MCKENZIE TRUST BUILDING STRONGER COMMUNITIES 2014inspiringcommunities.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/What_we_… · To date, the Trust has brought together leaders from the four

JR MCKENZIE TRUST | BUILDING STRONGER COMMUNIT IES 2 0 1 4

2 | C O N N E C T I N G E D U C A T I O N A N D C O M M U N I T I E S

Summary: ConnectingEducation and CommunitiesThe early years of a child’s life are particularly important for healthy brain development

and positive educational and behavioural outcomes later in life.

The Connecting Education and Communities project (CEC) aims to contribute towards these positive outcomes by building whānau, family, and community engagement in education.

Initiated, designed, and funded by the JR McKenzie Trust, the CEC project takes a multi-level approach, aiming to simultaneously support innovative “on the ground” work in highly disadvantaged communities, strengthen the fi eld by bringing together people with expertise to pass on their knowledge and inspire others, and improve public policy through advocacy and communications.

Important factors that can infl uence children’s learning and achievement include: parents’ engagement in their children’s learning and education; participation in high-quality early childhood education (ECE); positive teacher-child relationships and teacher eff ectiveness and quality; positive parental attitudes towards parenting; and community support and connection.

connection.There are a number of key features of successful programmes that work to strengthen ties between families, whānau, communities, and schools, such as:

• Taking a targeted, strengths-based approach;

• Valuing culture;

• Off ering formal and informal parenting support;

• Encouraging parental “engagement”, not just “involvement”.;

• Enabling two-way communication and support;

• Involving whānau;

• Taking a whole-of-school approach;

• Collaborating with the wider community;

• Providing connection activities with adequate resourcing and regular review; and

• Understanding that building strong relationships takes time and needs ongoing commitment from families, whānau, schools and communities.

W H A T W E A R E L E A R N I N G | 3

So far, the CEC project is having a number of positive impacts in communities. These include:

Contributing to building stronger communities;

Helping schools and ECE centres to be more responsive to the needs of their communities;

Helping to support greater parental effi cacy;

Creating ripple eff ects and spreading positive impact more broadly; and

Creating intergenerational impacts.

We have learned that CEC programmes work best when they:

Are based on respect and reciprocity;

Are two-directional, and allow whānau and families to both give and receive support;

Are from the grassroots;

Retain a clear focus on learning and achievement; and

Are adequately resourced.

In general, we have learned that it is crucial to

ensure that projects are responsive to communities’

needs by ensuring that communication is two-

way. We have learned that the best way to achieve

this is to consult with a wide variety of community

members, listen to them, and give them regular

updates in easily accessible language. We have

also learned that it is valuable to let community

members take a lead in projects, such as through

sitting on the boards of CEC initiatives.

Moving forward, there are a number of broad steps

which may be taken to further strengthen the

CEC project. These include reaching out to local

communities, education providers, and learning

centres through regional hui, liaising with a wider

range of people working in the field of CEC to

help build connections and common areas of

interest, and working together with those who

have interest in this field to strengthen the public

policy response to connecting the learning and

achievement of children with their communities.

We have also confirmed the importance of

regular evaluation for strengthening projects as

they move forwards. We also note that building

strong relationships between families, schools,

and communities takes time, and we may need

to wait before we will see the impact of these

partnerships on children’s achievement. In the

meantime, it is vital to maintain commitment to

continue developing strong relationships between

schools, parents, whānau, families, and community

organisations.

About the JR McKenzie Trust

123

Supporting “on the ground” work in highly

disadvantaged communities;

Strengthening the fi eld by bringing

together people with expertise to pass on

their knowledge and inspire others; and

Improving public policy through advocacy

and communications.

Established in 1940, the J R McKenzie Trust is a charitable trust that aims to help

build stronger communities through supporting a diverse range of organisations

and initiatives.

CEC works at three levels of social change.Following a review and planning process completed in 2010, the Trust has set as its statement of purpose for the next fi ve years “a socially just and inclusive Aotearoa New Zealand”, and has decided to focus its eff orts primarily on disadvantaged children and their families and Māori development.

In its focus on disadvantaged children and their families, the Trust has set aside approximately $1.5 million over fi ve years for proactive work aimed at building whānau, family, and community engagement in education in order to support better educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. We call this work Connecting Education and Communities (CEC).


The CEC project takes a multi-level approach, aiming to simultaneously support innovative “on the ground” work in highly disadvantaged communities, strengthen the fi eld by bringing together people with expertise to pass on their knowledge and inspire others, and improve public policy through advocacy and communications.

To date, the Trust has brought together leaders from the four initiatives - Horowhenua Pasifi ka Education Initiative (HPEI), Te Huarahi Trust, Success For Little People, and Raurimu Avenue School (described on page 6) for an annual hui to share learning and ideas, and has convened a meeting with others interested (community organisations, government offi cials, and independent funders) to discuss prospects for working together to improve family engagement in education.

At the regional level, CEC hui are held to bring together community, parents, educators and whānau who are interested in taking part in conversations about engaging families and whānau in children’s achievement. To date, the Trust has hosted an Auckland Regional Hui in March 2014, with hui planned for Rotorua (August 2014),

Northland (September 2014) and the South Island (date TBA). In addition, the Trust has developed a web-based resource (www.cec.net.nz) for sharing stories of eff ective practice and evaluation.

The purpose of this document is to:• Summarise the international and New Zealand litera-

ture on why engaging whānau and communities in children’s education is important;

• Summarise the evidence around “what works” for engaging whānau and communities in children’s education;

• Describe what we have learned so far from the CEC Project; and

• Suggest future directions for the CEC Project that may enhance its success.

The CEC ProjectThe Connecting Education and Communities project (CEC) aims to build whānau, family,

and community engagement in education in order to support better educational outcomes

for disadvantaged children.


Horowhenua Pasifi ka Education InitiativeHPEI Levin

HPEI is an initiative in Levin that focusses on engaging hard-to-reach Pasifi ka families in their children’s early childhood education (ECE) and transition to school.

The initiative employs two coordinators, from the Tongan and Samoan communities, to provide support for families to help them make informed decisions and help their children experience ongoing success in education.

Te Huarahi TrustA partnership of schools in Pukekohe

Te Huarahi, a partnership of schools in Pukekohe, has an overarching vision of “schools and whānau working together to improve educational outcomes for Māori”. The Trust aims to: encourage Māori families in Te Puaha o Waikato to enrol their children in ECE; provide educa-tional opportunities for whānau; celebrate Māori culture and achievement in all Te Huarahi schools; build authentic relationships between schools and Māori whānau; encourage school staff members to participate in Te Tiriti workshops and the Mauri Ora Tikanga Māori programme; and raise Māori achievement, retention, and attendance in school.

