
remove “barriers and provide incentives for achieving the goals of the partnership model”
(Cohen, Linker & Stutts, 2006, p. 425). Although parent-teacher work has usually
involved gaining the support of the parents for the school, that is “getting parents to see
children more or less as teachers see them,” (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2001, p. 102), teachers
should seek to minimize conflict through negotiation with parents. While some measure of conflict and dissonance is unavoidable and even necessary for optimum social change and child growth, the reality is that education for a majority of children will be successful only when accountability, trust, and responsibility are shared between schools, families, and communities (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2001).
Schools tend to benefit in several areas as a result of implementing school, family,
and community partnerships (Sheldon, 2007; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002). Student behavior
and school discipline improved as a result of school efforts to implement family and
community involvement activities in an attempt to reduce the number of disciplinary
actions taken by school administrators to ensure a learning centered school climate
(Sheldon & Epstein, 2002). Results from this study indicated that “the more family and
community involvement activities were implemented, the fewer students were disciplined
by being sent to the principals’ offices or given detention or in-school suspension” 21
(Sheldon & Epstein, 2002, p. 22). It was determined by these researchers that improved school discipline which led to a safer school was as important to parents as improved academic grades or achievement test scores. Family-involvement interventions also proved to be effective in improving student attendance based on data gathered from the state of Ohio comparing student attendance in schools with parent-school partnerships to student attendance in those schools that did not establish such partnerships. Analyses of data gathered from this study showed that schools implementing school, family, community partnerships not only lowered their student absentee rate from year to year by
.5% but also found that schools who did not implement such partnerships actually experienced increases in student absentee rates from year to year following the study.
(Sheldon, 2007).
In addition to improved student attendance rates, research showed that schools implementing parent partnerships also made gains in academic areas (Sheldon, 2003;
Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Comer, 2005; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Stewart, 2007;
Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Flaspohler, Boone & Kwiatkowski, 2008; Kelly-
Vance & Schreck, 2002; Prins & Toso, 2008).
Schools where parents served on a School Planning and Management Team or other school committees saw improved academic achievement in their students. (Comer,
2005; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson & Davies, 2006). Another bonus benefit of parental collaboration within these committees was the resulting positive and powerful impact experiences in the lives of the parents themselves. After parents worked with teachers to develop and design a Politics and Government curriculum unit, some of them registered and voted in state and local elections for the first time in their lives. Other bonus benefits 22 included parents seeking to further their own educations as well as finding jobs and securing promotions. The benefits were self perpetuating as “one low-income parent went from high school dropout status to a master’s degree and a professional career. Two of her children are now engineers; another is a lawyer, and the fourth is a physician”
(Comer, 2005, p. 41).
Academics in general improved for students in schools where school personnel initiated school-family-community partnerships (Sheldon, 2003; Stewart, 2007;
Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Flaspohler, Boone & Kwiatkowski, 2008; Sanders &
Harvey, 2002; Kyriakides, 2005). Data from 82 elementary urban schools were collected to explore the relationship between community and family involvement and students’ achievement test results. Findings showed that when schools established family partnerships in low-income, urban neighborhood schools, students’ state mandated achievement test scores rose. Findings also showed the importance of schools actively confronting parents and encouraging their participation in these partnerships. In so doing the schools were able to help the parents overcome challenges that might otherwise limit the involvement of families of at-risk students (Sheldon, 2003).
Parental involvement was also associated with students’ overall academic achievement in African American high school students. This quantitative study examined individual and family-level variables to determine how family school involvement influenced student achievement. The results showed that parental involvement as well as student behavior played an important role in increasing students’ achievement in school
(Stewart, 2007). 23
Improved mathematic achievement in schools implementing family partnerships
was evident from data gathered in surveys from 18 elementary and secondary schools.
More specifically, an overall average of 51% of students from the schools with parent
partnerships met or exceeded satisfactory or proficient levels on standardized math tests
(Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). Improvement in students’ reading scores was also indicated
in two other studies involving collaborative family/reading programs (Kelly-Vance &
Shreck 2002; Prins & Toso, 2008).
A series of studies conducted in Great Britain investigated the impact of parent
involvement in school intervention programs. Gains for students in words read per
minute based on pre-test and post-test reading scores indicated a moderate impact of the
parent involvement intervention factor. In addition, 80% of participating parents rated
their own attitude toward reading at higher levels, and 15% reported an increase in
positive attitude toward reading during the year’s participation in the group (Kelly-Vance
& Shreck, 2002). Another study describing parent involvement in developing the Parent
Education Profile instrument used by family literacy programs to rate parents’ support for children’s literacy development found that parents, specifically mothers, are primarily responsible for children’s literacy development and academic success. The study showed
that increased parent involvement correlated positively with increased literacy
achievement (Prins & Toso, 2008).
A quantitative study which examined the level and impact of five different types
of parental involvement on elementary school children’s academic achievement revealed
that members of “dominant” (European American, more highly educated, not eligible for
free lunch program) and “non-dominant” (minority) demographic groups benefited 24 similarly from the effects of parental involvement in the school. This finding was based on data gathered from 415 third through fifth grade students completing the Elementary
School Success Profile and representing three demographic groups--parental educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity (Lee & Bowen, 2006).
The role of parents working with their children in the classroom was examined in a study involving a primary school in Cyprus. As a result of implementing a partnership policy with parents, students improved their achievement levels in all core classes as well in Greek, social science, and mathematics, regardless of socioeconomic background. As a result of their involvement with the students, parents also felt empowered because they claimed their visits had contributed “significantly to improved teacher communication and to student behavior at home” (Kyriakides, 2005, p. 281). This study concluded that teachers utilizing a well planned curriculum often find that parents are a valuable resource in the classroom. Consequently, students also benefit from seeing their parents participating with their teacher in the classroom. They “begin to realize that school is not a world isolated from everyday life, because adults other than teachers value the learning that takes place in school” (Kyriakides, 2005, p. 282).
Parent partnership models. Several research studies describe how effective parent partnership models are established, developed, and sustained to improve student success by decreasing the gap between home and school (Sanders, 2008; Anderson-Butcher,
Lawson, Bean, Flaspohler, Boone &Kwiatkowski, 2008; Brown & Beckett, 2007; Ozer,
2005; Griffith, 2005; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996; Epstein, 2002; Epstein, Sanders, Simon,
Salinas, Jansorn & Voorhis, 2002; Comer, Haynes, Joyner & Ben Avie, 1996; Comer &
Haynes, 1991; Xu & Filler, 2008; Diamond & Gomez, 2004). These studies provide 25 various partnership models and show how these can be adapted to various situations and needs.
A framework for developing a partnership consists of six types of involvement:
1. Parenting: the basic obligations of families;
2. Communicating: the basic obligations of schools;
3. Volunteering: family involvement at school;
4. Learning at Home: family involvement with children on academic activities;
5. Decision Making: family participation in school governance and advocacy;
and
6. Collaborating with the Community: exchanges with community organizations
(Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn & Voorhis, 2002; Epstein &
Hollifield, 1996).
Epstein’s typology is basic to other partnership models found in the literature. For example, Comer’s School Development Program uses a six step plan focused on social supports needed for childhood development of students attending urban schools. Those six “pathways” include the physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical realms of development (Comer, Haynes, Joyner & Avie, 1996). Research which combines a literature review and summaries of several recent developments in partnership models extends the study of family, school, and community partnerships
(Griffith, 2005). These partnership models include accommodations for all parents to be involved in their children’s education, even those low income families with limited resources and time constraints. Community agencies often provide resources which 26
enable these parents to participate with the schools in creating more optimal learning
environments for students.
A study which illustrates how to develop and implement parent liaisons between
home and school promotes collaboration among families, students, educators, and
communities to promote school excellence and advance student success (Sanders, 2008).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate “how liaisons can be trained, integrated
into comprehensive school-based programs of partnership, and held accountable for
reaching out to students and families placed at risk” (Sanders, 2008, p. 288). A case study
demonstrating how parent/school liaisons were developed involving both disadvantaged parents as well as wealthy business people to work side by side on a disciplinary advisory board, demonstrating how parents could work in the schools while teachers and staff visited students’ homes, and demonstrating how parents could give testimonial speeches at the board of education meetings illustrated a partnership model which promoted parent empowerment (Brown & Beckett, 2007).
Research shows how community collaboration can strengthen efforts to create partnerships empowering parents within the school district (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson,
Bean, Flaspohler, Boone & Kwiatkowski, 2008). Expanded collaborative models such as the Ohio Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement “enable educators to gain some influence over students’ out-of-school time and address nonacademic barriers to learning” (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Flaspohler, Boone & Kwiatkowski,
2008, p. 161). This partnership model promotes the idea of sharing the responsibility with all interested parties while striving to effectively carry out initiatives promoting school improvement. 27
Other research on models for partnerships is developed from an ecological perspective (Xu & Filler, 2008; Diamond & Gomez, 2004; Comer & Haynes, 1991).
Comer and Haynes developed an ecological approach whereby parents were involved on three levels: 1) general participation; 2) sponsoring and supporting school programs and helping out in the classroom; and 3) parents elected by parent group to participate on school management teams. These levels are representative of Epstein’s five-part typology of parent participation previously described earlier in this literature review (Comer &
Haynes, 1991).
Research shows that schools working to increase parent involvement should recognize that parent involvement is informed by ecological factors such as social class, race, and prior educational experiences (Diamond & Gomez, 2004). “More recent research has shown the effect of involving families by empowering and enabling them in the process of decision making within the ecological systems” (Xu & Filler, 2008, p. 59).
This ecological perspective regards families and their participation within the school in relation to their environment.
All parents bring differences in social resources to the table of parent involvement. Results of four studies indicate that parents with unequal resources view, interpret, and react differently to perceived notions of what parent involvement has traditionally meant (Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Olivos, 2006; Coco, Goos &
Kostogriz, 2007).
The level of parental involvement is linked to the social class position of parents and to the cultural resources that social class provides them. Findings from this study suggest that although schools ask for very specific types of behaviors from all parents, 28
regardless of their social class, parents approach the family-school partnership with
varying degrees of social resources (Lareau, 1987). Parents also approach family-school
partnerships with different sets of expertise, “educational skills, occupational flexibility,
economic resources, and social networks” (Lareau & Shumar 1996, p. 24). These diverse
parental circumstances suggest that there are no standard perceptions, meanings, or
interpretations of the term parental involvement. In the view of these authors, “Epstein
failed to acknowledge that parents and teachers mean different things when they use
identical words, such as helpful, supportive, concerned, and informed” (Lareau &
Shumar, p. 30).
Research reveals that bicultural parents often interpret parental involvement differently than school personnel. Traditional interpretations of parental involvement which frequently differ from those held by bicultural parents often hinder the development of parent school partnerships (Olivos, 2006). In other words, parent involvement programs usually address how parents should fit into already established programs instead of creating parent involvement programs which really speak to the needs of the parents. Olivos further contends that genuine dialogue will not occur without tension or conflict and proposes a theoretical framework that seeks pathways that would lead to bicultural parent involvement and empowerment. Olivos’ research “seeks to understand the tensions that lead to conflicts between bicultural parents and their children’s schools and why these parents resist the effort of the school personnel” to establish parent partnerships (Olivos, 2006, p. 1). 29
In order to establish parent partnerships that are effective within urban alternative schools, change must occur. The next section discusses models of effective change, change theorists, and the processes through which change can occur.
Change
Educational change is a highly complicated, profound, yet accessible process which is indispensable for innovative reform within our schools (Fullan, 2007). “Planned change in a school is the deliberate and collaborative effort to improve education through the use of valid and appropriate knowledge in solving the problems confronting the school” (Evers, 1982). Planned efforts which bring parents into the decision making process will help urban school leaders more readily meet parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools. For educational reform to be truly effective, parents must be involved in a deep and meaningful way (Fullan, 2007; Epstein et al., 2002). Promoting such change would involve examining parent expectations of the schools where their children attend. In this section, a definition of meaningful change is provided, followed by theories for educational change which involve parents in the process of such change.
Educational change is defined as a “sociopolitical process” which involves some action that individuals take in an effort to improve their surrounding situations. (Fullan,
2007). Fullan further defines this meaningful change as an “innovation that is multidimensional” (Fullan, 2007, p. 30). Implementation of such change within any new policy or program involves at least three components:
(1) the use of new or revised instructional resources, curriculum materials, or
technological approaches;
(2) the use of new teaching approaches, strategies, or activities; and 30
(3) the implementation of alternative theoretical beliefs and pedagogical approaches
for new policies or programs (Fullan, 2007).
These three aspects of change are necessary for achieving a particular goal or set of educational goals. Changes in actual practice can only occur within the realm of these three dimensions -- “…materials, teaching approaches, and beliefs in what people do and think”—if desired outcomes are to be achieved (Fullan, 2007, p. 37).
According to Fullan (2007), the meaning of change will always be “new” because it is a “human endeavor that is particularly dynamic” (p. xiii). Meaningful change involves moral purpose, gaining the best applicable knowledge, and finally motivating change agents to carry out actions that bring about improvement for all of humankind.
Such change agents are those individuals working both within and without the school walls to bring about a more effective education for all children (Havelock, 1995).
Havelock’s (1995) change model describes how change agents can facilitate school improvement. Among these change agents are educators, community members, and parents collaborating together for school improvement. This model demonstrates an organized, step by step process which utilizes a high degree of linkage to carry out change efforts. Examining parent expectations, the application of these expectations, and their role in the change process within the Havelock model provides some innovative ideas for improving urban alternative schools. As true partners, parents can be involved in each of the seven stages of the model: (1) care, (2) relate, (3) examine, (4) acquire, (5) try, (6) extend, and (7) renew.
First, educators need to acknowledge the concerns of parents by actively seeking to involve them in analyzing a need for change. In so doing, both educators and parents 31 are working collaboratively as change agents to determine any real areas of concern. As educators take the lead in this role, they discover where the need for change is most pressing (Havelock, 1995). By inviting, involving, and listening to parents, real needs can be identified and addressed. Understanding the need for change and sharing this concern for change with others within the system is where the change process begins.
Next, as educators continue to reach out to parents as fellow change agents, relationships begin to increase, deepen, and grow stronger as collaboration for effective change continues. Mutual respect increases as a wide network of relations develop simultaneously. As this sense of concern expands, both parents and educators become more interconnected and more able to collaborate as effective change agents.
Examining the concern and defining the problem is the next step in Havelock’s model. As educators continue to elicit information from parents about their expectations for schools, they will be better able to more clearly determine what real problems stand in the way of their children’s educational progress. This is a time consuming process which requires continuous change efforts to reach out to more members in the system, involving additional change agents in this problem framing and solving endeavor.
As change agents continue to define the problem, gather needed resources, search for potential solutions, and make application of these solutions, participation should continue on a wide and practical basis. Havelock suggests that this model will be particularly useful for change agents striving to energize and continue problem-solving efforts of self-renewal within the system. Involving parents in acquiring information which may lead to possible solutions is an important aspect of school improvement. 32
These possible solutions need to be tested in order to determine their potential effectiveness. As change agents work together with clients, or parents, new innovations can be evaluated to determine their usefulness for school improvement. By using this testing process, individuals may “come to accept new ideas and practices and give up old ways of doing things” (Havelock, 1995, p. 131). Acceptance of these new innovative practices seems to be a natural result of collaboration between the change agent and clients. Even so, parents often need time to accept new ideas. They need to become involved and motivated to help carry out new approaches, and they need to gain an understanding of potential innovations. In so doing, parents will be able to make valuable contributions in the adaptations and acceptance of these innovative changes for school improvement (Havelock, 1995).
Since change is cyclic in nature, some problems seem to be in the process of being solved while other new ones are developing and surfacing. This repetitive cycle requires both the change agent and clients to be open to an “on-going change strategy”
(Havelock, 1995, p. 149) whether this strategy is for recycling through the same stages with a new concern or simply approaching the same concern in a new light. From this repetitious process comes renewal. Both the change agent and the parents learn from previous problem solving experiences. As a result of these experiences, members of the system will know each other better, how to work together more effectively, and how to collaborate more productively in a mutual problem solving activity. Skills will become more refined, search strategies for new resources and knowledge will become more developed, and new confidence will be gained for future problem solving challenges.
Finally, change agents and clients will gain encouragement for expanding change 33 opportunities as well as exude an excitement for including more individuals in change efforts over a longer period of time (Havelock, 1995).
Although there seems to be no dearth of recommendations for educational improvement, Fullan (1995) suggests that an innovative approach focused on changing a culture is most useful for effective change. His theoretical approach involves the initiation, implementation, and institutionalization of a particular change. Outcomes are examined to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of such changes. While considering ways to keep effective change going, Fullan (1995) suggests an innovative- focused approach within an organization to keep the educational reform alive. In other words, as change is initiated, more needs for change surface, altering and improving the overall direction of the change process. Following this process, the strategy for change continues to match up with the need as outcomes are evaluated and institutionalized.
Both Havelock and Fullan seem to agree that the involvement of a broad community base is important in the change process. Addressing the needs of the parents to transform and improve schools is paramount to the change process. By considering the expectations of parents for schools, educational leaders can better implement sustainable change as a transforming process for the improvement of the educational system.
In order to promote any kind of change initiative within a school, Fullan provides the following guide for implementing and sustaining positive change:
• provide public service with a sense of moral purpose;
• encourage commitment to changing context at all levels;
• encourage lateral capacity building through networks;
• establish intelligent accountability; 34
• inspire deep learning;
• build duel commitment to short-term and long-term results;
• provide opportunity for cyclical energizing; and
• build a long lever of leadership.
(Fullan, 2005)
In order to promote reform sustainability on the local level, the change agent would “get a team of leaders around [him or her] and map out a strategy and approach that implements the eight elements of sustainability” Fullan, 2005, p. 102). Further, after identifying the problem and presenting the challenge, the change agent would approach it through local reform. In order to sustain the reform, he/she would work with the school staff and parents, anticipating success by adopting Fullan’s suggestions for sustaining positive change.
The change agent continues to promote positive change by providing public service with a sense of moral purpose, involving all concerned participants in the development of a strategic plan for change—a plan that every staff member, student, and parent has contributed to through discussion. One of the major goals of this strategic plan would be “altering the social environment [of the school] for the better” (Fullan, 2005, p.
15). As positive change occurs, teams of teachers, parents, and community members work together collaboratively to bring about needed change.
Positive change initiatives encourage commitment to changing context at all levels, as everyone becomes involved in change efforts. School reform requires changing the whole system within the context of where people work and learn (Fullan, 2005). 35
Teachers, parents, and students would discuss the plan of action that would become the
basis of a new, self-perpetuating, positive change.
The effective change agent continues to promote sustainable change by
encouraging lateral capacity building through networks. By utilizing lateral strategies,
“people learn best from peers (fellow travelers who are further down the road)”
especially when there is opportunity for “purposeful exchange” (Fullan 2005, p. 18)
leading to solutions to problems within. Collaborative problem solving between two
schools could be quite beneficial in efforts to establish and sustain parent/teacher
partnerships. Such lateral interaction would promote sustained improvement for both
schools (Fullan, 2005).
Positive sustainable change is also an outgrowth of establishing intelligent
accountability. Self-evaluation “motivates people to seek positive outcomes” (Fullan
2005, p. 19). Accountability develops as school staff and parent groups establish and strengthen relationships between staff and parent volunteers (Fullan, 2005).
As school staff members and parent groups continue to enjoy the resulting improvements of their collaborative efforts, deep learning is occurring. This type of learning if for “students, teachers, schools…” (Fullan, 2005, p. 22). School staff and parents learn together as they work together to analyze data indicating improvement in the problem area identified for needed change. Staff members and parent groups must be willing to continue their collaborative efforts even when the data might indicate failure. It has often been said that the fastest way to succeed is to double your failure rate (Fullan,
2005). 36
Further success occurs when schools initiate a duel commitment to short-term and long-term results. By setting these “aspirational targets” (Fullan, 2005, p. 25), schools will automatically be investing in larger goals, thus sustaining long term reform.
Consequently, each individual aspect of the strategic plan for improvement would be established by the collaborative efforts between school staff and parents before finally establishing and implementing the full plan (Fullan, 2005).
Providing opportunities for cyclical energizing continues to promote sustainable change (Havelock, 1995; Fullan, 2005). The cyclic nature of energy requires that change agents “constantly adjust, revise, abandon, and expand strategies” (Fullan 2005, p. 24) to develop the best possible plan for establishing and implementing needed change. For best results, staff and parents should meet for some down time, to reflect and refresh before re-engaging in the problem solving process. In so doing, staff members and parents would be refueling their capacity to work together to sustain positive change (Havelock,
1995; Fullan, 2005).
Finally, the successful change agent builds a long lever of leadership in order to create new leaders as staff and parents work together to initiate positive change. As all teachers and potential leaders work together to develop their leadership abilities, new leaders develop out of these efforts. Fullan compares this process to the driving power of an engine sustaining the direction of improvement (Fullan, 2005).
Change needed for school improvement can best be determined by researching parent expectations of a particular school. Understanding parents’ expectations is a necessary factor in determining the discrepancy between how things are and how things should be. Tyler’s definition of the term “needs” expresses that there is “a gap between 37
what is and what should be” (Tyler, 1969, p. 6). Consequently, it is important to
understand parents’ expectations as a key to making meaningful improvements.
Although changing schools for the better is a difficult and challenging process
(Fullan 2007), educational leaders can make it happen through collaboration with parents
to promote a higher level of academic excellence for all students. By adopting
Havelock’s and Fullan’s suggestions for positive change, urban change agents will be
able to utilize a more collaborative, consensus driven approach to improving educational
practices within urban communities. When this type of collaborative effort becomes a
“taken for granted feature” (Datnow, 2005, p. 145) of a school’s planning process, that
school will enjoy the benefits of sustained positive reform. By seeking out,
acknowledging, and responding to parent expectations and involving these parents in
needed change initiatives, urban alternative schools will enjoy the success needed to
provide a quality education for all students, even those assigned to urban alternative “last
chance” schools.
Summary
The number of alternative schools serving students at risk for academic failure and dropping out of school has risen sharply during the past decade. The need for these
“last chance” alternative schools has grown as more and more students are experiencing difficulty in traditional schools due to discipline and academic problems. Since parental involvement has long been recognized as a major factor in promoting the academic success of all students, an examination of parent expectations of these alternative schools will be helpful in addressing needed change for the academic success of students enrolled in these schools. 38
This literature review has provided a close examination of urban alternative
schools, supplying definitions, characteristics, and purposes of these unique schools. This
review also provided research on parents’ expectations of schools and of urban schools in particular. A close look at these expectations revealed that parents have a strong desire to be involved in all aspects of their children’s educational process, especially academics, school climate, and communication. Examples of collaborative, parent partnership models illustrated how school leaders could more effectively address parents’
expectations of urban alternative schools.
The final section of this literature review provided a definition of meaningful
change, followed by theories of educational change involving parents in the change
process. Such problem-solving techniques demonstrate how educational leaders can work
collaboratively with parents as fellow change agents to improve urban alternative
schools. Addressing the needs of parents to transform and improve schools is pivotal to
the change process. By examining the expectations of parents for urban alternative “last
chance” schools, educational leaders can more productively implement sustainable
change as a transformational process within the educational system.
Chapter II describes the design and methodology of this study, and Chapter III
presents the analysis of the data. Chapter IV provides a summary of the study, findings,
conclusions, and implications. 39
Chapter II
Design and Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine parents’ expectations of urban alternative “last chance” schools, if these schools are meeting parents’ expectations, and how these schools are changing to address parents’ expectations. This chapter presents the rationale for the design, identification of the sites, gaining entrée, identification of participants, the researcher’s role, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Pseudonyms for participants, school names, and sites were used to ensure confidentiality and privacy.
Rationale for Qualitative Study
Qualitative methods were used in this research study because they facilitate the acquisition of a comprehensive understanding of parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools and the changes these schools are making to address parents’ expectations. Because qualitative research allows for a high degree of social interaction, it worked well for this type of educational research. Data collected from parent interviews and supplemented by information gleaned from observations of parents in their natural settings were utilized for maximum exploration of parents’ expectations of alternative schools. Data collected from teacher and principal interviews were used to explore teachers’ and principals’ views of parent expectations of alternative schools, if the schools were meeting parents’ expectations of alternative schools, and how these schools are addressing the need for change. Archival information and documents were utilized to determine how schools are changing to meet parent expectations. By employing this technique of in-depth interviewing, participant observation, and review of documents, a 40 research form was developed as data were collected, rather than being determined by a hypothesis to be tested. Following this qualitative method, data were analyzed inductively (Bodgan & Biklen, 2007). Through this qualitative process, theory developed from the bottom up, rather than the top down as occurs in quantitative research. The outcome from this study was similar to a picture that takes shape as the researcher goes along, collecting, examining, and summarizing data. Qualitative research defined as a research approach that “emphasizes collecting descriptive data in natural setting, [that] uses inductive thinking, and [that] emphasizes understanding the subject’s point of view”
(Bodgan & Biklen, 2007, p. 274) accurately matched the research methods and objectives of this study.
