Why Family-School Partnerships?

1. Overview of Family-School PartnershipsThe Future of School Psychology Task Force on Family-School PartnershipsJennifer Burt, Ashley Taylor, Katie Magee, Laura Mullaney, Susan Sheridan University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2. Why Family-School Partnerships? “… parents take their child home after professionals complete their services and parents continue providing the care for the larger portion of the child’s waking hours… No matter how skilled professionals are, or how loving parents are, each cannot achieve alone what the two parties, working hand-in-hand, can accomplish together” (Peterson & Cooper, 1989; pp. 229, 208). See Handout 1

3. Why Family-School Partnerships?

4. What are Family-School Partnerships? • A relationship involving close cooperation between parties having joint rights and responsibilities. • The goals of family-school partnerships include: • (a) enhancing success for students, and • (b) improving experiences and outcomes for children, including those that are academic, social, emotional and behavioral in nature. (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001) See Handouts 2, 3,4, and 5

5. Who is involved in partnerships? • School administrators • Provide leadership at a building level. • Encourage teachers to engage in partnership practices with families. • Create conditions within the school that are conducive to partnership practices. • School psychologists • Facilitate and support communication between teachers and families. • Provide information to families regarding how to support student learning . • Providing support and consultation to parents as they become involved in student learning (Christenson, 1995). • Teachers and families • Engage in relationships where communication is reciprocal. • Each person is responsive to the ideas and needs of the other person.

6. When is it appropriate to engage in partnerships? • Current engagement in partnerships • 20% of families work as partners in education. • 70% of families believe they would and could engage in partnerships if provided with support. • 10% of families do not engage in partnerships because of significant personal problems (Epstein personal communication 1995, as cited by Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). • Family-school partnerships are seen as a protective factor • Partnerships should be formed when students enter school. • Partnerships should be sustained throughout their education.

7. When is it appropriate to engage in partnerships? • Effective family-school partnerships • Represent a 13-year contract between families and schools to provide a quality education for all students. (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001) • They are proactive and not reactive to student concerns. • Families and schools should engage in partnerships throughout a student’s education. • Promote an understanding of school policies and procedures especially when student concerns are present.

8. The M & M’s of Parenting and Partnering • Make sure your child is ready to learn. • Monitor your child and his or her performance. • Motivate your child. • Be a good role Model. • Maintain a positive relationship with your child’s teacher. See Activity 1

9. Partnership Approach: Commitment to working together on behalf of the child’s performance/ achievement is clear. Communication is frequent, positive, bi-directional. Relationship is characterized by cultural sensitivity; cultural differences are respected, appreciated, and recognized as contributing to positive learning climates. See Handouts 6 and 7 Traditional Approach: Emphasis on what schools do to promote learning. Infrequent, one-directional, or problem-centered communication (school → home). “One-size fits all” orientation; cultural differences are perceived as challenges to overcome. Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to Family-School Partnerships

10. Partnership Approach: Different perspectives are valued as important. Roles are clear, mutual, and supportive. Goals for students are mutually determined and shared. Plans are co-constructed, with agreed upon roles for all participants. Traditional Approach: Different perspectives are seen as barriers. Separate roles that distance participants. Goals determined by school personnel and sometimes shared with parents. Educational plans devised and delivered by teachers. (Sheridan, 2004) Partnership vs. Traditional Orientations to Family-School Partnerships

11. Roles of Families and Schools in Partnership Models There are many roles that can be shared by parents and teachers Co- decision makers Co-teachers Co-learners Co-supporters Co-communicators See Activity 2

12. Theoretical Perspective: Ecological Systems Approach An effective, constructive family-school partnership occurs in an ecological context, with the student at center: • Students, families and schools are all part of interrelated ecological systems within which a child resides. • Difficulties occur when there is a mismatch across one or more subsystems. • Partnership programs and services are focused on forging a more effective match between the needs of an individual student, and strengths of the interfacing home & school systems. • Main attention is always on the potential benefits and outcomes for students. (Sheridan, 2004)

13. Rationale for a Multi-Tiered Approach to Family-School Partnerships • Family-school partnerships provide a context for families and educators to collaboratively identify and prioritize concerns across a continuum of opportunities and intensities. • Prevention and intervention efforts and supports are delivered toward a universal and targeted audience. • A multi-tiered approach enables families and educators to provide services based on a student’s responsiveness to previous preventions, interventions, and supports.