Success for Little PeopleWaitakere Initiative The long-term goal of the Success For Little People initiative in Waitakere is to ensure that all fi ve-year-olds are enrolled in school, ready for school, attending every day, and are supported by their families. The programme works to bring early learning into the home through existing organisations within the Waitakere area, building cross-community collaborations and sharing knowledge with wider community organisations and areas. Field workers from existing organisations are up-skilled to help reach children in families where there is no engagement with early learning either in the home or in educational settings, and parents are up-skilled and engaged in their children’s learning.

Raurimu Avenue SchoolWhangarei

The Trust supports Raurimu Avenue School in Whāngarei in its aim to use a whānau concept to promote learning, leadership, health, action, sharing, pride, entrepreneurship, and guardian-ship in its community. A Kaiarahi/liaison worker supports parents to become more involved in their children’s learning by: developing parents’ knowledge and understanding of children’s learning; building parents’ self-effi cacy; off ering workshops and resources for whānau on how to learn with their tamariki at home; building both parents’ and children’s confi dence in their learning capacity; following up and supporting non-attending children; seeking external providers that can help whānau build confi dence and participate in community life; promoting Te Reo Māori me ona tikanga; and promoting school as a positive place to be through use of school facilities after hours.

Currently, the Trust provides funding and support for four initiatives around New Zealand


Why it’s important to connect schools, whānau, and communitiesProgrammes aimed at engaging parents and families in children’s education and strengthening links between schools, families, and communities can help improve children’s educational outcomes in disadvantaged communities.

Appendix A provides a summary of the factors that are known have an important impact on children’s learning and development. The literature highlights the impor-tance of the early years of a child’s life for healthy brain development and positive educational and behavioural outcomes later in life (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; CDCHU, 2007; Cunha & Heckman, 2007; Waldegrave & Waldegrave, 2009; Nasim, 2010).

Children from low income households and struggling communities (i.e from low socioeconomic status (SES) households) tend to have poorer educational outcomes than those from wealthier homes (see Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph 2003; Gregg, Propper & Washbrook, 2007; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009; Wylie & Hodgen, 2011; Nasim, 2010; Dickerson & Popli, 2012; Ladd, 2012; OCC, 2013).

New Zealand has a particularly large gap between low and high achievers, and a particularly strong relationship between academic performance and SES, compared with other OECD countries (OECD, 2010), and Māori and Pasifi ka people are disproportionately likely to be of lower SES and have poorer educational outcomes (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgen, 2008, 2011; Craig et al., 2013; OCC, 2013).

Socioeconomic status is not destiny But socioeconomic status is not destiny (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgens, 2008, 2011; Sylva et al., 2012; OCC, 2013). Although New Zealand has signifi cant gaps between high and low achievers, we also have a greater proportion of “resilient” students, who perform better than predicted by their SES, than the OECD average (OECD, 2009; OCC, 2013). Important factors that can mediate the associa-tion between SES and educational outcomes include:

Participation in high-quality early childhood education Participation in high-quality ECE is associated with increased educational success, both immediately and later in life (Barnett, 2008, 2013; Mitchell, Wylie & Carr, 2008; Camilli et al., 2010; OCC, 2013), and may be especially important for multiply disadvantaged children (Mitchell, Wylie & Carr, 2008; Sylva et al., 2012; though see also Green & Mostafa, 2011 for research suggesting that ECE participation increases educational performance

by similar amounts for children of all social groups).

Positive teacher-child relationshipsPositive teacher-child relationships and teacher eff ectiveness and quality can have an important impact on children’s achievement (Rowe, 2003; Nasim, 2010; Slater, Davies & Burgess, 2012). However, research suggests that overall school-level factors have a much less signifi cant impact on children’s achievement than out-of-school factors, including family, home, and individual characteristics (Alton-Lee, 2003; Frempong, Ma & Archampong, 2006; Sylva et al., 2008; Hattie, 2009).

Parents’ engagement in their children’s learning and education Engagement in learning takes many forms, including: good parenting, support, and stimulation at home; high eduational and personal aspirations; and contact with and participation in schools (Desforges, 2003). Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008, p.1) state that the evidence is “unequivocal in showing that parental involvement makes a signifi cant diff erence to educational achievement” (see also Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Desforges, 2003; Banard, 2004; ERO, 2008; OCC, 2013). Strengthening links between home and school is of particular importance for children whose ethnicity or cultural heritage diff ers from those apparent within the school, and for those in lower socioeconomic groups (Wylie, 1999; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Rodrigo & Bryne, 2011).

The home learning environment is particularly crucial, and can mediate some of the negative impacts of poverty for disadvantaged children (Hart & Risley, 1995; McLoyd, 1998; Eamon, 2000; Guo & Harris, 2000; Brooks-Gunn, Han & Waldfogel, 2002; Linver, Brooks-Gunn & Cohen, 2002; Sylva et al., 2004; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009; Mullis et al., 2012).

“Parental involvement makes

a signifi cant difference to

educational achievement.”


Parenting attitudesParents’ attitudes towards parenting, parenting styles, and behaviours. Parenting styles have also been shown to account for a large part of the association between poverty and poorer socio-emotional and cognitive outcomes for children, and changes in parenting styles may mitigate some of the negative impacts of poverty (McLoyd, 1998; Eamon, 2000; Guo & Harris, 2000; Brooks-Gunn, Han & Waldfogel, 2002; Linver, Brooks-Gunn & Cohen, 2002; Dickerson & Popli, 2004; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009).

Parents’ aspirations and expecta-tions of their children can also have an important impact on children’s educational outcomes (with children whose parents expect more of them tending to do better – see Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Frempong, Ma &Archampong, 2006; Mullin et al., 2011), as can parents’ personal resilience, self-effi cacy, and aspira-tions (Ardelt & Eccles, 2001; Sylva et al., 2012).

Endogenous individual factors Endogenous individual factors such as children’s ability to picture a positive future, educational aspira-tions, curiosity, perseverance, self-

management, social and communi-cation skills, enjoyment of reading, and a lack of negative experiences with peers (such as bullying) are associated with greater resilience and higher educational achieve-ment (Frempong, Ma & Archampong, 2006; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgens, 2008, 2011; Nasim, 2010; OCC, 2013; O’Dougherty Wright, Masten & Narayan, 2013).