Since qualitative research is naturalistic, it utilizes “actual settings as the direct source of data” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 4). This research highlighted parents, teachers, and administrators and their responses to questions in their actual settings as a direct source of information with the researcher functioning as the key instrument for data gathering. “Researchers enter and spend considerable time in schools, families, neighborhoods, and other locales learning about educational concerns” (Bodgan &
Biklen, 2007, p. 4). Meeting parents, teachers, and administrators in their familiar settings contributed to the context of what was observed, heard, and felt. “Qualitative researchers assume that human behavior is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs, and whenever possible, they go to that location” (Bodgan & Biklen, 2007, p. 5).
Throughout this inquiry, the researcher listened to parents, entering their world through a qualitative, interpretative approach which was grounded in the lived experiences of the people (Patton, 2002). This qualitative research design allowed the 41 participants the opportunity to tell their stories, express their hopes and dreams, and point out their needs and concerns (Patton, 2002).
The descriptive nature of qualitative research presents collected data in the form of words rather than numbers. For example, data collected from parent, teacher, and principal interviews were analyzed in original full text form to maintain the richness of the narration. These data transported the researcher into the world of the research participants, showing the participants’ world, capturing and communicating the experiences of their worlds in their own words, and finally, telling a story which in and of itself added “flavor” to the qualitative data (Patton, 2002, p. 47).
Qualitative research is also intuitive, allowing for data to be analyzed inductively
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Abstractions are built out of the data as they develop and emerge from the bottom up. Consequently, theory is grounded in the data. In other words, the direction of the study comes from the collected data. The qualitative researcher in this study “[used] the first part of the study to learn what the important questions [were]”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 7). The important concerns revealed themselves as the study progressed. Within this theoretical framework, the researcher was able to build upon the words of the participants to analyze emerging themes as fieldwork was continued--an understanding of what parents’ expect of urban alternative schools, if these schools meet parents’ expectations, and how parents and educators view needed change within these schools. The grounded theory approach was used to gather data from parent, teacher, and principal interviews, identify core categories, discover relationships among these categories, and analyze theories hidden within the data. This process provided the 42 framework for the researcher’s writing through the collecting, coding, categorizing, and writing phases of my research.
In this study, the grounded theory began with the initial research question which focused on parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, whether these schools met their expectations, and how these schools were changing to meet parents’ expectations.
To answer these questions, field work involving in depth interviews and research observations were utilized. To carry out the research study, five kinds of data collections were used: (a) parent responses to in depth interview questions probing parents’ expectations of and experiences with urban alternative schools; (b) field notes on observations of parents’ conversations, actions, and interactions with others within the naturalistic setting; (c) teacher and principal responses to in-depth interview questions probing their approaches to meaningful change for meeting parent expectations; (d) field notes and observations of teachers and principals during interviews; and (e) archival data and current documents such as school newsletters, student handbooks, organizational reports, news articles, printed school programs, etc. containing meaningful data for exploration of school change.
Finally, qualitative research seeks to find out “how different people make sense of their lives” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 7). Qualitative researchers use the data to discover what the participants are experiencing, how they are interpreting their experiences, and how they structure the social world in which they live (Bogdan &
Biklen). This study continued to develop and take shape through dialogue and interaction between the parents, teachers, school administrators and the researcher. This qualitative research design revealed how parents made sense of their own lives and gave the 43 researcher a view into the parents’ perspectives concerning urban alternative schools.
This qualitative research study also revealed how teachers and administrators view needed change within urban alternative schools and how these schools are changing to meet those needs.
Identification of the Sites
Three urban alternative “last chance” schools in the same Midwestern urban area were selected to be the sites of this study. The school site selection criteria were: 1) urban environment; 2) “last chance” alternative schools; 3) accessible to the researcher; and 4) school principals have expressed willingness for schools to participate. All three schools were located in the same urban area. The three schools met the selection criteria of being classified as urban alternative “last chance” schools, were accessible to the researcher, and were willing to participate.
The Metropolitan Area
This metropolitan area includes 10 counties in three different states and according to the 2008 United States Census has an estimated population of just over two million people. Between the 2000 and 2008 Census population estimate, the regional population growth was 7.22 percent, just under the national population growth rate of 7.96 percent over the same period of time. As the metropolitan area population continues to grow at this rate and to expand geographically, it is anticipated that the combined mega-region will have a population of over 3.2 million and be ranked roughly the 14th largest in the nation. The city’s core metropolitan area spans parts of two states and has a total area of
79.6 square miles, of which 78.0 square miles is land and 1.6 square miles is water. The city spreads over a number of hills, bluffs, and low ridges overlooking a large river which 44 provides a major means of water-born commerce for energy products such as natural gas, coal, and crude oil, as well as grain.
Although this urban area is home to several major corporations, sports teams, a variety of elementary and secondary schools both public and private, as well as various colleges and universities, it plays host to numerous musical, filming, and theater operations, has been classified as the 10th most walkable city in the United States, and is renowned for its nineteenth-century Italian architecture. It is also home to one of the worst riots in American history. The resulting social tensions have continued over the years, more recently resulting in incidents of violent crime, including homicides.
Consequently, according to the 2007 FBI crime statistics, this city was ranked as the 16th most dangerous city in the United States. That same year the core city’s racial makeup was 52% Caucasian, 45% African American, 2.0% Asian, and 1.0% Hispanic or Latino.
Approximately 21.9% of the city’s population was living below the poverty line.
This metropolitan area is characterized by a variety of contrasting descriptors from wealth to poverty, advancement to recession, and cultural to criminal enterprise.
Despite these obvious contrasts, in 2009 this metropolitan area was listed fourth on
CNN’s top 10 cities for new college graduates.
The Three Schools
The sites of this study are three schools: Green Spring Academy, Upper Heights
Alternative Middle and High School, and Edwards Community School. Green Spring
Academy and Edwards Community School are public high schools serving students in grades 9-12, and Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School is a combined 45 middle and high school serving students in grades 7-12. Student placement into these schools is by the following criteria: court mandated, parent mandated, or choice of child.
Green Spring Academy. Green Spring Academy is a school of choice within an urban public school district. It was the product of the dream of one school administrator and the parents of a young student who was unable to thrive in traditional schools due to mental health issues. The school administrator worked with other interested educators, local students, and community volunteers to clean up and restore a vacated public school building which opened in the fall of 2004 as an urban alternative “last chance” school for
43 students. The academy’s first staff consisted of four first-year teachers. The district’s new open enrollment policy allowed any district in the state to send students to the academy which could have enrolled up to 51 high school students.
Green Spring Academy continues to be funded through a combination of grants, state foundation aid, rental revenue, and tuition paid by other school districts sending their students to the academy. One of the most interesting and unique features of the academy is its school day-care center operated on site which also generates revenue through government vouchers and tuition payments. The academy is licensed for 46 children, ages six weeks to four years. Students, school district staff, and the school community get priority to these day-care services.
Work-based learning opportunities and service learning projects, along with core academic courses, constitute the academic program of the academy. Glen Spring’s
Discovery Program is a unique feature of their social skills curriculum. Students learn about team building, anger management, problem solving, conflict resolution, and self- assertiveness by completing this required program. Students thrive on a “learn-by doing” 46 school experience enabled by a flexible daily and yearly schedule so that students can be gainfully employed while at the same time completing their academic requirements for graduation.
Green Spring Academy now has a student body consisting of 50 students in grades 9-12; 50% are Caucasian, 50% are African America, 50% are male, 50% are female and 10% are teenage parents. Students are from low socioeconomic backgrounds with 98% receiving free or reduced lunches. The staff consists of one principal, one assistant principal, four content teachers, one intervention specialist, one mental health specialist, one music teacher (one bell assignment), and one maintenance worker. Green
Spring Academy is a school of choice “last chance” alternative. All students are at risk for dropping out of school and must make a one year commitment. Students come from nine different school districts, from either open enrollment policies or superintendent agreements. Many students eventually remain at this school for two or three years. Green
Spring Academy operates on a block schedule which allows students to earn up to eight credits per academic year. Students also may earn academic credits for after school part time jobs applied toward their (Career Based Initiative) CBI program. Green Spring
Academy is proud to be classified “effective” as designated by the Ohio Department of
Education.
Upper Heights Alternative. Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School was established in the winter of 2002 and was housed in a renovated YMCA where it served approximately 40 students from the local traditional high school. It soon expanded to include middle school students from the local traditional middle school as well. This expansion resulted in a total enrollment of 60. The program remains at the same location 47 and has most recently expanded again to include students from a neighboring urban high school.
Students attending the Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School are at high risk for failing and dropping out of school. Ninety percent of the students enrolled in this alternative program are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Racial demographics are 35% African American and 65% Caucasian. The student body is made up of approximately 60 students. The staff consists of the following full time employees: one principal, one dean, eight academic teachers (two of whom are intervention specialists; one of whom is a technology instructor), six instructional assistants, one school nurse, one school psychologist, one social worker, one secretary, one maintenance/safety worker, and one cafeteria worker. Approximately 10-15% of the student population is court assigned; the remaining student enrollment is by choice for those students suspended or expelled from the traditional district middle and high schools. Students who violate their individual school policies are eligible for consideration to enroll in this alternative program, whose primary goal is to provide academic instruction with an emphasis on “catching up” on regular studies. Students also learn positive behavior skills through counseling, community service, and small problem solving groups.
Upper Heights is especially proud of the high degree of parent involvement within their alternative program. Parents accompany students when they enroll as well as when they transition back to their school of origin. Upper Heights believes that parent involvement is extremely important to the success of their students returning to their home schools. Throughout the year, Upper Heights hosts several programs for parents to 48 participate in along with their students. These include quarterly parent/teacher conferences, parent/grandparent lunches, as well as quarterly informational programs addressing such topics as fire safety, drug prevention education, and community services.
Upper Heights is also proud to have been the recipients of several grants over the years. These include the following:
2007 – Laura Bush Foundation Grant for $5,000 for library books;
2008 – Pictures Across America consisting of a collection of pictures from the
Library of Congress;
2009 – Target Grant for $1,000 for Red Ribbon Week drug education;
2009 – Cash gift cards from a local office supply store.
Finally, Upper Heights is proud of its staff and their efforts to encourage students to attain one main goal. This goal is to prepare the students for a successful return to their home school, focusing on equipping them with the skills they need to be successful during their transition process back to their school of origin. In order to carry out this plan, Upper Heights has adopted school-wide expectations and consequences which include working through three levels of behavioral goals:
The first level is “reality.” Since the students enrolled at Upper Heights
Alternative have made inappropriate decisions and choices at their home school interrupting the learning and/or instruction process, they are required to work through this level during which the staff focuses on instruction, support, and encouragement, leading to the students’ understanding of what constitutes appropriate choices. Teachers and other support staff discuss students’ goals for the future, careers, and building self-esteem. The 49 students are required to have passing academic grades and earn at least 680 behavior modification points to move to the next level.
The second level is “respect.” While working through this level, the students participate in discussions about respect for themselves, for others, and their property. The continuation of tailoring instruction to meet the individual needs of students is paramount during this phase. The staff continue to focus on ways to help students gain self-esteem.
Students must continue to earn passing academic grades and accumulate at least 2,040 additional behavior modification points to move to the next level.
The third level is “responsibility.” Continuing to meet the academic needs of each student, the focus during this level is directed to supporting and assisting the students as they learn to take responsibility for their own actions and choices. Students gain insight into and understanding about the positive and negative consequences for their choices and actions. The objective of this program is for the students to learn responsibility through this behavior point system and to apply what they have learned as they prepare to transition back to their home school. Students must continue to earn passing grades and at least 1,000 additional points to reach this transition level. To be released from this level, students must meet the following criteria: acceptable attendance; successful academic performance documented in a portfolio of work samples and grades; appropriate discipline based upon a behavior intervention plan (BIP); a suitable progress data displayed on a behavior management chart; and a favorable recommendation by the
Admission and Release Committee.
The Upper Heights Alternative School admissions and release committee meets on an as needed basis and consists of the director, school social worker, special education 50 teacher, and an administrator from the school of origin to review all referrals considered for placement or transition back to the student’s school of origin. The ultimate goal is for these students to transition back to their school of origin taking with them the additional academic and social skills needed for their educational success.
Edwards Community. The Edwards Community High School is a tuition-free community school sponsored by an organization of businesses in a neighboring metropolitan city that work together under the directions of a governing board and president to promote the educational betterment and advancement of urban students. This small, personalized, non-traditional high school is committed to serving educationally at- risk students in a safe, orderly environment by developing the basic academic, career, and social skills needed to pursue educational and career options following graduation.
Edwards Community High School is housed in a three story limestone building which has an unusual and extensive history. The building was originally designed in 1927 for a local steel engraving, printing, and publishing company. After the company vacated the limestone building to relocate at a new address, the building became the site of a printing trade school. Later, four temporary buildings were erected and an adjoining garage was remodeled as a machine shop; the school subsequently grew to include a mechanical trade school. The purpose of the limestone building continued to evolve to include training for local veterans and two vocational high schools after World War II. In
1953 these vocational high school programs transferred to a new location in the city, leaving the building to be used by the city’s local board of education offices until 1967.
Shortly thereafter, the local public school district opened a center for at-risk junior and senior high school youth enrolling about 850 students. Following a study that indicated 51 the school was not having a significant impact on the district’s drop out rate, the local public school board voted to close the school. Following a number of unsuccessful attempts to sell the building, the school district put the building to a variety of uses including a place to store excess school furniture and supplies.
In June 2001, the local public school board agreed to sell the building to the
Board of Trustees of the Edwards Community High School for the purpose of opening a charter high school for at-risk students. This modest two classroom school opened in the annex building with 45 teens attending. The first principal of this alternative school described it as a “recovery school” which picked up kids other schools had dropped.
These students were required to dress in uniform white shirt and khakis, submit to random drug tests, and attend twice weekly 12-step programs and counseling at the school. Consequently, Edwards Community High School functioned as a meager safety net for students at risk of dropping out of school as a result of abusing drugs and alcohol, thus getting into further trouble.
Meanwhile, Edwards School continued to be housed in the annex building for three years while the board raised the funds necessary to renovate the larger limestone building. Approximately 500 volunteers, including board members, community citizens, and local college students painted and renovated the school building. Renovation of the first floor was completed in the fall, and students and staff moved into the renovated facility on November 12, 2005.
The Edwards Community High School board, staff, students, and parents are proud that most recently their educational program expanded to include credit recovery, after-school tutoring, and career discovery programs. Consequently, students who are 52
deficient in credits are able to remediate those deficiencies in the school’s credit recovery
program. Students who need extra help in any class are able to stay after school for
teacher tutoring sessions. Finally, through the career discovery program, students are
required to complete off-site learning activities that develop skills necessary to succeed in
the world of work through job shadowing, internships, apprenticeships, community
service, part-time employment, and other approved activities.
The growth of the Edwards Community High School was most evident in their
record enrollment of an all-time high of 118 students and a graduation of 18 students for
the 2008-2009 school year. Due to the increase in student enrollment, the school has
consequently grown to include a staff of one principal, one part time (.35%) assistant
principal, six full time teachers including one intervention specialist, two part time
teachers, and two secretaries.
Demographically, the majority of the students come from a low socioeconomic background with 85% qualifying for free lunches. Racial demographics are 97% African
American and 3% Caucasian. Edwards Community High School is 100% alternative by choice. All students are behind academically and are working on credit recovery through computer classes, hoping to graduate from high school on time. About 4% of the students are on early release schedule for employment purposes.
The principal of Edwards Community High School was proud to state that his school offers a “safe, orderly, and structured educational setting for students who exhibit a commitment to a healthy lifestyle and to the successful completion of a rigorous high school curriculum.” He felt that the Edwards’ faculty and administration do their best to provide students with the help, guidance, and support they need to ensure academic, 53 personal, and social development for a productive life, whether students are embarking upon a career or pursuing a college education.
Gaining Entrée
The researcher searched diligently to find urban alternative “last chance” schools for possible research sites. She first contacted administrators of such schools hoping to find principals willing for her to enlist parents, teachers, and principals as research participants. Her first attempt at gaining entrée at a possible research site was successful.
However, the next two attempts were unsuccessful. Administrators in both of these schools invited the researcher to visit their urban school sites; however, one was not a
“last chance” urban alternative school, and although the other selected school site did meet the “last chance” criteria, the administrator decided that she was unwilling for her school to participate, doubting that any parents would agree to participate. She relayed to the researcher that she had attempted to gather information from parent survey responses and that only two parents had returned their surveys. Following these two failed attempts, the researcher successfully located two additional “last chance” urban alternative schools with willing parent, teacher, and principal research participants.
The researcher’s first attempt at gaining entree was to contact Dr. Nathalie
Wilson, principal of Green Spring Academy and also a member of her doctoral program, who volunteered access to her high school. She very graciously provided a list of 12 perspective parents who had indicated to her that they would be willing to participant in the research study. The researcher called these parents, scheduled appointments, and completed nine parent interviews. Eight of these interviews were conducted at the homes of the participants; one parent was interviewed at a local restaurant. Dr. Wilson also 54
provided names of two teachers, whom the researcher interviewed concerning parents
expectations and needed change within their school. The researcher interviewed these
teachers in their classrooms and Dr. Wilson, the principal, in her office.
The researcher gained entrée to Upper Heights Middle and High school through the introduction of a former colleague at a previous job. She was the school psychologist, working both in the traditional as well as the alternative high school. She first invited the researcher to a work force meeting where she met the district superintendent, the principal and assistant principal of the alternative high school, and several other committee members who were planning the start of a new elementary alternative school for their district. The principal, Ms. Paula Wagoner, and the researcher discussed the research study, after which Ms. Wagoner agreed to email the researcher a list of perspective parents to interview. The principal provided names of nine parent volunteers from the total number of her parents, six with whom the researcher was able to schedule and complete interviews. Two parent interviews were completed by phone due to one family’s recent house fire and another family’s hospitalization of their daughter following brain surgery. Three of these interviews took place in the parents’ homes, while one interview was completed in a parent’s car in a church parking lot. Due to scheduling difficulties, the parent felt that this was a more convenient meeting place and more accessible to the researcher than her home. The principal also provided the researcher with the names of two teachers who were willing to participate in the research study. The principal’s interview was conducted in her office, while the two teachers were interviewed in their classrooms. 55
The researcher gained access to the Edwards Community High School by placing a phone call to Mr. Robert Montson, the school principal. The researcher had initially looked on line for information about the school not realizing that Mr. Montson was the principal. After placing the phone call to the school, the researcher realized that this principal had been her mentor 16 years ago during her administrative training. After a visit with Mr. Montson at Edwards Community High School, the researcher learned that he was willing to send out letters, inviting parents to participant in the research study. Mr.
Montson mailed these letters to all parents of students enrolled in his school. The researcher provided postage for 118 letters and received calls from three interested parents. As a result of these efforts, the researcher was able to interview two parents, meeting one at a local restaurant and interviewing the other one on the phone due to her busy schedule and inability to meet with the researcher in person. After speaking with the third parent on the phone in an attempt to set up an interview time, she declined to participate without giving a reason for changing her mind. The researcher met the two teachers and principal at the school site, interviewing them in their classrooms and office.
Identification of Participants
The researcher identified a total of 17 parents, six teachers, and three principals from the three identified schools. Green Spring Academy provided nine parents, two teachers, and one principal participant; Upper Heights Middle and High School provided six parents, two teachers, and one principal participant; and Edwards Community High
School provided two parents, two teachers, and one principal participant. The selection criteria for parent participants included the following: 1) they were willing to participate, and 2) they were parents of students who were enrolled in the identified schools for at 56
least one school quarter, or one grading period (approximately 10 weeks). Teachers must
have met the following selection criteria: 1) they were willing to participate, and 2) they
have been teaching at the school for at least three or more years. Additionally, one of the
teachers must have been recognized as a teacher leader. The researcher asked principals
to identify parents and teachers who met these criteria. She approached these parents and
teachers and invited them to participate in the research study.
Researcher’s Role
Although every researcher strives to adopt a “stance of neutrality with regard to the phenomenon under study” (Patton, 2002, p. 50), this enormous feat cannot be accomplished without acknowledging one’s own biases through a serious process of self- reflexivity (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Reflective inquiry enables the researcher to more fully use the data to extract findings from the research (Patton, 2002). The researcher’s research approach originated from her educational, professional, and experiential background. Although she attempted to collect and analyze her research data objectively, she knew that her roles as an educator, doctoral student, and community worker all influenced her interest, desire, and passion for research concerning urban alternative “last chance” schools. As a 33-year educator, a 10-year nationally certified teacher, and a five- year school administrative director (program facilitator) of an urban alternative “last chance” school, she brought a strong desire for a quality education for students at risk of failure and dropping out of school to her research experience. Her community service experiences with both parents and youth through inner city church work complemented her professional work as a back drop for her research study in the Urban Educational
Leadership Program at the University of Cincinnati. 57
As the researcher contemplated her task in the research process, she considered how she would negotiate her role. When she interviewed parents, teachers, and principals, she listened to and interacted with them as they relayed their stories, separating interpretation from description (Patton, 2002). She assured the research participants that all information gathered during the interviews would be protected and remain confidential. She assured the participants that her desire to learn more about parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools was the motivation for her study. She attempted to gain rapport with the participants by showing interest in what they had to say and assuring them that whatever might be gained from the research could hopefully be used to improve education for all children, especially those participating in urban alternative schools.
The Informed Consent Form (Appendix E) approved by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) explained and ensured the ethical guidelines that would be followed during the research process. The consent forms emphasized the importance of respecting the participants’ rights and dignity, protecting human subjects from mental and physical harm, establishing an agreement with participants to clarify rights and responsibilities, respecting the right of individuals to refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time, and ensuring confidentiality of the research data.
The researcher’s belief that parent involvement is crucial to the educational development and success of children was reflected in both the design and methodology of her study, as well as in the choice of her research topic. Having met with parents of suspended/expelled students every day for a one-hour orientation class each morning for the past five years furnished the researcher with an insight into parental concerns for their 58 children’s educational development. Her interview questions stemmed from concerns and questions voiced during these daily information sessions intended to inform parents about this particular alternative school where their students were being assigned. The researcher’s desire to learn more about parents’ expectations of alternative schools and how these schools are changing to meet those expectations has fostered her qualitative research design using in-depth interviews, observations, and analyses of school archival documents.
Data Collection Procedures
Potential parent participants were referred to the researcher by the principals who were willing for their schools to participate in her research study. Dr. Nathalie Wilson, principal of Green Spring Alternative High School and Ms. Paula Wagoner, principal of the Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School, provided a list of parents whom they felt would be willing participants. The researcher called parents from each of these lists and invited them to participate in an interview concerning parent expectations and school change for meeting these expectations. Mr. Montson, principal at Edwards
Community High School, mailed out letters (Appendix A) to all parents of his students on the researcher’s behalf requesting parent volunteers to complete parent interviews.
This method represented a mixed sampling method of: (1) general open invitation; and
(2) random sampling.
Each of the three principals of the identified school sites also provided the researcher with the names and phone numbers of two willing teachers who met the teacher selection criteria from each of their schools. The researcher called these teachers and invited them to participate in an interview concerning parent involvement and needed 59
school change to meet parent expectations. Each of the three principals of the identified
schools also volunteered to participate in interviews.
The procedures for data collection consisted of structured interviews (see
Appendices B and C), observations (see Observation Guide, Appendix D), and reviewing
archival data. Parent, teacher, and administrator interviews were conducted in the school
buildings, homes, or other convenient locations. Observations and field notes taken
during these interviews provided additional data. A review of printed archival school
documents and electronic material such as newspaper articles, newsletters, meeting
agendas, orientation packets, program flyers, historic scrap books, student handbooks,
printed program guides, and school websites completed the data collection procedures.
Validity of research was established by using various participants and various sources of
data.
Structured interviews helped the researcher discover the participants’ perspectives
while allowing her to follow a uniform interview protocol with each participant (Patton,
2002). By responding to the same questions, each of the interview groups—several
parents, two teachers, and one administrator from each school—provided a large amount
of data. Parents participated in a one-on-one interview in which they provided insights
into their expectations of urban alternative schools and whether or not they felt schools and school administrators were making needed changes. Teachers and administrators also participated in one-on-one interviews answering questions which revealed their perspectives on needed school change to meet parent expectations. The researcher taped each individual interview and transcribed the data. Participants received a Consent Form
(see Appendices E) to read and sign before each interview. The researcher explained the 60 purpose of the interview and assured confidentiality of information received from the interview participants.
Field notes from observations of interviews helped frame participant perspectives, while a review of archival and current school documents provided a background of information about school activities, policies, and histories. These types of data complemented other data gathered from individual parent, teacher, and administrator in- depth interviews.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis is “the process of sorting arranging, coding, and looking for patterns of data for the purpose of coming up with findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 271). This inductive approach results in reducing data by generating themes and categories. This analytical process further results in drawing conclusions and explanations by testing collected data
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The researcher followed this analytical procedure by discovering recurring themes and patterns which became evident as she studied, coded, and categorized data collected from interviews, field notes, archival data, and current school documents. She examined these data in relation to her research questions to see answers that might seem to surface.
