Indicators of Family Engagement

1. Indicators of Family Engagement Melanie Lemoine and Monica Ballay Louisiana State Improvement Grant/SPDG

2. Background Information • LaSIG 2 • Second round of SPDG funding • Main project goals to improve student outcomes by improving the service delivery at the state, district, school, and individual levels • Focused on two issues • Professional development • Improving family engagement

3. Background Information • Research on family engagement • Students perform better when positive relationships and partnerships exist between families and schools • When family members are leaders in the school, outcomes improve • The school improvement process is more effective if it includes all stakeholders including family members

4. A Significant Concern • Schools expressed a desire to improve relationships with families but lacked direction to do so • Two needs • A simple measure for schools to determine what structures were currently in place • A measure of the level at which schools were engaging families

5. Developing the Scale • Strategist group • Determine what is important • Review the literature • Review current assessment tools • Capture all voices • Consultant • Narrow focus • Assist in developing the actual scale

6. Developing the Scale • Organized around four dimensions • Communication • Family Support • Decision Making • Partnerships

7. Developing the Scale • A total of 25 items • The number of Items for each dimension ranged from six to eight • Responses to each item on a four point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree

8. Pilot Tests • Two pilot tests • Pilot 1 • Five schools with approximately 150 respondents • Items functioning well • Respondent comments resulted in adding two items • Pilot 2 • Four schools with approximately 150 respondents • Six items deleted • One item moved to a different subscale • Items functioning well

9. Indicators of Family Engagement Scale • General characteristics • 21 items reflect perceived levels of family engagement • Four subscales • Communication • Family Support • Decision Making • Partnerships

10. Family Engagement Survey for Schools

11. Family Engagement Survey for Schools

12. Family Engagement Survey for Schools

13. Family Engagement Survey for Schools

14. Indicators of Family Engagement Scale • Technical issues • Item functionality • All item reliabilities were acceptable • All coefficients across all scales functioned well • Validity • Content validity established in development • Construct validity confirmed with a principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation • All items loaded as expected except for a single exception

15. Indicators of Family Engagement Scale • Technical Issues (Cont’d) • Reliability • Cronbach alphas for the total scale and subscales were calculated • Scores were .86, .81, .86, .83, and .93 for the four subscales and the total score respectively

16. Indicators of Family Engagement Scale • Scoring • Subject must respond to at least 75% of the items on the total scale or any subscales • Scores are the means of non-missing items for the respective total and subscale items

17. Indicators of Family Engagement Scale • Score interpretation

18. Survey Administration • 14 Districts • 120 Schools • Online application through Survey Monkey • Some sites conducted all 3 • Facilitated results discussions with staff • School improvement decisions • Triangulation of data

22. Triangulation of Family EngagementAcross Stakeholders • School Survey • Family Survey • Student Survey

23. Alignment of Surveys: • School Survey • A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or e-mail are used to communicate with families in my school. • Family Survey • A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or e-mail are used to communicate with my family. • Student Survey • A variety of methods such as but not limited to phone calls, newsletters, or e-mail are used to communicate with me and my family.

24. Alignment of Surveys: • School Survey • Families are informed of academic programs. • Family Survey • I am informed of the school’s academic programs available for my child. • Student Survey • The school informs my family and me of academic programs.

26. Survey Results • Correlate survey results and SPS • Triangulation of survey results • Impact on individual schools

28. Top 10 Schools with SPS 114 or ↑

29. High School Results from all 3 groups:

30. Elementary School Results from all 3 groups:

31. Impact on Schools • Ah-ha moments • Baseline data for schools were established • Schools began looking more closely at other family measures • Schools created a more effective action plan to engage families when data were displayed numerically • School staff wanted more answers to survey results

32. Use of the Scale • Short term plans • Provide a self assessment of the level of family engagement by school, family, and/or student • Identify the strengths and areas of need in terms of family engagement • Provide access to additional resources provided by LaSIG • Long term analyses • Incorporating the results into school improvement plans • Correlation between survey results and student achievement

33. Discussion Question: • What initiatives are currently underway in your state to support family engagement?

34. Discussion Question: • What resources are available to schools and districts to support family engagement?

35. Discussion Question: • What assessment tools are currently in place to measure family engagement at the school, district, and state level? How are they working?

36. Contact Information • Louisiana State University • Melanie Lemoine • lemoinem@lsu.edu • Monica Ballay • mballay@lsu.edu • www.lasig2.org