Community support and connection Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003) note that social networks (such as Pasifi ka church connections and Māori cultural connections) provide important opportunities for children’s learning – particularly for developing a sense of cultural identity and belonging that contrib-utes to feelings of wellbeing – and evidence indicates that when schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; see also Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Families Commission, 2010).

On this basis, it is clear that programmes aimed at engaging parents and families in children’s education and strengthening links

between schools, families, and communities can help improve children’s educational outcomes in disadvantaged communities. The next section focusses on what specific strategies have proven effective in such programmes.

Strengthen links

between home & school


What works for strengthening ties betweenfamilies, communities, and schoolsThere are a number of key features of successful programmes which work to strengthen ties between families, whānau, communities and schools.

Appendix B provides a summary of some key features of successful programmes aimed at engaging parents and families in children’s education and creating links between schools, families, and communities. The following features have been identifi ed as part of successful programmes:

Taking a targeted approach Goodall and Vorhaus (2010) emphasise the importance of undertaking a needs analysis in order to develop successful programmes that meet the needs of particular types of parents and communities, such as those facing economic disadvantage. However, it is important to ensure that programme participants do not feel stigmatised, and are treated with respect and dignity (Gottleib, 2000).

Taking a strengths-based approach Rather than blaming parents and families for their children’s “failure” and diminishing their knowledge and skills, successful programmes treat families with respect, are sensitive to the sociocultural diversity among families and communities in terms of values and beliefs, and build on families’ and communities’ unique strengths (Roberts et al., 1991; Epstein, 2001; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2009; Shulruf, 2010).

Valuing culture Cultural identity, positive self-concept, and sense of being valued are interwined with academic develop-ment (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003). For this reason, some researchers stress the importance of celebrating and adapting to non-dominant cultures within schools for overcoming educational disadvan-tage in minority groups (see Bereiter, 1985; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003), including Māori in New Zealand (Bishop & Berryman, 2009).

Off ering formal parenting supportMany successful programmes aimed at engaging parents in their children’s education focus on providing formal parenting support, in a range of settings (such as the home, school, or both) and focussing on a range of skills (from teaching children specifi c skills such as literacy and numeracy, to general parenting skills). Overall, formal parenting support programmes show positive results for children’s cognitive and educational outcomes, as well as for parents’ relationships with their children, knowledge and skills, and attitudes towards parenting (see Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Kagitcibasi et al., 2009; Shulruf, 2010; Heckman, 2011 for reviews).

Off ering informal parenting support Rodrigo and Bryne (2011) have found that parents who live in stressful or at-risk environments are less likely to be infl uenced by formal support around educational matters than non at-risk parents. On this basis, the authors have suggested that schools can positively infl uence parents’ sense of agency and self-effi cacy, and there-fore increase the likelihood of parents supporting their children’s developmental and educational opportunities, by encouraging and supporting eff ective informal help (e.g., from friends, family members, neighbours) and increasing satisfaction with school support, particularly for at-risk parents.

“Encouraging parental “engagement”, not just

“involvement” is critical.

1 0 | C O N N E C T I N G E D U C A T I O N A N D C O M M U N I T I E S

Encouraging parental “engagement”Encouraging parental “engagement”, not just “involvement” is critical in translating education and commu-nity partnerships into improved educational outcomes for children (Harris & Goodall, 2007; Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008).

A number of studies found that some forms of parent involvement with the school (such as communications with the school, volunteering, attending high school events, and parent-to-parent meetings) appear to have little eff ect on student achievement, especially in high school. In contrast, activities that engage parents in their children’s learning – such as programmes aimed at strength-ening parents’ ability to support their children’s learning at home – have a greater impact on achievement (Harris & Goodall, 2007).

Enabling two-way communication and supportResearch indicates that parents must be willing to accept the transfer of knowledge and information from schools. It is important, however, that this is a two-way process, where schools may also need to change some of their practices to fi t with parents, and also be open to the benefi t of new knowledge which is brought about through the involvement of parents (Gottlieb, 2000; Epstein, 2001; Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010)

This approach is not only important for supporting all participants’ self-effi cacy and personal satisfaction (Gottleib, 2000), but also helps schools and programmes be responsive to communities’ needs (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008).

Involving whānauSome of the most robust evidence in meta-analyses of the impact of parental engagement in children’s learning falls into the category of family learning programmes, with the most extensive and robust evidence pointing to the positive impact of family literacy, language, and numeracy programmes on children’s academic and learning outcomes (Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010).

Taking a whole-of-school approachThe literature suggests that parental engagement strategies are most eff ective when programmes are embedded in school development plans, and are not simply “bolted on” to mainstream activities (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010).

Clearly stating goals and focus-sing on learningSuccessful programmes allow teachers and parents develop a “shared language of learning” that enables them to talk about achieve-ment, progress, and assessment, and ensure that both partners are clear about their roles in supporting learning (Bull, Brooking, and

Campbell, 2008; Goodall and Vorhaus, 2010).

Collaborating with the wider communityResearch highlights the benefi ts to be gained from identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school, family, and parenting programmes (Epstein, 2001; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010; OCC, 2013).

Strong community and social ties are also important for developing children’s cultural identity and sense of belonging (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003).

Providing adequate resourcing and regular review

Bull, Brooking, and Cambpell (2008) emphasise the importance of ensuring that programmes are well-resourced, and note that regular review is important for strengthening programmes as they move forwards.

Taking time to develop strong relationships Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008) emphasise that building strong relationships between families, schools, and communities takes time. The authors note that in several of their case studies, principals reported that involving parents in the educa-tion of their children became easier as time went on, and emphasise the importance of maintaining commit-ment from programme and school staff for gradually building up these relationships.

Strong community and social ties are important.

W H A T W E A R E L E A R N I N G | 1 1

What we’ve learned so far from CECCommunities with strong social networks provide invaluable opportunities for children’s learning and have been show to increase children’s wellbeing, particularly for vulnerable children.

We have learned that CEC is having a number of positive impacts in communities:

Contributing towards stronger communitiesCommunities with strong social networks provide invaluable opportunities for children’s learning and have been shown to increase children’s wellbeing, particularly for vulnerable children (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; see also Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Families Commission, 2010). For example, 300 whānau attended the Te Huarahi “celebrating success” evening in December.

