Creating a family resource center in the context of a talent development high school

Journal of Negro Education, The, Winter 2001 by jackson, Henry L, LaPoint, Velma, Towns, Donna Penn, Butty, Jo-Anne L Manswell

Creating a Family Resource Center in the Context of a Talent Development High School*

This article outlines one specific determinant of the Talent Development Model for school reform used to place African American children at promise for academic success. It describes how the Family Resource Center (FRC), one component of the high quality research-based School-- Family-Community partnership Program (SFCPP), was created and implemented to assist with institutionalizing SFCPP linkages at an urban high school. Four positive impacts of the intervention on areas of family members' involvement at the high school are discussed: increasing visits to the FRC; clarifying knowledge about the importance of the FRC; creating positive attitudes about the FRC; and increasing involvement in school activities and events sponsored through the FRC. Strategies to overcome the challenges of creating, implementing, and sustaining educational stakeholders' involvement in the FRC are provided.

In recent years, educators, researchers, and advocates have documented the need for family and community involvement in efforts to educate students in public elementary, middle, and high schools (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1996; Comer, 1997; Davies, 1996; Epstein & Connors, 1992; Logan, 1996; McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 1998; Perna, Fenske, & Swall, 2000; Rumberg, 1990; Sanders, 1998b). Findings from research on family and community involvement in public schools suggest that high levels of family and community participation are important to enhance students' learning, academic achievement, and social competence (Clark, 1993; Dornbush & Ritter, 1988; Epstein, 1995; Sanders, 1999). These findings also show that student achievement and social competence improve when schools, families, and communities work together to promote students' success (Clark, 1993; Dornbush & Ritter, 1988; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996; Freire, 1973; Gabarino, 1997; Hill, 1997; LaPoint, Towns, & Jackson, 1998; Sanders, 2000; Sanders & Simon, 1999).

Despite this strong relationship, low-quality family and community involvement persists in some schools, especially high schools (Epstein & Connors, 1992; Farrar, Neufeld, & Miles, 1984; Harris & Associates 1987; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Keith, 1991; Moles, 1993; Sanders, 1998b). This inconsistency underscores the need to develop, implement, and examine public school programs designed to enhance family and community involvement. Investigations of such programs are needed especially at the high school level, particularly for those high schools serving low-income students of color, who are disproportionately placed at risk for educational failure. Although many educational researchers and practitioners agree that active family and community involvement is essential, mixed attitudes, policies, and procedures seem to emanate from school district-level administrators, principals, and teachers about the role of family and community involvement in schools, especially in high schools.

Several studies have examined the reasons behind the minimal family and community involvement in public schools (Calabrese, 1990; Coleman, 1988; Comer, 1989; Chavkin, 1993; Davies, 1988; Delpit, 1995; Jackson et al., 1999; LaPoint, 1992; LaPoint, Jordan, & McPartland, 1996; Lightfoot, 1978; Shore, 1994; Taub, 2000; Wescott-Dodd, 1998; Williams & Chavkin, 1989). District administrators, principals, and teachers often send mixed and negative messages to family and community members about their involvement in schools, especially at the high school level. These messages include school personnel viewing such involvement as irrelevant and a waste of time, and holding unwelcoming and condescending attitudes toward family and community members. Families are often considered by school staff as part of the problem of educating students rather than as an important resource (Calabrese, 1990; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1996; Chavkin, 1989, 1995; Halperin, 1998; Jackson et al., 1999; Moles, 1993; Sanders, 1998b; Scott-Jones, 1993).

These mixed and negative perspectives are partly due to educators' lack of and/or outdated training in child and adolescent development and family relationships. Additionally, educators may not understand how best to work with children's families and community members (Halperin, 1998; Jackson et al., 1999; Meece, 1997). This can be a major issue when family and community members are different from or are perceived to be different from educators in terms of social class, ethnicity, culture, and values (Boykin & Ellison, 1995; Boykin, Ellison, & Towns, 2000; Coleman et al., 1966; Davies, 1996; Delpit, 1995; Jackson et al., 1999; Lareau, 1987a, 1987b; Lightfoot, 1975, 1978; Scott-Jones, 1993).

Another reason for minimal family involvement at the high school level relates to the adolescent quest for independence. This quest may push many adolescents and family members apart because adolescents may view family involvement in education as imposing and as treating them in too childlike a fashion (Eccles & Harold, 1994; Elkind, 1988; Israel & Nelson, 1999; Sizer, 1992). Relatedly, a prevailing assumption in Western societies is that adolescents, as young adults, need less familial support than do young children. As a result, adolescence is typically experienced in a context in which families and other adult socializers cast adolescents into adult roles with adult tasks. Although many adolescents are not ready for such roles and tasks, youth today have come to accept such expectations, to the detriment of parental involvement in the schools adolescents attend (Comer, 1997; Elkind, 1988; Garbarino, 1995; Golden, 1995; Westcott-Dodd, 1998).