Consequently, her research data identified parent expectations, if parents’ expectations were being met, and how the schools were making changes to meet parent expectations.
The researcher also examined her data for agreement with findings of other studies dealing with parent expectations of urban alternative schools.
This study followed the open coding system to organize the data into thematic units (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). This open coding process revealed emerging themes 61
occurring in the three types of data listed above which were useful in illuminating the
research questions concerning parent expectations of urban alternative schools (Patton,
2002). As repeated words, phrases, and patterns of thought began to stand out, the
researcher began developing a coding system for analyzing the research data. These
written words and phrases became her coding categories (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). She
used these categories to sort descriptive data from interviews, field observations, archival
data, and current school documents. The researcher made observation comments in the
margins of her field notes and interview transcription pages to make categorization easier
for analysis and interpretation. She used one data display chart to visually show her data
and to verify valid conclusions that complement her narrative writing (Miles &
Huberman 1994).
During the process of her research, all audio tapes, transcription records, field
notes, and archival documents were kept in a safe and secure place and will be discarded
within three years after the study is completed. The researcher made duplicate copies of
all data to ensure back-up copies in case they were needed. All data were saved
electronically and additionally saved to a jump drive in case of technological difficulties.
Significance of the Study
Due to the increase in the number of urban alternative schools during the past decade, the continuous improvement of these “last chance” schools is crucial for meeting the educational needs of all children, especially those who are at risk of academic failure and dropping out of school. The information provided by this study will be helpful for the administrators and teachers working at these three sites to make needed educational 62 changes for their students. It is hoped that the data collected will help these educators take into consideration parental concerns when considering school change.
Additionally, this research gave voice to those parent participants who were willing to express their feelings, concerns, and suggestions about their experiences in these three urban alternative schools. Parents’ concerns and expectations were shared with school administrators at these sites for consideration when discussing needed school change.
The researcher hopes that other educators would find the information gathered in this research study helpful in answering similar questions that they might encounter in their schools. The methodology used and data gathering process followed in this research study may also be useful to educators who are exploring ways to use parent insights to make needed changes in urban alternative schools.
Further, the researcher hopes that the results of this study will be useful in educator training programs. Hopefully, information will be provided which will encourage educators, both present and future, to take into consideration parent expectations when addressing the need for school change.
Finally, the researcher hopes that this study will provide a positive contribution to the body of literature on parents of students attending urban alternative schools. Although many studies exist concerning parental involvement in education, few studies have examined parent expectations of urban alternative “last chance” schools. It is hoped that this study will increase knowledge about this topic and encourage further research on parents and urban alternative schools. 63
Limitations of the Study
Although the researcher collected data from multiple and various sources and
compared findings, analyzing them for verification, she must point out that this study was
limited to two secondary and one combined middle and secondary urban alternative “last
chance” schools all located in the same Midwestern urban area. The number of willing
participants was limited to a total of 17 parents, six teachers, and three administrators.
Because the sample group was small and did not represent various geographical, racial,
and socioeconomic groups, sampling did not allow for generalization. Limitations include
number and variety of sampling situations, observation experiences, time periods,
participants, and documents examined (Patton, 2002). Therefore, the findings,
conclusions, and explanations are limited as well. Future research is needed involving (a)
more urban alternative schools, especially elementary level and (b) more parents,
especially those who are not regularly involved in their children’s education.
Summary
This chapter of the research study included the rationale for qualitative design and the methodology used to collect and analyze data. The school sites, participants, and data collection and analysis procedures were described. The researcher’s professional background, educational training, and interest in urban alternative schools were presented in an upfront manner in order to include any personal biases that might have affected the procedures, analyses, and outcomes of the study. Finally, the researcher discussed the significance and future research needs in light of the limitations of this study. The analysis of this data will be presented in Chapter III. 64
Chapter III
Analysis of the Data
This study examined the expectations of 17 parents of urban alternative “last chance” schools. The data gathered from these parents, six teachers, and three administrators on parental expectations, involvement, communication, and school change are presented in this chapter, telling the individual stories of Green Spring Academy,
Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School, and Edwards Community School.
Crosscutting themes that evolved from these interviews, observations, and school documents are presented as they help answer the following questions:
1. What do parents expect of urban alternative schools?
2. Are urban alternative schools meeting parents’ expectation?
3. How are urban alternative schools changing to meet the needs of these
parents?
Parent interviews provided information about the reasons they send
their children to alternative schools, their expectations of and satisfaction with these
schools, their ability to communicate and partner with school staff, their involvement in
their children’s education, and the changes that parents feel urban alternative schools are
making to address their expectations. The interviews with teachers and administrators
dealt with their perceptions of parent expectations of urban alternative schools, whether
these schools are meeting those expectations, and school change that reflect parents’
expectations of urban alternative schools.
The interviews were analyzed in two phases. First, the taped interviews were
sorted by school and the answers of the parents, teachers, and administrators were 65 transcribed in order to tell the story of each individual school. Open coding was used to sort the data into themes. Words were noted in the margins of the transcripts to identify themes related to parents’ expectations of each school and to summarize the answers to each interview question. Second, the transcribed interviews were sorted by answers in order to identify common, crosscutting themes and patterns among all three schools and to answer the research questions. The answers of all 17 parents were sorted to each of the
14 questions presented in Appendix B. Likewise, the teachers’ and principals’ answers were sorted to each of the 10 questions presented in Appendix C.
The field notes taken during the interview meetings with parents, teachers, and principals provided additional data valuable to the research study. Parents were observed at an interview site of their choice—their home, restaurant, or other convenient settings.
School principals and teachers were observed at the schools where they worked.
Opinions, actions, and interactions among the participants with the persons around them and with the researcher were noted in a detailed, objective, and nonjudgmental manner.
These field notes provided concrete descriptions of what was observed and allowed the researcher to understand the immediate context in which the parents, principals, and teachers acted, reacted, and interacted. Field observations provided the researcher the opportunity of observing parents within their homes—in living rooms, kitchens, on front porches, and decks-- where they interacted with other family members, neighbors, and unexpected guests, as well as in restaurants, a church parking lot, and in a parked car.
The field observations also allowed the researcher to see the teachers and principals within their work environment, to observe their physical work spaces, as well as their actions and reactions with other colleagues. Observer comments in the margin of the field 66 observation sheets were used to categorize and analyze data which led to the discovery of recurring themes, behavior and interaction patterns, and complex relationships between the participants and others within their perspective social settings. These observer comments helped to focus the data collection process, often leading to additional questions within the interview process.
An examination of document data collected from each school included printed archival data and current school documents such as newsletters, meeting agendas, program flyers, parent and teacher handbooks, calendars, bulletins, community workshop guides, staff notes, letters, newspaper articles, as well as electronic materials such as emails and school websites. A review of these documents facilitated an understanding of the relationship between parents, teachers, and communities to carry out the purposes of the individual school. In short, these documents provided information about school activities, policies, and histories.
The crosscutting themes, patterns, and categories which surfaced through the analysis of the interview transcripts, field observations of parents, teachers, and administrators at their interview locations, and school documents guided the presentation of the data for each of the three schools. Consequently, the unfolding stories of each of the three alternative schools emerged as the research questions were addressed through the interview process in the backdrop of field observation, archival data, and current school documents.
Because this study reflects specifically and exclusively the opinions of the people who participated in this research, the analysis of the data presented in this chapter cannot be generalized to a larger population in all urban alternative schools. 67
Individual Stories of Three Urban Alternative Schools
Green Spring Academy
Green Spring Academy is a coed urban alternative high school located in a
Midwestern urban area serving 50 students, 50% of whom are African American, 50% are Caucasian; 50% are female, 50% are male, and 10% are teenage parents equally divided between male and female students. The staff consists of one principal, one assistant principal, four content teachers, one intervention specialist, one mental health specialist, one music teacher (one bell assignment), and one maintenance worker. The school provides on site day care for infants, ages 6 weeks to 4 years, for these teenage parents. Daycare costs are low and can be paid for by the family or through the federal government voucher system. This service is provided in an effort to remove any reason barring a student from finishing his/her high school education.
This unique feature of an on site day care for infants and small children of students came as somewhat of a surprise to the researcher on the day of her first visit to
Green Spring Academy. Having followed a winding side street in the edge of the urban community around to the school’s side parking lot, infant toys and outside playground equipment greeted her with interest.
Checking to make sure she had arrived at the correct address, the researcher walked around the old gray cement building, up several steps to a wide entrance surrounded by six stately pillars, three on each side of the double door entrance. A female student exiting the building assured her that this was indeed Green Spring Academy and that Dr. Brown was the principal of the school. Following the student’s directions, she 68 entered the building and ascended several more steps to arrive in the principal’s office where she found herself among a roomful of rather youthful teachers, chatting excitedly about students, their academic progress, and their potential for promotion to the next academic school year. Upon the her arrival, the principal, Dr. Brown introduced the researcher to all the staff present in her office, in particular, Mr. Gerald, the math teacher and Ms. Bellmont, English teacher, both of whom had previously volunteered to interview with the researcher concerning their work at the Green Spring Academy, sharing their thoughts and opinions about parent expectations of urban alternative schools.
These educators described Green Spring Academy as a “last chance” urban alternative school of choice which is open to students in grades 9-12 who gain permission from their home school district or apply through their district’s open enrollment policy to attend for an entire academic year. The school provides a non-traditional, innovative program that serves many types of students and learning styles. For example, the school offers hands-on learning experiences, flexible daily/yearly schedules, work-based educational opportunities, and service-learning projects-- all based on a curriculum approach that is focused toward life skills development.
Green Spring’s academic curriculum is especially designed to help those students who are credit deficient, academically underachieving, overwhelmed in a regular classroom, frequently absent from school, having social or behavioral problems, teen parenting, living independently, or in need of a job while completing their high school education. This alternative program provides core academic courses, self-paced computer support, and a variety of electives with a 14 to 1 student/teacher ratio. In addition to the 69 academic curriculum, all students are required to complete a “Discovery Program” where they learn about team building, anger management, problem solving, conflict resolution, self-assertiveness, and decision making. Green Spring also offers small group and individual counseling to support their students’ emotional and mental health needs, working closely with students’ families to provide referral service to outside mental health and social agencies as well.
According to the principal of the Green Spring Academy, the staff is not only expected to teach the academic curriculum, but also expected to consistently “model the core values of integrity, respecting diversity, a strong work ethic, accountability for actions, and community service.” The acquisition of these values is demonstrated in academic achievement, life skills attainment, and positive contributions to society as reflected in the school’s mission statement.
The Green Spring Academy is housed in an old school building that was vacated in 2004 and made available to this alternative program for students who were unable to thrive in traditional school settings. The school was originally funded through a combination of grants, state foundation aid, tuition, and $45,000 rental revenue from the building’s last tenant. Green Spring’s school district continues to receive $5,000 state foundation aid for each of its students from other districts; in addition, those districts pay
$2,000 tuition per student per year. Community members, staff, and neighboring school districts worked together to get the physical site ready -- donating hundreds of hours to haul trash, fix, clean and paint the 67-year-old building – preparing it for the first 43 students who signed up to come to the school which had a capacity of 53 students at its inception. Because of their high suspension and expulsion history at their regular schools, 70 many of these students enrolled to become part of a program that would give them the opportunity to work on their problems before a quick, routine removal from school by incorporating social skills instruction within the academic curriculum.
Since its inception in 2004 up to the present (2009), Green Spring’s student population has grown to include 50 students taught by four content teachers, one intervention specialist, one mental health specialist, and one music teacher. Green Spring is planning to add Spanish to the course offerings this fall to fulfill college preparatory requirements for students planning to attend college after completing their high school graduation requirements.
When the researcher visited Green Spring Academy to interview staff members, she observed most of the staff congregated in the principal’s office, bantering positively about which students would be returning to school that day to take their last required final tests. Several of the teachers remarked that the majority of the students were not required to attend and take final tests due to their high academic success in particular classes for the year.
Parents also reflected a similar overall optimism concerning the school, staff, and student success. Among those parents interviewed was Ann, a 35 year old Caucasian mother of a tenth grade daughter, who had an individual educational plan (IEP) and who was about to finish her second year at Green Spring Academy. Ann, her husband, and their two daughters resided in one of several small, one-story houses erected in a row facing the back of the next row of identical houses. Ann was proud of her husband, a local roofer, who worked very hard to provide for their family of four. Both Ann and her husband wanted better for their children than they were able to provide for their family. 71
Ann was optimistic that her daughter would receive her high school diploma from Green
Spring, go on to college, and ultimately be able to get a good job and have a better life than her parents.
Tom, a 45 year old manager of a local restaurant, spoke highly of Green Spring
Academy and his son’s apparent success as a junior in the completion of his first year in this alternative school setting. Tom, his teenage son, and daughter lived in a small Cape
Cod house just around the corner from the railroad tracks, down the street from Green
Spring, and across the street from the interstate. Several passing trains, lots of interstate traffic, and the neighbor’s leaf blowing project made this interview a bit difficult at times.
However, Tom, a father who had completed college to within one year of gaining his own teaching credentials, expressed optimism for his son’s future after graduation from
Green Spring Academy.
Cheryl, a parent advocate, national speaker, and mother of a 17-year old son suffering with Asperger syndrome and Bipolar Disorder, met with the researcher at a local restaurant for her interview. As the researcher entered the restaurant, looking around to see if she could identify Cheryl, their eyes simultaneously met. Cheryl was seated over by a far wall, reading a book when she looked up at the researcher. Both knew immediately that they were looking for each other. Cheryl invited the researcher to sit down at her table, but almost immediately requested that they go to an outside table as she glanced across the room at a gentleman sitting at a table on the other side of the room. She stated that the possibility of someone else hearing what they might say made her nervous. Even though it was a little noisier outside, they continued their interview, only occasionally interrupted by the traffic and passersby. Cheryl shared with the 72
researcher the exciting account of how her son had begun attending Green Spring
Academy at its inception in 2004 and was now a successful senior with plans to attend
college!
Barry, an unemployed (laid off) construction worker whose daughter was a
sophomore at Green Spring Academy, was expecting her to graduate early at the end of
her third year at the academy. He was excited about his daughter’s progress and the help she had received in overcoming her social problems which had previously led to numerous detentions and suspensions at the public school. During the interview, Barry shared with the researcher that he had a son who had attended Green Spring about three years ago for less than a year, who had not been successful in the school, ultimately dropping out and was now unfortunately in jail. Barry, who had himself completed the requirements for his graduate equivalency degree (GED) several years ago, stated that both he and his wife, a homemaker, hoped their daughter would graduate, attend college, and become an independent young lady.
Arnold, foster father of three of his sister-in-law’s children, was a stay-at-home father who was troubled that his son, a tenth grader at Green Spring Academy, was incarcerated as a run-away at the juvenile detention center. As the researcher arrived at
Arnold’s house at the appointed time for the interview, she met a young African
American social worker in the entry of the house. As the researcher entered, this young gentleman was encouraging Arnold about the possibilities of his son’s early release from jail as he exited from the house. Arnold invited the researcher to follow him back through his somewhat unkempt house, where both sat down at his kitchen table for the interview. As they began talking, a little girl, approximately three years of age, jumped 73 up into Arnold’s lap calling him “daddy.” Arnold responded, “I ain’t your daddy,” to which the little girl replied, “You are my daddy, you are raising me, you love me, so you are my daddy!” Arnold admitted that he was initially against his son’s attending Green
Spring but had changed his mind when he saw his son’s improved first quarter grades.
Denise, mother of a tenth grade son diagnosed with attention deficient hyperactive disorder (ADHD), had quit her job some years earlier to home school her son who had always had trouble getting along with other children and consequently had done poorly in the regular public schools. As a college drop-out, she felt more capable of helping her son than most parents might. She visited the school often, during the day, anytime she might get a call from teachers. She stated that she was at her son’s school nearly all the time and wondered if his teachers wished she would not be so involved. With all her involvement,
Denise still worried that her son would not graduate from Green Spring Academy on time.
Lynn, a high school graduate, mother of an eleventh grade daughter, along with her husband had just taken custody of a six-month old infant, the biological child of a close family relative. Lynn very graciously worked the interview in between her already crowded schedule of foster care workers’ appointments required for custody of the new baby. In between phones ringing and baby noises, Lynn shared that although her oldest son had not graduated from high school, she and her husband did expect their daughter to graduate from Green Spring Academy next year. When asked about the prospects of her daughter going on to college after graduation, Lynn responded that they had not really talked to her about college yet and that her daughter’s idea of college was training for tattooing, body piercing, and bartending. Lynn stated that although she was not thrilled 74
about any of these possible career options, she felt that they were indeed money makers
and that making money would be an awesome adventure for her daughter. Lynn further
stated that she would support her daughter in whatever she wanted to do, especially since
money was tight right now, and she had yet to have a child go to college.
Rose, the mother of an eleventh grade son attending Green Spring Academy, had
quit her job in order to have time to deal with the high school and her son. Rose’s son had
been diagnosed with ADHD and had an IEP for learning disabilities since he first began
school. Both Rose and her late husband were college graduates with a great interest in
science. Rose appreciated Green Spring’s teachers for their one-on-one intervention,
support, and redirection of her son. She stated that she experienced much less frustration
with her son’s education at Green Springs than she had at the public schools.
Emily, a young African American single parent of a 16 year old who had just
graduated early from Green Spring Academy, was quite excited to invite the researcher
into her home for an interview. Although she lived in an apartment in an obviously low
socioeconomic area, she invited the researcher in to an exquisitely clean and neatly
furnished apartment. She proudly displayed her son’s pictures on the dining room table
where they sat for the interview. Emily was an eleventh grade drop out who had later
completed the requirements for her (GED) in an effort to acquire a good job to support her son and herself. She was proud that her son was planning to go to culinary school to become a chef.
Although in the beginning, most of the parents resented the fact that their children would be attending an alternative school, they quickly came to the conclusion that if their students were successful, then the move was a good one for their children. Although this 75 is an alternative school of choice, most parents did not initially choose to send their children here, but rather decided to enroll their child only after the traditional school staff suggested and highly recommended the move. For example, when asked why she chose to send her eleventh grade son to the Green Spring Academy, Rose responded:
It was recommended. I was hesitant about it at first as an alternative school. My
son has ADHD and a couple of other learning disabilities; he has been on an
IEP since he started first grade. He was having difficulties in high school. His
needs weren’t being met, and actually one of the teachers over there suggested
that I might want to consider the Green Spring Academy. My son was unusual
because he…was on an IEP and was not…a discipline or rebellion problem.
Another parent, Barry, stated that he chose to send his daughter to Green Spring
“at the principal’s suggestion because she was always misbehaving, talking back to teachers, and getting detentions or suspensions over stupid stuff” at her regular school.
Barry continued, “Her grades were not an issue; she is not a student who is academically challenged. She just has a lot of problems coping with being in a classroom with a lot of kids.” Similarly, Ann stated that she sent her daughter to Green Spring because her school recommended it as a result of her daughter’s “having behavioral problems, getting into fights, and arguing with teachers and other kids.” Finally, Denise acknowledged that she sent her son because he was expelled from his regular school, placing him at risk for
“not graduating on time.” Having been offered the choice to send her son to Green Spring
Academy, she responded, “I decided that this was the route I wanted to take for my son.” 76
Arnold’s conclusion in his following response as to why he sent his son to an alternative school agreed with how most parents felt after experiencing their child’s success in this alternative school:
No, I did not choose to send my son. [His regular school] recommended it. I felt
he was doing a fine job at [regular school]. Some of his teachers there felt that his
focus wasn’t the way it needed to be, which that could have been from his
ADHD. The psychologist felt that he was ready to be taken off his meds last year.
So we did that, and the teachers there felt that was a mistake. He seemed like he
was no longer focused, and he needed …one-on-one, and they told me that Green
Spring Academy would be able to accomplish that. I was against it at first, but
after his first quarter, his grades showed that it made a difference. I really didn’t
know a lot about the school over there since it was fairly new, but it seemed to be
a good move.
Two other parents chose Green Spring, not because of their regular school’s recommendation, but rather as a result of their own desire to find a school that would work better for their children. Lynn chose to send her daughter because “they work with her at a slower pace than her regular school did. It’s a little bit easier at [Green Spring].
Like I said, she is doing excellent.” Cheryl, on the other hand, whose son has a duel diagnosis of both Asperger syndrome and Bipolar Disorder, stated that she chose to send her son because the alternative school “had a pilot program that was being made just for him, one that he didn’t have in his local school. This was a last ditch effort for him.”
Cheryl explained that due to her son’s duel disorders, he “has difficulty understanding social and communicative issues with other kids. So his coping mechanism was to run.” 77
As a result of these behaviors, Cheryl stated that her son missed “a lot of instructional days” at his regular school; and when he was able to attend, the staff was limited as to the amount of time they were able to spend with him to address his particular needs. Her son’s therapist recommended a school principal who might be able to help her son; the principal agreed to develop a program to meet Cheryl’s son’s needs; and consequently, the Green Spring Academy was started with one student, Cheryl’s son. Needless to say,
Cheryl seemed to be the most pleased of all the parents when asked if Green Spring was meeting her expectations. She exclaimed, “Definitely,” and continued to tell the researcher that she had also observed the positive changes in other students as well. She concluded, “It’s a miracle!”
All parents agreed that their number one expectation of an alternative school was that it provide a quality education for their children - “the same education that is expected from the regular school,” an education that “meets the state standards.” Parents indicated that they were looking for an educational setting that “provides an atmosphere for learning,” conducive to dealing with social, behavioral, and academic problems.
Parents also expected teachers to deal effectively with discipline problems within the classroom, communicate home frequently, and address individual students’ needs.
Parents indicated that principals should deal “consistently, firmly,” (Lynn) and “fairly”
(Tom) with students, staff, and parents; function as a “resource for children with problems” (Rose), and exude a “goal oriented” (Denise) approach to their work. Parents agreed that administrators should be “caring individuals” (Tom and Cheryl) who promote a “positive morale” (Cheryl) within the school.
Parents also desired a curriculum that included small group social skills classes 78 for the purpose of addressing anger management, conflict resolution, and other social and behavioral issues. Cheryl and Denise felt that Green Spring should serve better school lunches. They felt that alternative schools are sometimes seen as “second rate schools for bad children” (Cheryl) which frequently serve inferior lunches, often “running out of food altogether with some children not even getting lunches” (Denise).
All parent participants agreed that their children were experiencing more success at the alternative school than they had at their regular schools. They agreed that the Green
Spring Academy was meeting their expectations for their child’s academic success. Ann stated that her daughter’s
grades were up and she was really doing good in school. The teachers call
home if she is missing any work. She [my daughter] is able to call them [the
teachers] anytime of the day; she has their phone numbers where she can get hold
of them if she has any questions about her work. They’re really good to the kids.
Parents liked the fact that their children’s social skills were improving; consequently, their students were receiving very few, if any, detentions for negative school behaviors. When asked if the school was meeting her expectations, Denise responded, “I love it! They are helping my son get his diploma on time!”
It was interesting to find that the principal and both staff participants agreed with the parents, indicating that they also felt that Green Spring was meeting both the academic and social needs of the students. Dr. Brown, the enthusiastic, optimistic, 29 year old principal explained how the staff “…use various teaching methods such as differentiated instruction, service learning, community service, hands-on lessons, and a great deal of technology” as well as “pullouts with intervention specialists” to meet the 79 various individual needs of the students. Having joined the staff five years ago, Dr.
Brown who had quickly moved up the ranks from teacher, to assistant principal, and now to principal, felt that Green Spring was meeting the needs of “every student” regardless of his/her individual needs.
Both Ms. Bellmont, the fourth year English teacher (grades 9-12), and Mr.
Gerald, a second year math teacher (grades 9-11, all math levels and classes), described their innovative teaching approaches which obviously were meeting with the approval of the parent research participants. Ms. Bellmont proudly described her classroom as a
“non-traditional” learning center that utilized “exercise balls, beanbags, and a balance bar” to promote a flexible teaching approach which she indicated had been “frowned upon, discouraged, and ultimately prohibited” by her previous principal in the traditional school where she had taught 10 years prior to coming to Green Spring Academy. She felt that Green Spring’s relaxed learning atmosphere gave her students, especially those diagnosed with ADHD, the freedom they needed to move about while working at their own rate of speed. Likewise, Mr. Gerald, who was within his last two classes of completing his master’s degree, who had taught his first year in a traditional high school, and who also used non-traditional teaching practices, attributes Green Spring’s success to
“small class sizes which enable more one-on-one” interaction with students. Mr. Gerald’s visual approach, requiring his students to create and present a “math lexicon” containing what they have learned during the year for their final exam, allows him to assess his students through a hands-on approach.