Helping schools and learning centres to be respon-sive to the needs of their communities

This is key for helping children achieve success (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008). This type of true collaboration has the potential to result in the evolution of mainstream school culture to provide a more inclusive, diverse environment for young New Zealanders. The three CEC initiatives which are based in schools or learning centres (e.g. Te Huarahi, HPEN, Raurimu Ave School) are all helping their schools and learning centres change their practices in order to be more responsive to their communities. In Levin, for example, HPEN has assisted the ECE centres to make their spaces more open and welcoming to Pasifi ka parents. As a result, enrolments from Pasifi ka families have increased at the centre.

Helping to support greater parental effi cacy

CEC-type activities have been shown to improve parental confi dence and self-esteem, as well as help parents develop more supportive and positive relationships with their children (see Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Kagitcibasi et al., 2009; Shulruf, 2010; Heckman, 2011 for reviews). For example, the CEC project at Raurimu Ave school identifi ed 32 students and whānau who needed additional support, and the school moved to foster quality relationships with these whānau. As a result, previously highly disengaged parents now frequently enter school grounds to support their children, as well as attending all school functions (such as ‘meet the teacher evenings’), there has been a drop in absenteeism, and the school Principal now spends signifi cantly more time on teaching and learning, and less time intervening in whānau issues.

Creating intergenerational eff ects

Often parents themselves have had negative experiences of the education system, which are a barrier to engage-ment. Engaging parents in their children’s learning can overcome these barriers and have positive repercussions for the learning of the whole family. For example, parents at the Manurewa Parenting Hub in South Auckland – which is a CEC-type initiative affi liated to the JR McKenzie Trust - have taken on paid and volunteer leadership roles in the Hub, and are key to encouraging other parents to step up and take part. In addition, more than 60 parents have been supported by the Hub to take on Teacher Aide roles in local schools. Outcomes reported by parents who are in a teacher aide role include increased confi dence and skills when helping their own children with their learning and education.

Creating “ripple” eff ects Once engaged, parents and whānau members share their learning and experiences with others around them, spreading the positive impacts more broadly through the community.

“Helping schools and learning

centres to be responsive to the

needs of their communities

has the potential to result in

the evolution of mainstream

school culture to provide a more

inclusive, diverse environment

for young New Zealanders.”


Are based on respect and reciprocityCEC activities that work best are designed to add to, not undermine, family and whānau engagement in their children’s learning.

Are from the grass roots CEC programmes are more likely to be eff ective if they are responsive to the needs within communities, and build on the strengths and values of those communities – we need to avoid “one size fi ts all” thinking.

Retain a clear focus on learning and achievementParental participation in fundraising, for example, is valuable, and builds connections with the school, but it does not contribute to children’s learning.

Are adequately resourced Busy teachers are already stretched – expecting them to lead additional engagement activities on top of their existing workload is unreal-istic. A little funding to support a dedicated “community liaison coordi-nator” or “kaiarahi” role can unleash huge untapped potential within a community.

Are two-directional Activities and initiatives that allow whānau and families to both give and receive support may be more eff ective than one-directional activi-ties. Some schools and ECE providers need to be prepared to change their ways of working and become more open to involvement, not simply expect parents, families and whānau to engage with how things operate currently.

Take time to build trustParental engagement may be easier to maintain when learning initiatives focus on building trust with whānau and families by sharing personal experiences, taking time to get to know families and being consist-ently supportive. One of the key ways schools and ECE’s build trust is through face-to-face meetings (kanohi ki te kanohi).

Put fun into learningHolding events which make learning fun, and which involve the whole family or whānau (including children) are more appealing, as is ensuring that events are held in a space or venue which is comfortable and welcoming.

Moving forward, we have learned that CEC initiatives work best when they:


Hearing local community members’ voices, including those who are not engaged in the CEC projects;

Increasing the visibility of projects within communities;

Ensuring that messages are accessible for participants by, for example, using accessible language in project materials and disseminating regular updates to community members;

Using a range of locations for activities, such as marae, and being sensitive to the fact that many parents involved in the initiative may not feel comfortable participating in activities and meetings on school grounds;

Involving other organisations, such as those that focus on other issues that can impact students’ learning;

Liaising with a wider range of people within the community to help build connections; and

Representing and celebrating Māori culture and language beyond Māori enrichment classes.

In general, we have learned that it is crucial to ensure that projects are responsive to communities’ needs by ensuring that communication is two-way. We have learned that the best way to achieve this is to consult with a wide variety of community members, listen to them, and give them regular updates in easily accessible language. We have also learned that it is valuable to let community members take a lead in projects, such as through sitting on the boards of CEC initiatives. Work so far has also confi rmed the importance of representing and celebrating culture, for example through incorporating Māori culture and language into schools beyond Māori enrichment classes.

We have also confi rmed the importance of regular evaluation for strengthening projects as they move forwards.

We also note that, as Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008) have emphasised, building strong relationships between families, schools, and communities takes time, and we may need to wait before we will see the impact of these partnerships on children’s achievement. In the meantime, the authors emphasise that it is vital to maintain commitment from project staff to continue developing strong relationships between schools, parents, families, and community organisations.

A recent evaluation (Baldwin, King & Peirce, 2014) highlighted some lessons which might be relevant to initiatives funded by the JR McKenzie Trust as part of Connecting Education and Communities. These include:

ensure that projects are responsive

to communities’ needs by making

communication two-way


ReferencesAlton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5959

Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Eff ects of mothers’ parental effi cacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22(8), 944–972.

Baldwin, K., King, M., & Peirce, P. V. (2014). Evaluation of Te Huarahi Project. Auckland: Cognition Education.

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39–62.

Barnett, W. S. (2013). Getting the Facts Right on Pre-K and the President’s Pre-K Proposal. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/publications/policy-reports/getting-facts-right-pre-k-and-presidents-pre-k-proposal

Bereiter, C. (1985). The Changing Face of Educational Disadvantagement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 66(8), 538–541.

Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Income and child development. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9), 978–989.

Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J., & Biddulph, C. (2003). The Complexity of Community and Family Infl uences on Children’s Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te Kotahitanga Eff ective Teaching Profi le (No. Set 2). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Brooks–Gunn, J., Han, W.-J., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal employment and child cognitive outcomes in the fi rst three years of life: The NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 73(4), 1052–1072.

Bull, A., Brooking, K., & Campbell, R. (2008). Successful Home-School Partnerships: Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the eff ects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. The Teachers College Record, 112(3).

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2007). A Science-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy: Using Evidence to Improve Outcomes in Learning, Behavior, and Health for Vulnerable Children. Cambridge, MA: Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu

Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2007). The Technology of Skill Formation (No. Working Paper 12840). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Desforges, C. (2004). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review (No. Research Report No. 433). London: Department for Education and Skills.