14. Explanation for a Multi-Tiered Approach to Family-School Partnerships • Provides various levels of family-school supports based on a student’s identified need and responsiveness to previous efforts. • Universal – Family-school collaboration provided to support all students and families (e.g., 4 As, Parent-School Collaboration, Parent Involvement, Parent Education). • Targeted – Family-school collaboration provided to support identified students and families unresponsive to previous universal efforts (e.g., Parent Education and Intervention, Parent Consultation). • Intensive – Family-school collaboration provided to students and families unresponsive to previous targeted efforts (e.g., Parent Consultation [conjoint behavioral consultation] and Parent Intervention). See Handout 8

15. The Multi-Tiered Approach to Family-School Partnerships Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions Individualized supports for families and students unresponsive to the first two tiers (e.g., Parent Consultation [conjoint behavioral consultation] and Parent Intervention). Tier 3 1-7% Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Specific preventions and remedial interventions for targeted groups of families and students identified as “at risk” and unresponsive to the first tier (e.g., Parent Education and Intervention, Parent Consultation). Tier 2 5-15% Tier 1: Universal Interventions Engaging all families as collaborative partners (e.g., 4 As, Parent-School Collaboration, Parent Involvement, Parent Education). Tier 1 80-90%

16. Theoretical Perspective: Family-Centered Approach • Providing direct support and assistance to families increases the likelihood these families can directly mediate their child’s behavior and development more efficiently than can indirect services aimed toward the child (Dunst, Trivette, Deal, & 1998). • Family’s strengths, needs, and priorities along with the needs of their child guide the provision of local resources and services (Dunst, 1985; Rappaport, 1981). • Family-centered services strengthen the family’s capacity to meet their needs and the needs of their child (Dunst, 1985; Rappaport, 1981). • Families are their child’s first and best advocate.

17. Defining Characteristics of Family-School Partnerships • Interactions among partners are collaborative and bi-directional. • Relationships across home and school systems are cooperative, interdependent, and balanced. • Maintenance of a positive relationship is a priority. • Services are flexible, responsive, and proactive. • Differences in perspectives are seen as strengths. • There is a commitment to cultural competence. • Emphasis is on outcomes and goal attainment. (Sheridan, 2004)

18. Rationale for Family-School Partnerships • There are many systems and settings where children learn. • In the US, students spend 91% of their time from birth - 18 outside of school; once in school, they spend 70% of their waking hours outside of school (Clarke, 1990). • The impact of out-of-school time (e.g., message about schooling, use of time, congruence with school environment) must be acknowledged.

19. Rationale for Family-School Partnerships • Federal policy recognizes the need to address student’s time spent out of school and mandates schools to engage in partnerships with parents to meet the increasing academic, behavioral, and social needs of students. • In 1975, PL 94-142 established the foundations for parental involvement in education. It required: (a) notification of parents when the school proposed or refused to initiate or change an educational placement, (b) parent consent prior to evaluation and special education placement, (c) parental participation in the development of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and (d) parental rights to challenge special education decisions.

20. Rationale for Family-School Partnerships • In 1986, P.L. 99-457 mandated Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children ages 0-3 and instituted the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). This required that for educational planning purposes, young children should be considered within the context of their family. Services should be provided not exclusively to the child but also to the family. • IDEA 1997 included more meaningful parent participation, including establishing regulations for including parents on school-based teams, and increasing parental responsibility in the special education process.

21. Rationale for Family-School Partnerships • The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 specifically calls for “local education agencies to assist school personnel to reach out to, communicate with, and work with parents as equal partners; implement and coordinate parent programs; and build ties between parents and the school” (P.L. 107-111,1118). • IDEA 2004 includes: Part B: Programs for children 3 to 21 years which provide requirements in the areas of, but not limited to, parental rights and involvement, related educational services, multidisciplinary assessments, etc. Part C: Programs for infants and toddlers (birth to 3 years) which emphasizes the notion of family involvement in the screening and evaluation of young children and in the programming for early intervention and IFSP’s.

