Eight Ways States Can Build Better Family Engagement Policies

Building stronger relationships between families and schools is increasingly identified as a way to address many vexing issues—teacher shortages, chronic absenteeism, lingering academic and social-emotional effects of COVID-19, and perceived divisions between parents and educators. Because policies and practices around family engagement vary markedly, state boards of education have an opportunity to enhance, amplify, and improve approaches that put it at the center of decision making. We suggest eight ways they might do so.

Family engagement has always been integral to the promotion of healthy schools, so much so that it is one of the 10 components of the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model put forth by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[1] Yet states vary in their emphasis on it and their success in creating codified and uncodified plans, policies, or strategies to engage parents and families in the educational process.[2]

Family and community engagement is commonly defined as a shared responsibility among families, schools, and communities to support all student learning and success in school and beyond.[3] It is not a one-size-fits-all model or program but a process of relationships that are built across time among families, schools, and communities in schools, homes, libraries, and afterschool programs, to name a few.

When family and community engagement is practiced this way, and with intentionality, it leads to positive outcomes for everyone involved.[4] For students, strong family and community engagement is associated with increased school readiness skills and higher academic achievement. For teachers, stronger relationships with families are associated with greater career satisfaction and an increased likelihood to stay in the profession.[5] Strong family and community engagement strengthens schools as well. As a case in point, schools with stronger family engagement before the pandemic experienced lower rates of absenteeism and learning loss than schools with weaker ties to families and communities.[6]

It is important not to conflate family and community engagement practiced in this way with the polarizing efforts afoot under the guise of “parental rights.” Rather, family and community engagement is partnership building that creates safe educational environments and advantageous opportunities for every student.

Despite its importance, family and community engagement is often at the margins of school improvement efforts. Many constraints are at play. Historically, educators have made decisions about children’s education, with families as passive recipients rather than active partners. Some schools have also operated under a deficit mindset, assuming that families—especially those from marginalized communities—lack the knowledge or ability to support their children’s education effectively, so they exclude families perceived as less engaged or capable.

There is also a dangerous misconception that only families and teachers who “care” practice engagement consistently, and thus if families or teachers do not engage, it must mean that they do not care.[7] The truth, however, is that educators need regular, focused training, both early in their preparation and throughout their careers, to develop the skills to work with families effectively. Yet educators and administrators rarely take courses on family engagement topics or engage in field experience with families prior to the first day on the job.[8] They also have few professional learning opportunities to develop the competencies to communicate, collaborate, and share decision making with families throughout their careers.[9]

Of all the barriers, however, one of the most problematic is the lack of statewide policies, infrastructure, requirements, and support to prioritize and strengthen family engagement as an integral part of education. There are nationally recognized frameworks, including the Dual Capacity-Building Framework and National Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework,[10] and some states have their own family engagement frameworks. Yet a tremendous amount of work remains to create conditions that promote trust and collaboration between schools and families. State boards can do that work.

Even as powers and responsibilities vary across states, state board members are commonly called upon to advocate for equity and excellence in public schools, raise and review issues, convene and oversee other stakeholders, and approve policies. More specific areas under state board purview include approving learning standards, setting rules for teacher and administrator certification, and overseeing educator preparation programs. Moreover, they frequently inform legislation drafting and rulemaking. Within this context, we identify eight areas where state boards can make inroads to promote family, school, and community engagement. We also provide state examples. While each state’s context is unique, these eight issues represent areas state boards may influence, whether in a formal or advisory capacity.

Provide Budgetary Support

As with most policy priorities, ensuring budgetary support enhances the degree to which family and community engagement activities can meet their goals. Be it funding staff whose role is to work with families, specific in-school family and community engagement programs, or resources for a state conference or training programs, these conversations often turn to budgets.

For example, Colorado passed Senate Bill 13-193 in 2013, which among other things, elevated family engagement by funding staff earmarked to support community partnership work as well as operating expenses. This funding is in addition to annual budget appropriations, which protects staffing capacity in ways that are not otherwise possible when part of regular annual budget discussions. The budgetary outlay has been a primary reason Colorado has seen stability in its family engagement work and continuing success in partnership support throughout the state. An added example of programmatic budgetary support is Michigan’s recent authorization of $14 million through its 35i grants to support 10 regional MiFamily Engagement Centers for four years.

Even without legislative leadership, many state boards have some influence on proposed education budgets and may choose to support family engagement activities. Boards often initialize and oversee budget requests that inform what eventually become formal budget proposals. Whatever their role, they can at the very least suggest changes in budget allocation that uplift initiatives advancing family, school, and community engagement.