Dickerson, A., & Popli, G. (2012). Persistent Poverty and Children’s Cognitive Development: Evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. London: Learning Education and Social Rsearch, Institute of Education, University of London.

Eamon, M. K. (2000). Structural model of the eff ects of poverty on externalizing and internalizing behaviors of


four-to fi ve-year-old children. Social Work Research, 24(3), 143–154.

Education Review Offi ce. (2008). Partners in Learning: Schools’ Engagement with Parents, Whānau and Communities. Wellington: Education Review Offi ce.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (1st edition.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Frempong, G., Ma, X., & Archampong, E. (2006). Improving Reading Skills: Policy Sensitive Non-School and Family Factors: Final Report. Gatineau, Québec: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement (No. Research Report DFE-RR156). London: Department for Education. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11926/1/DFE-RR156.pdf

Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Selecting and planning support interventions. In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists (pp. 195–220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, A., & Mostafa, T. (2011). Pre-School Education and Care - a “Win-Win” Policy? (No. LLAKES Research Paper 32). London: Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.llakes.org

Gregg, P., Propper, C., & Washbrook, E. (2007). Understanding the Relationship Between Parental Income and Multiple Child Outcomes: A Decomposition Analysis (No. CASE/129). London: Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), London School of Economics. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1159360

Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the eff ects of poverty on children’s intellectual development. Demography, 37(4), 431–447.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Diff erences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement: Do Parents Know They Matter? A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Coventry, UK: Department for Children, Schools and Families, University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6639/1/DCSF-RW004.pdf

Hattie, J. (2013). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.

Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood education. American Educator, 35(1), 31–35.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement (Annual Synthesis). Austin, TX: National Centre for Family and Community Connection with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Kagitcibasi, C., Sunar, D., Bekman, S., Baydar, N., & Cemalcilar, Z. (2009). Continuing eff ects of early enrichment in adult life: The Turkish Early Enrichment Project 22 years later. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 764–779.

Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2), 203–227.

Linver, M. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. E. (2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 719.


McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185.

Ministry of Education. (2014). Indicators. Education Counts website. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators

Mitchell, L., Wylie, C., & Carr, M. (2008). Outcomes of Early Childhood Education: Literature Review. Prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/international-results-pirls.html

Nasim, N. (2010). The Interdependence and Determinants of Childhood Outcomes: The Relevance for Policy. Report to the Department of Children, Schools and Families (No. CEE Special Report 003). London: Center for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics.

NIACE. (2013). Family Learning Works: The Inquiry into Family Learning in England and Wales. Leicester, Cardiff : National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

O’Connor, T. G., & Scott, S. B. C. (2007). Parenting and Outcomes for Children. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background (Programme for International Student Assessment No. Volume II).

Offi ce of the Children’s Commissioner. (2013). Parents’, Families’ and Whanau Contributions to Educational Success (Working Paper). Wellington: Offi ce of the Children’s Commissioner.

Roberts, R. N., Wasik, B. H., Casto, G., & Ramey, C. T. (1991). Family support in the home: programs, policy, and social change. American Psychologist, 46(2), 131.

Rodrigo, M. J., & Byrne, S. (2011). Social support and personal agency in at-risk mothers. Psychosocial Intervention/Intervencion Psicosocial, 20(1), 13–24.

Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, Building Teacher Quality: What Does the Research Tell Us? Melbourne, 19–21 October 2003.

Shonkoff , J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Shulruf, B. (2010). Policy analysis of New Zealand’s 10-Year Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education, Pathways to the Future: Ngā Huarahi Arataki 2002–2012. Child Health and Education, 1(3), 162–182.

Slater, H., Davies, N. M., & Burgess, S. (2012). Do teachers matter? Measuring the variation in teacher eff ectiveness in England. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(5), 629–645.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008). Final Report from the Primary Phase: Pre-school, School and Family Infl uences on Children’s Development during Key Stage 2 (Age 7-11) (No. Research Report No DCSF-RR061, prepared for the Department for Children, Schools and Families). London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2012). Eff ective Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education 3-14 Project (EPPSE 3-14): Final Report from the Key Stage 3 Phase: Infl uences on Students’ Development From age 11 - 14 (No. Research Report DFE-RR 202, prepared for the Department of Education). London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.


Telford, M. (2013). PISA 2009: Reading to Learn: New Zealand 15-Year-Olds’ Reading Habits, Learning Approaches and Experiences of Teaching Practices. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Wright, M. O., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2013). Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In Handbook of -resilience in children (pp. 15–37). New York: Springer.

Wylie, C. (1999). Ten Years On: How Schools View Educational Reform. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C., & Hipkins, R. (2006). Growing Independence: Competent Learners @14. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Wylie, C., & Hodgen, E. (2007). Competent Learners at 16: Competency Levels and Development Over Time. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C., & Hodgen, E. (2011). Forming Adulthood: Past, Present and Future in the Experience and Views of the Competent Learners @ 20. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Postal address: J R McKenzie TrustP O Box 10 006Wellington 6143New Zealand

Phone: (0-4) 472 8876 Fax: (0-4) 472 5367www.jrmckenzie.org.nz

For more information on Connecting Education and Communities, please contact:

Sam CaldwellGrants and Programmes Advisor(04) 471 8917

Linda BiggsCEC Project Manager0274864150

www.cec.net.nz

Physical address: Level 4114 - 118 Lambton QuayWellingtonNew Zealand


Children’s life chances improve, reducing further disadvantage and leading to a decrease in poverty and a more just and equitable society

Assist community groups to identify community support to deal with issues outside their scope

Encourage those we come in contact with to ensure this work happens in communities

Support informed, knowledgeable workers in community to liaise with parents, family

Support opportunities for face-to-face engagement

Help communities see positive impacts

Build on services already in communities and share good practice to upskill those doing the work

Formally and informally recruit community members to champion the cause

Support community organisations to be responsive to the needs and desires of their community

Develop resources to support parents, family and with their children’s education

Provide opportunities for ‘the field’ to meet and share what works well and what doesn’t work so well

Build relationships with others doing this type of work

Broker relationships between groups doing this work

Help identify effective approaches that we have found work and encourage people to take this approach

Inspire others by sharing our work

Provide support networks when the going gets tough

Engage with national level stakeholders and share what we are learning

Identify audience and target those with the most ability to create change

Encourage ownership of the idea so it runs without us

Embed CEC in national policies and procedure

Create a social movement around CEC

EVALUATION IDEAS o Attendance at parent -teacher interviews o Student achievement and attendance,

reduced transience o Encourage initiatives to collect data around

engagement and learning outcomes o Informally survey groups we come into

contact with using a standard tool and compare results

o Go wider with evaluation and talk to others in the field who are also evaluating – help identify critical success factors