22. Research Findings In the presence of effective family-school partnerships, students have been shown to demonstrate: • improvement in grades (Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers, 1987); • test scores (Epstein, 1991); • attitudes (Kellagahen et al., 1993); • self-concept, behavior, social skills (Hickman, Greenwood, & Miller, 1995); • greater study habits and homework completion rates (Clark, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001); • more engagement in classroom learning activities (Collins, Moles, & Cross, 1982; Sattes, 1985); and • higher attendance rates and a reduction in suspension rates and discipline problems (Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). See Handout 9

23. Benefits for Students

24. Research Findings In the presence of effective family-school partnerships, teachershave been shown to: • become more proficient in professional activities, • allocate more time to instruction, • become more involved with curriculum, • develop more student-oriented rather than task-oriented activities (Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002), • receive higher ratings on teaching performance evaluations by principals (Christenson, 1995), and • indicate greater satisfaction with their jobs and request fewer transfers (Christenson & Cleary, 1990).

25. Research Findings In the presence of effective family-school partnerships, parents have been shown to: • demonstrate greater understanding of the work of schools and positive attitudes about school (Epstein, 1986); • report increased contacts and communication with educators, and a desire for more involvement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997); • improve their communication with their children, report improved parent-child relationships, and develop effective parenting skills (Becher, 1984); and • become more involved in learning activities at home (Epstein, 1995).

26. Research Findings In the presence of effective family-school partnerships, schools have been shown to: • receive higher effectiveness ratings, and • implement more successful school programs. (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001)

27. Benefits to Schools

28. Research Findings • Generalization of school programs occurs more readily when families are involved. • Consultation with teachers alone is effective at promoting school success (Sheridan,1997), but generalization to home occurs only when parents are involved (Sheridan et al., 1990). • Family process variables (specific things families do) facilitate learning & educational success more than status variables (who families are). • Social class or family configuration predicts up to 25% of variance in achievement; family process variables predict up to 60% of variance (Kellaghan et al., 1993).

29. Cultural Considerations • Many children from diverse cultural backgrounds do not speak English when they enter school and have not attended preschool or daycare. • For example, the number of non-English speaking children has doubled since 1979. • Parents have different levels of education, socioeconomic status, English competency, and acculturation. • There is a scarcity of research in the area of family-school partnerships with children and families from diverse cultural backgrounds. (Sheridan, Vazquez-Nuttall, & Li, 2005)

30. Cultural Considerations • Parents, regardless of educational level, income status, or ethnic background want their children to be successful in school (Christenson, 1995). • Across groups, parents want information about how schools function, children’s development/learning, & parents’ roles in supporting their children. • School practices are a stronger predictor of parent involvement than parents’ educational level, income status, or ethnic background (Epstein, 1991). See Creating Partnerships with Culturally Diverse Families PowerPoint

31. Building Shared Responsibility • Garner Administrative Support • Practice Systems Advocacy • Build Family-School Teams • Increase Effective Problem Solving and Solution Finding • Keep a Focus on Goalsand Outcomes • But Recognize the Importance of Process • Foster Positive Home Learning Environments • Focus on Communication as the foundation for all family involvement • Collaboration with families is key! See Handout 10

32. Developing Pathways to Partnerships Prerequisite Conditions: These “3 A’s” must be in place for Actions to be accepted and effective Approach Actions Communicating a tone of partnership through bidirectional home-school communication and fostering family involvement in learning at home Successful learning opportunities and outcomes for children Atmosphere Attitude (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Sheridan & Kratochwill, in press) See Handout 11 and Creating Conditions for Family-School Partnerships PowerPoint

33. Approach Approach: The framework for interaction with families. • Central to the partnership model is a belief in shared responsibility for educating and socializing children – both families and educators are essential for children’s growth and development inside and out of school. • Emphasis is placed on relationships, rather than separate roles… how families and educators work together to promote the academic and social development of students.

34. Atmosphere Atmosphere: The climate in schools for families and educators. • The affective climate in interactions among families and schools. • The physical climate in schools that make them inviting and “family-friendly.” • All families must feel welcome! • Differences in parent backgrounds & experiences must be recognized. • Personal difficulties in school or previous conflicts may be prominent. • Ethnic, linguistic, religious, class differences can widen the gap.