Create Organizational Leadership

Another way states can signal the importance of family engagement while also building infrastructure to undertake the necessary work—from providing support and resources to overseeing accountability measures—is to create offices of family and community engagement. A handful of states do this. Nevada established the Office of Parental Involvement and Family Engagement in 2011 legislation. The law requires the state superintendent to ensure the office is adequately staffed and has a director to lead it.

Beyond establishing an office, states can do more to ensure senior administrative support for family and community engagement. They can elevate the heads of state family engagement offices to senior-level positions with direct lines of communication and accountability to state chiefs. Doing so would help ensure that family engagement is addressed cohesively across agency departments and initiatives, including the implementation and oversight of federal programs that require family engagement, including as outlined in Title I and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

Although these are steps states can take to ensure high-quality engagement, the reality is that many states do not have even a single staff position dedicated to these areas. Should this be the case, and if establishing a new office is not feasible, adding dedicated staff with access to senior leadership is an intermediate step in the right direction. State boards may have many tools with which they can achieve an organizational leadership structure that promotes family and school engagement. If not, they may charge their state chief to do so or include funds for an office in budget requests.

Establish and Leverage Engagement Structures

Many states have created mechanisms for engaging families and community members in decision making and building co-ownership over policies and recommendations. Such mechanisms include family and youth advisory councils, family and youth representatives serving on state committees and advisory bodies, ad hoc townhalls, or statewide surveys. For example, the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction established the State Superintendent’s Family Engagement Cabinet, which comprises parents, guardians, caretakers, and other family members of children in grades K-12 from all regions of North Dakota who “share advice, ideas, and opinions about how North Dakota families and schools can better work together to support the education of all children.”[11]

States may have other bodies—such as Governors’ Children’s Cabinets, P-20 Councils, and State Early Childhood Advisory Councils —that also support families and communities. Many states have sought to align and coordinate these coalitions and committees. For example, the Colorado Office of Family-School-Community Partnerships convenes the statutorily created Colorado State Advisory Council for Parent Involvement in Education to advise the Colorado Department of Education, State Charter School Institute, Early Childhood Councils, Department of Higher Education, and other entities about increasing parent involvement in public education and promoting family and school partnerships.

State boards can spur the creation of structures and processes that elevate families and communities in state-level educational decisions. Moreover, they can actively search out and collaborate with other such councils in their states and get education officials and practitioners involved in them.

Develop State Family Engagement Frameworks

Most educational services for children and youth engage families, but programming and support may lack coherence and intentionality. State family engagement frameworks can help guide the work in systemic, integrated ways. Michigan’s Family Engagement Framework, for example, gives schools, families, and other stakeholders steps they can take to strengthen family, school, and community engagement and underpins numerous state initiatives.[12] These frameworks may define family and community engagement, a generalized theory of action, and programs or strategies to support that theory of action. Frameworks can also provide guidance and model policies to help schools and districts reduce participation barriers for families. Framework development is most successful when a wide array of stakeholders is involved, including representatives from state education agencies, schools, districts, families, and other social service agencies. Broad representation helps ensure frameworks are useful and relevant across contexts and creates champions for the framework’s dissemination and use.

State boards can spur framework development, refinement, and implementation. They can provide feedback to ensure that issues facing the field are addressed. Aside from adopting policies aligned to the frameworks, state boards can convene experts and stakeholders to support the process and ask agency staff how the framework will guide family engagement across the state.

Prioritize Family and Community Engagement in State Plans

By embedding engagement strategies in state plans and involving families and family engagement professionals in the creation of those plans, state boards can demonstrate that they value such engagement. Kansas provides a useful example: The state education agency and board developed Kansans Can, its statewide vision for education, through a process that heavily solicited and incorporated family and community feedback. Through another engagement process, Kansas made family and community partnerships a “foundational structure” within K-12 school accreditation. Strategic plans present all state boards with opportunities for developing a vision that represents and reflects community voice, as well as an instrument for communicating how family engagement will reinforce and advance state goals and objectives.

Elevate Engagement in Preparation, Training, and Evaluation

Without adequate training, it can be exceptionally difficult for teachers and other education professionals to engage families and communities around their children’s learning. Because educators often feel underequipped in this area, several states have revamped their preparation and training standards. California’s 2024 revision of its Standards for the Teaching Profession includes new items related to family engagement. Educator preparation programs are now expected to prepare candidates to communicate and build partnerships with families, engage families in discussions around student performance, and work with families to understand assets and challenges that influence students. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation recently revised their national accreditation standards in ways that strengthen prep programs’ training around family engagement.[13]

In most states, state boards are central to policy discussions about professional preparation and training. Thus, they can elevate family engagement in those discussions. Focusing on professional and accreditation standards, program and practitioner evaluation systems, credentialing and microcredentialing, and licensure requirements are all places to start.[14]

Focus on Engagement in School Accountability and Improvement Systems

States use accountability and improvement systems to measure and enhance the performance of schools and districts. Family and community engagement is an important—and federally mandated—criterion for this work. ESEA Title Ia, Section 1116, makes parent and family engagement a condition for schools to receive Title Ia funds. Further, sections 1111 and 1112 require state and local accountability plans to be developed with meaningful consultation from families. States can oversee how well their states engage families in plan development and how well the plans address family and community engagement. States can go further. For example, in Ohio, every district must develop parental involvement policies to support family and community engagement.