ASSUMPTIONS PARENTS: Poor educational experiences of parents & low educational achievement; English as a second language; Life challenges get in the way; see it’s the schools job to educate children; “Cultural divide” around teaching and education (“leave it to the experts); High transience SCHOOLS: Schools not welcoming; No time (both parents and schools); Teachers don’t have the expertise to engage families; Not ‘core business’ for schools; Schools traditionally don’t see that parents have a role to play in education BOTH: Low expectations of engagement OTHER: Possible lack of leadership – needs high level champions

Increased numbers of parents,

engaging in learning activities with their children that directly relate to

what is happening in school


education and see they have a role to play in their children’s

learning and can make a difference to their achievement

Increased numbers of parents, family and

team with education professionals


provided with the knowledge to ask informed questions

around education and achievement


confident, keen and enthusiastic about their children’s education

and can support their learning and achievement

Increased numbers of education centres (e.g. schools, early childhood

education, marae) who understand the value and benefits of connecting

communities and education

Children become enthusiastic and confident learners with high shared expectations of their

family, their school and themselves

support, reinforce and contribute to children’s

learning

Involving families in their children’s education leads to increased educational achievement for young people

Children’s learning outcomes improve

Parents are provided with a smorgasbord of

opportunities with which they can engage

in and support their children’s learning

Community champions

are identified

and supported

Learning and engagement

opportunities for parents, family and

created and encouraged

Barriers are actively

addressed and removed (e.g.

confidence, accessibility)

Parents are assisted to

understand the importance of

their role in CEC

Education centres are encouraged to

increase opportunities for

face-to-face communication

Educators are provided with

information and assistance to

engage parents, families and

whanau

Educators and leaders are assisted to

understand the importance of

their role in CEC

Spaces for engagement are created

(both physical and mental

spaces)

Our Theory of Change


Appendix A: Factors that impact children’s educational achievement

Factor Evidence

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Children from low SES households are more likely to have poorer outcomes in terms of educational achievement. As Ladd (2012) has put it: “Study after study has demonstrated that children from disadvantaged households perform less well in school on average than those from more advantaged households. This empirical relationship shows up in studies using observations at the levels of the individual student, the school, the district, the state, the country.” (See also Wylie & Hodgen, 2011 for NZ research showing an association between low SES and early school leaving, Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph 2003; and OCC, 2013, for reviews, and for other research on the association between low SES and children’s development, see Gregg, Propper & Washbrook, 2007; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009; Nasim, 2010; Dickerson & Popli, 2012).

New Zealand has one of the largest gaps in reading ability between high and low achievers in the OECD, and the relationship between SES and 15-year-olds’ reading performance is stronger than the OECD average (OECD, 2010). This gap is refl ected in early literacy results and qualifi cations attained in high school, with students from low decile schools tending to perform more poorly on measures of literacy in primary school and gain fewer high school qualifi cations than students from high decile schools (Ministry of Education, 2014). SES and educational achievement are also associated with ethnicity, with Māori and Pasifi ka people on average having lower SES and lower educational outcomes than other groups (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgen, 2008, 2011; Craig et al., 2013; OCC, 2013).

But socioeconomic status is not destiny (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgens, 2008, 2011; Sylva et al., 2012; OCC, 2013). Other factors, such as those listed in this table, can have a signifi cant impact on children's educational achievement. Although New Zealand has significant gaps between high and low achievers, we also have a greater proportion of “resilient” students, who perform better than predicted by their SES, than the OECD average (OECD, 2009; OCC, 2013).


Factor Evidence

High-quality ECE participation

Research affi rms the importance of the fi rst few years of a child’s life for healthy neurodevelopment, cognitive development, and positive educational and behavioural outcomes later in life (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; CDCHU, 2007; Cunha & Heckman, 2007; Waldegrave & Waldegrave, 2009; Nasim, 2010).

Participation in high-quality ECE is associated with increased educational success, both immediately and later in life (Mitchell, Wylie & Carr, 2008; OCC, 2013). Barnett (2008, p.5) states that: “Multiple meta-analyses conducted over the past 25 years have found pre-school education to produce an average immediate effect of about half (0.5) a standard deviation on cognitive development. This is the equivalent of 7 or 8 points on an IQ test or a move from the 30th to the 50th percentile for achievement test scores. . For social and emotional domains, estimated eff ects have been somewhat smaller but still practically meaningful, averaging about 0.33 standard deviations.” Regarding long-term impacts, a meta-analysis by Camilli and colleagues (2010, cited in Barnett, 2013) found that although there was some decline in the eff ects of ECE participation after children entered school, eff ects remained substantial throughout all the school years.

High-quality ECE participation is particularly important for multiply disadvantaged children. Mitchell, Wylie, and Carr (2008) note that some studies show the cognitive gains from high-quality ECE can be greater for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (see also Sylva et al., 2012). In contrast, Green and Mostafa (2011) conclude that overall, research suggests that ECE participation increases educational performance by similar amounts for children of all social groups in most countries, and on this basis suggest that providing additional high-quality, aff ordable ECE opportunities for disadvantaged groups is especially important for narrowing achievement gaps.


Factor Evidence

Teachers Positive teacher-child relationships can have an important impact on achievement, with Nasim (2010) fi nding good teacher-child relations at age 14 to be associated with academic progress, and worsening relationships with reduced achievement. Teacher eff ectiveness is also important, with research in England by Slater, Davies, and Burgess (2012) suggesting that having a one-standard deviation better teacher raises the student’s test score by 27% of a standard deviation (see also Rowe, 2003).

Bishop and Berryman (2009) have s u g g e s t e d t h a t g o o d t e a c h i n g incorporates cultural identity Māori.

Although quality teaching is a key influence on student achievement, out-of-school factors (including the family and individual characteristics) seem to have an even greater influence. For example, Alton-Lee (2003) concludes based on a synthesis of international and New Zealand research that while diff erences between teachers and classes accounts for around 60% of the variance in student performance, only around 20%, or less, of the variance is attributable to school-level factors. Similarly, research in Canada by Frempong, Ma, and Archampong (2006) found that non-school factors (including individual and family factors) explain more than a third of the total original variance in reading achievement, whereas school factors explain only a trivial amount (see also Sylva et al., 2008; Hattie, 2009).