35. Attitude Attitude: The values and perceptions held about family-school relationships. • All families have strengths. • Parents can help their children succeed in school -- they must be provided with the opportunity and necessary information and support. • Schools and families influence each other. • Parents have important information and perspectives that we need to help educate their children. • Parents and educators each bring unique and important perspectives and expertise to the table as co-equals. See Handouts 12 and 13

36. Actions Actions: What schools do to build partnerships and shared responsibility for education between families and schools. • Actions must be distinguished from activities • Activities represent a narrow focus on how to involve families in education (e.g., curriculum night, parent-teacher conferences) • Actions focus on more broadly on the relationship or connection between families and school relative to children’s school performance See Handout 14

37. Actions: Evidence-Based Interventions • “Practices that are informed by research, in which characteristics and consequences of environmental variables are empirically established and the relationship directly informs what a practitioner can do to produce a desired outcome” (Dunst, Trivette, & Cutspec, 2002, p. 3). • The label of evidence-based interventions should be used when programs have successfully “demonstrated efficacy under the conditions of implementation and practice” (Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004, p. 35).

38. The Use of Evidence-Based Interventions • There has been a current paradigm shift in school psychology toward the implementation of empirically validated interventions among children, families, and schools. • Likewise, the increased accountability within the educational systems, as mandated by multiple federal accountability initiatives (e.g., IDEA and NCLB), have required these systems to report the efficacy of interventions as well as provide effectiveness data on child and family outcomes.

39. Identifying Evidence-Based Interventions • Goal A of the Family-School Task Force was to “identify evidence based models of effective family-school partnerships.” • These programs were examined and coded for evidence- based outcomes related to their produced intended effects using the following criteria: • empirical/theoretical foundation, design qualities, statistical treatment of the interventions; • the implementation of key evidence components which promote internal validity and the necessary features for home and school-based implementation of these interventions; and • factors of interest, as identified by the consumer, in the evaluation of the external validity and utility of these interventions (Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002).

40. Goals of Evidence-Based Interventions • After identifying numerous evidence-based interventions, the goal was to: • influence practitioners’ selection and implementation of family-school interventions through a systematic dissemination of the research evidence; and • narrow the research to practice gap related to the practice feasibility, acceptability, social validity, fidelity, and sustainability of these service delivery models when working with families (Sheridan, 2005).

41. Actions: Examples of Evidence-Based Interventions • Numerous evidence-based models have been identified which utilize and promote family-school partnerships. • These models have been separated into the following areas: 1. Family-School Interventions with Preschool Children 2. Parent Consultation 3. Parent Education, Training, and Intervention 4. Family-School Collaboration 5. Parent Involvement Interventions See Creating Conditions for Family-School Partnerships PowerPoint

42. Actions: Evidence-Based Interventions • Interventions with Preschool Children • Incredible Years Training Series • PARTNERS Parent Education Program • Parent Child Interaction Therapy • Dialogic Reading See Handouts 15, 16, 17, and 18

43. Actions: Evidence-Based Interventions • Parent Consultation • Conjoint Behavioral Consultation • Parent Behavioral Consultation • Parent Education, Training, and Intervention • Problem-Solving Skills Training plus Parent Management Training • Aware Parenting • Reading Made Easy See Handouts 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23

44. Actions: Evidence-Based Interventions • Interventions Using Family-School Collaboration • School-Based Literacy Program/Family Literacy Program • Parent-Teacher Action Research Teams plus Social Skills Instruction • School-Home Notes and Family Problem Solving Board Game • Parent Involvement • Parent Tutoring • Parents Encourage Pupils • Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Parent Involvement See Handouts 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29

45. Challenges and Solutions to Family-School Partnerships • Structural • Shape the collaborative dialogue and working relationships between families and schools • Psychological • Influence an individual’s motivation to personally engage with families or educators (Christenson, 2004) See Opportunities, Challenges, and Solutions PowerPoint