Both Ms. Bellmont and Mr. Gerald felt that their “weekly phone calls updating parents” on their child’s behavior and academic progress were crucial to keeping parents 80
involved in their child’s education. The notes from Mr. Gerald’s phone log and contents
of his numerous emails demonstrated just how important he felt frequent communication
is to the parents of his students. Staff and parent participants agreed that meeting
students’ academic needs, building social skills, and communicating frequently with
parents were the key factors for Green Spring’s success with the students.
Green Spring’s success with involving parents in their children’s education actually came as a surprise to Mr. Gerald. He explained that nearly all Green Spring’s parents attend school meetings; whereas, at his previous teaching assignment, only about half of his students’ parents attended parent/teacher meetings. When asked what he thought accounted for this huge success with parents, he replied, “It’s how well the teachers try to get the parents involved.” Mr. Gerald continued to explain that at his previous school, staff would have the “mandatory open house” at the beginning of the school year, schedule quarterly parent/teacher conferences for the parents of students who were having difficulty, and make the “failing phone calls” home two weeks before the end of each school quarter. Both Ms. Bellmont and Mr. Gerald felt that these efforts to communicate with parents provided only “negative feedback of what school is.” Green
Spring’s staff credited their large parent turn out to their regularly scheduled parent teacher meetings; their “frequent, positive calls home; informative guest speakers; and student led parent/teacher conferences where the student tells what is going on.”
Ms. Bellmont felt that such a high degree of a student’s involvement in his/her own parent/teacher conference not only increases the probability of parent attendance at these meetings, but also actually opens up much needed channels of communication between high school students and their parents. It was interesting to learn how students 81
receive a form containing “talking points” which they prepare in advance for each of their
classes. By following this outline, students were able to voice their concerns about their
classes, express their personal work goals, and communicate to both their parents and
their teachers what they liked best about the class. Ms. Bellmont felt that this was a
“marvelous opportunity for improved teenage/parent communication. Parents were
becoming more informed… since students are able to articulate their thoughts and their
awareness of their performance in the class at these student led conferences.”
Green Spring’s parents appreciate the opportunity to be involved in their children’s education. They liked frequent communication from school to home, monthly parent/teacher meetings, and the opportunities to be included in field trips and community service projects. Likewise, Green Spring’s staff was proud of their restoration, energy conservation, and recycling projects that students, parents, and community complete together. Dr. Brown, Green Spring’s principal, felt that parents
“know that they are always welcome to come to school” whether it is to shadow their children for a day when they have experienced discipline issues, or to volunteer as field trip chaperones providing “positive support models” for the students. According to Dr.
Brown, although Green Spring often “invites parents to participate” in these school endeavors, “many parents work shift jobs and consequently are either working when school is in session or have just gotten off work and are sleeping.”
Several parents agreed that Green Spring does provide opportunities for parent input for school improvement by inviting them to parent/teacher meetings, awards ceremonies, and student honor roll breakfasts with staff. Barry, a parent participant, responded, “I definitely feel invited. They invite us to monthly meetings. They tell us 82 what’s going on, and we can ask questions. We meet the teachers…I’ve never missed a meeting!” Two other parents, Rose and Emily felt that Green Spring encourages parent participation. “They call me and I am right there!” stated Rose. Emily said, “They
[Green Spring Academy staff] have an open door policy. We just come in and sign in if we want to check on our child. If we want to stay the whole day, it’s no problem.”
Denise, on the other hand, was the only parent participant who did not feel “invited to give input into her son’s hands-on school projects;” however, she has been unable to
“attend Green Spring’s Wednesday monthly parent meetings” due to her own prior teaching commitments.
Although Dr. Brown, Green Spring’s principal, Ms. Bellmont, English teacher, and Mr. Gerald, math teacher, shared examples of parental input; all three had to think for a moment before providing specific examples of how the school actually uses this information. Likewise, the parents all indicated that they had been asked to give input but were unsure just exactly how any of the collected information had been used to make needed changes for school improvement. Both parents and staff mentioned a school wide survey which elicited parent responses concerning their satisfaction with the school program. Although the parents stated that they were sure the results of the survey would be used in a positive way, thus far they had not seen any school changes as a result of their suggestions. Only two parents, Cheryl and Lynn, gave specific examples of how
Green Spring had actually used parent input gathered informally during a parent meeting to make needed change in the school uniform policy and discipline procedures. All other parents felt Green Spring either did not use their input, thought they did but couldn’t think of any examples, or agreed with Arnold that the school asked for their input but 83
“didn’t know where it went.” Barry concluded that “they ask your opinion at the
meetings, but I don’t think they take your input; they have their way of doing things.”
On the other hand, Dr. Brown indicated that her staff and she
take all parent suggestions seriously. We try to accommodate their [the parents’]
suggestions when we can procedurally and legally do it. Parents don’t make a
whole lot of suggestions, but when they do, we take [those suggestions] back to
the team, discuss them, and decide if there is a way we can at least meet them
halfway or meet what the need underneath the suggestion is.
Although most parents were unsure of exactly how their input was used by the
school, they continued providing feedback to the school by completing district and school
surveys, making suggestions at parent/teacher meetings, and communicating with
teachers concerning their child’s academic and social progress. As a matter of fact, every
parent participant felt that their input was definitely well received and used on an
individual case by case basis to meet their own child’s IEP or other individual needs.
However, most parents did not feel their suggestions were being used to make school-
wide improvements.
Parents also thought that they were not involved in any school wide partnerships with Green Spring. When inquiring of parents about such partnerships, the researcher found that they were unaware of what the term actually meant. Staff, as well, somewhat skirted the issue, indicating that they did not involve parents in their classrooms as resources to assist in teaching or as guest speakers at parent/teacher meetings. However, both Mr. Gerald and Ms. Bellmont invited parent volunteers to help chaperone field trips, but neither were aware of any school-wide partnerships between their school and parents. 84
Although parents wanted to be involved in their children’s education and truly believe themselves to be, staff offered some logical reasons why some parents were not as involved as might be expected: 1) “high school level kids want their parents to leave them alone – no embarrassing them in front of their peers with hugs and kisses,” [Ms.
Bellmont]; and 2) “teachers don’t really reach out to high school level children so much”
[Mr. Gerald]. If teachers genuinely want parental involvement and input, they must
“assertively invite, remind, and reschedule” (Ms. Bellmont) meetings for parents who are unable to attend the first time.
Dr. Brown felt that
parents who do not have an education are intimidated by the school system in
general. They don’t know the correct questions to ask. They feel stupid coming in
because often the teachers and administrators will talk above them using their
‘school’ or ‘education’ jargon that parents may not understand. Parents may not
feel comfortable coming in for those kinds of meetings. I think some parents who
are working two or three jobs just simply don’t have the time. Others are
extremely young and may not have the skill set or the ability to support their child
in their education. Some have difficulty with transportation or are otherwise,
physically unable to get there.
Ms. Bellmont was of the opinion that teachers should be willing to make accommodations for parents who are unable to come to the school for these meetings.
“We have had several parents with very severe illnesses where they are house bound, and we sometime have had parent/teacher conferences in their home or over the phone because of their inability to come to school,” she stated. 85
In addition to providing these accommodations for parents, all three staff
participants agreed that their open door policy, frequent parent meetings, and timely
communication with parents were crucial to increased parental involvement. Moreover,
Dr. Brown stated that parents of students who have been removed or suspended from
Green Spring Academy were required to be involved through a re-entry conference
before returning their student back to school. She thought that this process not only
promoted more parental involvement, but it also ensured that student, staff, and parent are
all on the same page.
Notwithstanding the best efforts of staff and parents to perpetuate a high degree of parent involvement in their students’ education, there were mixed opinions among all research participants concerning the level of involvement that could be expected based on the educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status of parents. All nine parents shared their educational levels, occupations, and stage of life information with the researcher; moreover, observing them in their home environments provided further insights into their situations. Parent and staff responses, coupled with these observations, provided a basis for analyzing parent and staff opinions concerning the possible influence of parents’ educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status on their involvement in their child’s education.
Eight of the nine parents invited the researcher into their homes for the interviews, allowing her the opportunity to observe their lifestyles, priorities, social statuses, etc. as they might relate to their involvement in their children’s education. Subsequently, during these interviews, the researcher observed very small, modest, yet adequately furnished homes, erected incredibly close together and situated near railroad tracks. These noisy 86 environments, not located in the best part of town, are home to parents who are often caring for foster children and/or raising other family members’ children as well as their own.
These parent participants’ educational levels ranged from high school dropout to college graduate; similarly, their socioeconomic levels range from working class to professional. Interestingly enough, their educational and socioeconomic levels do not necessarily correspond to their degree of anticipated parental involvement. For example, both Ann and Emily, parents who dropped out of high school, felt that their educational and economic levels did not adversely affect their involvement in their child’s education.
Ann wanted her children “to be able to finish high school and hopefully go to college so they can get a good job and have more” than she and her husband had. Her husband, a
“hard working roofer” was “always telling them [their children] that he does not want them to do this kind of work every day; rather, he wants them to have better than their parents.” Ann felt that their lower educational and economic levels actually “have a lot to do with” their increased parental involvement in their daughter’s education. Similarly,
Emily, an eleventh grade high school dropout, but later a GED recipient mother, felt that her personal educational struggle actually influenced her increased involvement in her son’s education as well. She explained:
I always taught my kids to do much, much better than what I do. I want them to
go farther in their education than what I did. Go to college and graduate. If there’s
something else they need to do in school, and if they think they might have to go
back another two or three years to get where they want to go, get it. Don’t let
nobody stop you. 87
Ann also felt that a parent’s socioeconomic status has no direct influence on how
involved that parent might be in his/her child’s education. She stated that she does not
care if a parent is bringing in 10 million dollars every two or three years…or
earning 15 to 20 thousand dollars a year. The parent that’s bringing in a million
dollars a year might not spend as much time teaching that child to have a good
education compared to the parent who is making less money who would make
sure she keeps her child on that path to get a real good education.
Lynn and Arnold, both high school graduates; and Barry, a high school graduate
who had later earned his GED, also felt that parents’ educational, cultural, or
socioeconomic backgrounds do not influence their involvement in their children’s
education. Lynn felt that “being rich has nothing to do with parental involvement” and
that “money does not make your kid learn any differently.” Likewise, both Arnold and
Barry, who considered themselves to be very involved with their children’s education,
felt that more wealthy parents are often less involved in their children’s education
because they spend all their time making money, leaving no time to go to parent
meetings, conferences, etc. Furthermore, Barry felt that his being a high school dropout,
who received his GED in the military, has no negative influence on his involvement in
his own daughter’s education. He emphasized to his daughter that “no dropout is going
anywhere. I tell my children that they have to have at least a GED. If you can get a high
school diploma, go get it and get some college.”
Tom and Denise, college dropouts, also agreed with Lynn and Arnold, high school graduates, and with Barry, a GED recipient, that parents’ educational, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds have no negative effect on their involvement in their 88 child’s education. Tom, who lacked one year of college completing his teacher education program, was somewhat unsure of his opinion at first, but soon responded that he “wants the best for his son” and that he “would like to think that no matter what [his] background was, [he’d] be the same.” Denise, who dropped out of college to continue a coop job, felt that although her lower socioeconomic situation limits what she can provide for her son, she nevertheless considers herself to be a parent who has been “involved from the get go.” She also felt that “actually, if you go to that elementary school and ask them, they would tell you that they wish I wouldn’t be as much involved as I was.”
On the other hand, the parents who were college graduates agreed with two of the three staff participants that educational, cultural, and socioeconomic factors do influence the degree of parental involvement in a child’s education. Rose, a single mother, felt that she “believes in education” because both she and her now deceased husband were college graduates. Rose stated that although she had explained to her son many times that
“education is an investment in [his] future,” his acquisition of that education “has been nothing but heartache for him.” Nevertheless, she stated that she continues to encourage him by insisting that “knowledge is power…and the world is all about an education.”
Cheryl, also a college graduate and mother of a son who has been dually diagnosed with both Asperger syndrome and Bipolar Disorder, simply stated that one should “Google” her name, insinuating that her reputation as a national speaker and parent advocate increased the likelihood of her involvement in her son’s education. Initially all three staff participants agreed that a parent’s educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status did indeed influence a parent’s involvement in his/her child’s education. However, a close examination of the data from their interviews depicts somewhat differing views on this 89 point. For example, Ms. Bellmont, high school English teacher and National Board candidate, felt that since many of her students’ parents were of a lower socioeconomic and educational status, they were “absolutely” less participatory than parents from a culture that recognizes the value of higher education. She further felt that Green Spring
has very few, if any, college educated parents…so a lot of parents are surprised
that we want to prep their students for college. Some of them undermine their
students because we are pointing them to achieve more than perhaps their parents
have. We have several students graduating who are the first persons in their
families to graduate from high school. We’ve sent several on to college who were
the first in their families to go to college as well. So some parents… get very
excited about that, and some parents are very intimidated and somewhat negative,
verbally beating up their kids about it…Some are very excited that their children
are going to get more than they themselves did…Many come from a cultural
background where their parents don’t value education, or understand the value of
education. They consider things, such as babysitting a younger sibling [at home],
more important than the student’s need to be in school.
Likewise, Dr. Brown, the principal, agreed with Ms. Bellmont in that since “many
Green Spring Academy parents do not have a high school education, they don’t necessarily understand or value education,” and are consequently less involved in their child’s education. Dr. Brown also felt that, on the other hand, “some [parents] who have very little education really push their students to become academically successful.” She felt that one can truly judge the degree of family involvement by a child’s behavior…and attendance at school.” According to Dr. Brown, many Green Spring Academy parents 90 show their lack of involvement by failing to provide documentation for their child’s absence, taking a light look at truancy, and subsequently, “not valuing education as much as they should.” She felt that since “socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds go hand in hand,” the fact that “98% of Green Spring’s students are on free or reduced lunch” demonstrates that a lower educational status often results in a lower socioeconomic level, consequently promoting a culture that does not value the acquisition of their child’s education.
Interestingly, Mr. Gerald, a third year math teacher, gave a somewhat different view than the other two staff participants above. He would have agreed totally with them had it not been for his one year previous teaching experience in a different cultural setting prior to coming to Green Spring. He explained that during his first year as a math teacher in an Appalachian area, he himself had been surprised to find that a turn out of “fifteen” parents for his homeroom open house was considered “great” by his colleagues who explained to him that due to their “Appalachian culture,” he should not expect more than six or seven parents in attendance. As a result of this experience, Mr. Gerald felt that his additional parent turn out might be due to his informative emails, positive messages, and invitations to parents to attend parent meetings. Consequently, he believed that parents
“expect us [teachers] to contact them.” He felt that he contacted the parents quite often.
He stated:
Actually, here at Green Spring we [the staff] contact parents all the time, either by
phone, email, or letters. We meet with parents often, and they expect us to keep
them up to date on their child’s progress and to not let them fall so far behind that
teachers must call them two weeks before the end of the quarter to say their child 91
is failing. Parents don’t want that shocker; they expect us to let them know all
along how their child is doing.
Mr. Gerald credited the staff’s persistent communication with parents for Green
Spring Academy’s high degree of parent involvement. By comparing the cultural
backgrounds of two different schools, one being Appalachian and the other urban, and by
using the same technique of aggressively “contacting and inviting parents,” he felt he was
able to observe an increase in the expected parent involvement at both school sites. Mr.
Gerald passionately felt that
we (Green Spring’s staff) get the majority of our parents here involved at the
parent/teacher conferences. The majority of them do come. I don’t think it’s
necessarily the educational level, cultural background, social status, race, or
socioeconomic status. I don’t think it’s just like all that. It’s how well the
teachers try to get them involved. I think it does fall a lot more on the teachers. If
they are more persistent, you’ll have a bigger turnout of parents no matter what
their background is.
Regardless of whether the research participants feel a parent’s educational, cultural, or socioeconomic level influences parental involvement in their children’s education, all agreed that there are steps that educators might take to encourage more parental involvement in schools. Parent participants suggested the following:
• communicate with parents through short, frequent calls, emails, or letters;
• send home positive communication about child;
• make home visits; 92
• offer flexible meeting dates and times for parent meetings to accommodate
parents’ schedules and individual needs;
• give incentives (for example, raffle off pizzas), serve dinner, provide
transportation, and offer childcare to encourage parent attendance at school
meetings;
• invite parents to visit classrooms and participate by sharing about their careers,
hobbies, and life experiences;
• involve the community in school fairs, dances, and festivals;
• recognize parents for their involvement in extracurricular activities;
• include parents in school events, banquets, and holiday activities;
• help parents not to feel afraid, intimidated, or blamed for child’s issues;
• congratulate families on births, marriages, graduations, etc.;
• cultivate trust between family and school;
• remain connected with parents.
Staff participants suggested that educators take the following steps to increase parental involvement in schools:
• be assertive with reminder calls, letters, and invitations to parent conferences,
meetings, etc.;
• be genuine in eliciting parents’ input;
• let parents know that their opinions count;
• plan student led parent/teacher conferences;
• offer open door policy to parents; 93
• invite parents to sit with students when they are experiencing academic or
behavioral issues;
• continue traditional open house and other regularly scheduled meetings for
parents;
• invite parents to chaperone field trips;
• require parents to come to school for emergency student removals and re-entry
conferences.
Ms. Bellmont believed that although it is “rare that they [parents] want the school to make definite changes to meet their expectations,” she felt that Green Spring does make changes that are requested by the parents. For example, at the suggestion of parents, the school loosened up on the uniform policy and began offering music as part of the regular school curriculum. Although Ms. Bellmont felt that these changes were significant, staff suggestions listed above for increased parental involvement contain hints of many more needed changes that alternative schools could make to meet parents’ needs and expectations.
Despite the fact that parent participants felt deeply involved in their children’s education and extremely positive about Green Spring’s educational program, their desire for a closer rapport with the school staff was evident in their suggestions above. For example, more flexible meeting dates and times to accommodate parents’ schedules, more home visits by school staff, and more parental inclusion in the classroom were a few possible approaches that Green Spring’s parents felt their school should consider when addressing the expectations and needs of parents. 94
Staff participants desired to meet the needs and expectations of the parents. Mr.
Gerald felt that he worked diligently with parents to make sure he was addressing all student IEP needs. Ms. Bellmont believed that parents’ expectations seem to
evolve over time. A lot of times the parents we get are at their wit’s end. We’re
the last resort, and in many cases they don’t believe that their children can achieve
based on their past behavior, [lack of] academic achievement, or their
involvement with discipline problems. Many of them look to us to be their Savior
and have high expectations for us to be the disciplinarian in their children’s lives
when they are not… These expectations depend on the individual parents.
Sometimes their expectations for their child get higher as time goes along. It’s
cool because as their students begin to achieve, the parents begin to realize that
there is more out there for their students. As parents’ expectations increase for
their children, so do their expectations of the school.
Both Ms. Bellmont and Dr. Brown were eager to meet parents’ increased expectations, which resulted from their students’ increased academic successes. They were happy that their roles often changed from strictly disciplinarian to educator, showing children the way to academic success and optimistic futures.
Upper Heights Alternative
Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School is a coed school located in the same Midwestern urban area as Green Spring Academy. The program began in 1999 as an educational renewal program for local elementary and high school students within the public school district. At that time the program served approximately 180 students from a broad regional area. In the fall of 2002 the program moved to another location and 95
remained there for about six months. At that time the program had approximately 40
students from the local urban high school. It was at this time the name of the program
was changed to its present name. In the winter of 2002 the program moved to its present
location where it is housed in a renovated YMCA building. Although this program
expanded to include middle school students as well as high school students, it has
continued to be housed in the same building as when it was established in 2002. The
program has continued to expand to include students from yet another neighboring urban
high school which accounts for a total student enrollment of 60. The local school board
plans to move Upper Heights Alternative School to yet another location large enough to
accommodate additional students as another neighboring district’s alternative program
plans to merge with Upper Heights for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Students presently attending the Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High
School are at high risk for failing and dropping out of school. Ninety percent of the students enrolled in this alternative program are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.
Racial demographics are 35% African American and 65% Caucasian. The staff consists of the following full time employees: one principal, one dean, eight academic teachers
(two of whom are intervention specialists; one of whom is a technology instructor), six instructional assistants, one school nurse, one school psychologist, one social worker, one secretary, one maintenance/safety worker, and one cafeteria worker. Approximately 10-
15% of the student population is court assigned; the remaining student enrollment is by choice for those students suspended or expelled from the traditional district middle and high schools. Students who violate their individual school policies are eligible for consideration to enroll in this alternative program, whose primary goal is to provide 96
academic instruction with an emphasis on “catching up” on regular studies. All students
eventually return to their regular schools in hopes of graduating on time from their
sending high schools. Additionally, students learn positive behavior skills through
counseling, community service, and small problem solving groups. These supportive
elements of the Upper Heights’ curriculum provide life skills training for students’
eventual entry into their adult lives.
To learn about this alternative program, the researcher interviewed six parents, two teachers, and one principal from Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School.
Two teachers and one principal were interviewed at the school site in their classrooms and office respectively. Two of the parents were interviewed by phone due to the unfortunate circumstances of homelessness, sickness, and hospitalization. One family’s home had been destroyed by a recent house fire, leaving the family homeless as they sought temporary shelter with relatives. Another family’s daughter, a student at Upper
Heights, was hospitalized while recovering from brain tumor surgery. The researcher was grateful for the time these parents gave for interviews. Three parents were interviewed in their homes while one interview occurred in a church parking lot due to that parent’s tight time schedule with a child’s baseball practices.
Interviewing the school staff presented a couple of challenges as well for the researcher. Since the school was actually located in the basement of the renovated
YMCA building, the researcher had some difficulty locating the school on the first visit.
She drove around the city block several times searching for the address before arriving at the main entrance of the school. It was not well-marked, and the actual sign was not visible from the outside of the building. Upon entering the building, the researcher found 97 herself on a tiled stairwell landing, having to choose whether to go upstairs or down. By chance, she descended the stairs to a lower basement level to find a small typed sign posted on the wall indicating the operating hours for the Upper Heights Alternative
School. A buzzer on the door provided entrance to a single level, six room alternative educational program.
The double door entrance led to the principal’s office on the left where the researcher was warmly greeted by the school secretary. Meanwhile, a student had come to the office to receive a pass for early dismissal. Shortly thereafter, the secretary informed Ms. Wagoner, the school principal, that the researcher had arrived for the scheduled interviews. Ms. Wagoner busily explained to the researcher that she had scheduled three interviews for her and that these would take place during the educators’ regular, scheduled lunch breaks. She indicated that her interview would take place lastly as she had some necessary school business that she had to take care of shortly.
The researcher’s first interview was with Ms. Taylor, a 24-year veteran teacher.
Her experience included 14 years in the traditional school and 10 years in the alternative school setting. She taught careers, practical living, arts, and humanities for grades 6-11 at
Upper Heights. She indicated that she was also the mother of a 40 year old son and the grandmother of a second grade granddaughter. During her interview she enthusiastically described her job and demonstrated her ability to relate to the parents of her students by using the wisdom gained from her years of her teaching experience as well as her every day life experiences as mother and grandmother. Ms. Taylor was especially gifted in breaking the barriers of fears, isolation, and perceived intimidation that often prevent parents from becoming involved in their children’s education. 98
Mr. Sadler, a third year English teacher, had previously worked in traditional schools as a substitute teacher for five years before acquiring his teaching license and his teaching position at Upper Heights. The father of four children, ages 9-12, Mr. Sadler stated that he did not anticipate ever becoming involved with an alternative school as a parent. He stated that he had originally feared working at the “bad boy’s” school but soon learned that Upper Heights was the “best kept secret” in this urban area. He especially liked the small class sizes with one teacher and one instructional assistant per class, allowing for more interaction between students and educators. Mr. Sadler was on track to complete his administrator’s licensure requirements the following summer.
Mrs. Wagoner, principal at Upper Heights, had worked as a school administrator for the past 11 years. Her first six years were in the traditional school; her last five were here at Upper Heights. She felt that her long tenure as an administrator provided the consistency needed for optimal school growth and development. Prior to becoming a school principal, she had taught in the traditional school setting for eight years before staying home with her two sons, ages 14 and 17, for a period of seven years in between.
As a military wife, she had taught school in three different states. She stated that she did not miss teaching and felt that she was a “better administrator than a teacher.”
The parents interviewed also represented a variety of experiences, opinions, and backgrounds. Parents’ educational backgrounds ranged from eighth grade to the master’s degree level. Likewise, socioeconomic backgrounds ranged from homeless, jobless, to professional. Parental involvement among the six parents also ranged from little or none to calling or visiting daily to check on their student. 99
Mrs. Winters who was a high school graduate, a production specialist for a local company, and a 33-year old mother of an eighth grade daughter at Upper Heights, was unable to schedule a face to face interview due to her daughter’s imminent surgery to remove a brain tumor. To complicate matters even further, Mrs. Winters’ son played baseball on a league that scheduled games on an on-call basis, necessitating a telephone interview. Her daughter had attended Upper Heights Alternative School for one year, and
Mrs. Winters was proud to say that her daughter “had done great academically.”