Factor Evidence

Parents’ engagement in children’s learning and education

Parental engagement in learning and education takes many forms, including: good parenting at home; provision of a secure and stable environment; intellectual s t i m u l a t i o n ; p a r e n t - c h i l d discussion; constructive social and educational values and high aspirations relating to personal fulfilment and good citizenship; contact with schools to share information; participation in school events; participation in the work of the school; and participation in school governance (Desforges, 2003). Epstein’s (2001) research has shown that parents and communities are very ready and able partners in the advancement of their children’s education, but that they often lack the guidance or support about how they might help their children at home.

Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008, p.1) state that the evidence is “unequivocal in showing that parental involvement makes a significant difference to educational achievement ” (see Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Desforges, 2003; ERO, 2008; OCC, 2013, for reviews). For example, longitundinal research in Chicago found that even after controlling for background characteristics and risk factors, parent involvement in primary school was significantly associated with lower rates of high school dropout, increased on-time high school completion, and highest grade completed (Banard, 2004). New Zealand research shows that strengthening links between home and school is of particular importance for children whose ethnicity or cultural heritage diff ers from those apparent within the school, and for those in lower socioeconomic groups, since these families are likely to have least engagement with their children’s schools ( Wylie, 1999; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; see also Rodrigo & Bryne, 2011).

The home learning environment is also key. Research has found that aspects of the home environment such as cognitive stimulation, access to reading materials in the home, early reading experiences, and number of words spoken to young children are key factors in affecting later educational and socio-emotional outcomes, and can mediate some of the negative impacts of poverty for disadvantaged children (Hart & Risley, 1995; McLoyd, 1998; Eamon, 2000; Brooks-Gunn, Han & Waldfogel, 2002; Linver, Brooks-Gunn & Cohen, 2002; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009; Mullis et al., 2012). The quality of the home learning environment has a continuing effect well beyond children’s early years (Sylva et al., 2004). Guo and Harris (2000, p.442) concluded, based on their study of the association between family poverty and children’s intellectual development in the US National Survey of Youth (NLSY), that “cognitive stimulation in the home is by far the most important infl uence mediating the eff ect of poverty on [children’s intellectual] development”.


Factor Evidence

Parents’ attitudes, styles, and behaviours

Parenting styles can affect children’s achievement. Baumrind’s (1967) typology of parenting styles distinguishes between authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and uninvolved. Authoritative parenting, which is supportive, warm, and responsive, but sets rules and boundaries, is consistently associated with better development and educational achievement in children (O’Connor et al. 2007; OCC, 2013). Parenting styles have also been shown to account for a large part of the association between poverty and poorer socio-emotional and cognitive outcomes for children, and changes in parenting styles may mitigate some of the negative impacts of poverty (McLoyd, 1998; Eamon, 2000; Guo & Harris, 2000; Brooks-Gunn, Han & Waldfogel, 2002; Linver, Brooks-Gunn & Cohen, 2002; Dickerson & Popli, 2004; Berger, Paxson & Waldfogel, 2009).

Parents’ aspirations and expectations of their children can also have an important impact on children’s educational outcomes. Frempong, Ma, and Archampong (2006) found that those students whose parents have higher educational expectations achieve 27% of a standard deviation higher than students whose parents have lower expectations. Similarly, the Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS) study has found that parental expectations are associated with children’s reading progress (Mullin et al., 2011), and a New Zealand synthesis by Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003, p.iv) found that, “Regardless of ethnic or SES background, families with high levels of educational expectations have the most positive eff ects on their children’s achievement at senior school level.” (See also Telford, 2013.)

Parents’ personal resilience, self-efficacy, and aspirations are also important for children’s development. Parents who perceive that they are more competent in their parenting role are more likely to parent in ways that promote developmental opportunities and minimise risk (Ardelt & Eccles, 2001). Sylva and colleagues (2012, p.94) conclude that low SES parents who are resilient, provide emotional support, have high aspirations, value learning, encourage extracurricular activities, and recognise the value of ECE beyond preparing children for school are most likely to help their children “succeed against the odds”.


Factor Evidence

Endogenous individual factors

Alongside SES and school and family factors, individual characteristics are associated with positive cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes. Frempong, Ma, and Archampong (2006) distinguish between exogenous and endogenous individual factors (the former referring to factors like gender, immigration status, and SES), and endogenous factors (such as enjoyment of reading and personal educational expectations). Based on their research in Canada, the authors found that exogenous individual characteristics, family characteristics, and endogenous individual characteristics were all equally important in accounting for variance in reading achievement, and together account for over a third of the variance in children’s reading scores.

Exogenous individual factors that are associated with academic success include high SES, non-minority ethnicity, non-immigrant status, and gender (with females tending to out-perform males) (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Frempong, Ma & Archampong, 2006; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgen, 2008, 2011; Mullis et al., 2012). Endogenous characteristics such as children’s ability to picture a positive future, educational aspirations, curiosity, perseverance, self-management, social and communication skills, enjoyment of reading, and lack of negative experiences with peers (such as bullying) are associated with greater resilience and higher educational achievement (Frempong, Ma & Archampong, 2006; Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgens, 2008, 2011; Nasim, 2010; OCC, 2013; O’Dougherty Wright, Masten & Narayan, 2013).

Like parental factors, endogenous personal factors may help mitigate the association between poor educational outcomes and poverty. As Frempong, Ma, and Archampong (2006, p.27) conclude, “The implication is that parents do not have to incur financial expenses to help students perform well in reading achievement. Resources, possessions, and activit ies (material-based entities) are much less important than expectations, supports, and interests (spiritually-based entities).” (See also Wylie & Hipkins, 2006; Wylie & Hodgens, 2008, 2011.)

Factor Evidence

Community support and connections

Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003) note that social networks (for example, Pasifi ka church connections and Māori cultural connections) provide important opportunities for children’s learning, particularly for developing a sense of cultural identity and belonging that contributes to feelings of wellbeing. The authors note that social networks also provide crucial support for parents as they work towards raising their children’s achievement.

Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003) also note that access to community institutions (such as libraries, medical facilities, and social services agencies) can enhance children’s achievement beyond what schools can achieve alone.

Overseas evidence suggests that when schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). A recent report by the Families Commission (2010) concludes that the greater the overlap of the spheres of infl uence of family, school and community, the greater opportunity for continuity, which has strong positive impacts on child education and development.