46. References Blechman, E. A., Taylor, C. J., & Schrader, S. M. (1981). Family problem solving versus home notes as early intervention with high-risk children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 919-926. Bronstein, P., Duncan, P., Clauson, J., Abrams, C. L., Yannett, N., Ginsburg, G. et al. (1988). Preventing middle school adjustment problems for children from lower income families: A program for aware parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 1299-1352. Brown, T. L., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (1999). Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and dependent juvenile delinquents: Effects on school attendance at posttreatment and 6-month follow up. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 2, 81-93. Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools: What is the role of the school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 118-132. Christenson, S. L., Carlson, C., & Valdez, C. R. (2002). Evidence-based intervention in school psychology: Opportunities, challenges, and cautions. Journal of School Psychology, 17, 466-474. Christenson, S. L., & Cleary, M. (1990). Consultation and the parent-educator partnership: A perspective. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,1, 219-241 Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press. Clark, R.M. (1990). Why disadvantaged students succeed: What happens outside school is critical. Public Welfare (17-23). Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.). Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 85-105). Albany: State University of New York Press.

47. References Collins, C. H., Moles, O., & Cross, M. (1982). The home-school connections: Selected partnership programs in large cities. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education. Dunst, C. J. (1985). Rethinking early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 59-71. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002). Toward an operational definition of evidence-based practices. Centerscope, 1, 1-10. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling & empowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, Inc. Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J. C., Elliot, M., & Hall, R. V. (1992). Parent-tutoring procedures: Experimental analysis and validation of generalization in oral reading across passages, settings, and time. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 281-303. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Paths to partnership: What we can learn from federal, state, district, and school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (5). Goff, G. A., & Demetral, G. D. (1983). A home-based program to eliminate aggression in the classroom. Social Work in Education, 5-14. Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influences on school learning: Direct and indirect effects of parent involvement on high school grades. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330-337. Heller, L. R., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993). Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a difference? School Psychology Review, 22, 517-535. Hembree-Kigin, T. L. & McNeil, C. B. (1995). Parent-child interaction therapy. New York: Plenum Press.

48. References Hickman, C. W., Greenwood, G., & Miller, M. D. (1985). High school parent involvement: Relationships with achievement, grade level, SES, and gender. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 287-294. Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., Becker, D., & Johnson-Leckrone, J. (2002). Family-based prevention counseling for high-risk young adolescents: Immediate outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 1-22. Hook, C. L., & DuPaul, G. J. (1999). Reciprocal peer tutoring for student with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Effects on reading performance at home and at school. School Psychology Review, 28, 60-75. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parent involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36 , 195-209. Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42. Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/papers.html Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Walker, J.M.T, Jones, K.P., & Reed, R.P.(2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 1-25. Retrieved on November 27, 2005 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/papers/Teachers_involving_parents.doc/ Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N H., Unis, A. S. (1987). Effects of parent management training and problem solving skills training combined in the treatment of antisocial child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 416-424. Kellaghan, T, Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. S. (1993). The home environment and school learning: Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kratochwill, T. R. & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 34-48.

49. References Kratochwill, T. R. & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the procedural and coding manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology task force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 341-389. McConaughy, S. H., Kay, P.J., & Fitzgerald, M. (1999). The achieving, behaving, caring project for preventing ED: Two-year outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 224-239. Mehran, M., & White, K. R. (1988). Parent tutoring as a supplemental compensatory education for first-grade children. RASE, 9, 35-41. Morrow, L. M., & Young, J. (1997). A family literacy program connecting school and home: Effects on attitude, motivation, and literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 736-742. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002). Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25. Sayger, T. V., Horne, A. M., Walker, L. M., & Passmore, J. L. (1988). Social learning family therapy with aggressive children: Treatment outcome and maintenance. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 261-285. Sattes, B. (1985). Parent involvement: A review of the literature (Report No. 21). Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and school community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14, 39-56.

50. References Sheridan, S. M. (2005). Commentary on evidence-based parent and family interventions: What we do in the future? School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 518-524. Sheridan, S. M. (2004, September). Family-school partnerships: Creating essential connections for student success. Keynote presented at the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour Conference, Chistchurch, New Zealand. Sheridan, S.M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical bases of conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119-133. Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A procedural manual. New York: Plenum Press. Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Behavioral consultation with parents and teachers: Delivering treatment for socially withdrawn children at home and school. School Psychology Review, 19, 33-52. Sheridan, S. M., Vazquez, E.,& Li, C. (2005, April). The future of home-school partnerships: Update on the work of a future task force. Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in head start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in head start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 283-302.