The other parent interviewed by phone was Mrs. Wadsworth, a mother with an eighth grade education. Her home had recently burned leaving her family homeless while they lived with a family member. The 45-year old mother of a tenth grade son at Upper
Heights was herself physically disabled with spina bifida. She willingly interrupted her busy schedule to participate in an interview.
Mr. Morrison, father of a ninth grade son at Upper Heights, was raising two grandsons as a single parent. The children’s grandmother had died a few years earlier, leaving Mr. Morrison to raise the grandsons alone. Mr. Morrison did not mention why the boys’ biological parents were unable to parent them. Although Mr. Morrison had only attained an eighth grade education, the 61-year old grandfather owned his own lucrative roofing business. It was interesting to learn that Mr. Morrison himself had been in trouble at a very young age, only to be rescued by his own father who begged the judge to release his young son to him so he could teach him to become a roofer in order to avoid a jail sentence. This experience seemed to shape Mr. Morrison’s opinion that an education for his own son and grandsons was a necessity to avoid a life time of hard physical labor. 100
Mrs. Rolland, a city worker with a high school education, was the mother of a 17 year-old African American son who had just fathered a baby with a Caucasian teenage mother. This new grandmother was very busy making numerous trips to the hospital to check on her son’s newborn infant who remained hospitalized with medical difficulties.
To further complicate matters, the maternal grandmother was not readily accepting the birth of her biracial infant granddaughter. Mrs. Rolland stated that although she was happy about the birth of the baby, the other grandmother was having difficulties with this family situation.
A mother with an eighth grade education, Ms. Summers had unsuccessfully attempted to acquire her GED. She felt her daughter, an eighth grader at Upper Heights, needed to be on an IEP, but had been unsuccessful in her attempts to have her daughter tested for an individualized educational plan. Ms. Summers, a single mother, was a social security insurance (SSI) recipient who had been unable to work and support her daughter and herself for several years. Her meager existence consisted of a small apartment in a row of military style bunkers, a mattress on the floor for a bed, a television, and a small table in the kitchen. Assuming that the researcher was representing Upper Heights, she immediately produced her daughter’s report card containing mostly Fs, asking the researcher for explanations of her grades and her status for the coming school year. The researcher repeated the purpose of the visit and suggested to her that she call Mrs.
Wagoner, the principal at Upper Heights, with any questions she might have concerning her daughter’s academic needs. The researcher gave Upper Heights’ phone number to the mother and proceeded on with the interview. 101
Ms. Thomas, the single mother of an eleventh-grade son, has a master’s degree
and worked as legal assistant for a local attorney. Her son had been assigned to Upper
Heights for disciplinary reasons. Ms. Thomas hoped that her son would complete the
alternative program and return to his school of origin in time to graduate with his class.
This interview occurred in Ms. Thomas’ car in a church parking lot in an effort to save
the time it would have taken for the researcher to drive to her home. Since Ms. Thomas
was already in the area, this meeting arrangement worked well for both her and the
researcher.
Most of the parents mentioned above seemed to classify themselves as at least
somewhat involved in their child’s education. Likewise, the Upper Heights program
seemed to encourage parental involvement and emphasized the importance of such
involvement beginning with the student’s initial registration, orientation, and continuing throughout the student’s academic and life skills training. During the orientation, parents were invited to visit, call, or check the school website as school staff encouraged parents to work together with them in partnership to support their child. Upper Heights described their program as a “behavior intervention program” designed to assist students as they worked through a program of behavior modification levels earning a specified number of points to eventually complete the program and return back to their schools of origin.
School tardies, absences, violations of the school code of conduct, and missed detentions, all required the parents to return to school with their child for re-entry into the school program. Parents were encouraged to follow their child’s academic progress and social skills development throughout the completion of this program. 102
When asked about their expectations of an alternative school, parents typically responded that Upper Heights was indeed meeting their expectations. Ms. Thomas exclaimed the school was exceeding her expectations! She continued to explain that although Upper Heights did not offer her son’s advance placement classes, she felt that the school had met her expectations and that her son “had given up that privilege” as a result of getting suspended from his regular school. As the interview continued, Ms.
Thomas stated that she would expect an effective alternative school to have a “motivated staff” that provided a “good education” in a “safe environment” by dealing consistently, fairly, and firmly with all students. She felt that frequent communication to parents, small group instruction, and individualized remediation were necessary elements of an effective alternative school program.
Several parents indicated that their children were making more academic progress at Upper Heights than they had been at their schools of origin. Ms. Summers expected teachers to “understand her daughter’s problems” and “help her” by taking the time to speak individually with her. Mr. Morrison, Mrs. Winters, and Ms. Taylor all agreed that
“individualized attention” was the key to helping students in the alternative school setting. Mr. Morrison felt that when students know their teachers “really care,” these
“troubled youth” will improve both academically and socially. He also expected staff to
“teach the basics” by getting back to emphasizing “reading, writing, and arithmetic.” Ms.
Rolland expected the staff to “keep in touch with her son’s IEP, maintain control, and prevent bullying in the classroom.” Ms. Winters expected alternative schools to provide
“a different way of learning” for her court ordered daughter by offering what she called
“life lessons classes.” According to Ms. Winters, these classes should not “seem like a 103 class”; rather, they would provide a forum for students to discuss their problems and teachers to “interact giving examples of different ways to handle problems.”
All the parents interviewed seemed to agree that providing a quality education through small group instruction, individualized education, a safe learning environment, and frequent communication home were their primary expectations of an alternative school. Ms. Taylor, the 24-year veteran teacher, felt that parents’ greatest expectation was that the alternative staff “get their kids back on track” for a timely high school graduation at their school of origin; while Mr. Sadler, the third year teacher, felt that the parents are “merely looking for a place that can contain their (troubled) student.” On the other hand, it was interesting to note that Mrs. Wagoner, Upper Heights’ principal, felt that parents may not “know what to expect” of an alternative school program. She continued by stating that parents of “repeat students” usually know how to verbalize their expectations because they generally “have had a more positive experience” with Upper
Heights than the traditional school and because “this (the alternative school) is where they (parents) know their child has been successful in some way or another.” It was not clear to the researcher whether Mrs. Wagoner thought that parents actually formulate their expectations before or after their first experience with an alternative school; however, the thought provided an interesting question for future research.
Regardless of when parents formulate their expectations, when asked if Upper
Heights was meeting their expectation, five of the six parents interviewed answered with an overwhelming “yes!” Mr. Morrison mentioned that the “caring” and “extra attention” that his son received from the Upper Heights staff were factors that led to his “lazy, troubled son’s” improved academic grades. Ms. Winters stated she knew the staff was 104
meeting her expectations when she observed her eighth grade daughter coming home
“enthusiastic and happy about school.” Ms. Wadsworth, mother of a tenth grade son who
followed an IEP, did not agree with the other five parents that Upper Heights was
meeting her expectations. To the contrary, she felt that the school should provide more
socialization and educational opportunities for her son by offering him the opportunity to
participate in a broader group of “good kids.” In other words, she expected the school to
provide activities where her son could socialize with all children rather than placing him
in a small group of “slower learners.”
When asked if Upper Heights was meeting parent expectations, Mr. Sadler,
English teacher, mentioned that he felt parents appreciated teachers’ efforts to
communicate home frequently; Ms. Taylor, careers and art teacher at Upper Heights, felt
that parents might like a broader curriculum for their children, one that would include
advanced placement courses, foreign language classes, more arts electives, and the
opportunity to participate in school sports at their schools of origin. As it stood,
suspended and expelled students were not permitted to return to their sending schools,
even to participate in team sports. Ms. Taylor felt that these additional opportunities
would be great for the students but realized that such an expanded program would require
Upper Heights to “run a larger school than what they had now.” Ms. Taylor knew that
this school improvement would not be likely in light of Upper Heights tight school
budget.
When asked if the alternative school addressed their personal concerns and needs as parents, all parent participants agreed that the staff members had as many responsibilities as they could handle just attempting to educate the students and that they 105 did not expect any help from the school with their own personal needs. Although Mr.
Morrison had employed a young man in his roofing business who had quit school without learning to read, he did not feel it was the school’s responsibility to teach this young man to read or to help him acquire his GED. Mr. Morrison felt that a parent would be “asking a lot of a teacher who’s already got her hands full to ask her to start educating the parent as well. I don’t expect them to teach me.” Ms. Thomas, legal assistant and mother of an eleventh grade son, agreed that she “didn’t expect the teachers to do anything (for her) directly,” except for “providing him (her son) an education and keeping good control of him during the day.” By providing a “structured learning environment” for her son, the teachers were providing “peace of mind” for her which exceeded her expectations for anything they could do for her “directly.”
For the parents who do have unmet expectations of the school, the question might follow as to how these parents can make their expectations known to the school staff.
When asked if the school invited them to or discouraged them from participating in their child’s education, most parents responded that Upper Heights welcomed their involvement in their children’s alternative educational program. Parents mentioned Upper
Heights’ open door policy, allowing the parents to check in on their students at any time, their informative orientation/registration program, parent/teacher conference times, parent satisfaction surveys, and their informative quarterly “strengthening family dinners.” Parents felt that all these opportunities provided a forum for making their unmet expectations known to the school staff.
Although parents felt their voices were being heard, they were not sure that their suggestions were being used to make changes in school policies, curriculum, or 106 discipline. While all the parents were satisfied with their opportunities to voice their opinions, none could provide any example of a suggestion that effected a change in any school policies.
On the other hand, Mr. Sadler, third year English teacher, felt that “parent involvement was pretty low” at Upper Heights. He suspected that the parents’ own “bad school experiences” coupled with “the fear factor of being surrounded by six other educators during a parent/teacher conference might cause some parents to become intimidated.” He questioned, “Why would they (parents) want to come back to a place that was already a bad experience for them?” Mrs. Wagoner, principal, also agreed that
“parents’ own negative school experiences” along with their “children’s negative school experiences could cause them to feel intimated.” Ms. Taylor, veteran teacher, suggested that perhaps because most of their parents are “low-end” socially, educationally, and economically, they may not “know how to become more involved” despite Upper
Heights’ efforts to provide open door policies, informative meetings, conference times, etc. She felt that “all parents want their kids to graduate high school; they want them to be successful.” Ms. Taylor also felt that Upper Heights school “has been fortunate to have a social worker who has encouraged parent participation.” Ms. Taylor felt that parents would become more involved in their children’s education “when we (staff) learn how to work with them (the parents).
Ms. Taylor also suggested that by having a “positive interaction with the parents of all students early on at the beginning of the school year (before the negative calls had to be made),” educators would be taking a step in the right direction to encourage more parental involvement in schools. For example, during the first week of school, she 107 attempts to make an initial call to each parent introducing herself, telling the parent what subjects she teaches, and inviting parents “to stop by or call any time they have a question or concern about their child.” She felt this effort helped keep the “lines of communication open.” Ms. Taylor also felt that since many parents “worked nights requiring them to sleep during the day,” it was important to be as flexible as possible when scheduling parent meetings, conferences, and open house programs for parents.
Mr. Morrison, single grandfather, suggested that schools invite more parents in to do volunteer work in the schools. He shared how in his own family his daughter-in-law volunteers regularly, as did her mother, and the positive effect that parental involvement seemed to have on the child. Ms. Winters, mother of an eighth grade daughter, suggested that if teachers work really hard “interacting with students” and sending them home
“filled with enthusiasm for learning, (then) parents would want to know and find out what they (their students) are so happy about.” As a result, parents would naturally want to know what was going on at school and would consequently become more involved in their child’s education.
Despite all efforts to promote parental involvement in school, there were mixed opinions among both educators as well as parents as to how a parent’s educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status influences his or her involvement in a child’s education. Although all three educators felt that these factors do affect parents’ expectations and involvement, both Mrs. Wagoner, principal, and Ms. Taylor, experienced teacher, felt that lack of parental involvement was more a result “not knowing how” rather than being on the “low end” in these areas. 108
Mr. Sadler, English teacher, did not “like to generalize” on this topic; however, he did not “think education is as important to them (parents) as it might be to (himself). Mr.
Sadler felt that because his parents “ingrained into him the importance of getting an education from a very young age,” he had grown up with those same ideals and standards for himself. Concerning his students at Upper Heights, he stated that he did not “think these kids have that.” He did not feel that “education from a young age was ingrained in them.” He very thoughtfully stated that perhaps this fact might have led to Upper
Height’s “low parent involvement.”
Ms. Taylor, 24 year veteran teacher, felt that education, culture, and socioeconomic status all affect a parent’s expectations of Upper Heights. She remembered teaching some of the parents of the students she now teaches at Upper
Heights. She felt that their successes or failures as students might have influenced their desire to become involved in their own students’ education now. Ms. Taylor felt that
“because many parents weren’t successful in school, they gave themselves excuses for their student’s lack of success.” These parents would say, “Oh, I did that in school too.
They’ll grow out of it.” Ms. Taylor felt that all parents want to be involved in their child’s education regardless of their educational, social, or cultural backgrounds; however, some, especially “low-end parents don’t know how or what to do.” She felt that if parents “know how to work with us (school staff), their involvement would increase and their expectations would become higher” as a consequence.
Mrs. Wagoner explained that when she became principal of Upper Heights, she had carried some “misconceptions” about parents with her to her new job. Even with her varied teaching background, she had never taught in an urban school, let alone an urban 109 alternative school. Consequently, she responded with hesitation when asked about the educational, social, or cultural effects on parents’ expectations of Upper Heights. She stated:
When I first started here, I had many misconceptions about this program. I’ve
never been in an urban inner city school district. I didn’t attend one, and I’ve
never taught in one—not even in California. This is terrible to say, but my
perception was I’ll never have to deal with the kids. I will just suspend them. I’ll
never have to deal with the parents because they’ll never be here. I’ll never have
to talk to them about those kinds of things. What I’ve found is the parents of these
children really care about them. They might not go about things the way I would
with my own children, but they care about them, and I do believe they want the
best for them. They want better than what they have. They just don’t know how to
do that.
Although Mrs. Wagoner was unable to state conclusively whether or not she felt a parent’s background affected his/her expectations of Upper Heights, she felt that all the parents of her students, “regardless of their status, expected their children to graduate from high school.”
Several of the parent participants felt that a parent’s educational, cultural, and socio economic status does influence involvement in a child’s education. Mr. Morrison, a wealthy roofer and grandfather with an eighth grade education, felt that better educated, financially stable parents are “going to have more time” and “be more able” to be involved in their children’s’ education. 110
Mrs. Winters felt that although she had a high school education, the fact that she graduated 15 years ago made it more difficult for her to be involved in her child’s education. She explained, “The way of teaching these days is different than the way we were taught. It’ harder for us to help the kids when they come home with homework because we don’t know the methods that they are trained and taught.” Although she felt a parent’s education affected a parent’s involvement, she did not feel that “money made them (parents) more involved.” She knew “a lot of parents who make more money who seemed not to go around school as much” as those parents who earn a higher salary.
Mrs. Rolland felt that if a “parent has no money, the child is not going anywhere.”
She felt that parents who earn higher salaries are more involved in their children’s education and demonstrate their higher expectations by enrolling them in private schools.
She was speaking from experience. Mrs. Rolland had sent her son to a private school for five years where he had thrived. He had been placed in small, individualized classrooms.
She felt the private school’s staff followed her son’s IEP more closely. She especially liked their small social skills groups where students could discuss their problems with caring teachers. Her son was also able to participate in school sports in the private school.
Because of her more recent financial circumstances, it became necessary for her to enroll him in the public high school. Having done so, Mrs. Rolland stated, “That’s when my problems began.” Her son had gotten into trouble and had been required to enroll in the
Upper Heights Alternative School.
Ms. Thomas agreed that parents’ educational levels influence their involvement in their child’s education. Sharing from her own life’s experience, she stated that she
“absolutely” agreed that more highly educated parents expect their children to do well in 111 school. She stated, “I’m adamant about it because of the way I approached my education, and that’s the source of my frustration. I don’t have any sympathy for my son because I pushed myself through a master’s degree. I don’t have any sympathy with his lack of motivation.”
Although Ms. Thomas felt that education had a great effect on parent involvement, she was less sure about economic status. She has “seen it both ways.” She has known “some wealthier parents who have paid absolutely no attention to their kids.”
Therefore, she concluded that “there is no direct correlation” between wealth and parental involvement.
Both Ms. Summers and Mrs. Wadsworth agreed that parents’ education, cultural, or socioeconomic backgrounds have no direct correlation with parent involvement in their child’s education. Ms. Summers who attended school through the eighth grade, thought her education “had nothing to do with her daughter’s.” Mrs. Wadsworth, who had been home schooled due to a spina bifida diagnosis and who had completed her education through the eighth grade, agreed that neither education nor earning power affected parental involvement. She felt that despite her personal difficulties— homelessness due to a recent house fire, her husband’s unemployment, and her physical disabilities-- she was “very involved” in her son’s education.
Although research participants shared various opinions concerning the effects parents’ education, culture, or economic levels might have on their involvement in their child’s education, all seemed to agree that the following changes would encourage more parental involvement in schools. Parent research participants suggested the following: 112
• frequent communication with parents;
• safe environment;
• motivated staff;
• quality education for all students;
• broad curriculum that includes foreign languages, arts electives, and advanced
placement courses;
• structured learning environment;
• remediation in the basics—reading, writing, and math;
• genuine concern for students’ individual educational needs;
• timely high school graduation;
• small group instruction;
• social skills classes;
• team sports;
• bully prevention instruction;
• opportunities for parents to volunteer;
• informational parent seminars.
Staff research participants suggested the following:
• positive interaction with parents;
• open door policy;
• training opportunities for parents;
• parent inclusion in school-wide projects;
• flexible scheduling of parent meetings;
• home visits. 113
Mrs. Wagoner, Upper Heights’ principal, felt that she and her staff were always
willing to listen to parents’ concerns and do their best to make needed changes. She
related how the school “provides opportunities for parental input for school improvement
through their strengthening families meetings.” During those meetings, the staff
“communicates with the parents about things that are happening at school.” She further
stated, “We have an open door policy; we listen to the parents as they tell us what they
think about certain things. We feel like we take into consideration their concerns in the
things we do.”
Ms. Taylor, veteran teacher, felt that Upper Heights could be doing better in the
area of using parent input to make needed school change. Since the school did not have a
“site-based council that would include parents, the only interactions with parents were occurring on a social level during family night meetings.” She felt that parents should be involved in policy making meetings, so that their voices could be heard and their ideas utilized for making needed changes.
For the most part, parent participants felt that Upper Heights’ staff members were going above and beyond all their expectations to include parents’ input in school change.
Ms. Thomas, in particular, felt that the school did everything in their power to make it possible for parents to come to family meetings by providing transportation, food, and childcare. She stated:
I feel like the school bends over backwards to include parents. I did an internship
in the school system years ago when I was in graduate school. I found it
unconscionable that the school would pay $10.00 an hour to get parents to come
to read to the pre-school children. God bless the school for trying that hard, but I 114
just don’t think any parent should have to be paid to participate in their child’s
education. I don’t know what more they could possibly do to try to get parents
involved.”
Although the other parent participants felt that Upper Heights School was using their input from parent survey responses, they could not point out specific changes that had been made as a result of their suggestions. They simply assumed that their responses to these survey questions had been taken into consideration by school staff when reviewing school policies.
Whether Upper Heights staff members are satisfactorily using parent input to make needed school changes, all three staff participants indicated that more parent input, participation, and involvement would greatly increase the quality of education that Upper
Heights would be able to deliver to their students. They wanted to think of ways that they could more effectively involve parents in their children’s education, utilizing parent suggestions to more fully meet parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools.
Edwards Community
Edwards Community High School is also a coed alternative school located in the same Midwestern urban area as Green Spring Academy and Upper Heights Alternative
Middle and High School. Student enrollment is by choice of parents and/or students with no students court ordered to attend. Although the school began in 2001 as a public school alternative program for students dealing with drug problems, it has evolved into a charter school for students at risk of failing and dropping out of school. Most of the student body consists of eleventh graders who find themselves lacking credits at their regular public schools. They enroll at Edwards Community where the curriculum consists of credit 115 recovery opportunities through the use of computer technology. During the registration interview, nearly all the students state that they plan to “catch up” and return back to their schools of origin for graduation. However, nearly all students enjoy their success at
Edwards so much that they remain and graduate there.
The student body, consisting of 97% African American and 3% Caucasian, is highly representative of a lower socioeconomic group with 85% of the total student body qualifying for free or reduced lunches. The small, yet adequate staff of one full time principal, one part time (.35%) assistant principal, six full teachers, two part time teachers, and two full time secretaries work diligently to bring the 118 currently enrolled students up to date on needed requirements for a timely graduation. Edwards’ staff research participants were all proud of their recent graduation of 18 students.
Edwards Community High School seemed unique in their emphasis of a rigorous academic program designed to help students recover and get back on track for high school graduation. When compared to Green Spring and Upper Heights, Edwards’ student population consisted almost exclusively of eleventh and twelfth graders, whereas
Green Spring’s and Upper Heights’ enrollments included a greater percentage of younger students. While Edwards focused on credit recovery, Green Spring and Upper Heights offered anger management classes and other counseling services to students dealing with inappropriate social behaviors. Finally, while Green Spring’s and Upper Heights’ staff participants hoped to eventually include sports at the sending schools as part of their offerings, Edwards’ staff indicated that their focus would remain on a strong academic program emphasizing higher Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) test scores, thus a higher graduation rate. Mr. Clark, principal, felt that because students were academically 116 successful at Edwards, whereas they had not performed well at their schools of origin, this alternative school staff had the unique opportunity of helping students academically based on their enrollment size and adequate staffing.
To gather more information about Edwards Community School, the researcher interviewed one principal, two teachers, and two parents. Although it had been the researcher’s goal to interview at least a total of ten parent participants, only two volunteered to participate. Due to her busy work schedule, her son’s graduation activities, and impending family vacation, one mother was unable to complete a face to face interview. After two attempts to meet at a local restaurant, this parent agreed to a phone interview. The other parent participant, the custodial grandfather of an eleventh grade grandson, volunteered to meet the researcher at a convenient restaurant for his interview.
One other parent volunteer who had originally responded to the researcher’s letter, later declined to participate.
The researcher’s first step was to interview the principal and two teachers at
Edwards Community School. The researcher located the tall, three story limestone building with no difficulty. Buzzing through security, the researcher was greeted by the school secretary and waited a few minutes before beginning the interviews with the three school staff volunteer participants.
The researcher’s first interview was with Mr. Clark, the school principal. He invited the researcher to follow him down a broad hallway to his office on the right. He explained that he preferred having his office in this room rather in the front area originally designed for the administrator’s office. This room allowed him to be more visible to the students and also gave him the vantage point of seeing all persons entering 117 and leaving the building. His office was neat and well-organized with a family picture displayed on the shelf behind his desk. Mr. Clark indicated that he “really enjoyed” this job because there was no stress associated with this school as there had been at his other administrative jobs. He liked “doing his job, leaving it at school, and going home—a perfect job for a retiree returning back to work.” Mr. Clark had been principal at Edwards for two years after coming out of retirement from 17 years of being principal in three different public high schools.
The researcher’s second interview was with Mr. Kelly, a 62-year old former attorney who had decided to “make a difference” by teaching school. He completed the required classes for his alternative teaching license at a local university. A third year teacher at Edwards, his vast experience as an attorney gave him a unique perspective as he taught social studies and economics to often somewhat unmotivated students. He was a tall, handsome, mild-mannered gentleman who liked teaching urban students who were at risk of failing and dropping out of school. The father of two grown sons, he felt he had much to offer his students from his life experiences as well as his previous career experiences.
The researcher’s third interview was with a 30-year old male teacher who had been teaching English at Edwards for the past two years. He had also taught English in a traditional high school for two years before coming to Edwards to teach. He enjoyed the academic freedom he was experiencing at Edwards of teaching in his own style which had not been afforded him at his first teaching assignment. His first teaching experience in a wealthy, suburban high school contrasted sharply with his teaching assignment at
Edwards. In the traditional school, he had been required to closely follow standard 118 curriculums and school pacing guides; whereas at Edwards he was free to adapt curriculum more closely to individual student needs. Although he found his present job quite rewarding, this teaching assignment was going to be his last for some time. He planned to interrupt his teaching career to fulfill a life long dream of writing a novel. He felt he could not devote himself fully to teaching while writing a novel. Since he was single and living with two other young males, his living expenses were minimal; he planned to support himself through bartending and doing landscaping for a friend.
The two parent interviews were interesting as well, representing somewhat differing opinions about parents and their expectations of urban alternative schools.
The first parent interview took place at a local restaurant. When the researcher first arrived at the restaurant and was attempting to find a parking space, she noticed an older, bearded gentleman nervously pacing in front of the restaurant. Not sure that it was Mr.
Webber, the grandfather of an eleventh grade student at Edwards, the researcher quickly phoned him to confirm that this was indeed the correct person and to let him know she was in view of the restaurant. The researcher quickly crossed the busy street and the two found a comfortable table inside the restaurant to complete the interview. Mr. Webber, a retired businessman, had lived in this metropolitan area for the past 26 years. He had supported his family with his porcelain business designing dishes, gadgets, and other whatnots.