Strategy Evidence

Targeted approach Goodall and Vorhaus (2010) emphasise the importance of undertaking a needs analysis in order to develop successful programmes that meet the needs of particular types of parents and communities, such as those facing economic disadvantage. However, the authors emphasise that targeted approaches must be accompanied by an eff ort to understand families and communities involved, show sensitivity to their cultural norms and expectations, respect family members in their capacity, and avoid stigmatising participants (see Gottleib, 2000, and below).

Strengths-based approach

The literature emphasises the importance of taking a strengths-based approach to parents and whānau. Rather than blaming parents for their children’s “failure” and diminishing their knowledge and skills, successful programmes treat families with respect, are sensitive to the sociocultural diversity among families in terms of values and beliefs, and build on the unique strengths of each family (Roberts et al., 1991; Epstein, 2001; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2009; Shulruf, 2010).

Engaging rather than involving parents

A number of studies found that some forms of parent involvement with the school (such as communications with the school, volunteering, attending high school events, and parent-to-parent meetings) appear to have little eff ect on student achievement, especially in high school. In contrast, activities that engage parents in their children’s learning – such as programmes aimed at strengthening parents’ ability to support their children’s learning at home – have a greater impact on achievement (Harris & Goodall, 2007).

between families, whanau, communities and schools


Strategy Evidence

Valuing culture Cultural identity, positive self-concept, and sense of being valued are interwined with academic development (Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003). For this reason, some researchers stress the importance of celebrating and adapting to non-dominant cultures within schools for overcoming educational disadvantage in minority groups (see Bereiter, 1985; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003). In New Zealand, Bishop and Berryman (2009) emphasise the importance of representing and celebrating Māori culture in schools in order to move away from a defi cit model, in which Māori students’ culture and identity are marginalised, to an empowerment model that celebrates Māori cultural values.

Formal parenting support

Many successful programmes aimed at engaging parents in their children’s education focus on providing formal parenting support. Such programmes may take place in the home or in school, or both, and the content varies from curriculum-based literacy and numeracy skills that train parents to teach specific skills to their children, through to programmes that provide parenting skills support to parents who are seeking knowledge and information. The latter are often designed to support parents to effectively manage their children’s behaviour and provide them with the confidence and empathy to use their new skills effectively (Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010). Overall, formal parenting support programmes show positive results for children’s cognitive and educational outcomes, as well as for parents’ relationships with their children, knowledge and skills, and attitudes towards parenting (see Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Biddulph, Biddulph & Biddulph, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Kagitcibasi et al., 2009; Shulruf, 2010; Heckman, 2011 for reviews).

Informal parental support

Rodrigo and Bryne (2011) have found that parents who live in stressful or at-risk environments are less likely to be influenced by formal support around educational matters than non at-risk parents. They concluded that schools can positively influence parents’ sense of agency and self-efficacy (and therefore increase the likelihood of parents supporting their children’s developmental and educational opportunities) by encouraging and supporting effective informal help (e.g., from friends, family members, neighbours) and increasing satisfaction with school support, particularly for at-risk parents.

Encouraging parental “engagement”, not just “involvement”

The research highlights that “engagement” rather than “involvement” is critical in translating education and community partnerships into improved educational outcomes for children (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008). A number of studies found that some forms of parent involvement with the school (such as communications with the school, volunteering, attending high school events, and parent-to-parent meetings) appear to have little effect on student achievement, especially in high school (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).


Strategy Evidence

Two-way communication and support

It is clear that parents must be willing to accept the transfer of knowledge and information from schools, but that schools should expect this to be a two-way process, where they are also open to the benefit of new knowledge through the involvement of parents (Epstein, 2001; Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010). Moreover, research has found that social support that is two-directional (that is, which allows people to both give and receive help) ensures feelings of mutual respect that contribute to relational satisfaction, and is most effective in supporting self-efficacy and personal agency (Gottlieb, 2000). In contrast, support which is one-directional (such as that provided by formal agencies) can make the recipient feel inferior, vulnerable and inadequate (Rodrigo & Byrne, 2011). Two-way communication also helps schools and programmes be responsive to communities’ needs, which is also important for success (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008).

Involving whānau Some of the most robust evidence in meta-analyses of the impact of parental engagement in children’s learning falls into the category of family learning programmes, with the most extensive and robust evidence pointing to the positive impact of family literacy, language, and numeracy programmes on children’s academic and learning outcomes (Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010).

Whole-of-school approach

The literature suggests that parental engagement strategies are most effective when they that take a “whole-of-school” approach to parental engagement – that is, when programmes are embedded in school development plans, and are not simply “bolted on” to mainstream activities (Bull, Brooking & Campbell, 2008; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010).

Clear goals and focus on learning

Goodall and Vorhaus (2010) emphasise that successful formal support programmes provide parents with specific, detailed guidance on programmes and on their expected contribution, and have a clearly-articulated focus on learning. Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008) similarly note that although building relationships is an important step in establishing home-school partnerships, if the purpose of the partnership is to lift achievement it is important to shift, once the relationship is established, to a more task-oriented approach. The authors note that in the most successful programmes, teachers and parents develop a “shared language of learning” that enables them to talk about achievement, progress, and assessment, and both parties are clear about their roles in supporting learning.


Strategy Evidence

Community collaboration

Research highlights the benefits to be gained from identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school, family, and parenting programmes (Epstein, 2001; Goodall & Vorhaus, 2010; OCC, 2013). For example, Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003) emphasise that when children and parents have good local access to institutions such as libraries, medical facilities, and social service agencies, children’s achievement can be enhanced beyond the level that schools can achieve alone. Furthermore, programmes that enhance community networks and social ties can have an important impact on children’s achievement, since, as Biddulph, Biddulph, and Biddulph (2003, p.v) have put it, “Social networks (e.g. Pasifika church connections, Māori cultural connections) provide important opportunities for children’s further learning, particularly the development of cultural identity and sense of belonging that contributes to children’s feelings of well-being.”

Resourcing and review

Bull, Brooking, and Cambpell (2008) emphasise the importance of ensuring that programmes are well-resourced. Furthermore, the authors note that regular review is important for strengthening programmes as they move forwards.

Time Bull, Brooking, and Campbell (2008) emphasise that building strong relationships between families, schools, and communities takes time. The authors note that in several of their case studies, principals reported that involving parents in the education of their children became easier as time went on, and emphasise the importance of maintaining commitment from programme and school staff for gradually building up these relationships.

Documents

MCKENZIE TRUST BUILDING STRONGER COMMUNITIES 2014inspiringcommunities.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/What_we_… · To date, the Trust has brought together leaders from the four