Other states have incorporated family engagement in state accountability reporting. Illinois school report cards include information on school climate, and one of the essential elements is family involvement. As part of their oversight of state accountability and school improvement policies, state boards can also provide schools and districts guidance about how to engage families in accountability and improvement processes.

Consider Families in Learning Standard Development and Implementation

Learning standards are an often-overlooked avenue for establishing common ground around expectations for students while strengthening the family-school partnership. Moreover, engaging families in standard development may seed the ground for their future involvement in student learning, which is critical for improving a range of student outcomes. Families and communities also represent an important resource for standards implementation. Mississippi provides a useful example: It includes family and community engagement as an explicit task in its guidance to localities on adoption of instructional materials. Mississippi also created family guides for pre-K through grade 8 that highlight learning objectives for that grade, parental roles, tips for helping achieve learning standards at home, and useful family activities.

State boards set processes for learning standard development and approval. They also oversee implementation guidance. By elevating family engagement as a tool to inform standards development, as well as a resource that can be tapped at many points in implementation, state boards can create stronger standards and better family partnership.

Conclusion

Family and community engagement is one of the strongest predictors of student success in school and in life. There is little doubt that state boards can promote family engagement practices throughout the state education system. Collectively and as individual members, state boards can champion family engagement and the value these partnerships bring to children’s education. Although the eight areas we presented here highlight varied roles boards may play, it is not exhaustive. Each state may have unique levers to pull. As members of families and communities, state board members themselves bring diverse perspectives to state decision making. They play an invaluable role in shaping education and can help ensure that every student’s family and community have a place within the system.

Notes

[1] ASCD and CDC, “Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child” (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2014).

[2] National Association of State Boards of Education, “State Policy Database,” rev. February 2021.

[3] For simplicity’s sake, we at times use the terms “family engagement” and “family and community engagement” interchangeably. “Family” as opposed to “parent” is a more inclusive way to recognize that some students may not have parents involved in their education and that the universe of family that supports and furthers a student’s education may include aunts, grandparents, siblings, and others. Broader still is the conceptualization that engagement should touch all parts of a community to achieve the greatest results for students, schools, and communities and is not limited only to the family structures around students.

[4] Karen L. Mapp et al., Everyone Wins: The Evidence for Family-School Partnerships & Implications for Practice (New York: Scholastic, 2022).

[5] Merrimack College and EdWeek Research Center, “1st Annual Merrimack College Teacher Survey: 2022 Results,” white paper (North Andover, MA: Merrimack College, 2022).

[6] Learning Heroes and TNTP, “Investigating the Relationship between Pre-Pandemic Family Engagement and Student and School Outcomes,” analysis (October 2023).

[7] National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement, Educator Preparation Framework for Family and Community Partnerships (2022); National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement, Family Engagement Core Competencies: A Body of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions for Family-Facing Professionals (2022); Marisa Gerstein Pineau et al., “Beyond Caring: Mapping the Gaps between Expert, Public, Practitioner, and Policymaker Understandings of Family, School, and Community Engagement” (Frameworks Institute, 2019).

[8] Mickie Rops Consulting LLC, “Family-Facing Professionals Body of Knowledge Survey Report” (National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement, 2021); “National Survey of Colleges and Universities Preparing Educators for Family Engagement,” presentation, National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement, 2021.

[9] NAFSCE, Educator Preparation Framework; NAFSCE, Family Engagement Core Competencies.

[10] Karen L. Mapp and Eyal Bergman, “Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Version 2),” website; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework,” web page.

[11] North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, “State Superintendent’s Family Engagement Cabinet,” web page.

[12] Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential and Michigan Department of Education, “MiFamily: Michigan’s Family Engagement Framework” (February 2020).

[13] Banhi Bhattacharya and Malina Monaco, “Promoting Family Engagement through CAEP Standards,” in Margaret Caspe and Reyna Hernandez, eds., Family and Community Partnerships: Promising Practices for Teachers and Teacher Educators (Information Age Publishing, 2023), 173–78.

[14] National Association for Family, School, and Community Engagement, “Preparing Educators for Family Engagement: What States Can Do to Help,” policy brief (2024).