After two failed attempts to keep a scheduled interview appointment with Mrs.
Charles, the researcher was able to complete this interview on the phone. The mother of a son who had just graduated from Edwards a few evenings before, this parent participant was so extremely busy with her job, preparing for her son’s graduation, and packing for a 119
family vacation that she was unable to meet the researcher for a face to face interview.
She drove a school bus for the local public school district requiring her to leave quite
early in the afternoon to complete her driving schedule. Because of her busy schedule,
she graciously completed the interview over the phone.
Although Mrs. Charles and Mr. Webber offered differing viewpoints during their
individual interviews, both indicated general satisfaction with Edwards’ overall academic
program. Both were parents of sons who had been attending for the past two years, and
both were glad that Edwards’ academic program was available to their sons who had
been unsuccessful in the traditional school setting. Both felt that their sons benefited from
the small class sizes and the available technology for credit recovery. Of course, Mrs.
Charles was most happy about her son’s recent graduation and could not say enough about her extreme satisfaction with Edwards Community School!
Mr. Webber was also optimistic that his grandson would be graduating from
Edwards next spring. His grandson had encountered a great deal of “personal problems at home” before coming to live with his grandfather. Mr. Webber described his grandson as an “underachiever” who required a great deal of motivation to complete the academic program at Edwards. He was happy with Edwards except for the fact that his son never seemed to have any homework. Mr. Webber felt that the students would learn much more if they were required to do some assignments at home as well as complete their regular computer curriculum at Edwards.
Mr. Webber felt that Edwards was a “last ditch effort” to help students such as his grandson; consequently, he did not expect much from this urban alternative school.
Although he described the teachers whom he had met at his grandson’s parent/teacher 120
conference as “quality people,” he was “sure that he wouldn’t get much” from the school.
He felt that because his grandson gave “minimum input,” he could not expect “maximum
output” from the teachers at Edwards. He felt that his grandson’s teachers were “doing as
much as they could” considering the type of students who generally enrolled in the
Edwards school program.
Mrs. Charles, on the other hand, held the same expectations of Edwards that she
would of any school. She expected the teachers to keep her son “on task, know what they
teach, give him work as needed, make sure he completes his work, and contact” her if or
when they have problems with her son. She felt that Edwards had “definitely met all her
expectations.”
Both parents felt that Edwards Community School had encouraged them to
participate in their child’s education. Mrs. Charles felt that Edwards’ “open door” policy inviting her to “attend anything that went on at school” was indicative of the school’s encouraging her to be an involved parent. Likewise, Mr. Webber appreciated the frequent mail he received from the school keeping him informed about school activities, calendars, and parent/teacher conferences. Obviously, the principal’s efforts to keep parents involved through frequent mail outs were successful in making the parents feel invited to participate in their children’s education.
Both Mr. Clark, principal, and Mr. Scott, English teacher, voiced opinions concerning parent expectations that Mrs. Charles and Mr. Webber had not mentioned.
Mr. Clark felt that parents were “looking for change” having come from the traditional school setting and hoping to find new hope for their academically deficient child. Many of Edwards’ parents requested IEP testing for their child that they had been refused at 121
their school origin. Mr. Clark felt that parents expected a school that “would somehow
miraculously make the difference in their child’s success.” Both Mr. Scott and Mr. Clark
felt that parents expected Edwards to function as a “safety net” providing their children a
“second chance” to gain an education and avoid the “handcuffs” of a possible “life of
crime, drugs, or alcoholism.” Mr. Scott felt parents were looking for a “strong family oriented” school program where parents and teachers could work together to improve the school culture. All three staff participants were excited about school-wide plans for professional development that should enable Edwards to develop a close working relationship with involved parents for the following school year.
The two parents did not share the staff members’ opinion that parents expected so much of this urban alternative school. Their ideas seem to be less intricate in comparison to the planned staff efforts cited by Mr. Scott and Mr. Clark to meet with their perceived notions of parent expectations of their school. Mr. Kelly, former attorney, did not share
Mr. Scott’s and Mr. Clark’s optimism about parent expectations. Conversely, he felt that so far Edwards’ parents had shown themselves to be “totally uninvolved” as demonstrated through their lack of attendance at parent/teacher conferences. He stated that on a quarterly basis the school has parent/teacher conferences and that he thought in the three years that he had been teaching at Edwards, “the most they had ever had in attendance was probably five parents.” Mr. Kelly felt that parents’ one and only expectation of the school was a “high school diploma” for their child.
Mrs. Charles and Mr. Webber did seem appreciative of the efforts the school staff members were putting forth for their children. Mr. Webber liked Edwards Community
School’s teachers because they “knew how to relate to kids,” and they seemed to “get 122 needed results.” Although Mr. Webber mentioned that a “career counselor” could offer valuable advice to graduating seniors, he nevertheless felt that teachers were there for
“teaching, and if the student is learning,” his greatest expectation as a parent is being fulfilled. Mrs. Charles praised the staff for helping her son graduate; however, she felt that other parents might like the school to offer “tutoring, summer school, and other after school programs.”
Although both parent participants were high school graduates, the three staff participants indicated that most of their students’ parents had not completed high school.
The staff participants agreed that a parent’s “minimal” educational background probably reduced that parent’s expectations of his/her child’s school as well as the educational aspirations for that child. Mr. Webber, custodial grandparent, agreed with the staff that a parent’s educational background does affect that parent’s involvement in their child’s education. He felt that the children of college educated parents usually go to college as well. However, Mrs. Charles, parent of a recent Edwards’ graduate, felt that a parent’s educational level does not predict parent involvement or parent expectations for a child’s education.
Mr. Kelly felt that many of Edwards’ “parents probably had negative school experiences, which carried over into their child’s educational setting which in turn carried over to their approaches with school staff.” For example, Mr. Kelly shared that a couple of years ago he had experienced “some problems with two boys who, although they were smart, just were not working very hard.” So he called their father to let him know that his sons were goofing off in class by not completing their work. Mr. Kelly was amused to 123
find out that “the father had told his sons and the sons had told him that their dad had said
not to trust anything an attorney tells them.”
Although Mr. Scott, the English teacher, found teaching at Edwards more
personally fulfilling for him than his experiences at his previous employment in a
suburban, wealthier school district, he nevertheless felt his students “lacked an
understanding of the value of an education.” Mr. Scott felt that these students apparently
missed out on the kind of “engrained understanding of the value of an education” that he
himself had received at a very early age. He felt that the parents of Edwards’ students
“had been disenfranchised by their lack of education.”
Mr. Scott was not so sure that the parents’ socioeconomic status affected their expectations for their child’s education in the same way their lack of education did. He rationalized that “people always want the best for their kids” regardless of their economic status. Mr. Clark, Edwards’ principal, agreed with Mr. Scott and Mr. Kelly that a parent’s educational level has an effect on the educational expectations for his/her child. He expressed his opinion this way:
Common sense 101 says that the college educated parent would value the
educational experience of a post secondary education more than a high school
educated parent. Regardless, in response to the current economic conditions,
Edwards must take up where the parents let go to get it across to the students that
a post secondary education of some sort is a necessary step beyond high school.
Although the Edwards staff stated that they had used parent suggestions to make needed change in school policies, neither of the parent participants were aware of those changes. Mr. Clark shared how the school’s tardy policy had changed. Late students were 124 now permitted to enter the school without requiring their parents to accompany them.
This change in policy had been made at the parents’ suggestion because they did not wish to go to school with their children each time they were a few minutes late. Rather, Mr.
Clark and the Edwards staff had agreed to accept a phone call for admitting tardy students to class. Additionally, Mr. Kelly shared about a time when a “father had suggested that his sons be removed off the computers for awhile.” Since the children were having difficulties with this technological approach, the staff followed the parents’ suggestion allowing the boys to use traditional textbooks and work in smaller class-sized groups. The change proved to be a least restrictive learning environment for the boys since they were “auditory learners” who quickly grew tired of “just staring at computer screens.”
For the most part, both parent and staff research participants agreed that parents’ greatest expectation of their urban alternative school was that students graduate from high school. Although tutoring, after school programs, a daycare for students’ children, and school counseling were all mentioned by some parents, other parents agreed that teachers’ “plates were full” with the job of educating their children in a safe and orderly school environment. Parents and staff also seemed to agree that parent participation was at an all time low; however, the staff voiced a desire to include more parent input in school planning. The staff members at Edwards were making definite plans for a staff professional development program that would investigate ways of incorporating parents into the policy making efforts of the school. 125
Parents’ Expectations of Urban Alternative Schools
An analysis of the three individual school stories—Green Spring Academy,
Upper Heights Alternative, and Edwards Community-- is presented in this section of the research study. The research questions, recurring themes and emergent patterns from field observations, archival data, current school documents, and interviews with 17 parents, six teachers, and three principals highlight parents’ expectations of and the need for sustainable change within urban alternative schools.
What are Parents’ Expectations of Urban Alternative Schools?
Although twelve parents whose children were placed at the alternative schools by their local school districts for disciplinary reasons stated that they had initially been unhappy with those placements, eleven of them were surprised with the high quality of educational services that their children were receiving at their respective alternative sites.
One of these twelve, whose son had been expelled from his regular school for “carrying a knife to school,” was not totally pleased with Upper Heights Alternative School. She felt that although the alternative school was neither meeting her son’s educational needs nor his need to socialize with “good kids,” his teachers were nevertheless “trying to help her child as best as they could.”
Another parent, whose child had been court ordered to attend, worried that his troubled child would be entering a school where he would be even “less likely to succeed” than he had been at his original school. However, this parent was also pleased with his child’s academic success at the alternative school site. Three other parents who chose to enroll their children at alternative sites for academic reasons also agreed that 126
their children were experiencing more academic success than they had at their traditional
schools.
One parent, who had been instrumental in Green Spring’s pilot program, had
enrolled her son because she felt this alternative school would be a “last ditch effort” for
her son who was dually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and Bipolar Disorder and
who had thus far been unsuccessful in the traditional school setting. This parent felt that
it was “a miracle” that her son was now a senior at Green Spring Academy and looking
forward to college.
In light of their initial reservations about these alternative schools, all seventeen
parents enrolled their children with minimal hope of educational success. However, as
these parents listened to and began to value staff members’ expectations for their
children’s academic success, their expectations of these schools and their expectations for
their children’s academic success began to increase as well.
Consequently, this study revealed various parent expectations of urban alternative schools. The researcher gleaned this information from parent, teacher, and administrator responses to in-depth interview questions. There was an overall agreement among all parents that their first and foremost expectation of an urban alternative school was that their children receive a quality education that meets their child’s individual educational needs while at the same time leads to a timely graduation.
Since most students enrolled in these three research sites had previously experienced minimal academic success, were now behind in school, and exhibited a lack of social skills, the ability to “make up credits” and “catch up” for a timely graduation drove the students to attend and work diligently to reach this goal. Because all three 127 schools—Green Spring, Upper Heights, and Edwards Community—utilized technology to allow students to make up credits needed for graduation, offered small group social skills classes such as the “Discovery Group” program at Green Spring and “bully prevention” instruction at Upper Heights, most parents were extremely pleased with these alternative schools.
During the interviews, parents mentioned that they desired to receive open, frequent, and timely communication from their child’s school personnel. One parent mentioned that he liked the “frequent mail-outs” from Edwards Community School. This parent confirmed that Mr. Clark’s efforts to keep parents informed were paying off.
Parents from Upper Heights indicated that they appreciated the school’s “open door policy,” allowing them to drop in on a class at their convenience. The fact that Green
Spring encouraged parent shadowing to address the academic and social concerns of their students was a highlight for some parents as well.
In order for these schools’ communication lines to stay open, parents indicated that they expected teachers to communicate with them through calls, emails, or letters.
They felt that in this day and age there should not be any reasons preventing parents from getting the information they needed to help support their child’s education. Parents indicated that they expected positive communication about their children when possible.
Some also expected flexible meeting dates and times for parent meetings to accommodate their busy schedules and individual needs. Some even mentioned that home visits would be appreciated when parents were unable to make it to scheduled conference times, due to sickness or transportation issues. Although one parent at Upper Heights mentioned the need for more academic tutoring, one parent at Edwards felt that daycare for students’ 128 children would be helpful, and another parent at Edwards stated that he would like career counseling for his son in light of his approaching graduation, most parents agreed that the teachers should remain focused on the responsibility of educating their children in a safe and orderly environment.
Overall, parents expected to be involved in their children’s education in every way possible. It was interesting to note that the longer their students had enjoyed academic success in the alternative school, the more expectations the parents seem to voice in their interview responses. For instance, some parents indicated that they would like to be more involved in their child’s classroom by sharing about their own careers, hobbies, and life experiences on special occasions such as career day, parents’ day, or grandparents’ day. Parents also would like to see more community events such as school fairs, dances, banquets, movie nights, festivals, etc. occurring at the school. They also felt that more positive recognition of parents who participate in these events would serve to unite the school, families, and community. Finally, parents expect to stay connected to the schools as educators cultivate trust between families and the school.
Staff members at each of the research sites felt that parents sometimes felt overwhelmed, afraid (Mr. Sadler, Upper Heights), intimidated, or blamed for their child’s lack of success (Ms. Taylor, Upper Heights). Teachers felt that some parents’ negative school experiences often carry over into their own children’s educational experiences
(Mr, Sadler, Upper Heights and Mr. Kelly, Edwards). Mr. Sadler related how “meeting with a team of teachers rather than one might be a surprise to them [parents].” Staff members felt that parents may expect to be part of a team rather than feeling alone while receiving mostly “negative information” about their child’s educational performance. Dr. 129
Brown, principal at Green Spring, stated that “parents may not feel comfortable coming
to those kinds of meetings” and may not always understand the “educational jargon” used
at these school meetings.
School staff at all three sites felt that parents expect them to be genuinely
concerned about their child’s academic needs and ready to provide remediation where
needed. Staff members also felt that since some parents had not been successful in school
themselves, they might experience unnecessary stress at parent/teacher conferences.
Consequently, staff members felt that parents need and expect help in overcoming their
own fears of inadequacies in this area.
Administrator and teacher responses to interview questions also shed light on
other parent expectations of urban alternative schools. Staff members felt that parents’ greatest expectation was that their children catch up on missing credits allowing them to graduate on time. This expectation seemed to be especially true for the parents of
Edwards Community students since the school enrollment consisted of mainly eleventh and twelfth grade students.
Teachers and principals also acknowledged that parents desire positive interaction between themselves and the school staff, training opportunities for parents, flexible scheduling of parent meetings, and home visits. Additionally, educators felt that parents
expect them to be assertive with reminder calls, letters, and invitations about meetings.
They felt that parents want school staff to be genuine in eliciting their input and that
parents expect for their opinions to count. However, one could question if educators are genuinely using parents’ opinions and input to make needed change. 130
Are Urban Alternative Schools Meeting Parents’ Expectations?
When asked if urban alternative schools are meeting their expectations, most parents in this study responded that these schools were definitely meeting their expectations. Urban alternative school staff indicated that they felt parents initially arrived at the school with low expectations because their children were usually enrolling as a result of some negative school experience. Once parents arrived, were welcomed by the alternative school staff, and were able to see what the school had to offer their child, they became more optimistic about the child’s enrollment and began to formulate educational expectations for their child.
Parents indicated that they were finding a “motivated staff,” a “safe educational environment,” and school staff who dealt “consistently, fairly, and firmly” with all students. These alternative schools were also meeting parents’ expectations by providing frequent communication to parents, small group instruction, and individualized remediation when needed.
Some parents even indicated their extreme pleasure with these alternative schools because their children were making more academic progress in these schools than they had experienced at their schools of origin. Other parents stated that teachers were meeting their expectations because they were taking time with their children, speaking individually with them, and helping them “understand their problems.” Parents expressed that when children know their teachers really care, they will improve both academically and socially. Other parents were pleased that the alternative staff helped children catch up academically by “teaching the basics” and by emphasizing “reading, writing, and math.” 131
Many parents were happy with the teachers’ efforts to “keep in touch with their child’s IEP.” They felt that teachers were doing a commendable job in providing individual accommodations needed for their child’s educational progress. Schools were also meeting parents’ expectations by maintaining strong classroom control, a structured learning environment, and bully prevention instruction in the classroom.
Most parents interviewed seemed to agree that these alternative schools were meeting their expectations by providing a quality education, individualized intervention, small group social skills classes, a safe learning environment, and frequent communication home to parents. Staff agreed as well that they were doing their best to meet these expectations. However, in some cases, teachers and principals wondered if parents really knew that their expectations could be fulfilled at an urban alternative school. Most staff felt that as parents became more familiar with the attributes of their schools, they were better able to express their expectations, and as a result, their educational expectations for their children increased.
The researcher was able to glean information from the parent interviews which indicated some areas where these alternative schools were not meeting their expectations as well. For example, one mother indicated that her daughter needed “a different way of learning.” Since her child had been “kicked out of her regular school” for disciplinary reasons, this Upper Heights’ mother felt the school should be teaching “life lessons” along with the regular academic and social skills classes. She explained that these types of classes would help children understand their problems by giving them an opportunity to discuss their problems together and discover new ways of dealing with life’s 132
difficulties. This mother felt that her daughter was not being given this opportunity in her
alternative school.
Along those same lines, another mother felt her alternative school was missing the
mark in its approach to her son’s special needs classes. She felt that the school was
placing her son in a small pull-out group of “slower learners,” thus jeopardizing his
possibilities of participating and socializing in larger groups of “good kids.” Additionally,
some parents indicated that they would like the alternative schools to provide a broader
curriculum for their children, including advanced placement classes, foreign language,
arts electives, and opportunities to participate in sports. None of these alternative schools include school sports in their programs or allow students to return back to their schools of origin to participate in these programs. Several staff members indicated that although some parents would like them to include sports in their school program, school budgets with limited finances would stand in the way.
When asked if urban alternative schools are meeting their expectations, one
Edwards’ parent and one Upper Heights’ parent stated that they expected their students to have homework each evening instead of relying exclusively on computers for their academic curriculum. They felt that their children would learn much more if they were required to complete some work at home, as well as complete their regular computer curriculum at school each day. Other parents expected the teachers to use more traditional textbooks and assignments while teaching. They felt that students often grow tired of staring at a computer the whole day and would not be able to work at their optimal level.
While many parents indicated that they sometimes chaperone school fieldtrips, some indicated that they would like to be more involved in the classroom as volunteers, 133 special day speakers, or even as co-teachers on occasions when their expertise would allow. They expected that these types of partnerships would be valuable to the alternative school’s educational program.
Although parents were quite emphatic when verbalizing their expectations of urban alternative schools for their children, they all shared the same opinion when asked what the school should do for parents who had personal needs. They all agreed that they did not expect the school staff to address parents’ personal needs and concerns; rather all parents felt that teachers had their “work cut out” just attempting to educate their children.
Parents who indicated that they did have unmet expectations indicated that they felt they always had a forum in which to express their needs. For example, parents felt free to speak up and give their opinions at regular scheduled school meetings, orientation and re-entry sessions, as well as informative parent group meetings. Although parents felt their voices were being heard, they were unsure if their suggestions were being used to make needed changes in the schools. Many recalled responding to school surveys and making other suggestions but could not provide examples of any school-wide changes that had been made as a result of their responses.
How are Urban Alternative Schools Changing to Address Parents’ Expectations?
Schools are changing by making adaptations to the needs of individual students as expressed by parents. An Edwards teacher indicated that in response to a parent’s suggestion, he had changed his children’s curriculum from computer to traditional textbook presentation. The parent had stated that because his sons were unable to sit quietly and focus for long periods of time on the computer, he felt a more traditional 134 approach might work better for them. The teacher tried the father’s suggestion by altering the curriculum and found that the young men made better academic progress as a result of this change. Another parent at Green Spring explained how the school had used her input to modify her son’s school discipline plan. As a result of her suggestions to staff, she was able to put into place a plan that allowed her 17-year old son the opportunity to take a walk down the street for a “time out” to manage his own anger issues.
Schools are also using parent input to make school-wide change. Edwards
Community School’s principal indicated that his staff had put into place a change in school policy at the request of the parents. He explained that students had originally been required to bring a parent with them when they were arriving a few minutes late in the morning for school. Mr. Clark, the principal, stated that this rule caused many parents to miss work unnecessarily. The rule was modified to allow students to call home from the office when tardy, rather than require parents to drive to the school to admit their students. He felt that this was a good change in that it helped parents, as well as students, make better use of their time.
Lynn and Cheryl, both parents of Green Spring Academy students, also shared how parent input had helped change school policy. School uniform and cell phone policies were modified as a result of parent input during parent quarterly meetings.
Parents felt that the rule banning cell phones in the school should be changed to allow students to leave their phones in their lockers during the school day. Green Spring parents also felt that the school uniform policy needed to be “loosened up” by allowing students to “untuck” their shirts. Both changes in school policy were made as a result of parent input. 135
Although the following changes were not mentioned by parents, two staff members shared ways that their schools were changing to help meet parents’ expectations for improved communication between educators and parents as well as increased parental involvement. Both of these changes involved a different approach to communicating with parents.
Ms. Taylor, veteran teacher at Upper Heights, explained how she was leading her colleagues to change their procedures for calling home. She shared how she had worked as an educational leader to encourage other staff members to make initial, positive calls home early in the school year to the parents of every student in the classroom before typical, negative issues arose. She felt that these introductory calls would help break down “perceived barriers of fear and intimidation” that parents might ordinarily experience when anticipating parent/teacher conferences throughout the academic year.
Ms. Taylor felt that building a positive rapport with the parents early in the school year would help meet parents’ expectations for better communication with staff members and increased parental involvement in their child’s education.
Mr. Gerald, a less experienced teacher, proudly shared with the researcher how his colleagues had changed their parent/teacher conference format to increase parent attendance. He explained how Green Spring’s parent/teacher conferences were now led by students instead of teachers. He shared the document with the researcher that outlined the student’s speaking points for leading his own conference. Mr. Gerald explained how students would be able to assess their own academic progress and express their own goals for academic success by following this guide. Mr. Gerald found that student led conferences resulted in higher parent attendance. He felt that by adopting this format for 136
parent/teacher conferences, Green Spring Academy was also helping parents meet their
expectation for increased parental involvement in their child’s education.
Although only a few school changes surfaced from parent and staff interviews,
Edwards Community School staff responses seemed to highlight the need to involve
parents in school-wide change efforts. All three of their staff members spoke excitedly
about plans for including parents in school planning for the following academic year. As
a matter of fact, the Edwards’ staff had already been meeting and discussing ways to
more effectively involve parents in school-wide planning. At the time of these interviews,
they were scheduling a family cookout to jump start the school year with excitement and
enthusiasm. Staff members felt that including parents in the planning process would yield
increased parental involvement which just so happened to be one of the parents’
expectations of urban alternative schools. Staff members felt that increased parent
involvement would be the one area in which they wanted to focus professional
development for the following school year. The researcher found it interesting that
Edwards’ plan for including parents in school-wide planning fell in line with parents’
expectation for increased parental involvement in urban alternative schools.
Although all parents, teachers, and principals agreed that increased parental involvement in children’s education would improve alternative school programs, most educators felt that parents from lower socioeconomic, educational, and cultural backgrounds were not as involved as those from higher backgrounds. However, many of the interviewed parents felt that a parent’s background does not influence the degree of parental involvement in children’s education. Rather, they felt that parents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were just as involved, if not more on occasion, than the 137
more affluent or more highly educated parent. However, the more highly educated
parents disagreed. These parents felt that parental involvement is influenced by these
conditions. All staff members, except for two, agreed that parents’ backgrounds do
influence their involvement in their children’s education. Ironically, Mr. Gerald, teacher
at Green Springs, disagreed with this premise.
This young staff member with only three years of teaching experience explained
how he came to believe that parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds do not necessarily
influence their involvement in their child’s education. He shared about his previous
teaching experience in a poor, Appalachian area, how parents responded to his persistent
invitations, and how he was able to gain 100% parent attendance at his classroom open
house. He also explained how he had been able to achieve similar results at Green
Springs where most students are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds as well.
Ms. Taylor, a veteran teacher at Upper Heights also shared that although most of
her students’ parents were “low end” socially, educationally, and economically, she felt
that they do desire to be involved in their child’s education. They may simply need to be
“shown how to be involved.” Ms. Taylor felt that parents will become more involved
when teachers “learn how to work better with the parents.” This is a change that these
two teachers felt must occur in urban alternative schools if they are to gain the high level of parent involvement they seek.
Ultimately, all data gathered from parent and staff responses in this research study indicated that parents do expect to be involved in their child’s education. Two of the six staff members interviewed spoke about changes they felt they had helped facilitate in their alternative schools which they believed had improved communication between 138 school and parents as well as promoted increased parental involvement at parent/teacher conferences. Parents indicated that these schools had used their input to make changes to accommodate individual student academic and social needs as well as school-wide changes in student attendance, cell phone usage, and school uniform policies. Although parents indicated that they had opportunities to express their opinions and concerns through school-wide surveys and school meetings, these were the instances where parents felt their input had been both heard and used to effect change in these urban alternative schools.
Summary
This chapter presented an analysis of data gathered from parent and staff interviews, field observations, and school documents. This information was first analyzed as presented through the stories of three alternative schools. The data were then analyzed to answer the research questions across all three schools concerning parent expectations of urban alternative schools, if these schools are meeting those expectations, and whether schools are changing to meet parents’ expectations. Emergent themes from the individual school stories and other document data guided the responses to the three research questions.
Analysis of parent responses to in-depth interview questions concerning their expectations of urban alternative schools revealed that parents expect a quality education that meets the needs of their children, credit recovery for “on time high school graduation,” frequent and timely communication from the school, a safe learning environment, school personnel who genuinely care for their children, small group social 139 skills classes, and opportunities for increased parent involvement in their child’s education.
Analysis of teachers’ and principals’ responses concerning parent expectations indicated that educators agree that parents’ greatest expectation is that their children graduate from high school on time. Educators also felt that parents expect staff members to be assertive in their efforts to communicate openly and freely with them concerning their children’s needs. And finally, school staff members indicated that parents expect them to meet their child’s individual educational needs.
Data collected from parent interviews showed that parents felt these alternative schools were meeting their expectations in most areas mentioned above. Parents at all three schools indicated that they especially liked how alternative schools provided credit recovery opportunities through the use of computer technology making it possible for their children to graduate high school on time. Most parents also agreed that these schools were meeting or exceeding their expectations for their children’s academic and social needs. All 17 parents felt that staff members were doing their best to communicate with them in a timely and open manner concerning their child’s academic progress.
While one parent felt teachers should provide more home work, and two wished for a broader curriculum that would include foreign language and/or advancement classes, the majority of parents felt their expectations for their children were being met.
Analysis of data collected from parents indicated that although they felt free to voice their opinions and concerns about school, most parents were unsure how their suggestions for school change were being used. However, nearly all parents felt that teachers were willing to listen to them and make needed changes in their child’s 140
individual educational plan. One Green Spring parent related how she had been
instrumental in changing the behavior plan for her son, while another parent explained
how his sons’ teacher at Edwards had been willing to change his curriculum presentation
from computer to a more traditional textbook approach for his sons at his request. Finally,
two mothers shared how Green Spring Academy had made school-wide changes in
student uniform and cell phone policies as a result of parent input.
Analysis of data collected from educators concerning school change showed that staff members felt their alternative schools were changing to meet parents’ needs and concerns. Most agreed that they were listening to parent input and making appropriate changes to meet those expectations. Edwards’ principal related how their school-wide policy for reporting student tardies had changed as a result of parent suggestions.
Likewise, Green Spring’s principal explained how her school had “loosened up” on the dress code policy as a result of parent input.
Finally, all three staff members at Edwards felt that their school was doing its best to make changes that would facilitate increased parent involvement in their children’s education. They explained how they were planning a school-wide staff/teacher cookout in the hope of creating a stronger rapport between school staff and parent families.
Edwards’ staff members felt this would be an important step toward welcoming parent input and cooperation in school-wide policy making endeavors.
Data collected from teacher and principal interviews concerning parent expectations of urban alternative schools were also analyzed by comparing and contrasting them with parent response data in an effort to discover possible similarities and/or differences. Most importantly, possible changes within these alternative schools 141 that might likely help meet parent expectations and improve the quality of education for students attending were discussed. 142
Chapter IV
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
This chapter is composed of four sections. A brief summary of the research study is presented in the first section. The second section discusses the findings based on the data analysis. The conclusions drawn from the research study are presented in the third section, while the fourth section offers possible implications for practice and future research.
Summary
This research study investigated parents’ expectations of urban alternative “last chance” schools. Research participants’ responses to structured interview questions yielded data concerning parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, whether these schools are meeting those expectations, and how urban alternative schools are making needed changes to address parents’ expectations. Chapter I included the problem statement, research questions, and review of literature; Chapter II provided the study’s qualitative design and methodology; Chapter III presented the individual stories of three urban alternative schools as revealed through the data gathered from the research participants, field data, school documents, and an analysis of the data across all three sites; Chapter IV discussed the general conclusions and implications for practical use in the educational field.
Although earlier studies attempted to formulate a common definition of an alternative school (Kallio & Sanders, 1999), differences of philosophies among educators, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers made it difficult to identify the common elements of alternative schools in general (Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & 143
Tonelson, 2006). Regardless of these philosophical differences concerning alternative schools, the number of alternative education programs serving youth at risk for academic failure and dropping out of school has risen sharply over the past decade (Foley & Pang,
2006). Since the number of these alternative schools continues to increase with more and more parents choosing to send their children to these schools, the researcher wanted to explore parents’ expectations of alternative schools within the urban setting. While other studies present models of alternative discipline programs for “at risk” students (Brown &
Beckett, 2007; Foley & Pang, 2006), little has been written concerning parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, whether these schools are meeting those expectations, or how urban alternative schools are changing to meet parents’ expectations.
In order to explore these questions, this study used qualitative methods to investigate the stories of three urban alternative schools located in the same metropolitan area. The story of each school was guided by the responses of 17 parents, six educators, and three school principals to in-depth interview questions and framed by crosscutting themes that emerged from field observations, school documents, and archival data throughout the data gathering process.
Since one of the greatest challenges faced by urban school districts is to improve communication between educators and parents, the researcher first explored background studies that dealt with the lack of communication and the need for increased parental involvement in schools (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Robinson, 2007). Based on the idea that parent involvement is crucial to the success of
“last chance” alternative schools (Lareau, 1987, 1996, 2000), this research study 144
highlighted the need to further explore the expectations of parents whose children attend
urban alternative schools. Although several studies provided information about parent
expectations of urban schools in general (Spann, Kohler, Frank & Soenksen, 2003;
Goldring & Hausman, 1999; Robinson, 2007), little was revealed about parents’
expectations of urban alternative schools in particular. Therefore the purpose of this study
was to identify parent expectations of an urban alternative school and to investigate how
that school addresses parents’ expectations to make needed changes.
A review of literature on urban alternative schools--their history, development, and characteristics provided a basis for this research study. Urban alternative schools have been defined as schools that provide an education for those students who fail to succeed academically in traditional schools due to a lack of academic success and/or behavior problems (Kallio & Sanders, 1999; Lehr & Lange, 2003). Alternative schools were initially known as any school outside the traditional school that parents would select for their children. These schools were an outgrowth of the free school movement which supported the idea that traditional schools did not meet the needs of every child (Conley,
2002). Other alternative schools were the outgrowth of the charter school movement, the earliest of which endeavored to serve dropouts (Fruchter, 2007). More recently, alternative schools have been established to address the educational needs of students through a vocational curriculum which often utilizes credit recovery, social skills education, and graduation preparation (Coyl, Jones & Dick, 2004). The most detailed definition classified alternative schools by a three-type system— schools of choice, last chance, or remedial and therapeutic (Raywid, 1998). Other research studies characterized 145 alternative education programs through the eyes of students (Jeffries, Hollowell &
Powell, 2004; Darling & Price, 2004).
A review of literature concerning parent expectations provided information about parent involvement, collaboration, and empowerment. Parents expect to be involved in their child’s education. Parents are most concerned about the academics, school climate, and communication of their child’s school (Wherry, 2003; Gewertz, 2008; Lawson, 2003;
Stelmach, 2005). Research shows that schools benefit through parent and school collaboration (Sheldon, 2007; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2001).
Parent involvement is always associated with overall academic achievement. Other qualitative studies demonstrated how parent partnership models help improve and sustain student success by decreasing the gap between home and school (Sanders, 2008;
Kyriakides, 2005; Griffith 2005; Epstein & Hollifield; Diamond & Gomez, 2004).
Finally, Chapter I presented a review of literature that describes educational change needed for school improvement (Fullan, 2007; Evers, 1982). Havelock’s change model demonstrated how parents and educational staff can work as change agents to improve the educational opportunities of children. Parents partnering with school staff best provide effective, sustainable change within schools (Havelock, 1995).
Chapter II presented the rationale for the qualitative design and methodology of this research study. The metropolitan area, the three schools—Green Spring Academy,
Upper Heights Alternative Middle and High School, and Edwards Community School— as well as the research participants were presented and described. The research process, which included the gathering and analysis of data, was also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter II described the process whereby data collected from the responses of 17 parents, 146
six teachers, and three school principals were used to present the stories of each school
and answer the three research questions proposed by this study. An explanation of how
data gathered from field observations, current school documents, and archival documents
helped reveal cross cutting themes, patterns and categories which were presented in this
chapter. The researcher’s professional background, educational training, and involvement
in urban alternative schools were also presented in an upfront manner in an effort to
include the possibilities of personal biases and reflexivity that might have affected the
procedures and analyses of the research study. Finally, the significance and limitations of
the study were presented in this chapter.
The analysis of the research data was presented in Chapter III. Parents’
expectations and the need for school change to address those expectations were revealed
as they related to the three research questions:
1. What are parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools?
2. Are urban alternative schools meeting parents’ expectations?
3. How are urban alternative schools changing to address parents’ expectations?
Field observations, school documents, as well as the interview responses were analyzed and presented to provide answers to the three research questions. This procedure was carried out in two steps. First, all the data were analyzed as presented in the stories of three individual urban alternative schools. Second, the common themes and patterns which emerged from across all three schools were identified to complete the data analysis process. Parent expectations centered around the idea of a quality education for all children, a timely high school graduation, open and frequent communication from the school to home, and school personnel who genuinely care. This chapter also discussed 147
parents’ expectations as they relate to socioeconomic, cultural, and educational
backgrounds. The research findings, conclusions, and implications for practice and future
research will be discussed in the following sections of Chapter IV.
Findings and Conclusions
This section of the research study presents in summary fashion the findings and conclusions drawn from parent and staff responses to in-depth interview questions, field observations of the research participants, and information gleaned from school documents. Parent and staff responses to the three research questions first guide the presentation of the findings from each individual school. An overall summary of findings and conclusions across the three schools in the study follows.
In answer to the first research question concerning parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, Green Spring parents expect their school first and foremost to graduate their children from high school on time. They want their children to be able to go on to college, get a good job, and ultimately have a better life than they themselves were experiencing. Since many of Green Spring’s students were behind academically and brought with them a plethora of social problems, parents’ most urgent concern for their children was that they participate in an educational curriculum that would help them catch up on their academics and at the same time provide small group social skills classes that would provide training in the areas of anger management, decision making, and conflict resolution.
Green Spring’s parents also expect the school to provide an academic program which addresses the individual needs of their children. Several of the children followed
IEPs indicating physical, emotional, and/or educational needs. Regardless of students’ 148 individual needs, all parents agreed that their number one expectation was a quality education that meets the state standards for their children.
Parents at Green Spring expect staff to communicate with them frequently. They expect the staff to be caring individuals who deal firmly, fairly, and consistently with their children. They expect the staff to function as a resource for their children. Parents do not want their children to feel that they are attending a second rate school; rather, they expect their children to receive the same educational benefits that other students are receiving in traditional public schools.
When asked if Green Spring is meeting their expectations, parents overwhelming responded that their children are experiencing more success at this alternative school than they had experienced in their school of origin. All parents agree that Green Spring is meeting their expectations for their children’s academic success. Parents are also pleased that children were receiving very few, if any, suspensions from school now. They credit the school’s emphasis on social skill’s training for their children’s improved social behaviors.
The Green Spring’s staff members who participated in the study agree that parents expect the school to meet their students’ academic needs, to build social skills training into their curriculum, and to communicate frequently with them concerning their children’s academic progress. The teachers and principal also agree that parents’ greatest expectation is that students graduate high school on time and receive a quality education that addresses both academics and social skills needs.
When asked if this urban alternative school is meeting parent expectations, parents and staff agreed in most areas that the school is meeting parents’ expectations for 149
their children’s education. However, parents feel they need a closer rapport with school
staff, more flexible meeting dates and home visits to accommodate their busy schedules,
and more opportunities for them to be involved in their child’s classroom. Green Spring’s
staff, on the other hand, feel that they are already sufficiently meeting these parent
expectations.
Likewise, when asked if they feel the school is using parent input to make needed changes, Green Spring’s educational staff answered that they definitely feel they are.
Parents, on the other hand, related that although they give much input through school wide surveys for school improvement, they are unsure of where their suggestions finally go. Parents state that although they feel that the school is using their input, they can not find any evidence that their suggestions were used by the school staff to make needed change.
Additionally, one parent feels that Green Spring’s staff should invite parents into the classrooms more often, involve parents in school-community events such as fairs, dances, and festivals, recognize parents for their involvement in school activities, and simply keep connected with parents by cultivating more trust between family and the school.
Green Spring’s staff members feel that parents expect them to make changes to increase parents’ abilities to be more involved in their child’s education. They feel that parents want them to be more assertive with letters, calls, and invitations to parent/teacher conferences and school functions. Although Green Spring’s staff members feel that they are recognizing and using parent input in some areas, they also feel that their school should be more genuine in eliciting and using parent input to make needed 150
change in school policies. They all agree that parents need to know that their opinions
count.
Parents at Upper Heights expect their children to complete the alternative
program and return back to their school of origin for a timely high school graduation.
Upper Heights differed from Green Spring and Edwards Community in that they did not
keep their children through high school graduation. Upper Height’s staff members agree
that their parents expect their children to complete the program and return back to their
school of origin as soon as possible so that they can graduate with their class.
Upper Heights’ parents also expect a quality education that meets students’
individual needs, small group instruction, and remediation for students who have fallen behind. They also expect teachers to deal fairly and firmly with their children, to demonstrate a genuine concern for their children, and to communicate frequently concerning their child’s progress. Of the six parents interviewed at Upper Heights, five overwhelming agree that Upper Heights is meeting their expectations. Further, these parents feel that the extra attention and caring their children receive from their teachers accounts for their improved academic grades. However, they mentioned some expectations that they feel the school is not meeting.
Upper Heights does not provide advance placement courses, foreign language classes, or arts electives for those students who have been taking these classes at their schools of origin. Although one parent stated that she does not expect Upper Heights to provide these classes for her son because, after all, his placement into the alternative school is a consequence for his poor behaviors, she nevertheless, brought up the idea of the school providing a broader curriculum that would include advanced classes. 151
Other Upper Heights’ parents expect a broader curriculum that would include practical social skills classes addressing such topic as school bullying and the legal ramifications of getting into trouble with the law. Parents feel these classes would provide a forum for their children to discuss their problems, learn “life lessons” from peers’ shared experiences, and interact with staff who would act as positive role models while offering a “different way of learning.”
Parents also indicated that they would like to feel more welcome to volunteer in the classrooms. Upper Heights’ parents remember a time when many parents participated with the teacher in the classroom, but feel that they are not as welcomed as their parents might have been in the past. Parents gave examples of times that their parents’ presence in the classrooms brought about student academic success when all other efforts had failed. Staff members agree that the “open door” concept should be promoted to show the parents that they are always welcome to stop in or call any time they have a questions or concern about their child.
When asked what changes might be made to address parents’ expectations, Upper
Heights’ staff suggest that teachers make positive phone calls to each parent early in the school year before any need for negative communication to home arises. Teachers feel that such positive interactions with parents would do much to alleviate parents’ feelings of fear, intimidation, and insecurities when interacting with school staff. Upper Heights’ staff members agree that parents want to be more involved in their child’s education and need help in knowing how to communicate with school staff.
Parents at Edwards Community expect their children to graduate from high school. Unlike those students attending Upper Heights and returning back to their schools 152 of origin, Edwards’ students will remain in the alternative program through their graduation from high school. Edwards’ parents also expect an academic curriculum that would enable their children to catch up on missed credits lost as a result of a lack of academic progress in the traditional school setting. In addition, Edwards’ parents expect teachers to closely monitor their children’s academic progress, provide appropriate class work as well as homework assignments when needed, use appropriate educational curriculum, and contact parents frequently.
Parents are pleased that Edwards encourages them to be involved in their children’s education. They appreciate the school’s open door policy allowing them to attend any time. Parents especially appreciate the principal’s consistent efforts to keep them informed through frequent school mail outs, providing them with current information about school activities, calendars, parent/teacher conferences, and informational meetings.
When asked if Edwards is meeting parents’ expectations, interviewed parents agree that their children benefit form small class sizes and the appropriate credit recovery technology used in Edwards’ curriculum. These parents also are extremely glad that
Edwards’ academic program has been available to their children who had been unsuccessful in the traditional school setting. However, parents expect Edwards to provide career counseling for their children since they will be attending college, joining the military, or seeking other employment after graduation. They feel that the school is not meeting their expectations in this area. Edwards’ parents also feel that the school would better serve the children’s academic needs if they offered tutoring, summer school, or other after school programs. 153
When asked if the school is using parent input to make needed school change, once again parents indicate that although they are sure school personnel are listening to their suggestions and reading their responses to certain school survey questions, they have not seen that their suggestions for change have been utilized. However, when inquiring of Edwards’ staff, both teachers and principal give examples of varying school curriculum to include traditional methods along with technology at the request of the parents. Moreover, the educational staff related how parents had effected a change in the school tardy policy to no longer require parents to arrive with their tardy children. Rather, the policy was changed to enable parents to excuse children with a phone call.
Edwards’ staff members also unanimously shared with excitement their plans for some important school change that they hope will increase parent involvement in the school and the educational lives of their children. They were planning a professional development program for the following academic year for the staff with the aim of raising staff morale, increasing parent involvement, and giving parents a voice in school policy making. The new plan includes a school wide cookout which will allow staff and parent opportunities for collaboration within a social framework setting.
By reviewing and summarizing parent and staff responses to the research questions concerning parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, whether these alternative schools are meeting their expectations, and how urban alternative schools are changing to meet parents’ expectations, the following conclusions are presented:
1. Parents whose children were placed at alternative schools by their local school
districts for disciplinary reasons were initially unhappy with those placements.
Since most of these children were also behind academically due discipline 154
issues, these parents were unsure that their children would benefit by
attending an alternative school. Because parents feared that their children
might not succeed at their alternative placements, they looked forward to their
children returning to their schools of origin to complete their education and
graduate from high school on time. These fears are consistent with the idea
that alternative schools were historically viewed as schools designed to serve
populations of students who were unable to succeed in traditional public
schools (Kallio & Sanders, 1999) and were regarded merely as safe havens for
students at risk for failing and dropping out of school (Quinn, Poirier, Faller,
Gable & Tonelson, 2006).
2. All parents who chose to send their children to alternative schools for
academic reasons and all parents whose children were required to enroll,
except for one, were pleased that their children were experiencing more
academic success at the alternative sites than they had previously anticipated.
This conclusion was consistent with research studies that utilized students’
views to characterize effective alternative schools as providing quality
educational programs (Darling & Price, 2004; Jeffries, Hollowell & Powell,
2004; Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006). Parents were also
pleased that the alternative schools provided smaller class sizes taught by
teachers who really cared about their children. This finding was consistent
with Cheney’s (2002) study that found that smaller class size was a priority
for parents of special needs children. Parents in this study involving urban
alternative schools also felt that these characteristics helped promote a 155
learning environment more conducive to their child’s educational success than
they had experienced in the traditional schools. Consequently, these schools
also seemed to be meeting students’ needs as was originally intended in the
purposeful design of such schools to provide supportive learning
environments for students who were unable to thrive in the traditional school
setting (Dick, Kaiser, Waters & Perry, 2003; Korn, 1990; Lange & Sletten,
2002). As alternative schools meet the pressing needs of students who are
behind academically, they continue to provide credit recovery while making
possible a timely graduation for students (Coyl, Jones & Dick, 2004).
3. Parents’ academic expectations for their children increased as parents listened
to and began to value the educational staff’s expectations for their children.
Parents became encouraged as they observed educators setting high
expectations for their children. Wherry (2003) found that parents feel that the
most important thing that educators can do is to set high academic standards
for their children by presenting a challenging curriculum.
4. Parents of students enrolled in urban alternative schools first and foremost
expected their children to receive a quality education that addresses students’
individual academic and social skill’s needs and at the same time leads to a
timely high school graduation. They expect their children to receive the same
quality education that they would in the traditional school setting (Leone &
Drakeford, 1999). Parents especially wanted alternative schools to teach the
basic core classes as was the mission of the freedom school, or the original
alternative school, according to Conley (2002), through the presentation of 156
Black history. These parents’ values aligned with original ideas expressed in
the literature review of alternative schools.
5. Parents of students enrolled in all three urban alternative school sites were
pleased with the use of technology to help their students “catch up”
academically. In a research study about parents’ expectations of urban
Catholic schools, parents were pleased with the school’s use of computer
technology to provide students with the most up to date information, help
them learn as much as possible, and better prepare them for college (Ghazal,
2006).
6. Parents stated that they desired to receive frequent, open, and timely
communication from their children’s alternative schools. They especially
liked frequent calls, emails, and letters. Parents also appreciated a school
website informing them about daily assignments, future, tests, and other
curriculum information. Parents desired information that would help them
bridge the gap between school and home (Wherry, 2003). Parents wanted staff
members to keep them informed concerning their child’s progress toward high
school graduation and college requirements (Gewertz, 2008). They wanted
this information to be fashioned in a positive way. According to Raywid
(1994) a major component of an alternative school’s curriculum is to focus on
a positive environment. Parents also expected schools to provide them with
needed information about their child’s progress toward gaining skills for their
future life and work (Stelmach, 2005; Lange & Sletten, 2002). 157
7. All parents wanted to feel welcomed in their child’s classroom. According to
research, students improved academically and socially, regardless of
socioeconomic background, as a result of parents working with their children
in the classroom (Comer & Haynes, 1991). Further, parents felt empowered
because they thought their interactions with school staff contributed to
improved communication between school and home as a result of their visits
in the classroom (Kyriakides, 2005).
8. Other parents mentioned the importance of educating children in a safe and
orderly environment. Parents expected schools to protect their children from
bullies on the playground (Wherry, 2003). Parents expected their child’s
social issues to be addressed in a way to resolve conflicts peacefully (DeBlois,
2007). According to research, schools that provided a safer environment by
improving school discipline was as important to parents as schools that
produced improved academic grades and achievement test scores (Sheldon &
Epstein, 2002).
9. Some parents expected more flexible meeting dates and times for parent
meetings to accommodate busy schedules and needs. Other parents also
mentioned that they would like more home visits because they were
sometimes unable to make it to scheduled conference times, due to sickness or
transportation issues. One parent stated that she would like more individual
academic tutoring for her child; another parent wanted the school to establish
an after school daycare for students with children; and finally, another parent 158
suggested that the school provide career counseling for those students
graduating from high school (Coyl, Jones & Dick, 2004).
10. Parents who participated in this study expected to be involved in their
children’s education in every way. Parents mentioned that they enjoyed
participating in the classrooms on special occasions such “career day,”
“parent’s day,” or “grandparents’ day.” One parent expressed his desire for
the school to sponsor more community events in order to cultivate trust
between families and the school. Parents have voiced their expectations for
opportunities to be involved in schools in several previous research studies
(Wherry, 2003; Gewertz, 2008; Lawson, 2003; Stelmach, 2005).
11. Most staff members felt that parents did not expect to be involved enough to
actually participate in their child’s education by showing up for open house
nights or scheduled parent/teacher conferences. They speculated that low
attendance at these school functions could be attributed to parents’ own
negative school experiences. Most staff members felt that parents expected
help in overcoming their own fears and inadequacies in this area. Several
research studies have addressed parent involvement in relation to parents’
socioeconomic, cultural, and educational backgrounds (Lareau, 1987; Lareau
& Shumar 1996; Olivos, 2006). Most studies indicate that parents may
interpret parental involvement differently than school personnel since their
involvement is informed by their ecological factors such as social class, race,
and educational backgrounds (Diamond & Gomez, 2004; Xu & Filler, 2008;
Coco, Goos & Kostogriz, 2007; Comer & Haynes, 1991). 159
12. School staff members at all three sites agreed with parents that parents
expected them to be genuinely concerned about their child’s academic needs
and ready to provide remediation where needed. This expectation is consistent
with studies that outline an educational approach and philosophy for extra
academic support for students at risk of failure and dropping out of school
(Coyl, Jones & Dick, 2004; Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006).
13. Administrators and teachers also felt that parents wanted frequent
communication from school to home, flexibly scheduled school meetings, and
opportunities to share their input (Wherry 2003; Gewertz 2008).
14. Finally, school staff members indicated that they felt parents’ greatest
expectation of urban alternative schools was that they help children catch up
on missing credits allowing them to graduate from high school on time Coyl,
Jones, and Dick (2004) agree that credit recovery and drop out prevention are
among the most important needs of alternative school children.
15. When asked if urban alternative schools were meeting their expectations, most
parents indicated that these schools definitely were. Staff members agreed
that, although they felt parents initially arrived at these schools with low
expectations, once parents became more familiar with these alternative
schools, they became more optimistic in their expectations of the educational
staff to meet their children’s individual educational needs.
16. Most parents also indicated that alternative schools were meeting their
expectations by providing a safe learning environment, a motivated staff who
really cared for their children, and individualized remediation where needed. 160
Most parents were extremely pleased with their children’s academic progress
at these alternative schools. Parents also appreciated teachers’ efforts to teach
the basics and address their child’s social problems as well. Parents also
appreciated staff members’ efforts to maintain structured learning
environments, strong classroom management, and bully prevention
instruction.
17. A few parents mentioned areas of concern where urban alternative schools
were not meeting their expectations. One mother expected teachers to present
social skills differently. She felt her daughter needed more opportunities to
learn “life lessons” from teachers modeling appropriate social behaviors and
more opportunities for student discussions about “life’s difficulties.” Another
parent felt her alternative school was not addressing her son’s IEP
appropriately by pulling him out of his regular classes and placing him in a
small group of “slow learners.” Some parents indicated that they expected a
broader curriculum that would include advanced placement classes, foreign
language, and school sports programs. Several staff members agreed that
parents would like them to include school sports in their programs but felt
budgets would prevent this change. Two other parents felt their children
would learn more if that had homework, or at least some traditional textbook
teaching in addition to the school’s computer curriculum.
18. Many parents expressed that they expected more opportunities to be involved
in their child’s classroom in a more significant way than merely chaperoning
school field trips. One parent mentioned the importance of parents 161
volunteering to help teachers in the classroom. This finding is consistent with
other studies on parent involvement within schools. Research indicates that
effective collaboration between parents and schools help to improve the
academic and social environment of the school (Barber 2000; Lawrence-
Lightfoot, 2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002).
19. All parents were emphatic in stating that they did not expect school staff to
meet their personal educational or social needs; rather, parents felt that
teachers should be focused on their children’s educational needs. This finding
disagreed with Lawson’s (2003) study involving 13 African American parents
from low socioeconomic backgrounds who indicated that they expected
schools to provide GED classes, job training programs, parenting classes, and
extended school hours for recreational purposes.
20. When asked if urban alternative schools are making changes to meet their
expectations, parents indicated that schools were cooperative in making
changes that involved their own children’s individual needs. Parents and
administrators agreed that school-wide changes had been made at two of the
alternative sites as a result of parent input concerning tardy, uniform, and cell
phone usage policies. Parents and staff members agreed that these changes
were beneficial to the students and parents. These efforts to bring parents into
the decision making process of the schools outline the need for parents to be
involved in their child’s education in a meaningful way. For change to be
effective Fullan (2007) and Epstein et. al. (2002) both indicated that parents
must be involved in the change process. Although parents indicated that they 162
had often responded to school surveys, these were the only changes showing
schools had used their input to make changes. Parents gave input but they
were not sure if the schools used their ideas to change. Although parents felt
their input was definitely well received and used on an individual case by case
basis to meet their own child’s individual needs, most parents did not feel
their suggestions were being used to make school-wide improvements. While
these changes were not initiated by parent input, two staff members, each one
from a different alternative school, made changes in communication
procedures and parent/teacher conference format which they felt were
beneficial to parents’ involvement in their children’s education. Additionally,
staff members at the third alternative school were making definite plans to
involve parents through a community outreach program for the following
academic year. These educators expressed how important they felt parent
involvement is to the success of their students as well as the school as a
whole. Staff members’ efforts to implement sustainable changes for school
improvement matches with Havelock’s (1995) and Fullan’s (1995) theories
that a broad community base is important for the change process and for the
improvement of schools.
Implications
This section presents suggestions for practical implications of the research findings as they relate to parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools, as well as suggestions for future research. Implications for practice include the following: 163
1. As the need for alternative schools has evolved over the years (Fruchter, 2007;
Conley, 2002; McGee, 2001), more and more urban school systems are
establishing alternative schools for students at risk for failure and dropping
out of school. As these alternative schools continue to address the specific
needs of children (Dick, Kaiser, Waters & Perry, 2003; Korn, 1990), school
systems should recognize and support the important role that urban alternative
schools play in the lives of such a large number of students.
2. Since alternative schools continue to provide supportive learning
environments that address specific needs of specific groups of students (Dick,
Kaiser, Waters & Perry, 2003; Korn, 1990), boards of education should offer
staff training specific to the needs of urban alternative students. The
sustainability of such schools will depend on continual staff development
which is a necessary component of an effective alternative school (Tissington,
2006) that meets the educational needs of youth identifiesd as at-risk for
failure and dropping out of school (Foley & Pang, 2006).
3. Parents have voiced their expectations to be involved in their child’s
education (Wherry, 2003; Gewertz, 2008; Lawson, 2003; Boal, 2004;
Stelmach, 2005; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). Research also shows that parents
need to be involved in their child’s school decision making process because
their expertise is important to the well-being of the school (Mack, 2004;
Lawson, 2003). Because parents bring differences in background
characteristics and circumstances to the table of parent involvement, research
studies indicated perceived notions of what parent involvement has 164
traditionally meant need to be revisited (Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Shumar,
1996; Olivos, 2006; Coco, Goos & Kostogriz, 2007). Therefore, urban
alternative educators should confront parents of at-risk students and encourage
them to overcome challenges that might be perceived to limit their
involvement in their child’s education (Sheldon, 2003). In so doing, educators
become proactive in their efforts to involve parents in the education of their
children.
4. While the data from this research study showed that most of the more highly
educated participants, whether staff members or parents, agreed that high end
parents are more likely to be involved in their children’s education, the data
also revealed that the low end parents, along with two of the staff participants,
agreed that parents of lower socioeconomic backgrounds and lower
educational levels, desire to be involved in their children’s education as well.
The two staff participants who agreed with the low end parents felt that all
parents, regardless of their backgrounds expect to be involved, but often the
lower end parents need to be “shown” how to be more active participants in
their children’s education. Findings from other research studies are consistent
with these findings (Epstein & Jansorn, 2004). These research studies show
that although many parents work several jobs outside the home to survive
economically and have other serious time constraints, they want to know how
they can become involved in their child’s education (Epstein & Jansorn,
2004). They want educators to show them how they can work within their
time constraints to be involved both at home and at school. Therefore, parents 165
need help in overcoming these impediments to effective involvement in urban
alternative schools.
5. Based on parents’ expectations to be involved in their children’s education,
urban alternative school personnel should go one step further and consider the
importance of parent and school collaboration. Other research studies show
that schools working together with parents to support students’ learning can
bring about powerful, positive changes within the lives of students as well as
in schools (Barber, 2002). Further, findings from other research studies
supported the idea that schools implementing parent/school partnerships
experienced a reduction in school disciplinary actions, made gains in
academic areas as well as achievement test scores, and reported higher student
attendance (Comer, 2005; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson & Davies, 2006;
Stewart, 2007; Prins & Toso, 2008). These research studies suggest the
importance of considering parent/school partnerships in view of needed
change in urban alternative schools. Research findings concerning
parent/school collaborative efforts also demonstrate how such collaboration is
a win-win for all involved (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003; Epstein & Hollifield,
1996; Brown & Beckett, 2007; Sanders, 2008; Sheldon, 2007).
6. Urban alternative schools should utilize community resources to provide
information to parents, tutoring and mentoring to students, and community
volunteers in the classrooms. Urban alternative educators should also look to
local universities and colleges for support to assist in classrooms, provide
tutors and mentors, and offer educational enrichment programs. 166
7. Alternative schools should communicate to parents the changes which they
make in response to parents’ expectations in order to strengthen the
relationship between the school and the home. According to Fullan (2007)
school improvement depends upon involving parents as change agents to
bring about meaningful and sustainable change. Parents need to know how
their ideas have been used to improve urban alternative schools. Further, as
educators acknowledge the concerns of parents and actively involve them in
analyzing the need for change (Havelock, 1995), parents are able to realize
their role in the collaborative process for effective school change.
8. Lastly, and most importantly, alternative educators should understand their
important role in realizing the dreams of alternative school students. Parents
responded in this research study that their expectations for their children’s
academic success increased as they observed the high expectations of staff
members for their children’s success. Since the data in this study revealed that
most parents of urban alternative students initially felt these schools were
merely “last ditch” efforts and possibly simply “safety nets” for keeping
children out of jail for unacceptable social behaviors, the realization of
parents’ higher educational expectations for their children is phenomenal.
Likewise, it is important for staff members, dedicated to the education of these
students at risk of failing and dropping out of school, to be encouraged and
recognize the positive role they are playing in changing the futures of so many
students as they help them fulfill their dreams for reaching their highest
potentials. As schools help change parent expectations for their children, they 167
are helping children change their own futures and in so doing are fulfilling the
mission of schools to offer a better education to all children, regardless of
their circumstances.
This research study also offers the following questions for future research:
1. How can urban alternative school educators better meet parent expectations?
2. How can urban alternative school educators increase parental involvement in
their children’s education?
3. How can educators effectively utilize parent/school collaboration efforts to
improve urban alternative schools?
4. Does a parent’s socioeconomic, cultural, or educational background influence
parental involvement in the education of their child?
5. Do educators believe that parents’ socioeconomic, cultural, or educational
background influence parental involvement in the education of their child?
6. Do parents believe that their socioeconomic, cultural, or educational
background influence parental involvement in the education of their child?
7. How do urban alternative elementary schools encourage more parental
involvement in their school program?
8. What are the parent expectations of urban alternative schools in other
geographical areas or cultural settings?
9. Are parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools different from parents’
expectations of public or private schools? 168
In conclusion, the researcher hopes that this study will provide a helpful addition to the existing body of literature concerning urban alternative schools, parent expectations, parent involvement, and effective, sustainable school change. Hopefully the information revealed in this study will encourage teachers and administrators who work with urban alternative school children. Additionally, it is hoped that this research is helpful in understanding and encouraging parental involvement in urban alternative schools. 169
References
Adkins, T., Bullis, M., & Todis, B. (2005). Converging and diverging service delivery
systems in alternative education programs for disabled and non-disabled youth
involved in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(3),
253-85.
Anderson-Butcher, D., Bean, J., Boone, B., Flaspohler, P., Kwiatkowski, A. & Lawson,
H. (2008). Community collaboration to improve schools: Introducing a new
model from Ohio. Children & Schools, 30(3), 161-72.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Barber, J. (2000). Parent partners: Workshops to foster school/home family partnerships.
Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the University of California
Boal, C. (2004). The three-way partnership with families. Principal, 83(3), 26-9.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Bomotti, S. (1996). Why do parents choose alternative schools? Educational Leadership,
54, 30- 2.
Brantlinger, E. A. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and justifies
advantage. New York: Routledge Palmer.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, L. & Beckett, K. (2007). Parent involvement in an alternative school for students
at risk of educational failure. Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 498-523. 170
Carney-Hall, K. (2008). Understanding current trends in family involvement. New
Directions for student Services, 122, 3-14.
Carvalho, M. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental
involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cheney, D. (2002). In their own words: The lessons we learn if we hear. Preventing
School Failure, 46(2), 57-61.
Coco, A., Goos, M. & Kostogriz, A, (2007). Tutor and teacher timescapes: Lessons from
a home-school partnership. Australian Educational Researcher, 34(1), 73-87.
Cohen, R, Linker, J. & Stutts, L. (2006). Working together: Lessons learned from school,
family, and community collaborations. Psychology in the Schools, 43(4), 419-28.
Comer, J. (2005). The rewards of parent participation. Educational Leadership, 62(6),
38-42.
Comer, J. & Haynes, N, (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological Approach.
The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), Special Issue: Educational Partnerships:
Home-School Community, 271-277.
Comer, J., Hanyes, N., Joyner, E., Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The
Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Conley, B. (2002). Alternative schools: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC
CLIO.
Coyl, D., Dick, A., & Jones, R. (2004). The influence of peer status and peer
relationships on school-related behaviors, attitudes, and intentions among
alternative high school students. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 39-62. 171
Coyne, R. (1999). Failures in group work: How we can learn from our mistakes.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daniel, P. (2006). No child left behind: The balm in Gilead has arrived in American
education. West’s Education Law Reporter, April 20, 2006.
Darling, B. & Price, T. (2004). Students’ perspectives on alternative, community, and
correctional education schools and services (ACCESS). Journal of correctional
education, 55(1), 69-76.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1)
121-153.
Davis, J. (2006). Research at the margin: mapping masculinity and mobility of African-
American high school dropouts. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 19(3), 289-304.
DeBlois, R. & Place, P. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal
Leadership, 7(8), 38-42.
Diamond, J. & Gomez, K. (2004). African American parents’ educational orientations:
The importance of social class and parents’ perceptions of schools. Education and
Urban Society, 36, 383-427.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family & community partnerships: Preparing educators &
improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. & Hollifield, J. (1996). Title I and school—family—community partnerships:
using research to realize the potential. Journal of education for students placed at
risk, 3, 263-278. 172
Epstein J. & Jansorn, N. (2004). School, family, and community partnerships link the
plan. The Education Digest, 69(6), 19-23.
Epstein J., Sanders, M, Simon B, Salinas K., Jansorn N & VanVoorhis, F. (2002). School,
family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Evers, N. (1982). Change for school improvement. In J. Lakebrink (Ed.), Children’s
success in schools. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Foley, R. & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs; Program and student
characteristics. The High School Journal, 10-21.
Fruchter, N. (2007). The charter and alternative school parallels. Education Week, 27(6),
32-42.
Fuhrman, S. & Lazerson, M. (Eds.) (2005). The public schools. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousands
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gewertz, C. (2008). Parents show strong interest in school involvement. Education Week,
28(10), 6-7.
Ghazal, A. (2006). What Parents Expect of Urban Catholic Schools and How These
Schools Address Parents’ Expectations to Make Needed Change. (Doctoral
dissertation abstract, University of Cincinnati, 2006). Retrieved June 1, 2008,
from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/pqdlink?vinst=PRO. 173
Goldring, E. & Hausman, C. (1999). Reasons for parental choice of urban schools.
Journal of Educational Policy, 14(5), 469-490.
Griffith, J. (2005). Parent involvement: Emerging models and applications. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 81-107.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Havelock, R. (1995). The change agent’s guide (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.
Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Henderson, A., Mapp, K., Johnson, V. & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: New Press.
Jeffries, R., Hollowell, M. & Powell, T. (2004). Urban American Indian students in a
nonpunitive alternative high school. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 63-
78.
Kallio, B. & Sanders, E. (1999). An alternative school collaboration model. American
Secondary Education, 28(2), 27-36.
Katsiyannis, A. & Williams, B. (1998). A national survey of state initiatives on
alternative education. Remedial and Special Education, 19(5), 276-84.
Keller, B. (2008). Schools seek to channel parent involvement. Education Digest, 74(1),
11-15. 174
Kelly-Vance, L. & Schreck, D. (2002). The impact of a collaborative family/school
reading program on student reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1),
43-54.
Korn, C. (1990). Alternative American schools: Ideals in action. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Kyriakides, L. (2005). Evaluating school policy on parents working with their children in
class. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 281-198.
Lange, C. & Sletten, S. (2002). Alternative education: A brief history and research
synthesis. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum, National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.
Laureau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.
Laureau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in school: A critical analysis. In A.
Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school link: How do they affect educational
outcomes? (pp. 57-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laureau, A. (2000). Home Advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education (2nd. Ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Laureau, A. & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism in family-school
policies. Sociology of Education [Special Issue on Sociology and Educational
Policy]:24-39.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2001). Toward conflict and resolution: Relationships between
families and schools. Theory Into Practice, 20(2), 97-104. 175
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents & teachers can
learn from each other. New York: Random House Publishing Group.
Lawson, M., (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of
parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.
Lee, J. & Bowen, N., (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement
gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal,
43(2), 193-215.
Lehr, C. & Lange, C. (2003). Alternative schools serving students with and without
disabilities: What are the current issues and challenges? Preventing School
Failure, 47(2), 59-65.
Leone, P. & Drakeford, W. (1999). Alternative education: from a “last chance” to a
proactive model. The Clearing House, 73(2), 86-8.
Lightfoot, S. (1978). World’s apart: Relationships between families and schools. New
York: Basic Books.
Mack, G. (2004). The faceless and voiceless parents: How they help their children
succeed in school (Doctoral dissertation abstract, University of Cincinnati, 2004).
McGee, J. (2001). Reflections of an alternative school administrator. Phi Delta Kappan,
82(8), 588-91.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Moles, O. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles
and openings. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society
(pp. 21-49). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 176
Olivos, E. (2006). The power of parents: a critical perspective of bicultural parent
involvement in public schools. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Ozer, E. (2005). The impact of violence on urban adolescents: Longitudinal effects of
perceived school connection and family support. Journal of Adolescent Research,
20(2), 167-192.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Prins, E. & Toso, B. (2008). Defining and measuring parenting for educational success: A
critical discourse analysis of the parent education profile. American Educational
Research Journal, 45(3), 555-596.
Quinn, M., Poire, J., Faller, S., Gable, R. & Tonelson, S. (2006). An examination of
school climate in effective alternative programs. Preventing School Failure,
51(1), 11-17.
Ravich, D. (2000). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Raywid, M. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational Leadership,
52(1), 26-31.
Raywid, M. (1998). The Journey of the alternative school’s movement: Where it’s been
and where it’s going. High School Magazine, 6(2), 10-14.
Robinson, D. (2007). Grasping the ideal of parent engagement in schools: No child left
behind, Title I and opportunities for participatory democracy. (Paper prepared for
the University council on educational administration 2007 annual meeting in
Washington, DC.) 177
Sanders, M. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home-school gap. The
Journal of Educational Research, 101 (5), 287-98.
Sanders, M. & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal
leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7),
1345-68.
Sheldon, S. (2003). Linking school—family—community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review,
35(2), 149-65.
Sheldon, S. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community
partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 267-75.
Sheldon, S. & Epstein, J. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with
family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 3(1), 4-26.
Sheldon, S. & Epstein, J. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community
partnerships and mathematics achievement, The Journal of Educational Research,
98(4), 196-206.
Smith, V. (1974). Alternative Schools. Lincoln, NB: Professional Educators.
Spann, S. J., Kohler, Frank W., & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents’ involvement
in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a
parent support group. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities,
18(4), 228-237.
Stelmach, B. (2005). A case study of three mothers’ experiences in the Alberta initiative
for school improvement: Having a voice versus getting a hearing. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2), 167-185. 178
Stewart, E. (2007). Individual and school structural effects on African American high
school students’ academic achievement. High School Journal, 9(2), 16-34.
Tissington, L. (2006). History: Our hope for the future. Preventing School Failure.
Washington, DC: Heldref Publications.
Tyler, R. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, (2002). Public
alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure (2000-01
statistical analysis report).
Washington, DC: Author.Vaden-Kiernan & McManus, (2005). Parent and family
involvement in education: 2002-03 (National Center for Educational Statistics No.
2005-043). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Weimann, C., Agurcia, C., Rickert, V., Berenson, A. & Volkl, R. (2006). Absent fathers
as providers: race/ethnic differences in support for adolescent mothers. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23, 617-634.
Wherry, J. (2003). What do parents expect from schools? Principal, 8(1), 6.
Xu, Y. & Filler, J. (2008). Facilitating family involvement and support for inclusive
education. School Community Journal, 18(2), 53-71. 179
Appendix A
THE RESEARCHER’S LETTER TO THE PARENTS
February 21, 2009
Dear….
You are invited to represent…………………..School in a study on parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools and how these schools address parents’ expectations to make needed change. I am particularly interested in the views of parents who have children enrolled in your child’s school. I value your opinion and know that your input will make a positive difference for our students.
If you are willing to participate, you would be involved in a 30 minute interview at any place convenient to you. You will be asked questions about your expectations of an urban alternative school. Your participation in this study and your responses will be strictly confidential. An “Informed Consent Form” will be provided to you when you accept to be part of the study.
If you would consider assisting me, please call me at …………, or email me at [email protected] to set up an appointment for the interview or to clarify any questions you might have.
Thank you for considering this opportunity to participate in this study that seeks to benefit our youth.
Yours truly,
Shirley K. Gibson 180
Appendix B
GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS
1. Did you choose to send your child to ………..school? If so, why?
2. What do you expect an alternative school to provide for your child? Could you provide examples?
3. Is the school meeting your expectations? If so, how?
4. Does the school invite you to or discourage you from participating in your child’s education? Please explain.
5. What are the three most important characteristics of classroom teachers? School administrators?
6. Does the school meet your child’s individual needs? If so, how?
7. Is the school meeting your expectations? If yes, how?
8. Is the alternative school helping your student acquire improved social skills? Improved academic skills? If so, how?
9. Do you do feel that you help your child succeed academically? If so, how?
10. Does the alternative school address your concerns and needs as a parent? If so, how?
11. Does the school provide opportunities for parent input concerning school policies, curriculum, discipline, etc.? If so, could you provide examples?
12. Is the school using parents’ suggestions to make improvements? If so, could you provide examples?
13. Do you believe your educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status influence your involvement in your child’s education? If so, how?
14. Do you believe that educators could do more to encourage parental involvement in schools? If so, what? 181
Appendix C
GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
1. Does your school meet the needs of children? Explain how.
2. What do parents expect of your school? Please provide examples.
3. Do you believe the educational, cultural, and socioeconomic status of parents affect their expectations of your school? If so, how?
4. Does your school provide opportunities for parental input for school improvement? If so, how?
5. Do you use parents’ suggestions when considering school change? If so, how?
6. Do you foster parent/school partnerships? If so, how?
7. Do you think some parents do not participate in their children’s education? If so, why?
8. Do you encourage parental involvement in your school? If so, how?
9. Is your school meeting parents’ expectations? If so, how?
10. Is your school changing to meet parental expectations? If so, how? 182
Appendix D
OBSERVATION GUIDE
The researcher’s observation of parents, teachers, and principals during interview meetings, events, and activities will provide additional data valuable to the research study. Participants will be observed within their school, home, or other convenient settings. Opinions, actions, and interactions of participants will be noted in a detailed, objective, and nonjudgmental manner. These field notes will provide concrete descriptions of what has been observed. The researcher hopes to discover recurring themes, behavior and interaction patterns, and complex relationships between the participants within their perspective social settings.
Observer comments will include analytical notes about the participants’ comments, actions, and interactions which will help focus the data collection process.
These comments may also lead to future questions for use in subsequent interviews.
During the observation process the researcher takes notes on the following:
• Census: Who are the participants? What are their racial, gender, and
social demographics? What are their roles, jobs, and
responsibilities?
• Map: What are the physical locations of the interview sites? What are
the physical locations of the schools sites?
• Calendar: What are the activities, patterns of associations, and
routines of the participants? Who does what, when, and how? 183
Appendix E
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
College of Education, Urban Educational Leadership
Shirley K. Gibson
Phone: (513) 827-2858 or [email protected]
Title of Study: What Parents Expect of Urban Alternative Schools and How These Schools Address Parents’ Expectations to Make Needed Changes
Introduction:
Before agreeing to participate in this study, it is important that you carefully read and understand the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. Please note that you have the right to withdraw form this study at any time and that no guarantee or assurance can be made concerning the results of the study.
Purpose of the Study:
The purpose of this study is to investigate parents’ expectations of urban alternative schools and to examine how these schools are addressing parents’ expectations to make needed changes. The study will also examine the principal’s and teachers’ views concerning the need for change and how urban alternative schools are changing to address parents’ expectations.
Procedures:
As a participant of this study, you will participate in a one-on-one interview concerning your expectations of urban alternative schools and if your experiences meet your expectations. I will observe, listen, and take notes during these tape recorded interviews. The number of participants will be 30 parents and 6-10 teachers and principals. I will ask you for your name and phone number in order to set up the 30 minute interview at a location convenient to you. The information obtained from you during the interview will be kept in a safe place during the study and then destroyed. Interviews will be audio taped and transcribed. If you do not want to be audio taped, you should decline to participate in this study. 184
Risks/discomforts:
There are no anticipated risks for participants; however, if you should feel uncomfortable during the interview or have any problems or questions, please call me at (513) 827-2858, my advisor, Dr. Nancy Evers at (513) 556-6623, or your school principal.
Benefits/costs:
There are no direct benefits or costs to you for participating in this study; however, your participation may help urban alternative schools improve as they consider parent expectations and suggestions for needed change.
Confidentiality:
All information gathered from interviews will be kept confidential. Your name and other participant’s names will be changed. All consent forms, audio tapes, and transcriptions will be kept in a locked and secure file cabinet and destroyed at the conclusion of this study.
Right to refuse or withdraw:
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I also have the right to end the study.
Legal Rights:
By signing this consent form, you are not giving up any legal right due you nor does it release me, the University of Cincinnati, or its agents from responsibility for negligence. Should you have questions about your legal rights as a research participant, you may contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board – Social and Behavioral Sciences at (513) 558-5784.
Consent Statement:
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS CONSENT FORM AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. AFTER I HAVE SIGNED THIS FORM, I WILL RECEIVE A COPY FOR MY RECORDS.
______Signature of Participant Date
______Signature and Title of Person Obtaining Consent Date